Physical Layer Security in Cooperative NOMA Hybrid VLC/RF Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating visible light communication (VLC) and radio-frequency (RF) networks can improve the performance of communication systems in terms of coverage and data rates. However, adding RF links to VLC networks weakens the secrecy performance due to the broadcast and ubiquitous nature of RF links. This paper studies the physical layer security (PLS) in cooperative non-orthogonal multiple access (CoNOMA) hybrid VLC/RF systems. Consider a VLC system, where two entrusted users close to a VLC access point (AP) help an out-of-coverage legitimate user using RF signals in the presence of an eavesdropper. The AP transmits data to both entrusted users and the legitimate user using the principle of NOMA, where the entrusted users harvest energy from the received light intensity, decode the legitimate user's message, forward it using a RF link, and then decode their messages. It is required to maximize the secrecy rate at the legitimate user under quality-of-service (QoS) constraints using beamforming and DC-bias and power allocation. Different solutions are proposed for both active and passive eavesdropper cases, using semidefinite relaxation, zero-forcing, beamforming, and jamming. Numerical results compare between the different proposed approaches and show how the proposed approaches contribute in improving the secrecy performance of the proposed model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".