MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094317056 · doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000507

An Overview and Future Directions on Physical-Layer Security for Cognitive Radio Networks

2020· article· en· W3094317056 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Network · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Wireless Communication Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEavesdroppingPhysical layerCognitive radioComputer scienceEmulationComputer securityComputer networkJammingLayer (electronics)Cognitive networkData link layerApplication layerCognitionTelecommunicationsWirelessSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive radio networks (CRNs) have emerged as a reliable technology to address the problem of spectrum under-utilization. Cognitive radio (CR) is known to be intelligent, as it can sense, learn, and change its transmitting and receiving parameters according to changes in the surrounding environment. These operations are characterized by the CR cognition cycle. During the three stages of cognition, users are vulnerable to several types of attacks on the physical layer. Various types of physical-layer attacks can lead to loss of data security over CRNs. In this article, an overview of physical-layer security (PLS) for CRNs is provided. Some of the major attacks over the physical layer of CRN are presented, such as primary user emulation attack (PUEA), sensing falsification, jamming, and eavesdropping. Moreover, some of the suggested methods to combat these attacks and ensure data privacy are provided. We focus on presenting certain methods to combat eavesdropping. Current challenges and future research directions are included.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.643

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it