Robust Secrecy Competition With Aggregate Interference Constraint in Small-Cell Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we address the security issue in a tiered small-cell network aiming at security optimization for small-cell users (SUEs) to defend against eavesdropping. Meanwhile, the transmissions from small-cell base stations (SBSs) are subject to the aggregate interference constraints of macro-cell users (MUEs). In particular, we consider two-fold information uncertainties in small cells, i.e., the uncertainties regarding the eavesdroppers and interference channels to the MUEs. As such, the SBSs compete for robust secrecy rate with robust protection for the MUEs. We adopt the generalized robust Nash equilibrium problem (GRNEP) formulation, for which we confirm the existence of equilibrium and analyze the condition for the uniqueness with variational inequality-assisted analysis. Furthermore, to solve for the equilibrium, we introduce the pricing mechanism and decompose the original GRNEP as a nonlinear complementarity problem with a priced NEP, where the former provides solution of price coefficients and the latter for resource allocation strategies based on given prices. Finally, extensive simulation results are provided to demonstrate the impacts of the interference constraint and uncertainties upon the security performance of an individual SUE and the overall network, which also corroborate the effectiveness of our proposal in security provisioning for the SUEs and interference protection for the MUEs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".