Covert Surveillance via Proactive Eavesdropping Under Channel Uncertainty
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surveillance performance is studied for a wireless eavesdropping system, where a full-duplex legitimate monitor eavesdrops a suspicious user's link with artificial noise (AN) assistance. Different from the existing works, the suspicious receiver is assumed to be capable of detecting the presence of AN. Once such receiver detects the AN, the suspicious user will stop transmission, which can therefore degrade the surveillance performance. Hence, to improve the surveillance performance, AN should be transmitted covertly with a low detection probability. Under these assumptions, an optimization problem is formulated to maximize the surveillance performance under a covert constraint. Then, based on the detection ability at the suspicious receiver, a novel scheme is proposed to solve the optimization problem using an iterative search. Moreover, we investigate the impact of both the suspicious-transmitter-to-suspicious-receiver and the monitor-to-suspicious-receiver links uncertainties on the covert surveillance performance. Simulations are performed to verify the analyses. We show that the uncertainty in the suspicious user's link can enhance the surveillance performance, while the uncertainty in the monitor-to-suspicious-receiver link can degrade the surveillance performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it