Robust Deception Scheme for Secure Interference Exploitation Under PSK Modulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the security problem of a multi-eavesdrop multiple-input-single-output (MISO) wiretap channel, where an N-antenna transmitter communicates with a single-antenna legitimate user in the presence of multiple single-antenna smart eavesdroppers. To overcome the security risk of the traditional secure constructive interference-based (CI-based) scheme when facing the smart eavesdroppers, we propose a novel deception scheme (DS) via a random transmission strategy, where the eavesdroppers are expected to decode the deception symbols correctly but unable to distinguish the authenticity of the decoded symbol. Then, an efficient algorithm is proposed for the deception signal-to interference-plus-noise (SINR)-balancing problem when perfect channel state information (CSI) is assumed. Furthermore, we consider a practical scenario where only imperfect CSI is available, and explore two different methods for the deception optimization problem, i.e., convexification relaxation approach (CRA) and Lagrangian relaxation approach (LRA), respectively. For both CSI cases, a closed-form solution to the considered CI-based deception scheme is obtained. Simulation results validate the superiority of the proposed approach over traditional secure precoding schemes, and also demonstrate the significant computation efficiency improvements for the proposed algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".