Secrecy Analysis for Energy Harvesting-Enabled Cognitive Radio Networks in Cascaded Fading Channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical-layer security (PLS) for an underlay cognitive radio network (CRN)-based simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) over cascaded κ-µ fading channels is investigated. The network is composed of a pair of secondary users (SUs), a primary user (PU) receiver, and an eavesdropper attempting to intercept the data shared by the SUs. To improve the SUs’ data transmission security, we assume a full-duplex (FD) SU destination, which employs energy harvesting (EH) to extract the power required for generating jamming signals to be emitted to confound the eavesdropper. Two scenarios are presented and compared; harvesting and non-harvesting eavesdropper. Moreover, a trade-off between the system’s secrecy and reliability is explored. PLS is studied in terms of the probability of non-zero secrecy capacity and the intercept probability, whereas the reliability is studied in terms of the outage probability. Results reveal the great impact of jamming over the improvement of the SUs’ secrecy. Additionally, our work indicates that studying the system’s secrecy over cascaded channels has an influence on the system’s PLS that cannot be neglected.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".