To Jam or Not to Jam in Gaussian MIMO Wiretap Channels ?: Invited Paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The popular technique of secure signaling over Gaussian MIMO wiretap channels, which makes use of artificial noise (AN) to increase secrecy rates, is considered. First, we briefly review the current state of affairs in this area and then provide new analytical results and insights on the usefulness of AN (jamming) to boost secrecy rates. The settings considered here go beyond the total transmit power constraint and include a number of additional constraints, such as interference (cognitive radio) and energy-harvesting constraints, for which the feasible set is not isotropic anymore so that the standard tools of the analysis cannot be used. By closely examining optimal precoding for the information-bearing and AN signals, we identify a number of cases where it is optimal to transmit no artificial noise at all (so that all the transmit power goes to the information-bearing signal). These cases include a fixed (no fading) MIMO WTC with single eavesdropper (for which we give a direct matrix-theoretic proof using novel matrix inequalities), multi-eavesdropper (com-pound) degraded and reversely-degraded channels, and multi-eavesdropper channels where there exists a dominant eavesdropper (for which we give a precise definition) or when the eavesdroppers collude. To improve secrecy rates by using AN, one has to look elsewhere.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".