Eavesdropping and Anti-Eavesdropping Game in UAV Wiretap System: A Differential Game Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its advantages of flexility and low-cost networking, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) communications face various attacks such as eavesdropping. Existing studies on secure UAV communications assume fixed-location eavesdroppers and rarely consider interactions between legitimate nodes and eavesdroppers. In this paper, we investigate eavesdropping and anti-eavesdropping interaction between a UAV-enabled eavesdropper (UAV-E) and a UAV-enabled base station (UAV-BS) in a downlink wiretap system. The UAV-E aims to wiretap downlink signals by adaptively adjusting its trajectory while the UAV-BS aims to maximize secrecy-sum-rate with minimum power consumption by jointly optimizing user scheduling, power control, and trajectory. Dynamic differential equations are formulated to characterize motions of UAVs, following which a zero-sum differential game is formulated to model the “pursuit-evasion” interaction between the UAV-BS and the UAV-E. Definition and existence of Nash equilibrium (NE) are provided. To obtain the NE, Pontryagins minimum principle is leveraged to solve the trajectory design problem. Further, Gauss-Seidel-like implicit finite-difference method is leveraged to obtain saddle-point strategies at NE. Finally, numerical results are provided to verify the effectiveness of the proposed game model. It is revealed that the differential game can well-characterize the strategy interactions between UAVs. Moreover, results show that the initial positions and weights of UAVs, the energy consumption factor, and the user scheduling have key impacts on motion interactions between the UAV-BS and the UAV-E and further on UAV-BS’s power control.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".