On Message Authentication Channel Capacity Over a Wiretap Channel
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
In this paper, a novel message authentication model using the same key over wiretap channel is proposed to achieve <i>information-theoretic security</i>. Specifically, in the proposed model, there is a discrete memoryless channel <i>W</i><sub>1</sub> : <i>X</i> →<i>Y</i> between transmitter Alice and receiver Bob, while an attacker Oscar is connected with Alice via discrete memoryless channel <i>W</i><sub>2</sub> :<i>X</i>→<i>Z</i>. Alice encodes message <i>M</i> to codeword (<i>S</i>,<i>X<sup>n</sup></i>), using an encoding function with secret key <i>K</i>. Then, <i>S</i> is sent to Bob over a one-way noiseless channel (fully controlled by Oscar), and <i>X<sup>n</sup></i> is sent over the wiretap channel, say <i>X</i>→(<i>Y</i>,<i>Z</i>). Building on this model, a new message authentication scheme is proposed. The scheme incorporates a secure channel coding, which uses random coding techniques to detect man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks. The authentication channel capacity is studied in a specific channel model when <i>W</i><sub>2</sub> is not less noisy than <i>W</i><sub>1</sub>. We theoretically demonstrate that the authentication channel capacity is much larger than the secrecy capacity, since Bob does not need to recover information transmitted over the noisy channel.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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