MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313229349 · doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2022.3232753

Analyzing Physical-Layer Security of PLC Systems Using DCSK: A Copula-Based Approach

2022· article· en· W4313229349 on OpenAlexaff
Vinay Mohan, Aashish Mathur, Georges Kaddoum

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Line Communications and Noise
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)Computer scienceEconometricsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study analyzes the physical layer security (PLS) performance of a differential chaos shift keying (DCSK) modulation-based Power Line Communication (PLC) system by exploiting the novel Farlie-Gumbel-Morgenstern (FGM) Copula approach. A power line Wyner’s wiretap channel model is investigated, where the main channel and the wiretap channel are assumed to be correlated and Log-normally distributed. The Gamma approximation to the Log-normal distribution is employed to simplify the computation. Concurrently, the PLC channel noise is modeled as a Bernoulli-Gaussian random process. Utilizing a Copula based approach to model the dependence among the correlated PLC channels, the PLS performance of the PLC system is evaluated in terms of the secure outage probability (SOP) and the strictly positive secrecy capacity (SPSC). It is revealed through the asymptotic SOP analysis that the secrecy diversity order depends on the shaping parameter$(m_{\gamma _{M}})$of the main channel. We also propose an algorithm to maximize the secrecy throughput under SOP constraints. Based on the insights from this analysis, it has been seen that the SOP performance degrades when the value of the dependence parameter$(\theta)$increases. Also, the secrecy throughput performance improves with a lower optimal threshold value of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR),$\gamma _{\textrm {th}}$. Furthermore, some other insightful observations are presented by studying the impact of different parameters such as spreading factor$(\beta)$, impulsive noise occurrence probability$(p)$, transmitted power$(P_{T})$, and impulsive noise index$(K)$.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Open Journal of the Communications SocietySame topicPower Line Communications and NoiseFrench-language works237,207