Interplay between Physical Layer Security and Blockchain Technology for 5G and Beyond: A Comprehensive Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifth-generation and beyond (5G and xG) wireless networks are envisioned to meet the requirements of vertical applications like high traffic throughput, ultra-massive connectivity, extremely low latency, and high quality of service. Disruptive technologies, such as massive multiple-input multiple-output, millimeter wave, and multiple access are being deployed to meet these requirements. However, their deployment poses several challenges, including a lack of network transparency, management decentralization, and reliability. Moreover, the heterogeneity of future networks raises security concerns, e.g., confidentiality, privacy, and trustworthiness. Indeed, due to the emergence of novel paradigms, e.g., quantum computing, traditional security approaches are no longer sufficient to protect over-the-air communications. Hence, 5G/xG networks must consider smart security techniques to operate seamlessly and efficiently. Within this context, physical layer security (PLS) and blockchain represent promising solutions to complement existing methods. By exploiting the characteristics of wireless links, PLS can enhance the security of communications, while blockchain may enable networks’ decentralization, integrity, and trustworthiness. Motivated by these advancements, we provide an in-depth review of the existing PLS and blockchain literature. Then, for the first time in the literature, we present a framework to integrate PLS with blockchain in 5G/xG systems. We first provide a thorough discussion about the potential of PLS and blockchain for 5G/xG systems. Then, we present our vision of a cross-layer architecture that leverages PLS and blockchain. Through a case study, we demonstrate the high potential of cross-layer design to improve the security of vehicular networks. Finally, we identify related challenges and shed light on future research directions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".