The Secrecy Capacity of Gaussian Wiretap Channels with Rate-Limited Help at the Encoder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Gaussian wiretap channel (WTC) with rate-limited help, available at the transmitter/encoder (Tx), in addition to or instead of the same help at the legitimate receiver, is studied under various channel configurations. For the degraded or reversely-degraded WTC, rate-limited non-secure Tx help results in a secrecy capacity boost equal to the help rate irrespective of whether the help is causal or not. For the non-degraded WTC, the secrecy capacity boost is lower bounded by the help rate. A capacity-achieving signaling is two-phase time sharing, where wiretap coding without help is used in Phase 1 and help without wiretap coding is used in Phase 2. The secrecy capacity with Tx help is positive for the reversely-degraded channel (where the no-help secrecy capacity is zero) and no Phase 1 is needed to achieve it. Unlike the no-help case, more noise at the legitimate receiver can sometimes result in higher secrecy capacity with Tx help. In the case of the joint Tx/Rx non-secure help, one help link can be omitted without affecting the capacity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".