Covert Communication in Two-Hop Cooperative Cognitive Radio System
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
Covert communication is capable of enhancing user privacy by protecting communication behavior. In this article, by employing overlay and underlay spectrum access modes, we investigate a covert cooperative cognitive radio (CCCR) system, where primary transmitter (PT) and secondary transmitter (ST) cooperate with each other to secretly transmit their own confidential information. Specifically, PT can initiate the transmission directly or transmit information with the aid of ST. In return, ST is able to transmit information by exploiting PT's spectrum. In our system, we assume that both PT and ST send artificial noise (AN) to confuse eavesdropper (Eve). That is to say, ST sends AN to Eve when PT initiates the transmission and PT sends AN to Eve when ST transmits information. Then, we explore Eve's detection scheme and obtain the closed-form expression of the minimum detection error probability at Eve in the two modes. We further analyze covert rate and covert outage probability (COP) of primary receiver (PR) and secondary receiver (SR) in different modes. Numerical results show that the interference power dominates the covert transmission, while the self-interference has little impact on the covert performance. Furthermore, it is observed that PR can obtain better covert performance in underlay mode, while SR can obtain better covert performance in overlay mode.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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