Robust Deep Learning-Based Secret Key Generation in Dynamic LiFi Networks Against Concept Drift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores secret key generation in 5G and beyond LiFi networks using visible light in the downlink and infrared in the uplink. Unlike the existing works, we focus on a realistic indoor environment with multi-user mobility. Given inaccuracies in high-frequency channel models, we introduce the first deep learning model that combines the channel probing and quantization phases to generate initial secret keys with a minimal key disagreement rate (KDR) of 16% between the uplink and downlink, leading to a key generation rate (KGR) of 79 bits/s after information reconciliation. We show that LiFi channel statistics suffer from concept drifts with user density changes in the room. This increases the KDR by 28% - 44% and the generated keys fail to pass the NIST randomness tests. As a countermeasure, we introduce a voting ensemble model that mitigates concept drifts, maintaining a stable 16% KDR, 79 bits/s KGR, and passing NIST tests, despite the varying user densities.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".