MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400944334 · doi:10.1109/jiot.2024.3422231

Physical-Layer Authentication Enhancement via Random Watermark Hopping

2024· article· en· W4400944334 on OpenAlexaff
He Fang, Le Liang, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Internet of Things Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province
KeywordsComputer scienceWatermarkAuthentication (law)Computer networkMessage authentication codePhysical layerDigital watermarkingComputer securityCryptographyArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Existing physical-layer authentication (PLA) schemes of tag superimposed on message signals (TSM) can achieve high authentication accuracy at the cost of increased latency and reduced communication performance. The schemes of tag superimposed on pilot signals (TSP) achieve desirable communication performance and low latency, but low randomness of the tag results in lower security. To further improve both security and communication performance, we propose a pseudo random watermark hopping-based PLA scheme in this article. The proposed scheme generates a pseudo-random sequence and designs a watermark hopping mechanism, which superimposes a carefully designed tag on the pilot or message signals accordingly. The proposed scheme enhances the security by utilizing the randomness from both tag generation and watermark hopping mechanism. Meanwhile, it decreases the authentication latency and improves the communication performance by superimposing the tag on the pilot signals without the message recovery process before authentication. The theoretical and experimental results demonstrate that the proposed scheme decreases the bit error rate (BER) and outage probability as well as increases the achievable rate of the system compared with the TSM scheme with the same key equivocation. Moreover, the security performance of our scheme is significantly improved compared with both TSM and TSP schemes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Internet of Things JournalSame topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207