Partial relay selection for secure cooperative NOMA networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we address the physical layer security (PLS) of multi-relay non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) schemes with partial relay selection (PRS) using decode-and-forward (DF) and amplify-and-forward (AF) protocols. We propose a partial relay scheme aiming to select the best relay according to the highest signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the first link. We derive new exact and asymptotic expressions for strictly positive secrecy capacity (SPSC) and secrecy outage probability (SOP) considering Rayleigh fading channels. Numerical results demonstrate that AF and DF provide a similar system performance. They prove that partial relay selection improves SPSC and reduces SOP when the relays are near the legitimate receiver. Numerical results also reveal that the performance boosts for a high number of relays even for the high SNR of the eavesdropper channel. The secure NOMA system with PRS is capable of providing better secrecy performance than the secure NOMA system with random relay selection. Asymptotic results show that the use of multiple relays does not affect the system performance.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".