GAN-Assisted Secret Key Generation Against Eavesdropping In Dynamic Indoor LiFi Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the vulnerability of wireless secret key generation (WSKG) to eavesdropping in a dynamic indoor light-fidelity (LiFi) network. It analyzes the channel impulse response (CIR) similarities of two moving user equipments (UEs) across scenarios with two, four, and eight UEs. We observe that as the number of UEs increases, the similarity in CIR also rises, due to the proximal movement patterns among UEs. Specifically, the similarity rate peaks at 70% when eight UEs enter the room; it then drops to 24% during the wandering phase and rises again to 80% as UEs exit the room. Consequently, an eavesdropper among the eight UEs is able to generate 27% of a legitimate UE’s secret key, it significantly reduces the key’s complexity, decreasing the number of possible keys that need to be tested to break the encryption and making it easier to predict the remainder of the key. To mitigate this issue, we introduce a novel approach that utilizes a generative adversarial network (GAN) to artificially manipulate the CIR, thereby reducing the effectiveness of eavesdropping by adding noise into the observed CIR. This method effectively reduces the CIR similarity to a negligible 1%, thus ensuring the integrity of WSKG against eavesdropping threats.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".