Cooperative Jamming Detection Using Low-Rank Structure of Received Signal Matrix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wireless communication can be simply subjected to malicious attacks due to its open nature and shared medium. Detecting jamming attacks is the first and necessary step to adopt the anti-jamming strategies. This paper presents novel cooperative jamming detection methods that use the low-rank structure of the received signal matrix. We employed the likelihood ratio test to propose detectors for various scenarios. We regarded several scenarios with different numbers of friendly and jamming nodes and different levels of available statistical information on noise. We also provided an analytical examination of the false alarm performance of one of the proposed detectors, which can be used to adjust the detection threshold. We discussed the synthetic signal generation and the Monte Carlo (MC)-based threshold setting method, where knowledge of the distribution of the jamming-free signal, as well as several parameters such as noise variance and channel state information (CSI), is required to accurately generate synthetic signals for threshold estimation. Extensive simulations reveal that the proposed detectors outperform several existing methods, offering robust and accurate jamming detection in a collaborative network of sensing nodes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".