Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Structured Spectral Compression based Low-Bitrate Secure Speech Communications for Internet of Things assisted Non-Terrestrial Networks

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a compressive-sensing speech codec can compress voice to 3.9 kbps and hide the speaker's voiceprint, using the sensing dictionary as a secret key.

desk verdict A useful low-rate speech codec demo, but the 'secure' claim rests on a dictionary that Algorithm 1 defines as a fixed banded matrix — no key schedule, no distribution, no attack model — and the paper's own numbers disagree with each other. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19092 v1 pith:O5Z5DNP3 submitted 2026-07-21 cs.NI

Li Ping Qian , Zhehan Chen , Qianru Wang , Qian Wang , Yuan Wu , Xuemin Sherman Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords low-bitratespeechcodingcompressivesensingmel-spectrogramdictionary-as-keyvoiceprintprivacysecurecommunicationsIoTnon-terrestrialnetworkstamperdetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes LB-S2C2, a speech communication system for narrowband IoT non-terrestrial networks that combines compression and security in one step. Its central claim is that encoding a speech signal's mel-spectrogram through compressive sensing yields a sparse representation that requires only 3.9 kbps (below the 6.3 kbps of the G.723 codec) and that cannot be reconstructed unless the receiver holds the same banded dictionary matrix used at the transmitter. The paper reports that a 0.1% mismatch in that dictionary drops the reconstructed-spectrum PSNR by more than 20 dB, that recovered speech has an average voiceprint similarity of only 0.30 (below the 0.5 identification threshold), and that the pipeline runs in O(n) time with 12-bit memory. A sympathetic reader would care because this promises to provide voice service and confidentiality in bandwidth-starved satellite and emergency links without the overhead of conventional encryption.

What carries the argument

The central object is the banded dictionary matrix, denoted Bd in Algorithm 1, which serves both as the compressive-sensing basis for sparsifying the flattened mel-spectrum and as the shared key for reconstruction; the paper views the system as a symmetric cipher with the dictionary as key. The matrix's extreme sensitivity carries the security claim: reconstruction multiplies the received sparse vector by this matrix, so any mismatch produces a large PSNR drop, and the same sensitivity acts as a tamper-detection mechanism. Waveform segmentation (n=20) reduces the per-step matrix size to 1/400 of the full spectrum, which is what brings the compression time to O(n).

What would settle it

Intercept the sparse coefficients and position information for a corpus of speech clips, run a standard dictionary-learning algorithm on the pairs of sparse codes and reconstructed mel-spectra, and compare the learned dictionary to the banded matrix Bd from Algorithm 1. If the learned dictionary matches Bd (or if Bd is revealed to be a fixed, publicly known matrix, as the demo's target matrix suggests), then the scheme provides no confidentiality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the sensing dictionary in a structured spectral compression scheme can double as a symmetric encryption key. At the transmitter, the mel-spectrogram is flattened, segmented, and sparsified via an OMP-style algorithm that selects atoms from a banded dictionary matrix; only the non-zero coefficients and their positions are transmitted. At the receiver, the sparse vector is multiplied by the same banded matrix to rebuild the mel-spectrum, which is then converted to audio via a phase-reconstruction vocoder and denoised by singular spectrum analysis. If the receiver's dictionary deviates from the transmitter's by as little as 0.1%, the PSNR of the reconstructed spect

Load-bearing premise

The entire confidentiality argument rests on the dictionary matrix being a secret, random key that an eavesdropper can only recover by brute force, yet the paper never states how the dictionary is generated, distributed, or kept secret, and the demonstration uses a fixed banded matrix.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Speech can be carried at 3.9 kbps with a mean opinion score of 4.12, below the current lowest conventional coding rate of 6.3 kbps (G.723), making voice feasible in narrowband IoT-NTN links.
  • A 0.1% mismatch between the transmitter's and receiver's dictionary matrices causes a PSNR drop of more than 20 dB, so the system can detect tampering or man-in-the-middle modifications by monitoring PSNR.
  • Recovered speech shows a voiceprint similarity of only 0.30, under the 0.5 same-speaker threshold, so an eavesdropper cannot easily identify the speaker from intercepted transmissions.
  • The encoding runs in O(n) time and the recovery scheme needs only 12-bit memory, avoiding the computational and storage overhead of conventional encryption algorithms.
  • Under AWGN, the transmitted data's entropy stays nearly constant from 20 dB down to 0 dB, indicating that the scheme is robust to channel noise as well as eavesdropping.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The security claim actually depends entirely on dictionary secrecy; nothing in the paper specifies how Bd is generated, distributed, or refreshed, so the practical system is only as strong as that key-management process.
  • Because the transmitted stream consists of sparse coefficients plus their positions, an eavesdropper with many intercepted clips could attempt standard dictionary-learning attacks to recover Bd; the paper's brute-force analysis does not address this.
  • The near-zero voiceprint similarity suggests the pipeline removes speaker identity while preserving content, which could be useful for anonymized voice services, but also means residual identity leakage should be measured under targeted adversarial conditions.
  • The same dictionary-sensitivity mechanism is generic to compressive sensing and could extend to image or other signal compression; a testable extension is to quantify the effective key space after quantization and segmentation, which may be considerably smaller than 256^128x128.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LB-S2C2, a low-bitrate secure speech communication system for narrowband IoT-NTN. The transmitter extracts a mel spectrogram from segmented speech, compresses it via segmented orthogonal matching pursuit with a banded dictionary, quantizes the sparse coefficients, and transmits them with HARQ/RS coding. The receiver reconstructs the mel spectrum using the same dictionary, converts it to audio with Griffin-Lim, and applies SSA-based noise reduction. The authors claim a coding rate of 3.9 kbps, O(n) time complexity, 12-bit key memory, MOS around 4.12, voiceprint similarity of 0.3, and security based on extreme sensitivity of the reconstruction to the dictionary matrix, with brute-force complexity estimated as 256^{128×128}.

Significance. If the claims held, the paper would be significant: it would demonstrate a single low-complexity pipeline that simultaneously compresses speech below G.723 rates, hides speaker voiceprint, and provides confidentiality through dictionary sensitivity, all in a hardware-tested IoT-NTN scenario. The experimental demonstration with Jetson/USRP is a strength, and the comparative measurements against DeepSC-S, DeepSC-SR, OFI-OFCNB, and OMP are useful. However, the central security argument is currently unsupported and close to definitional, and several headline numbers in the abstract are contradicted by the paper's own figures. As written, the main contributions—security, privacy, and resource claims—are not established.

major comments (6)
  1. [§III, Algorithm 1, §IV.D.6] The security claim is not supported by the manuscript. Algorithm 1 sets D = B_d, a fixed banded matrix, with no randomness, key schedule, or distribution mechanism, yet §III invokes 'the randomness of dictionary matrix'. The brute-force estimate 256^{128×128} in §IV.D.6 assumes a random 128×128 matrix, but a one-band 896×896 banded matrix has only O(n) free entries, not n^2; with 8-bit quantization the key space is ~256^{2n}, and the traversal step size 7 is unexplained. The transmitted nonzero coefficients plus support positions also provide side information, and no dictionary-learning or known-plaintext attack is considered. The conclusion that 'speech data can be securely transmitted when the dictionary matrix is preserved' is definitional, not demonstrated.
  2. [Abstract vs. Fig. 13] The headline privacy result is internally inconsistent. The Abstract states that the average voiceprint similarity is 0.3, 'much lower than the 0.8 of DeepSC-S', but Fig. 13 reports DeepSC-S = 0.97 and DeepSC-SR = 0.98. Additionally, §IV.D.7 states that the privacy evaluation operates at a compression ratio of 10%, whereas the system's claimed compression ratio is about 5% (§IV.D.1, Fig. 8). The privacy result is therefore measured at a different operating point. Moreover, a low voiceprint similarity may simply reflect reconstruction loss rather than active privacy protection; the paper does not explain how speaker identity is selectively removed while MOS 4.12 is maintained.
  3. [§IV.D.1, Fig. 8] The compression-ratio comparison is misreported. The text says 'around 5%, which is approximately 61% of DeepSC-S and about 49% of DeepSC-SR', but the values in Fig. 8 (LB-S2C2 ≈5.2%, DeepSC-S ≈9.3%, DeepSC-SR ≈11.2%) give ≈56% and ≈46%; other data points give ≈54% and ≈43%. The claimed ratios should be corrected to match the figure.
  4. [§IV.D.2, Abstract] The coding-rate claim is misleading. The payload rate is 3.9 kbps, but the text immediately notes that with RTP/UDP/IP overhead the actual total coding rate is 7.1 kbps. The abstract's claim that the rate is 'lower than the current lowest speech coding rate of 6.3 kbps achieved by G.723' holds only for the raw payload; the end-to-end rate of 7.1 kbps exceeds 6.3 kbps. The comparison must be stated on a common basis.
  5. [Abstract/§V vs. Fig. 11] The memory claim is inconsistent. The Abstract and Conclusion say the scheme 'requires the 12-bit memory storage only', but Fig. 11 reports the storage complexity of LB-S2C2 as 3.07 Kbits (≈3143 bits), which is not 12 bits. The paper needs to clarify what quantity is 12 bits and what Fig. 11 measures; as written the claim is contradicted by the paper's own data.
  6. [§IV.D.5, Algorithm 1] The O(n) complexity claim is unsupported. Algorithm 1 is standard OMP with least-squares updates; per segment the cost scales with the dictionary dimension and the number of iterations, and no asymptotic derivation of O(n) is given. The empirical compression time in Fig. 7 does not establish an asymptotic bound. This matters because the claimed low complexity is presented as a key advantage over OMP and semantic codecs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV.D.6] The '0.1% difference' claim is not tied to a defined distance metric. The experiment varies the number of bands from 100 to 0, not a 0.1% perturbation of the matrix entries; the connection between band count and the 0.1% figure needs clarification.
  2. [General] There are several typos and copy-paste issues: 'evlauate' in §IV; 'the the' in §II.B.3; the correspondence diagram in §III is garbled; and the reference list contains items that seem mismatched with the text (e.g., [24]–[27]). The paper should be carefully proofread.
  3. [§IV.D.6] The brute-force experiment states dimensions of 896×896 yet the cost is computed as 256^{128×128}; the relationship between these numbers is unclear and should be explained or corrected.
  4. [§IV.D.1] The 'compression ratio' is used in different senses: sparsity ratio, raw bit rate, and overhead-inclusive bit rate. A single formal definition, including how quantization is counted, would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Security claim reduces to assuming the dictionary is a secret random key; the compression and quality benchmarks themselves are externally measured and not circular.

  1. renaming known result [Section III, Fig. 5; cf. Algorithm 1 in Sec. II.B.1 and Eq. (10)]
    "the speech can be recovered only when the dictionary matrix is the same as that used for the high-order matrix sparsification at the transmitter side. Therefore, we can view the entire system as a special symmetric cryptographic system... the dictionary matrix D corresponds to the shared key. Furthermore, considering the randomness of dictionary matrix, it is intractable to decipher except for by the brute force."

    Algorithm 1 fixes D = B_d, and recovery is −f = −p B_d (Eq. 10). The condition that the receiver uses the same matrix as the transmitter is therefore the algebraic requirement of this linear reconstruction, not an independently derived security property. Re-labeling D as a 'shared key' makes 'secure when D is preserved' a restatement of the coding construction. The random/secret nature of D is asserted ('considering the randomness') but no key generation, distribution, or secrecy mechanism is specified, so the security conclusion is the assumed input rather than a derived result.

  2. other [Section IV.D.6 (Transmission Security Evaluation)]
    "the dictionary matrix is set as a random banded matrix (with one band, dimensions of 896×896), and the traversal step size is set to 7. Thus, traversing all possible cases would require 256128×128 computations."

    The claimed brute-force cost assumes an arbitrary 128×128 random-matrix key space (256^{128×128}), whereas the system's dictionary is defined as a banded matrix B_d. A one-band 896×896 matrix has only O(896) free entries, not 896^2. The intractability conclusion is therefore imported from a different, much larger matrix model rather than computed from this paper's D, so the security verdict does not follow from the algorithm actually described.

full rationale

Most of the paper's quantitative results—the 3.9 kbps coding rate, MOS 4.12, voiceprint similarity 0.30, compression time, and O(n) complexity—are obtained by benchmarking against external systems such as G.723, DeepSC-S, DeepSC-SR, OFI-OFCNB, and standard OMP. Those parts are self-contained empirical comparisons and are not circular. The circularity is confined to the security interpretation: the claim that speech is secure when the dictionary matrix is preserved merely restates the fact that the transmitter and receiver use the same fixed matrix for OMP-based spectral reconstruction, and the companion brute-force estimate assumes a random 128×128 matrix that is not the actual banded dictionary. Thus the security guarantee partly reduces to the assumption that a secret random dictionary exists, which is never established by the paper's design.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system inherits standard signal-processing assumptions (mel-spectrum sufficiency, Griffin-Lim phase recovery, OMP recovery) and adds two ad hoc security assumptions: the secret banded dictionary and a specific brute-force attack model. These ad hoc assumptions carry most of the confidentiality claim, and none is derived from a stated key-generation process.

free parameters (6)
  • OMP residual threshold epsilon = 0.5
    Algorithm 1 sets eps=0.5; controls when sparse coding stops, hence the rate/quality trade-off; no sensitivity analysis is tied to this exact value.
  • Waveform segment count n = 20
    Eq. (3) and the text set n=20 to shrink the sensing matrix to 1/400 of its original size; boundary artifacts and compression time depend on this choice.
  • Mel filterbank size = 80
    Section II.B.1 uses 80 triangular filters; this defines the mel-spectrum dimension subsequently flattened for sparse coding.
  • Compression ratio in privacy evaluation = 10% (0.1)
    Section IV.D.7 states the system 'operates with a compression ratio of 10%' to balance quality and speed; the voiceprint-similarity and security numbers are reported at this setting.
  • SSA retained components = first 3 components
    Section II.B.3 says only the first three components with relatively larger contributions are used for denoising; the MOS 4.12 quality result depends on this choice.
  • Brute-force traversal step size = 7
    Section IV.D.6 uses step size 7 to compute the 256^{128×128} brute-force cost; this is arbitrary and not derived from the actual dictionary generation process.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption OMP/compressive sensing with a banded matrix dictionary recovers the sparse mel-spectrum representation accurately enough for intelligible speech.
    Invoked in Algorithm 1 and eqs. (6)-(9); no RIP/incoherence analysis for D=Bd is given, yet recovery quality is the foundation of the codec.
  • domain assumption The mel-spectrogram magnitude, with Griffin-Lim phase recovery, contains sufficient information to reconstruct intelligible high-MOS speech.
    Sections II.B.1 and II.B.3 use the mel filterbank and Griffin-Lim vocoder; no ablation or independent listening evidence is provided beyond the authors' own MOS.
  • ad hoc to paper A dictionary mismatch of ~0.1% causing a PSNR drop of more than 20 dB implies tamper detection and confidentiality.
    Section IV.D.6 infers security from sensitivity; this conflates fragility with secrecy and is not an attack model.
  • ad hoc to paper The eavesdropper's decryption cost is the brute-force traversal of a random banded matrix with step size 7, requiring 256^{128×128} operations.
    Section IV.D.6; the actual D=Bd randomness and dimensions are not specified, so the complexity estimate is unsupported.
  • domain assumption RS codes plus HARQ deliver the compressed payload essentially error-free, and the experimental channel is representative of IoT-NTN.
    Section II.B.2 and IV.A describe HARQ and a USRP demo, but no bit-error model or protocol overhead accounting is provided beyond the 7.1 kbps note.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structured Spectral Compression based Low-Bitrate Secure Speech Communications for Internet of Things assisted Non-Terrestrial Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5Z5DNP3

@misc{pith2026260719092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structured Spectral Compression based Low-Bitrate Secure Speech Communications for Internet of Things assisted Non-Terrestrial Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5Z5DNP3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19092}
}
read the original abstract

This paper focuses on the Low-Bitrate Secure Speech Communications based on the Structured Spectral Compression (LB-S2C2). Specifically, the Mel spectral matrix of the speech signal is first encoded at the transmitter side through compressive sensing based on waveform segmentation and data quantization. Then, the Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) is combined with forward error correction to achieve reliable transmission of speech signals over wireless channels. Thirdly, the received signals are recovered as the speech at the receiver side. Finally, we conduct a series of simulation experiments for the performance evaluation of LB-S2C2. Our simulations reveal that the dictionary matrix used for the speech reconstruction is different from the one used for the high-order matrix sparsification by even only approximately 0.1%, and then the accurate speech recovery fails. It implies that the speech data can be securely transmitted when the dictionary matrix is preserved. More importantly, the LB-S2C2 exhibits a very high privacy protection capability with the average voiceprint similarity to be only 0.3, which is much lower than the 0.8 of the semantic speech communication scheme DeepSC-S, and even lower than the 0.33 of the latest speech communication scheme OFI-OFCNB. In addition, our simulations reveal that the proposed structured speech coding boasts a time complexity of merely O(n), and the proposed speech recovery scheme requires the 12-bit memory storage only, which outperforms the traditional encryption algorithms proposed for speech communications. In comparison with the conventional compression techniques, our spectral compression method renders the coding rate of only 3.9kbps, which is lower than the current lowest speech coding rate of 6.3kbps achieved by G.723.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall frame diagram of LB-S2C2 system. detailed description of the function of each module at the transmitter side. • Preprocessing Specifically, the input audio is first sampled with the sampling rate set to be 16000, and then followed by volume normalization and removal of extended silent segments. For the volume normalization, we first calculate the root mean square of the audio samples and convert it to de… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The detailed diagram of LB-S2C2 system architecture. a single processing step in orthogonal matching pursuit algorithms, that is compressed to 1 400 of its original size, thereby significantly shortening the compression time and effectively boosting the compression performance. Specifically, the audio waveform is divided into n con￾tiguous and equally-sized sub-waveforms, where we set n = 20 here. The segmentation i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the workflow of HARQ transmission in our system. Initially, the original data is uniformly divided Algorithm 1: Sparse coding Input : D,f, ϵ Output: pk 1 Initialization: r0 = f, Λ0 = ∅, ϵ = 0.5, D = Bd 2 for k = 1, 2, . . . do 3 Step-1: λk = arg maxj /∈Λk−1 | < dj , rk−1 > |; // Select atom with maximum correlation 4 Step-2: Λk = Λk−1 ∪ {λk}; // Update index set 5 Step-3: pk = arg minx ||f − DΛk x||2; //… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The workflow for audio restoration. of each sub-waveform, which effectively mitigates any abruptness that might occur at the splice points. This thus results in a smoothly concatenated audio waveform with significantly enhanced naturalness and continuity in the listeni…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correspondence between the proposed system and an encryption algorithm system. IV. SIMULATION RESULTS In this section, we want to evlauate the performance of proposed LB-S2C2 system based on the demo system. A. Experimental Setup The system configuration for our experi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental system setup for speech communication. B. System Performance Metrics The proposed system aims to ensure the quality of reconstructed speech while enhancing the security of speech transmission, and to a certain extent, to reduce the required transmission ba…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows the compression ratio comparison with different transmitted data volumes considered. Both the DeepSC-S and DeepSC-SR semantic speech communica￾tion systems are included for benchmarking. Note that our algorithm based on the sparsification of the mel spectrogram m…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the compression time comparison with the traditional compressed sensing method Orthogonal Matching Pursuit (OMP) [47]. It is shown that the average time required to compress the Mel spectrum corresponding to the audio of different durations is reduced to be less …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison of transmission delay under different conditions. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Storage complexity of different algorithms. number of bands to 100 at the starting point and gradually approach 0, recording the PSNR value at each step, which is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: PSNR of the reconstructed spectrum at different band numbers. We observe a significant drop in PSNR as the number of bands increases as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of voiceprint similarity for different methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The practical entropy of different systems in AWGN channel. Note that Table. V shows the entropy evaluated without transmission noise considered. Next, we test the practical entropy of the system in AWGN channel, with different signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) to denote …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Non-terrestrial networks in the 6G era: Challenges and opportunities,

    M. Giordani and M. Zorzi, “Non-terrestrial networks in the 6G era: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 244–251, Apr. 2020

    2020

  2. [2]

    A survey on 3GPP heterogeneous networks,

    A. Damnjanovic, J. Montojo, Y. Wei et al., “A survey on 3GPP heterogeneous networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 10–21, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    Clustering-NN Based CFO estimation using random access pream- bles for 5G non-terrestrial networks,

    L. Zhen, L. Cheng, Z. Chu et al., “Clustering-NN Based CFO estimation using random access pream- bles for 5G non-terrestrial networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 587–591, Nov. 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    IoT NTN for voice services: Architectures, protocols, and challenges,

    X. Huang, W. Qi, X. Xia et al., “IoT NTN for voice services: Architectures, protocols, and challenges,” IEEE Network, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 40–47, Mar. 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Cellular, wide-area, and non-terrestrial IoT: A survey on 5G advances and the road toward 6G,

    M. Vaezi, A. Azari, S. R. Khosravirad et al., “Cellular, wide-area, and non-terrestrial IoT: A survey on 5G advances and the road toward 6G,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1117–1174, 2022. 15

    2022

  6. [6]

    Predictive coding of speech at low bit rates,

    B. Atal, “Predictive coding of speech at low bit rates,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 600–614, 1982

    1982

  7. [7]

    Robust transmission of multistage vector quantized sources over noisy communication channels—Applications to MELP speech codec,

    F. Lahouti, A. K. Khandani, and A. Saleh, “Robust transmission of multistage vector quantized sources over noisy communication channels—Applications to MELP speech codec,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 1805–1811, 2006

    2006

  8. [8]

    A class of call-fail-safe and distribution-effective multi-band multi-carrier traffic allocation methods for 3GB wireless systems,

    P. Guturu and A. Lachtar, “A class of call-fail-safe and distribution-effective multi-band multi-carrier traffic allocation methods for 3GB wireless systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 578–590, Mar. 2006

    2006

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Optimized feedback iterative online fountain code without build- up phase for underwater acoustic networks,

    L. Zhao, X. Du, X. Liu, and X. Tian, “Optimized feedback iterative online fountain code without build- up phase for underwater acoustic networks,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 24, no. 19, pp. 31 293–31 309, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Cognitive speech coding: Examining the impact of cognitive speech processing on speech compression,

    M. Cernak, A. Asaei, and A. Hyafil, “Cognitive speech coding: Examining the impact of cognitive speech processing on speech compression,” IEEE Signal Pro- cess Mag., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 97–109, May 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Joint Energy and Security Optimization in Underwater Wireless Communication Networks,

    K. Y. Islam, I. Ahmad, Y. Rong et al., “Joint Energy and Security Optimization in Underwater Wireless Communication Networks,” IEEE Internet Things J., pp. 14 282–14 295, Apr. 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    A low-delay CELP coder for the CCITT 16 kb/s speech coding standard,

    J. H. Chen, R. V. Cox, Y. C. Lin et al., “A low-delay CELP coder for the CCITT 16 kb/s speech coding standard,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 830–849, 1992

    1992

  5. [13]

    A no-reference voice quality estimation method for Opus-based VoIP services,

    P. Orosz, T. Skopkó, Z. Nagy et al., “A no-reference voice quality estimation method for Opus-based VoIP services,” Int. J. Adv. Telecommun., vol. 7, pp. 12–21, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    LPCNet: Improving neural speech synthesis through linear prediction,

    J.-M. Valin and J. Skoglund, “LPCNet: Improving neural speech synthesis through linear prediction,” in ICASSP IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process Proc., May 2019, pp. 5891–5895

    2019

  7. [15]

    Ultra- low-bitrate speech coding with pretrained transform- ers,

    A. Siahkoohi, M. Chinen, T. Denton et al., “Ultra- low-bitrate speech coding with pretrained transform- ers,” in INTERSPEECH Proc. Annu. Conf. Int. Speech. Commun. Assoc., vol. 2022-September, 2022, pp. 4421–4425

    2022

  8. [16]

    Learning end-to- end lossy image compression: A benchmark,

    Y. Hu, W. Yang, Z. Ma et al., “Learning end-to- end lossy image compression: A benchmark,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 4194–4211, Mar. 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Compression of higher-order ambisonic signals using directional audio coding,

    C. Hold, V. Pulkki, A. Politis et al., “Compression of higher-order ambisonic signals using directional audio coding,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., vol. 32, pp. 651–665, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Metts: Multilingual emotional text-to-speech by cross-speaker and cross- lingual emotion transfer,

    X. Zhu, Y. Lei, T. Li et al., “Metts: Multilingual emotional text-to-speech by cross-speaker and cross- lingual emotion transfer,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., vol. 32, pp. 1506–1518, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Privacy-preserving data encryption strategy for big data in mobile cloud computing,

    K. Gai, M. Qiu, and H. Zhao, “Privacy-preserving data encryption strategy for big data in mobile cloud computing,” IEEE Trans. Big Data, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 678–688, Sep. 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    A blind source separation based method for speech encryption,

    Q. H. Lin, F. L. Yin, T. M. Mei et al., “A blind source separation based method for speech encryption,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I Regul. Pap., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 1320–1328, Jun. 2006

    2006

  13. [21]

    Secure cloud storage with data dynamics using secure network coding techniques,

    B. Sengupta, A. Dixit, and S. Ruj, “Secure cloud storage with data dynamics using secure network coding techniques,” IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2090–2101, 2020

  14. [22]

    Hiding data using efficient combination of RSA cryptography, and compression steganography techniques,

    O. F. A. Wahab, A. A. Khalaf, A. I. Hussein et al., “Hiding data using efficient combination of RSA cryptography, and compression steganography techniques,” IEEE Access., vol. 9, pp. 31 805–31 815, Feb. 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    DeGKM: Decentralized Group Key Management for Content Push in Integrated Networks,

    G. Liu, H. Li, N. Wang, T. Xiang, and Y. Liu, “DeGKM: Decentralized Group Key Management for Content Push in Integrated Networks,” IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput., pp. 1–17, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Update if you dare: Demystifying bare-metal device firmware update se- curity of appified iot systems,

    L. Xue, Y. Yan, Q. Tang, L. Yu, X. Luo, Z. Cai, S. Nie, S. Wu, G. Gu, and C. Wang, “Update if you dare: Demystifying bare-metal device firmware update se- curity of appified iot systems,” IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 2367–2384, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Middleware and security requirements for internet of things,

    B. Bhushan, “Middleware and security requirements for internet of things,” in International Conference on Micro-Electronics and Telecommunication Engineer- ing. Springer, 2021, pp. 309–321

    2021

  18. [26]

    Blockchain based solutions to secure iot: Background, integration trends and a way forward,

    S. Saxena, B. Bhushan, and M. A. Ahad, “Blockchain based solutions to secure iot: Background, integration trends and a way forward,” Journal of Network and Computer Applications, vol. 181, p. 103050, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Enhancing security in low-power wide-area (lpwa) iot environ- ments: The role of hsm, tamper-proof technology, and quantum cryptography,

    H.-S. Han, T.-h. Choi, and J.-S. Yoon, “Enhancing security in low-power wide-area (lpwa) iot environ- ments: The role of hsm, tamper-proof technology, and quantum cryptography,” Journal of Web Engineering, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 787–800, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Semantic communication sys- tems for speech transmission,

    Z. Weng and Z. Qin, “Semantic communication sys- tems for speech transmission,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2434–2444, Jun. 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Semantic commu- nications for speech signals,

    Z. Weng, Z. Qin, and G. Y. Li, “Semantic commu- nications for speech signals,” in ICC IEEE Int Conf Commun., Jun. 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  22. [30]

    A perceptually mo- tivated approach for low-complexity speech semantic communication,

    X. Chen, J. Wang, L. Xu et al., “A perceptually mo- tivated approach for low-complexity speech semantic communication,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 22 054–22 065, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A compressed sensing- based progressive secret image sharing scheme and security analysis,

    D. Xie, H. Zhu, F. Chen et al., “A compressed sensing- based progressive secret image sharing scheme and security analysis,” Digital Signal Process., vol. 143, p. 104273, Nov. 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Adaptive short- time Fourier analysis,

    R. N. Czerwinski and D. L. Jones, “Adaptive short- time Fourier analysis,” IEEE Signal Process Lett., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 42–45, Feb. 1997

    1997

  25. [33]

    Bandwidth extension of telephone speech using a neural network and a filter bank implementation for highband mel spectrum,

    H. Pulakka and P. Alku, “Bandwidth extension of telephone speech using a neural network and a filter bank implementation for highband mel spectrum,” IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., vol. 19, 16 no. 7, pp. 2170–2183, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,

    T. T. Cai and L. Wang, “Orthogonal matching pursuit for sparse signal recovery with noise,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 4680–4688, 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    Low bit-rate speech coding through quantization of mel-frequency cepstral coefficients,

    L. E. Boucheron, P. L. De Leon, and S. Sandoval, “Low bit-rate speech coding through quantization of mel-frequency cepstral coefficients,” IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 610– 619, Jul. 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Perceptually weighted Analysis-by-Synthesis vector quantization for low bit rate MFCC codec,

    G. Min, X. Zhang, X. Zou et al., “Perceptually weighted Analysis-by-Synthesis vector quantization for low bit rate MFCC codec,” IEEE Signal Process Lett., vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 1379–1383, Aug. 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) in wireless com- munications systems and standards: A contemporary survey,

    A. Ahmed, A. Al Dweik, Y. Iraqi et al., “Hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) in wireless com- munications systems and standards: A contemporary survey,” IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2711–2752, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Deep Griffin–Lim iteration: Trainable iterative phase recon- struction using neural network,

    Y. Masuyama, K. Yatabe, Y. Koizumi et al., “Deep Griffin–Lim iteration: Trainable iterative phase recon- struction using neural network,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 37–50, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    The sliding singular spectrum analysis: A data-driven nonstation- ary signal decomposition tool,

    J. Harmouche, D. Fourer, F. Auger et al., “The sliding singular spectrum analysis: A data-driven nonstation- ary signal decomposition tool,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 251–263, Sep. 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    The discrete wavelet transform: Wedding the a trous and Mallat algorithms,

    M. J. Shensa et al., “The discrete wavelet transform: Wedding the a trous and Mallat algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2464–2482, Oct. 1992

    1992

  33. [41]

    A modified a priori SNR for speech enhancement us- ing spectral subtraction rules,

    M. K. Hasan, S. Salahuddin, and M. R. Khan, “A modified a priori SNR for speech enhancement us- ing spectral subtraction rules,” IEEE Signal Process Lett., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 450–453, Mar. 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to ground communication-speech encryption algorithm,

    O. M. Al Hazaimeh and M. A. Al Smadi, “Vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to ground communication-speech encryption algorithm,” in ICECCME IEEE Int. Conf. Electr., Comput., Commun. Mechatronics Eng., Jul. 2023, pp. 1–4

    2023

  35. [43]

    Information leakage in encrypted deduplication via frequency analysis: Attacks and defenses,

    J. Li, P. P. Lee, C. Tan, C. Qin, and X. Zhang, “Information leakage in encrypted deduplication via frequency analysis: Attacks and defenses,” ACM Trans. Storage, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–30, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Vehicle Detection and Classification by Voiceprint Recognition Based on Single Acoustic Sensor under Bridge Expansion Joint,

    Y. Pan, Y. Dong, D. Wang et al., “Vehicle Detection and Classification by Voiceprint Recognition Based on Single Acoustic Sensor under Bridge Expansion Joint,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 73, pp. 1– 15, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Video quality assessment through PSNR estima- tion for different compression standards,

    R. G. Deshpande, L. L. Ragha, and S. K. Sharma, “Video quality assessment through PSNR estima- tion for different compression standards,” Indonesian Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. Turkish, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 918–924, Sep. 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Esti- mation of quality scores from subjective tests-beyond subjects’ MOS,

    S. Pezzulli, M. G. Martini, and N. Barman, “Esti- mation of quality scores from subjective tests-beyond subjects’ MOS,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia, vol. 23, pp. 2505–2519, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Generalized orthog- onal matching pursuit,

    J. Wang, S. Kwon, and B. Shim, “Generalized orthog- onal matching pursuit,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 6202–6216, Sep. 2012

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.