← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.14835 · v1
What Does an RF Fingerprint Identify? A Cross-Corpus Evaluation of Hardware-Family-Associated and Unit-Level Signal
首次提交 2026-11-11 07:35
版本更新 2026-11-11 07:35
雷达观测 2026-11-13 10:09
摘要
RF fingerprinting benchmarks report how well a classifier separates transmitters, not whether that separability reflects the individual unit or its hardware family. We compare a benchmark's real hardware grouping with size-matched random groupings of the same devices, using calibrated, unclipped variational lower bounds under label-blind, device-level cross-fitting on devices never seen in training. On WiSig (OFDM Wi-Fi), the generation grouping exceeded all 999 matched random groupings (permutation p = 0.001, the resolution floor), although no grouping attained a positive certified bound, and the direction survives removing channel equalization. A preregistered replication on a LoRa corpus (chirp spread spectrum, three hardware models), with a front-end frozen on synthetic data, again exceeded all 999 (p = 0.001), and two sensitivity analyses judged by a reversal rule fixed in advance did not reverse the direction. This is a directional replication only: the excess magnitude reflects a miscalibrated null, the chain-rule decomposition leaves a residual of +0.296 bits, and capture order is undocumented. In a same-model corpus of 122 ESP32 radios, a temperature-calibrated held-out bound of +3.338 bits (label entropy 6.931 bits) indicates substantial device-specific identity, not separable from per-device capture-session effects; relying on the calibrated bound was decided after the uncalibrated bound changed sign. On synthetic transmitters a high-capacity convolutional decoder reaches 98.5% of a known 6-bit ceiling, and the audit protocol leaves chain-rule residuals of +0.072 bits (synthetic, fixed physical features) and +0.060 bits (WiSig, audit features). Two further corpora were excluded by preregistered ingest gates. Across WiSig and LoRa, hardware-family groupings consistently produced stronger identity-associated signal than size-matched random groupings.
作者备注：20 pages, 4 tables, no figures
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-11 07:35 · 最新观测版本
What Does an RF Fingerprint Identify? A Cross-Corpus Evaluation of Hardware-Family-Associated and Unit-Level Signal
RF fingerprinting benchmarks report how well a classifier separates transmitters, not whether that separability reflects the individual unit or its hardware family. We compare a benchmark's real hardware grouping with size-matched random groupings of the same devices, using calibrated, unclipped variational lower bounds under label-blind, device-level cross-fitting on devices never seen in training. On WiSig (OFDM Wi-Fi), the generation grouping exceeded all 999 matched random groupings (permutation p = 0.001, the resolution floor), although no grouping attained a positive certified bound, and the direction survives removing channel equalization. A preregistered replication on a LoRa corpus (chirp spread spectrum, three hardware models), with a front-end frozen on synthetic data, again exceeded all 999 (p = 0.001), and two sensitivity analyses judged by a reversal rule fixed in advance did not reverse the direction. This is a directional replication only: the excess magnitude reflects a miscalibrated null, the chain-rule decomposition leaves a residual of +0.296 bits, and capture order is undocumented. In a same-model corpus of 122 ESP32 radios, a temperature-calibrated held-out bound of +3.338 bits (label entropy 6.931 bits) indicates substantial device-specific identity, not separable from per-device capture-session effects; relying on the calibrated bound was decided after the uncalibrated bound changed sign. On synthetic transmitters a high-capacity convolutional decoder reaches 98.5% of a known 6-bit ceiling, and the audit protocol leaves chain-rule residuals of +0.072 bits (synthetic, fixed physical features) and +0.060 bits (WiSig, audit features). Two further corpora were excluded by preregistered ingest gates. Across WiSig and LoRa, hardware-family groupings consistently produced stronger identity-associated signal than size-matched random groupings.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗