True Random Number Generator Using GPUs and Histogram Equalization Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Random numbers are used in a wide variety of applications from simulation and encryption to gambling and clinical trials. A good quality random number generator is an asset for applications like encryption, randomized designs and network and information security. Various mathematical models have been developed in the past to improve the quality of random numbers. It can be construed that in general to obtain random numbers of excellent quality, a complex mathematical model has to be used which can be a performance bottleneck. In this work, we propose a novel technique to implement a True Random Number Generator (TRNG) using sources of uncertainty found within Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) together with histogram equalization to obtain maximum entropy. We evaluate the random numbers generated by our approach using four tests. First, we measure the correlation values between two sequences of random numbers, second, we measure the entropy values, third, we use watermarking, an application used in network security and finally we use Monte Carlo analysis for pi-value calculation. Based on these quality measurements, our method has achieved better results than popular random number generators compared in this work. Furthermore, this approach is a massively scalable solution ideal for high performance computing implementations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".