Developing pseudo random number generator based on neural networks and neurofuzzy systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudo random number generators (PRNGs) are one of the most important components in security and cryptography applications. We propose an application of Hopfield Neural Networks (HNN) as pseudo random number generator. This research is done based on a unique property of HNN, i.e., its unpredictable behavior under certain conditions. Also, we propose an application of Fuzzy Hopfield Neural Networks (FHNN) as pseudo random number generator. We compare the main features of ideal random number generators with our proposed PRNGs. We use a battery of statistical tests developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to measure the performance of proposed HNN and FHNN. We also measure the performance of other standard PRNGs and compare the results with HNN and FHNN PRNG. We have shown that our proposed HNN and FHNN have good performance comparing to other PRNGs accordingly.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it