Random number generation and distribution out of thin (or thick) air
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
Abstract Much scientific work has focused on the generation of random numbers as well as the distribution of said random numbers for use as a cryptographic key. However, emphasis is often placed on one of the two to the exclusion of the other, but both are often simultaneously important. Here we present a simple hybrid free-space link scheme for both the generation and secure distribution of (pseudo-)random numbers between two remote parties, drawing the randomness from the stochastic nature of atmospheric turbulence. The atmosphere is simulated using digital micro-mirror devices for efficient, all-digital control. After outlining one potential algorithm for extracting random numbers based on finding the centre-of-mass (COM) of turbulent beam intensity profiles, the statistics of our experimental COM measurements is studied and found to agree well with the literature. After implementing the scheme in the laboratory, Alice and Bob are able to establish a string of correlated random bits with an 84% fidelity. Finally, we make a simple modification to the original setup in an attempt to thwart the hacking attempts of an eavesdropper, Eve, who has access to the free-space portion of the link. We find that the fidelity between Eve’s key and that of Alice/Bob is 54%, only slightly above the theoretical minimum. Atmospheric turbulence could hence be leveraged as an added security measure, rather than being seen as a drawback.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it