The Dichotomy of Neural Networks and Cryptography: War and Peace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, neural networks and cryptographic schemes have come together in war and peace; a cross-impact that forms a dichotomy deserving a comprehensive review study. Neural networks can be used against cryptosystems; they can play roles in cryptanalysis and attacks against encryption algorithms and encrypted data. This side of the dichotomy can be interpreted as a war declared by neural networks. On the other hand, neural networks and cryptographic algorithms can mutually support each other. Neural networks can help improve the performance and the security of cryptosystems, and encryption techniques can support the confidentiality of neural networks. The latter side of the dichotomy can be referred to as the peace. There are, to the best of our knowledge, no current surveys that take a comprehensive look at the many ways neural networks are currently interacting with cryptography. This survey aims to fill that niche by providing an overview on the state of the cross-impact between neural networks and cryptography systems. To this end, this paper will highlight the current areas where progress is being made as well as the aspects where there is room for future research to be conducted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".