pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30977 · v1 · pith:P65YNZG3new · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🪐 quant-ph · cs.CR

Software Platform for Hybrid Pseudo-Random Sequence Generation and Predictability Analysis Based on LFSR and Mersenne Twister

Ali Abdolrahimi Zarnagh , Ali Motazedifard This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 21:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cs.CR
keywords pseudo-random number generatorsLFSRMersenne Twisterhybrid generatorspredictability analysismachine learningquantum random sequencessoftware platform
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hybrid LFSR-Mersenne Twister generators retain detectable predictability that machine learning can exploit.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a software platform that creates pseudo-random bit sequences from Linear Feedback Shift Registers and the Mersenne Twister, including hybrid combinations of the two. It then runs both statistical tests and machine-learning models on the output to measure how much structure remains. The work shows that increasing complexity through hybridization does not remove all patterns that allow partial prediction. This matters for systems that depend on these generators for communications, radar, and security. The platform also compares the classical outputs directly to quantum random sequences to illustrate the difference in resistance to prediction.

Core claim

The platform generates sequences with classical PRNGs and hybrids, then applies data-driven analysis to demonstrate that algorithmic generators carry inherent predictability limits even when their structure grows more complex; this supports preferring quantum random sequences for applications that need stronger resistance to prediction-based attacks.

What carries the argument

Hybrid LFSR-MT sequence generator paired with machine-learning and deep-learning predictability detectors that quantify residual structure.

If this is right

  • Hybrid LFSR-MT structures raise sequence complexity yet leave measurable predictability that classical methods cannot fully erase.
  • Machine-learning tools can serve as a practical test for when deterministic generators remain vulnerable.
  • Quantum random sequences exhibit higher unpredictability traceable to their physical source.
  • The platform supplies a concrete benchmark for comparing generators in sensing and communication systems.
  • Quantum sequences gain an edge in jamming scenarios where an adversary might attempt prediction.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Designers of cryptographic systems may need to treat hybrid classical generators as requiring extra safeguards or replacement by quantum sources.
  • The same analysis pipeline could be applied to other widely used PRNG families to map their predictability boundaries.
  • Routine use of data-driven predictability checks could become a standard step before deploying any new classical generator in security contexts.

Load-bearing premise

The machine-learning and deep-learning tools reliably identify real predictability in the generated sequences rather than fitting to artifacts of the data or model choices.

What would settle it

Applying the same machine-learning models to quantum random sequences and obtaining prediction accuracy no better than chance while the models succeed on the hybrid classical sequences would support the distinction; the reverse result would undermine it.

read the original abstract

Generating reliable random and pseudo-random sequences is important in many electronic and signal processing systems, such as secure communications, radar, spread-spectrum methods, and autonomous platforms. Although true and quantum random number generators provide stronger unpredictability, classical pseudo-random number generators, including Linear Feedback Shift Registers (LFSRs) and the Mersenne Twister (MT), are still widely used because they are efficient and easy to implement. This work introduces a user-friendly software platform for generating, analyzing, and evaluating the predictability of pseudo-random bit sequences. The software supports two main functions: generating sequences using classical PRNGs and hybrid combinations, and analyzing input sequences through statistical measures and data-driven methods. In particular, hybrid LFSR-MT structures are studied to examine how they affect sequence complexity and resistance to prediction. The platform also includes machine-learning and deep-learning tools to investigate when deterministic PRNGs may remain partially predictable, even when their structure becomes more complex. The results show that algorithmic random sequence generators have inherent limitations in terms of unpredictability, which supports the use of quantum random sequences in security-critical applications. A comparative study between classical LFSR-MT sequences and quantum random sequences shows that quantum randomness offers higher unpredictability due to its non-deterministic physical origin. The potential use of quantum random sequences in jamming applications is also discussed, highlighting their improved robustness against prediction-based attacks. Overall, the proposed software provides a practical tool for analyzing, comparing, and benchmarking random sequence generators in modern electronic, sensing, and quantum-enabled communication systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a software platform for generating pseudo-random bit sequences via LFSR, Mersenne Twister, and hybrid LFSR-MT combinations, together with statistical and data-driven (ML/DL) analysis tools to assess predictability. It claims that the platform's results demonstrate inherent limitations in the unpredictability of classical algorithmic generators, thereby supporting the use of quantum random sequences in security-critical applications such as jamming, and presents a comparative study showing higher unpredictability for quantum sequences due to their physical origin.

Significance. If the empirical ML/DL predictability results hold after proper validation, the platform could serve as a practical benchmarking tool for PRNG complexity in communications and sensing systems, and the comparison with quantum sequences would provide concrete support for preferring quantum RNGs where prediction resistance is required. No machine-checked proofs, reproducible code releases, or parameter-free derivations are described.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim that 'the results show that algorithmic random sequence generators have inherent limitations in terms of unpredictability' is unsupported by any quantitative outputs (prediction accuracies, ROC curves, statistical tests, or error bars), rendering the central empirical conclusion unverifiable from the manuscript text.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that ML/DL tools can detect 'partial predictability' in hybrid LFSR-MT sequences rests on the unexamined assumption that any detected structure is not an artifact of overfitting, architecture choice, or lack of held-out evaluation; no model architectures, training protocols, data splits, or regularization details are supplied to address this.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: the comparative study between classical LFSR-MT and quantum sequences is invoked to conclude 'higher unpredictability' for quantum randomness, yet no metrics, sample sizes, or statistical significance tests for this comparison are reported, leaving the support for the security-application recommendation unsubstantiated.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'user-friendly software platform' is used without any description of the user interface, input/output formats, or availability of the code.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We agree that the abstract must be revised to include quantitative metrics, methodological details, and statistical support for the claims. We will update the abstract accordingly and ensure the main text provides the necessary backing. Below we respond to each major comment.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline claim that 'the results show that algorithmic random sequence generators have inherent limitations in terms of unpredictability' is unsupported by any quantitative outputs (prediction accuracies, ROC curves, statistical tests, or error bars), rendering the central empirical conclusion unverifiable from the manuscript text.

    Authors: We accept the point. The abstract will be revised to report specific quantitative results from the platform, including ML prediction accuracies (e.g., for LFSR, MT, and hybrid cases), NIST statistical test outcomes, and error bars from repeated trials. This will make the claim directly verifiable. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that ML/DL tools can detect 'partial predictability' in hybrid LFSR-MT sequences rests on the unexamined assumption that any detected structure is not an artifact of overfitting, architecture choice, or lack of held-out evaluation; no model architectures, training protocols, data splits, or regularization details are supplied to address this.

    Authors: We agree these details belong in the abstract. The revision will summarize the ML/DL setup, noting held-out test sets, regularization (dropout, L2), cross-validation, and model types (e.g., LSTM, CNN) to demonstrate that detected predictability is not an artifact of overfitting. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the comparative study between classical LFSR-MT and quantum sequences is invoked to conclude 'higher unpredictability' for quantum randomness, yet no metrics, sample sizes, or statistical significance tests for this comparison are reported, leaving the support for the security-application recommendation unsubstantiated.

    Authors: We acknowledge the abstract lacks these specifics. It will be updated to include comparative metrics (prediction accuracy and entropy differences), sample sizes (e.g., sequences of 10^6 bits), and significance tests supporting higher unpredictability for quantum sequences, thereby grounding the recommendation for security applications. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: tool-description paper with empirical outputs only

full rationale

The paper introduces a software platform for PRNG generation (LFSR, MT, hybrids) and predictability analysis via statistical and ML/DL methods. Its central claim—that classical generators have inherent unpredictability limits—is presented as an output of running the described tools on sequences, not as a derivation from equations or fitted parameters. No self-definitional relations, predictions that reduce to fits by construction, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The work is self-contained as a practical tool description whose results are externally falsifiable via the platform itself; no derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the effectiveness of the software platform and its ML analysis tools, but the abstract introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; it relies on standard existing PRNG algorithms and ML methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5818 in / 1036 out tokens · 26489 ms · 2026-06-28T21:58:42.499024+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    J. G. . Proakis and Masoud. Salehi, Digital communications, 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    On a Formal Model of Safe and Scalable Self-driving Cars

    S. Shalev-Shwartz, S. Shammah, and A. Shashua, “On a Formal Model of Safe and Scalable Self-driving Cars,” Aug. 2017, doi: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1708.06374

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.06374 2017

  3. [3]

    Le Chevalier, Principles of Radar and Sonar Signal Processing

    F. Le Chevalier, Principles of Radar and Sonar Signal Processing . Artech, 2002. [Online]. Available: http://ieeex- plore.ieee.org/document/9100710

    arXiv 2002

  4. [4]

    A. J. Menezes, J. Katz, P. C. van Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography . in Discrete Mathe- matics and Its Applications. CRC Press, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?id=MhvcBQAAQBAJ

    1996

  5. [5]

    Applied cryptography : protocols, algorithms, and source code in C,

    Bruce. Schneier, “Applied cryptography : protocols, algorithms, and source code in C,” p. 758, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Stallings, Cryptography and network security : principles and practice

    William. Stallings, Cryptography and network security : principles and practice. Pearson Education Limited, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Goldreich, Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 1

    O. Goldreich, Foundations of Cryptography: Volume 1. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2006

    2006

  8. [8]

    D. Knox. Barton and S. A. . Leonov, Radar technology encyclopedia. Artech House, 1997

    1997

  9. [9]

    B. R. Mahafza, Radar Signal Analysis and Processing Using MATLAB, 1st ed. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2008

    2008

  10. [10]

    M. K. Simon, J. K. Omura, R. A. Scholtz, and B. K. Levitt, Spread spectrum communications; vols. 1 -3. USA: Computer Science Press, Inc., 1985

    1985

  11. [11]

    A. J. Viterbi, CDMA: principles of spread spectrum communication. USA: Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1995

    1995

  12. [12]

    Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the urban challenge,

    C. Urmson et al., “Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the urban challenge,” J. Field Robot., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 425–466, Aug. 2008, doi: 10.1002/rob.20255

    work page doi:10.1002/rob.20255 2008

  13. [13]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? The KITTI vision benchmark suite,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun, “Are we ready for autonomous driving? The KITTI vision benchmark suite,” in 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2012, pp. 3354–3361. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2012.6248074

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2012.6248074 2012

  14. [14]

    Optimized Quantum Random Number Generator for Single Photon LiDAR Interference Suppression,

    Y. Wang, X. Yang, H. Pan, Y. Guo, L. Zuo, and Y. Chen, “Optimized Quantum Random Number Generator for Single Photon LiDAR Interference Suppression,” IEEE Photonics Technology Letters , vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 512 –515, 2025, doi: 10.1109/LPT.2025.3555856

    work page doi:10.1109/lpt.2025.3555856 2025

  15. [15]

    Simulating dynamical features of escape panic,

    D. Helbing, I. Farkas, and T. Vicsek, “Simulating dynamical features of escape panic,” Nature, vol. 407, no. 6803, pp. 487– 490, Sep. 2000, doi: 10.1038/35035023

    work page doi:10.1038/35035023 2000

  16. [16]

    Quantum Random Number Generators,

    M. Herrero -Collantes and J. C. Garcia -Escartin, “Quantum Random Number Generators,” Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015004

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015004 2016

  17. [17]

    D. E. Knuth, The art of computer programming, volume 2 (3rd ed.): seminumerical algorithms . USA: Addison -Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1997

    1997

  18. [18]

    Random Number Generation and QuasimMonte Carlo Methods SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1992

    H. Niederreiter, “Random Number Generation and QuasimMonte Carlo Methods SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1992.”

    1992

  19. [19]

    Random number generation, in Handbook of Computational Statistics,

    P. L’Ecuyer, “Random number generation, in Handbook of Computational Statistics,” Springer Handbooks of Computa- tional Statistics, pp. 35–71, May 2012, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21551-3_3 2012

  20. [20]

    Xorshift RNGs,

    G. Marsaglia, “Xorshift RNGs,” J. Stat. Softw., vol. 8, no. 14, pp. 1–6, 2003, doi: 10.18637/jss.v008.i14

    work page doi:10.18637/jss.v008.i14 2003

  21. [21]

    A Simple Unpredictable Pseudo -Random Number Generator,

    L. Blum, M. Blum, and M. Shub, “A Simple Unpredictable Pseudo -Random Number Generator,” SIAM Journal on Com- puting, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 364–383, 1986, doi: 10.1137/0215025

    work page doi:10.1137/0215025 1986

  22. [22]

    S. W. Golomb, Shift register sequences: secure and limited-access code generators, efficiency code generators, prescribed property generators, mathematical models. World Scientific, 2017

    2017

  23. [23]

    Uniform Random Numbers: Theory and Practice,

    S. Tezuka, “Uniform Random Numbers: Theory and Practice,” 1995. [Online]. Available: https://api.seman- ticscholar.org/CorpusID:117410893

    1995

  24. [24]

    Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,

    P. W. Shor, “Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring,” in Proceedings 35th Annual Sympo- sium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1994, pp. 124–134. doi: 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

    work page doi:10.1109/sfcs.1994.365700 1994

  25. [25]

    Micro-LED-based quantum random number generators,

    H. Lin et al., “Micro-LED-based quantum random number generators,” Opt. Express, vol. 33, no. 11, p. 22154, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1364/OE.559375,

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.559375 2025

  26. [26]

    Compact quantum random number generation using a linear optocoupler,

    Y.-Y. Hu et al., “Compact quantum random number generation using a linear optocoupler,” Opt. Lett., vol. 46, no. 13, p. 3175, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1364/OL.430043,

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.430043 2021

  27. [27]

    S. W. Golomb, Shift Register Sequences . Holden -Day, Inc., 1967. [Online]. Available: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/in- dex.php?md5=5ab8e4d1540ed7d7b87d8ed41e39ab77

    1967

  28. [28]

    Chaos-based cryptography: a brief overview,

    L. Kocarev, “Chaos-based cryptography: a brief overview,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 6 –21, 2001, doi: 10.1109/7384.963463

    work page doi:10.1109/7384.963463 2001

  29. [29]

    Shift-register synthesis and BCH decoding,

    J. Massey, “Shift-register synthesis and BCH decoding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 122 –127, 1969, doi: 10.1109/TIT.1969.1054260

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.1969.1054260 1969

  30. [30]

    R. E. Ziemer and R. L. Peterson, Digital Communications and Spread Spectrum Systems. Macmillan, 1985. [Online]. Avail- able: https://books.google.ru/books?id=dfpSAAAAMAAJ

    1985

  31. [32]

    R. A. Rueppel, Analysis and design of stream ciphers. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1986

    1986

  32. [33]

    GitHub - nccgroup/ML-for-RNGs

    “GitHub - nccgroup/ML-for-RNGs.” Accessed: May 06, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/nccgroup/ML -for- RNGs/tree/main

    2025

  33. [34]

    Cracking Random Number Generators using Machine Learning – Part 2: Mersenne Twister,

    Mostafa Hassan, “Cracking Random Number Generators using Machine Learning – Part 2: Mersenne Twister,” ncc group. Accessed: Aug. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.nccgroup.com/research-blog/cracking-random-number-genera- tors-using-machine-learning-part-2-mersenne-twister/

    2025

  34. [35]

    A Statistical Test Suite for Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators for Cryptographic Applica- tions,

    L. Bassham et al., “A Statistical Test Suite for Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators for Cryptographic Applica- tions,” 2010, Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD . [Online]. Available: https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=906762

    2010

  35. [36]

    Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,

    W. Heisenberg, “Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,” Zeitschrift fur Physik, vol. 43, no. 3–4, pp. 172–198, Mar. 1927, doi: 10.1007/BF01397280

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01397280 1927

  36. [37]

    Realism and the physical world,

    A. J. Leggett, “Realism and the physical world,” Reports on Progress in Physics , vol. 71, no. 2, p. 22001, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/71/2/022001

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/71/2/022001 2008

  37. [38]

    Physics Physique Fizika1, 195–200 (1964) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein -Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Physics Physique Fizika , vol. 1, pp. 195 –200, 1964, doi: 10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    work page doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

  38. [39]

    A. J. Menezes, P. C. van Oorschot, and S. A. Vanstone, Handbook of Applied Cryptography . CRC Press, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/hac/

    2001

  39. [40]

    Special Feature Exhaustive Cryptanalysis of the NBS Data Encryption Standard,

    W. Diffie and M. E. Hellman, “Special Feature Exhaustive Cryptanalysis of the NBS Data Encryption Standard,” Computer (Long. Beach. Calif)., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 74–84, 1977, doi: 10.1109/C-M.1977.217750

    work page doi:10.1109/c-m.1977.217750 1977

  40. [41]

    J. A. Rice, Mathematical statistics and data analysis , 3rd edition. Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage, 2007

    2007

  41. [42]

    Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators,

    E. Barker and J. Kelsey, “Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators,” May 2015, Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD . doi: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-90Ar1

    work page doi:10.6028/nist.sp.800-90ar1 2015

  42. [43]

    Mersenne Twister: A 623 -Dimensionally Equidistributed Uniform Pseudo -Random Number Generator,

    M. Matsumoto and T. Nishimura, “Mersenne Twister: A 623 -Dimensionally Equidistributed Uniform Pseudo -Random Number Generator,” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3 –30, 1998, doi: 10.1145/272991.272995

    work page doi:10.1145/272991.272995 1998

  43. [44]

    J. E. Hopcroft, R. Motwani, and J. D. Ullman, Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation , Third. Boston: Pearson/Addison Wesley, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/ialc.html

    2007

  44. [45]

    Sipser, Introduction to the Theory of Computation, Third

    M. Sipser, Introduction to the Theory of Computation, Third. Boston, MA: Course Technology, 2013

    2013

  45. [46]

    Efficient string matching: an aid to bibliographic search,

    A. V Aho and M. J. Corasick, “Efficient string matching: an aid to bibliographic search,” Commun. ACM, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 333–340, Jun. 1975, doi: 10.1145/360825.360855

    work page doi:10.1145/360825.360855 1975

  46. [47]

    T. H. Cormen, C. E. Leiserson, R. L. Rivest, and C. Stein, Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd ed. The MIT Press, 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction -Algorithms-Thomas-H-Cormen/dp/0262032937%3FSubscrip- tionId%3D13CT5CVB80YFWJEPWS02%26tag%3Dws%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26crea- tive%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0262032937

    arXiv 2001

  47. [48]

    Applications of the Galois Model LFSR in Cryptography,

    D. Gardner, “Applications of the Galois Model LFSR in Cryptography,” May 2016, [Online]. Available: https://reposi- tory.lboro.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Applications_of_the_Galois_Model_LFSR_in_Cryptography/9406865

    arXiv 2016

  48. [49]

    Pseudo random bit generator-Practical approach,

    R. B. Nielsen, “Pseudo random bit generator-Practical approach,” 2007

    2007

  49. [50]

    On the linear complexity of functions of periodic GF(q) sequences,

    J. D. Golic, “On the linear complexity of functions of periodic GF(q) sequences,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 69–75, 1989, doi: 10.1109/18.42178

    work page doi:10.1109/18.42178 1989

  50. [51]

    Encryption Schemes for Computer Confidentiality,

    Pless, “Encryption Schemes for Computer Confidentiality,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C–26, no. 11, pp. 1133– 1136, 1977, doi: 10.1109/TC.1977.1674759

    work page doi:10.1109/tc.1977.1674759 1977

  51. [52]

    Clock-Controlled Shift Registers and Generalized Geffe Key-Stream Generator,

    A. Kholosha, “Clock-Controlled Shift Registers and Generalized Geffe Key-Stream Generator,” in Progress in Cryptology — INDOCRYPT 2001, C. Rangan C. Pandu and Ding, Ed., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001, pp. 287 – 296

    2001

  52. [53]

    Reconstruction of a linear scrambler,

    M. Cluzeau, “Reconstruction of a linear scrambler,” IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory - Proceedings, vol. 56, no. 9, p. 230, 2004, doi: 10.1109/isit.2004.1365271

    work page doi:10.1109/isit.2004.1365271 2004

  53. [54]

    GitHub - kmyk/mersenne-twister-predictor: Predict MT19937 PRNG, from preceding 624 generated numbers. There is a specialization for the ‘random’ of Python standard library

    Kimiyuki Onaka, “GitHub - kmyk/mersenne-twister-predictor: Predict MT19937 PRNG, from preceding 624 generated numbers. There is a specialization for the ‘random’ of Python standard library.” Accessed: Mar. 11, 2024. [Online]. Avail- able: https://github.com/kmyk/mersenne-twister-predictor

    2024

  54. [55]

    Deep learning for AI,

    Y. Bengio, Y. Lecun, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning for AI,” Commun. ACM, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 58 –65, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1145/3448250

    work page doi:10.1145/3448250 2021

  55. [56]

    Deep learning,

    Y. Lecun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 436–444, May 2015, doi: 10.1038/na- ture14539

    work page doi:10.1038/na- 2015

  56. [57]

    Deep learning.Nature, 521(7553):436– 444, 2015

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville, “Deep Learning - whole book,” Nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, p. 800, 2016, Accessed: May 13, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://goodfeli.github.io/dlbook/%0Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

    work page doi:10.1038/nature14539 2016

  57. [58]

    Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators , journal =

    K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, “Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators,” Neural Net- works, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 359–366, 1989, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8

    work page doi:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 1989

  58. [59]

    Quantum random number generation,

    X. Ma, X. Yuan, Z. Cao, B. Qi, and Z. Zhang, “Quantum random number generation,” Oct. 2015, doi: 10.1038/npjqi.2016.21

    work page doi:10.1038/npjqi.2016.21 2015

  59. [61]

    A visual analysis method of randomness for classifying and ranking pseudo -random number generators,

    J. Machicao, Q. Q. Ngo, V. Molchanov, L. Linsen, and O. Bruno, “A visual analysis method of randomness for classifying and ranking pseudo -random number generators,” Inf. Sci. (N. Y). , vol. 558, pp. 1 –20, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.10.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2020.10.041 2021

  60. [62]

    Exploring AES Encryption Implementation Through Quantum Computing Techniques ,

    A. Gorine and M. Suhaib, “Exploring AES Encryption Implementation Through Quantum Computing Techniques ,” Amer- ican Journal of Computer Science and Technology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 139–155, 2024, doi: 10.11648/j.ajcst.20240704.12

    work page doi:10.11648/j.ajcst.20240704.12 2024

  61. [63]

    Quantum generators of random numbers,

    M. M. Jacak, P. Jóźwiak, J. Niemczuk, and J. E. Jacak, “Quantum generators of random numbers,” Sci. Rep., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 16108, 2021, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95388-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-95388-7 2021

  62. [64]

    Practical attack on a quantum random-number generator via injection of source-signal fluctuations,

    B. Zhang et al., “Practical attack on a quantum random-number generator via injection of source-signal fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 24, no. 1, p. 014008, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1103/k3c9-ngt1

    work page doi:10.1103/k3c9-ngt1 2025

  63. [65]

    R. A. Poisel, Modern Communications Jamming Principles and Techniques , 2nd ed. Artech House Publishers, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=55f0e61306ef60055a3805b298e5d5cd

    2011

  64. [66]

    Enhancing Communication Security in Drones Using QRNG in Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum,

    J. de Curtò, I. de Zarzà, J. C. Cano , and C. T. Calafate, “Enhancing Communication Security in Drones Using QRNG in Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum,” Future Internet, vol. 16, no. 11, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.3390/fi16110412

    work page doi:10.3390/fi16110412 2024