Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Soft Computing

On the effects of pseudorandom and quantum-random number generators in soft computing

Jordan J. Bird, Anikó Ekárt, Diego R. Faria

Published Oct 28, 2019• 18 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract In this work, we argue that the implications of pseudorandom and quantum-random number generators (PRNG and QRNG) inexplicably affect the performances and behaviours of various machine learning models that require a random input. These implications are yet to be explored in soft computing until this work. We use a CPU and a QPU to generate random numbers for multiple machine learning techniques. Random numbers are employed in the random initial weight distributions of dense and convolutional neural networks, in which results show a profound difference in learning patterns for the two. In 50 dense neural networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), QRNG increases over PRNG for accent classification at + 0.1%, and QRNG exceeded PRNG for mental state EEG classification by + 2.82%. In 50 convolutional neural networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), the MNIST and CIFAR-10 problems are benchmarked, and in MNIST the QRNG experiences a higher starting accuracy than the PRNG but ultimately only exceeds it by 0.02%. In CIFAR-10, the QRNG outperforms PRNG by + 0.92%. Then-random split of a Random Tree is enhanced towards and new Quantum Random Tree (QRT) model, which has differing classification abilities to its classical counterpart, 200 trees are trained and compared (100 PRNG/100 QRNG). Using the accent and EEG classification data sets, a QRT seemed inferior to a RT as it performed on average worse by − 0.12%. This pattern is also seen in the EEG classification problem, where a QRT performs worse than a RT by − 0.28%. Finally, the QRT is ensembled into a Quantum Random Forest (QRF), which also has a noticeable effect when compared to the standard Random Forest (RF). Ten to 100 ensembles of trees are benchmarked for the accent and EEG classification problems. In accent classification, the best RF (100 RT) outperforms the best QRF (100 QRF) by 0.14% accuracy. In EEG classification, the best RF (100 RT) outperforms the best QRF (100 QRT) by 0.08% but is extremely more complex, requiring twice the amount of trees in committee. All differences are observed to be situationally positive or negative and thus are likely data dependent in their observed functional behaviour.

DOI
10.1007/s00500-019-04450-0

Related papers

On the Effects of Pseudo and Quantum Random Number Generators in Soft Computing

Jordan J. Bird, Anikó Ekárt, Diego R. Faria

In this work, we argue that the implications of Pseudo and Quantum Random Number Generators (PRNG and QRNG) inexplicably affect the performances and behaviours of various machine learning models that require a random input. These implications are yet to be explored in Soft Computing until this work. We use a CPU and a QPU to generate random numbers for multiple Machine Learning techniques. Random numbers are employed in the random initial weight distributions of Dense and Convolutional Neural Networks, in which results show a profound difference in learning patterns for the two. In 50 Dense Neural Networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), QRNG increases over PRNG for accent classification at +0.1%, and QRNG exceeded PRNG for mental state EEG classification by +2.82%. In 50 Convolutional Neural Networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), the MNIST and CIFAR-10 problems are benchmarked, in MNIST the QRNG experiences a higher starting accuracy than the PRNG but ultimately only exceeds it by 0.02%. In CIFAR-10, the QRNG outperforms PRNG by +0.92%. The n-random split of a Random Tree is enhanced towards and new Quantum Random Tree (QRT) model, which has differing classification abilities to its classical counterpart, 200 trees are trained and compared (100 PRNG/100 QRNG). Using the accent and EEG classification datasets, a QRT seemed inferior to a RT as it performed on average worse by -0.12%. This pattern is also seen in the EEG classification problem, where a QRT performs worse than a RT by -0.28%. Finally, the QRT is ensembled into a Quantum Random Forest (QRF), which also has a noticeable effect when compared to the standard Random Forest (RF)... ABSTRACT SHORTENED DUE TO ARXIV LIMIT

arXiv:1910.04701•Oct 10, 2019•1 citation

Can Machine Learning Distinguish Pseudorandom from Entropy-Backed Randomness? An Experimental Study

Hrithwika Srihari

Randomness is a scarce and precious resource: cryptography, scientific simulation, gambling regulation, and even foundational physics all depend on being able to produce numbers that no one — not even the generator itself — could have predicted in advance. Classical computers cannot create such numbers on their own, because they are deterministic machines; every pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) is, in principle, a fixed algorithm whose entire output is fixed the moment a seed is chosen. Quantum random number generators (QRNGs) promise something categorically different: unpredictability guaranteed by the indeterminism of quantum measurement itself. This paper examines whether “true” randomness is achievable at all, surveys the physical arguments (rooted in Bell's theorem) that quantum measurement outcomes are not merely unknown but undetermined, and then asks a narrower, more computational question: can a machine-learning model tell the difference between the output of a well-designed PRNG and genuine entropy? We built and tested a small experimental pipeline comparing a deliberately flawed linear-congruential generator, a mildly weak variant, two industry-standard PRNGs (Mersenne Twister and PCG64), and operating-system entropy (as an accessible proxy for physically-sourced randomness). Gradient-boosted and logistic-regression classifiers detected the flawed generator with 100% accuracy but could not beat chance (49–51%) against modern PRNGs, mirroring published results in the cryptographic and quantum-optics literature. We conclude that while true randomness is very plausibly achievable through quantum processes certified by Bell-inequality violation, no black-box statistical or machine-learning test — however sophisticated — can, on principle, certify the difference between a good PRNG and true randomness from output alone; the distinction is one of provenance and physical mechanism, not detectable pattern.

•Sep 14, 2026•0 citations

Quantum Random Number Generators : Benchmarking and Challenges

David Cirauqui, Miguel Ángel García-March, Guillem Guigó i Corominas +5 more

We discuss the current state of the art of Quantum Random Number Generators (QRNG) and their possible applications in the search for quantum advantages. To this aim, we first discuss a possible way of benchmarking QRNG by applying them to the computation of complicated and hard to realize classical simulations, such as critical dynamics in two-dimensional Ising lattices. These are performed with the help of computing devices based on field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or graphic processing units (GPUs). The results obtained for QRNG are compared with those obtained by classical pseudo-random number generators (PRNG) of various qualities. Monte Carlo simulations of critical dynamics in moderate lattice sizes (128$\times$128) start to be sensitive to the correlations present in pseudo-random numbers sequences, allowing us to detect them. By comparing our analysis with that of Ref. [PRE {\bf 93}, 022113 (2016)], we estimate the requirements for QRNGs in terms of speed, rapidity of access, and efficiency to achieve the objective of quantum advantage with respect to the best PRNGs. We discuss the technical challenges associated with this objective.

arXiv:2206.05328•Jun 10, 2022•5 citations

Deep Learning-based Randomness Assessment of Quantum Random Number Generators

Hamid Tebyanian

This paper explores a novel randomness evaluation method for data produced by quantum random number generators (QRNGs), leveraging quantum mechanics to achieve highly random data. We employ neural networks and machine learning techniques to analyze the operational principles of QRNGs, enabling the test suites to assess the generators based on their predictability scores. Our findings demonstrate that our model’s ability to predict outcomes surpasses that of comparable approaches. Additionally, we discuss the optimal timing for conducting these tests—specifically, analyzing the raw output from QRNGs before processing through an extractor yields the best performance.

•Jan 6, 2025•0 citations

Non Deterministic Pseudorandom Generator for Quantum Key Distribution

Arun Mishra, Kanaka Raju P., Anupama Arjun Pandit +1 more

Quantum Key Distribution(QKD) thrives to achieve perfect secrecy of One time Pad (OTP) through quantum processes. One of the crucial components of QKD are Quantum Random Number Generators(QRNG) for generation of keys. Unfortunately, these QRNG does not immediately produce usable bits rather it produces raw bits with high entropy but low uniformity which can be hardly used by any cryptographic system. A lot of pre-processing is required before the random numbers generated by QRNG to be usable. This causes a bottle neck in random number generation rate as well as QKD system relying on it. To avoid this lacuna of post-processing methods employed as a central part of Quantum Random Number Generators alternative approaches that satisfy the entropy(non determinism) and quantum security is explored. Pseudorandom generators based on quantum secure primitives could be an alternative to the post-processing problem as PRNGs are way more faster than any random number generator employing physical randomness (quantum mechanical process in QRNG) as well as it can provide uniform bits required for cryptography application. In this work we propose a pseudorandom generator based on post quantum primitives. The central theme of this random number generator is designing PRNG with non deterministic entropy generated through hard lattice problem - Learning with errors. We leverage the non determinism by Gaussian errors of LWE to construct non-deterministic PRNG satisfying the entropy requirement of QKD. Further, the paper concludes by evaluating the PRNG through Die-Harder Test.

arXiv:2311.03024•Nov 6, 2023•0 citations

On the effects of biased quantum random numbers on the initialization of artificial neural networks

Raoul Heese, Moritz Wolter, Sascha Mücke +2 more

Abstract Recent advances in practical quantum computing have led to a variety of cloud-based quantum computing platforms that allow researchers to evaluate their algorithms on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices. A common property of quantum computers is that they can exhibit instances of true randomness as opposed to pseudo-randomness obtained from classical systems. Investigating the effects of such true quantum randomness in the context of machine learning is appealing, and recent results vaguely suggest that benefits can indeed be achieved from the use of quantum random numbers. To shed some more light on this topic, we empirically study the effects of hardware-biased quantum random numbers on the initialization of artificial neural network weights in numerical experiments. We find no statistically significant difference in comparison with unbiased quantum random numbers as well as biased and unbiased random numbers from a classical pseudo-random number generator. The quantum random numbers for our experiments are obtained from real quantum hardware.

arXiv:2108.13329•Machine Learning•Jan 16, 2024•14 citations
Abstract In this work, we argue that the implications of pseudorandom and quantum-random number generators (PRNG and QRNG) inexplicably affect the performances and behaviours of various machine learning models that require a random input. These implications are yet to be explored in soft computing until this work. We use a CPU and a QPU to generate random numbers for multiple machine learning techniques. Random numbers are employed in the random initial weight distributions of dense and convolutional neural networks, in which results show a profound difference in learning patterns for the two. In 50 dense neural networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), QRNG increases over PRNG for accent classification at + 0.1%, and QRNG exceeded PRNG for mental state EEG classification by + 2.82%. In 50 convolutional neural networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), the MNIST and CIFAR-10 problems are benchmarked, and in MNIST the QRNG experiences a higher starting accuracy than the PRNG but ultimately only exceeds it by 0.02%. In CIFAR-10, the QRNG outperforms PRNG by + 0.92%. Then-random split of a Random Tree is enhanced towards and new Quantum Random Tree (QRT) model, which has differing classification abilities to its classical counterpart, 200 trees are trained and compared (100 PRNG/100 QRNG). Using the accent and EEG classification data sets, a QRT seemed inferior to a RT as it performed on average worse by − 0.12%. This pattern is also seen in the EEG classification problem, where a QRT performs worse than a RT by − 0.28%. Finally, the QRT is ensembled into a Quantum Random Forest (QRF), which also has a noticeable effect when compared to the standard Random Forest (RF). Ten to 100 ensembles of trees are benchmarked for the accent and EEG classification problems. In accent classification, the best RF (100 RT) outperforms the best QRF (100 QRF) by 0.14% accuracy. In EEG classification, the best RF (100 RT) outperforms the best QRF (100 QRT) by 0.08% but is extremely more complex, requiring twice the amount of trees in committee. All differences are observed to be situationally positive or negative and thus are likely data dependent in their observed functional behaviour.
In this work, we argue that the implications of Pseudo and Quantum Random Number Generators (PRNG and QRNG) inexplicably affect the performances and behaviours of various machine learning models that require a random input. These implications are yet to be explored in Soft Computing until this work. We use a CPU and a QPU to generate random numbers for multiple Machine Learning techniques. Random numbers are employed in the random initial weight distributions of Dense and Convolutional Neural Networks, in which results show a profound difference in learning patterns for the two. In 50 Dense Neural Networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), QRNG increases over PRNG for accent classification at +0.1%, and QRNG exceeded PRNG for mental state EEG classification by +2.82%. In 50 Convolutional Neural Networks (25 PRNG/25 QRNG), the MNIST and CIFAR-10 problems are benchmarked, in MNIST the QRNG experiences a higher starting accuracy than the PRNG but ultimately only exceeds it by 0.02%. In CIFAR-10, the QRNG outperforms PRNG by +0.92%. The n-random split of a Random Tree is enhanced towards and new Quantum Random Tree (QRT) model, which has differing classification abilities to its classical counterpart, 200 trees are trained and compared (100 PRNG/100 QRNG). Using the accent and EEG classification datasets, a QRT seemed inferior to a RT as it performed on average worse by -0.12%. This pattern is also seen in the EEG classification problem, where a QRT performs worse than a RT by -0.28%. Finally, the QRT is ensembled into a Quantum Random Forest (QRF), which also has a noticeable effect when compared to the standard Random Forest (RF)... ABSTRACT SHORTENED DUE TO ARXIV LIMIT
Randomness is a scarce and precious resource: cryptography, scientific simulation, gambling regulation, and even foundational physics all depend on being able to produce numbers that no one — not even the generator itself — could have predicted in advance. Classical computers cannot create such numbers on their own, because they are deterministic machines; every pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) is, in principle, a fixed algorithm whose entire output is fixed the moment a seed is chosen. Quantum random number generators (QRNGs) promise something categorically different: unpredictability guaranteed by the indeterminism of quantum measurement itself. This paper examines whether “true” randomness is achievable at all, surveys the physical arguments (rooted in Bell's theorem) that quantum measurement outcomes are not merely unknown but undetermined, and then asks a narrower, more computational question: can a machine-learning model tell the difference between the output of a well-designed PRNG and genuine entropy? We built and tested a small experimental pipeline comparing a deliberately flawed linear-congruential generator, a mildly weak variant, two industry-standard PRNGs (Mersenne Twister and PCG64), and operating-system entropy (as an accessible proxy for physically-sourced randomness). Gradient-boosted and logistic-regression classifiers detected the flawed generator with 100% accuracy but could not beat chance (49–51%) against modern PRNGs, mirroring published results in the cryptographic and quantum-optics literature. We conclude that while true randomness is very plausibly achievable through quantum processes certified by Bell-inequality violation, no black-box statistical or machine-learning test — however sophisticated — can, on principle, certify the difference between a good PRNG and true randomness from output alone; the distinction is one of provenance and physical mechanism, not detectable pattern.
We discuss the current state of the art of Quantum Random Number Generators (QRNG) and their possible applications in the search for quantum advantages. To this aim, we first discuss a possible way of benchmarking QRNG by applying them to the computation of complicated and hard to realize classical simulations, such as critical dynamics in two-dimensional Ising lattices. These are performed with the help of computing devices based on field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) or graphic processing units (GPUs). The results obtained for QRNG are compared with those obtained by classical pseudo-random number generators (PRNG) of various qualities. Monte Carlo simulations of critical dynamics in moderate lattice sizes (128$\times$128) start to be sensitive to the correlations present in pseudo-random numbers sequences, allowing us to detect them. By comparing our analysis with that of Ref. [PRE {\bf 93}, 022113 (2016)], we estimate the requirements for QRNGs in terms of speed, rapidity of access, and efficiency to achieve the objective of quantum advantage with respect to the best PRNGs. We discuss the technical challenges associated with this objective.
This paper explores a novel randomness evaluation method for data produced by quantum random number generators (QRNGs), leveraging quantum mechanics to achieve highly random data. We employ neural networks and machine learning techniques to analyze the operational principles of QRNGs, enabling the test suites to assess the generators based on their predictability scores. Our findings demonstrate that our model’s ability to predict outcomes surpasses that of comparable approaches. Additionally, we discuss the optimal timing for conducting these tests—specifically, analyzing the raw output from QRNGs before processing through an extractor yields the best performance.
Quantum Key Distribution(QKD) thrives to achieve perfect secrecy of One time Pad (OTP) through quantum processes. One of the crucial components of QKD are Quantum Random Number Generators(QRNG) for generation of keys. Unfortunately, these QRNG does not immediately produce usable bits rather it produces raw bits with high entropy but low uniformity which can be hardly used by any cryptographic system. A lot of pre-processing is required before the random numbers generated by QRNG to be usable. This causes a bottle neck in random number generation rate as well as QKD system relying on it. To avoid this lacuna of post-processing methods employed as a central part of Quantum Random Number Generators alternative approaches that satisfy the entropy(non determinism) and quantum security is explored. Pseudorandom generators based on quantum secure primitives could be an alternative to the post-processing problem as PRNGs are way more faster than any random number generator employing physical randomness (quantum mechanical process in QRNG) as well as it can provide uniform bits required for cryptography application. In this work we propose a pseudorandom generator based on post quantum primitives. The central theme of this random number generator is designing PRNG with non deterministic entropy generated through hard lattice problem - Learning with errors. We leverage the non determinism by Gaussian errors of LWE to construct non-deterministic PRNG satisfying the entropy requirement of QKD. Further, the paper concludes by evaluating the PRNG through Die-Harder Test.
Abstract Recent advances in practical quantum computing have led to a variety of cloud-based quantum computing platforms that allow researchers to evaluate their algorithms on noisy intermediate-scale quantum devices. A common property of quantum computers is that they can exhibit instances of true randomness as opposed to pseudo-randomness obtained from classical systems. Investigating the effects of such true quantum randomness in the context of machine learning is appealing, and recent results vaguely suggest that benefits can indeed be achieved from the use of quantum random numbers. To shed some more light on this topic, we empirically study the effects of hardware-biased quantum random numbers on the initialization of artificial neural network weights in numerical experiments. We find no statistically significant difference in comparison with unbiased quantum random numbers as well as biased and unbiased random numbers from a classical pseudo-random number generator. The quantum random numbers for our experiments are obtained from real quantum hardware.