| Literature DB >> 34149189 |
Isaac Sami Doubla1,2, Zeric Tabekoueng Njitacke1,3, Sone Ekonde3, Nestor Tsafack1,2, J D D Nkapkop4, Jacques Kengne1.
Abstract
In this paper, the dynamics of a non-autonomous tabu learning two-neuron model is investigated. The model is obtained by building a tabu learning two-neuron (TLTN) model with a composite hyperbolic tangent function consisting of three hyperbolic tangent functions with different offsets. The possibility to adjust the compound activation function is exploited to report the sensitivity of non-trivial equilibrium points with respect to the parameters. Analysis tools like bifurcation diagram, Lyapunov exponents, phase portraits, and basin of attraction are used to explore various windows in which the neuron model under the consideration displays the uncovered phenomenon of the coexistence of up to six disconnected stable states for the same set of system parameters in a TLTN. In addition to the multistability, nonlinear phenomena such as period-doubling bifurcation, hysteretic dynamics, and parallel bifurcation branches are found when the control parameter is tuned. The analog circuit is built in PSPICE environment, and simulations are performed to validate the obtained results as well as the correctness of the numerical methods. Finally, an encryption/decryption algorithm is designed based on a modified Julia set and confusion-diffusion operations with the sequences of the proposed TLTN model. The security performances of the built cryptosystem are analyzed in terms of computational time (CT = 1.82), encryption throughput (ET = 151.82 MBps), number of cycles (NC = 15.80), NPCR = 99.6256, UACI = 33.6512, χ 2-values = 243.7786, global entropy = 7.9992, and local entropy = 7.9083. Note that the presented values are the optimal results. These results demonstrate that the algorithm is highly secured compared to some fastest neuron chaos-based cryptosystems and is suitable for a sensitive field like IoMT security.Entities:
Keywords: Image encryption; Modified Julia set; Multistability; Tabu learning two neurons
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149189 PMCID: PMC8199851 DOI: 10.1007/s00521-021-06130-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Comput Appl ISSN: 0941-0643 Impact factor: 5.606
Summary of some recent work addressed on tabu neural networks
| Works | Number of neurons | Activation function type | Number of coexisting attractors | Implementation | Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen and Li [ | 1 | 0 | SPICE simulation environment | No | |
| 2 | |||||
| Bao et al. [ | 1 | 2 | Multisim circuit simulations and hardware experiments | No | |
| Zhu et al. [ | 2 | 2 | Hardware experiments FPGA-based | No | |
| This present Work | 2 | 6 | PSPICE circuit simulations | Yes |
Fig. 1Existence of different nonlinearities compound activation function, due to and constants in (a) and (b), respectively
Fig. 2Function curve described by Eq. 9 and their intersection points with respect to parameters ; equilibrium points varying with respective parameters and in (a) and (b), respectively
Equilibrium points states, their eigenvalues and stabilities for some values of the learning rate
| Equilibrium points States | Eigen values | Stabilities | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.196 | 39.1284 + 0.0000i −0.2528 + 1.3851i −0.2528 – 1.3851i −0.0228 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | |
3.9097 + 0.0000i −0.1000 + 0.0000i −0.1000 – 0.0000i −0.0236 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle point | ||
4.1681 + 0.0000i −0.1156 + 0.4435i −0.1156 – 0.4435i −0.0216 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
3.8262 + 0.0000i −0.2981 + 1.4708i −0.2981 – 1.4708i −0.0216 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
| 0.2089 | 39.1284 + 0.0000i −0.2527 + 1.4317i −0.2527 – 1.4317i −0.0229 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | |
3.9097 + 0.0000i −0.1000 + 0.0000i −0.1000 – 0.0000i −0.0236 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle point | ||
4.1363 + 0.0000i −0.1146 + 0.4432i −0.1146 – 0.4432i −0.0217 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
3.7723 + 0.0000i −0.3012 + 1.5205i −0.3012 – 1.5205i −0.0217 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
| 0.25 | 39.1286 + 0.0000i −0.2527 + 1.5710i −0.2527 – 1.5710i −0.0233 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | |
3.9097 + 0.0000i −0.1000 + 0.0000i −0.1000 – 0.0000i −0.0236 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle point | ||
4.0986 + 0.0000i −0.1121 + 0.4420i −0.1121 – 0.4420i −0.0220 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
3.7051 + 0.0000i −0.3090 + 1.6670i −0.3090 – 1.6670i −0.0220 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
| 0.28 | 39.1287 + 0.0000i −0.2527 + 1.6653i −0.2527 – 1.6653i −0.0234 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | |
3.9097 + 0.0000i −0.1000 + 0.0000i −0.1000 – 0.0000i −0.0236 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle point | ||
4.1241 + 0.0000i −0.1107 + 0.4409i −0.1107 – 0.4409i −0.0222 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus | ||
3.7089 + 0.0000i −0.3136 + 1.7651i −0.3136 – 1.7651i −0.0222 + 0.0000i | Unstable saddle-focus |
Fig. 3Bifurcation diagrams show the local maximum of in term of the learning (rate control parameter) in (a) and his corresponding Lyapunov spectrum in (b)
Fig. 4Projection of symmetrical chaotic attractors on different planes. These attractors are obtained for and by changing sign of the initial conditions
Fig. 5Enlargement of bifurcation diagram of Fig. 3a in the range
Fig. 6Enlargement of bifurcation diagram of Fig. 5 in the range
Fig. 7Enlargement of bifurcation diagram of Fig. 5 in the range
Methods used to obtain coexisting bifurcation diagrams of Fig. 3 and its enlargements of Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
| Figure | Control parameter range | Color diagram | Scanning direction | Initial starting condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figure | Red | Upward | ||
| Blue | Upward | |||
| Figure | Red | Upward | ||
| Blue | Upward | |||
| Magenta | Downward | |||
| Green | Downward | |||
| Figure | Red | Upward | ||
| Blue | Upward | |||
| Magenta | Downward | |||
| Green | Downward | |||
| Figure | Red | Upward | ||
| Blue | Upward | |||
| Magenta | Downward | |||
| Green | Downward | |||
| Cyan | Upward | |||
| Black | Downward |
Fig. 8Representation the phase portraits of the coexistence of four different attractors in plane, showing: period-4 limit cycles (low and upper), chaotic attractors (low and upper), and its corresponding cross section of basin with respective colors in ©. These attractors are obtained for and for initial conditions and , respectively
Fig. 9Representation the phase portraits of the coexistence of four different symmetric chaotic attractors (a, b) in plane and its corresponding cross section of basin with respective colors in ©. These attractors are obtained for and for initial conditions and , respectively
Fig. 10Representation the phase portraits of the coexistence of six different symmetric attractors in plane, showing: period-1 limit cycle (low and upper) in (a), peiod-6 limit cycles (low and upper) and chaotic attractors (low and upper) and its corresponding cross section of basin with respective colors in (d). These attractors are obtained for and for initial conditions , and , respectively
Fig. 11Influence of the variation in two parameters , to the dynamical behavior
Fig. 12Influence of the variation in two parameters , to the dynamical behavior
Fig. 13Synthesized circuit of the approximate activation function using hyperbolic tangent modules
Fig. 14Capture in Pspice of the approximation of the compound activation function given in Fig. 13, effectively validating the numerical results of Fig. 1a
Fig. 15Analog circuit of non-autonomous tabu learning neuron with two neurons
Fig. 16Representation in Pspice of the complexity of symmetrical chaotic attractors for in different planes. These attractors were obtained for initial conditions
Fig. 17Representation in Pspice of the coexistence of four symmetrical attractors for in: a period-4 limit cycles (Low and Upper) and b chaotic attractors (Low and Upper). These attractors were obtained for initial conditions and , respectively
Fig. 18Visualization of a the traditional Julia set for c = − 0.745429 and b the modified Julia set for c =—0.745429 and a = 25
Fig. 19Structure of the secure IoMT system
Fig. 20Structure of the cryptosystem
Fig. 21Visual test of the dataset images. It is observed that the plain medical images are no more recognizable after encryption
Fig. 22Histograms for each plain data set and its corresponding cipher
Chi-square values for each encrypted test data
| Images | Decision | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R | G | B | Average | ||
| Img01 | 45,603.9531 | 22,340.4218 | 28,854.7500 | 32,266.3750 | Non-uniform |
| Enc-Img01 | 257.3984 | 252.0312 | 243.7656 | 251.0651 | |
| Img02 | 76,521.1546 | 11,764.2320 | 57,778.7289 | 48,688.0385 | Non-uniform |
| Enc-Img02 | 201.6640 | 250.4296 | 279.2421 | 243.7786 | |
| Img03 | 78,081.5000 | 60,018.4843 | 68,009.5078 | 68,703.1640 | Non-uniform |
| Enc-Img03 | 220.8046 | 253.7578 | 270.8437 | 248.4687 | |
| Img04 | – | – | – | 1,095,300 | Non-uniform |
| Enc-Img04 | – | – | – | 261.0249 | |
Correlation coefficients of each encrypted color test data
| Images | Plan | R | G | B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enc-Img01 | H | − 0.0051 | − 0.0033 | − 0.0027 |
| V | 0.0051 | 0.0031 | 0.0045 | |
| D | − 0.0017 | − 0.0024 | − 0.0005 | |
| Enc-Img02 | H | − 0.0051 | − 0.0026 | − 0.0034 |
| V | 0.0052 | 0.0038 | 0.0021 | |
| D | − 0.0003 | − 0.0014 | − 0.0001 | |
| Enc-Img03 | H | − 0.0040 | − 0.0043 | − 0.0035 |
| V | 0.0024 | 0.0036 | 0.0038 | |
| D | − 0.0009 | − 0.0033 | 0.0002 |
Fig. 23Distribution of correlation for plain data set and corresponding cipher
NPCR and UACI of each encrypted test data
| Images | NPCR (%) | UACI (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Img01 | 99.6200 | 33.6512 |
| Img02 | 99.6256 | 33.6147 |
| Img03 | 99.6098 | 33.5823 |
| Img04 | 99.5947 | 33.6019 |
Global and local entropy of each encrypted test data
| Images | Global entropy | Local entropy |
|---|---|---|
| Enc-Img01 | 7.9990 | 7.9051 |
| Enc-Img02 | 7.9989 | 7.9059 |
| Enc-Img03 | 7.9992 | 7.9083 |
| Enc-Img04 | 7.9978 | 7.9071 |
Fig. 24Img03 is encrypted, occluded and decrypted with success to illustrate occlusion attacks
Fig. 25Img02 is decrypted with various keys to illustrate key sensitivity
Computational time (in milliseconds) for various size test images and comparison with existing works
| Algorithm | Img01 | Img02 | Img03 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 256 × 256 | 512 × 512 | 1024 × 1024 | 256 × 256 | 512 × 512 | 1024 × 1024 | 256 × 256 | 512 × 512 | 1024 × 1024 | |
| [ | 7.79 | 31.10 | 124.64 | 5.82 | 28.09 | 120.42 | 9.80 | 38.07 | 129.43 |
| [ | 4.60 | 18.06 | 54.35 | 3.86 | 12.49 | 50.15 | 8.21 | 27.92 | 61.02 |
| [ | 1270 | 5070 | 20,560 | 986.05 | 40,256 | 17,285 | 1586 | 8459 | 25,785 |
ET and NC computed with 512 × 512 × 3 bytes version of Img01
| Algorithm | ET (MBps) | NC |
|---|---|---|
| [ | 24.06 | 122.85 |
| [ | 41.52 | 62.00 |
| [ | 0.14 | 94.60 |
Comparative analysis for Img01 in terms of computational time (CT), Encryption Throughput (ET), Number of Cycles (NC), NPCR, UACI, χ2-values, entropy and key sequence
| Algorithm | CT(ms) | ET (MBps) | NC | NPCR | UACI | Entropy | Key sequence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global | Local | |||||||
| TLN | ||||||||
| [ | 31.10 | 24.06 | 122.85 | 99.6340 | 33.5800 | 7.9994 | 7.9153 | Arnold map |
| [ | 18.06 | 41.52 | 62.00 | 99.6093 | 33.4480 | 7.9996 | 7.9073 | 1-D map |
| [ | 5070 | 0.14 | 94.60 | 99.6184 | 33.6157 | 7.9981 | 7.9027 | Logistic map |
| [ | NR | NR | NR | 99.6500 | 33.4600 | 7.9969 | NR | CNN |
| [ | NR | NR | NR | 99.6170 | 33.4360 | 7.997 | NR | HNN |
NR refers to Not Reported