arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 1811.04035cs.CRcs.MS
收藏

寻找优质伪随机数生成器:综述与实证研究

A Search for Good Pseudo-random Number Generators : Survey and Empirical Studies

Kamalika Bhattacharjee, Sukanta Das

AI总结:

本文综述并分类伪随机数生成器,选取30个代表性生成器进行统计与图形实证测试,最终按综合表现排序以筛选优质生成器。

摘要:

本文旨在通过简要综述伪随机数生成器(PRNGs)发展历史中所提出的各类生成器,验证其声称的性能,并在相同平台上基于强实证测试对它们进行排序,从而寻找所谓的“优质”生成器。为此,本文对迄今为止已发展的PRNG类型进行了探索,并将其划分为三类——基于线性同余生成器、基于线性反馈移位寄存器和基于元胞自动机。从每一类中选取那些自称“优质”且被广泛使用的知名生成器。通过这种方式共选出30个PRNG,并对其进行了两类实证测试——使用Diehard测试套件、TestU01库中的rabbit测试组以及NIST统计测试套件进行的盲统计测试,以及图形测试(格点测试和时空图测试)。最后,将所选PRNG分为24组,并根据其在所有实证测试中的综合表现进行排序。

英文摘要:

This paper targets to search so-called \emph{good} generators by doing a brief survey over the generators developed in the history of pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs), verify their claims and rank them based on strong empirical tests in same platforms. To do this, the genre of PRNGs developed so far are explored and classified into three groups -- linear congruential generator based, linear feedback shift register based and cellular automata based. From each group, the well-known widely used generators which claimed themselves to be `\emph{good}' are chosen. Overall $30$ PRNGs are selected in this way on which two types of empirical testing are done -- blind statistical tests with Diehard battery of tests, battery \emph{rabbit} of TestU01 library and NIST statistical test-suite as well as graphical tests (lattice test and space-time diagram test). Finally, the selected PRNGs are divided into $24$ groups and are ranked according to their overall performance in all empirical tests.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑