Re: diehard and ent results quesion
From: Bryan Olson (fakeaddress@nowhere.org)
Date: 02/20/03
- Next message: Bryan Olson: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- Next in thread: Cristiano: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:23:40 GMT
Douglas A. Gwyn wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>>The obvious question, open at least in this thread: is there a
>>simple computation for entropy, under the same assumptions, that
>>is unbiased?
>
> Usually for small samples (where this matters) I instead use
> Kullback's information statistic to discriminate between
> hypotheses.
That's not the situation here. If we knew of a statistic that
should differ between a given generator and a random source,
then we'd be in the market for likelihood estimation.
Here, we're given the stream and asked if it's random. We may
be able to find a statistic that lets us confidently reject the
hypothesis that it's random, but no matter how many tests we
run, we can never reject that it's non-random.
That said, there's every reason to ignore ent's so-called
"entropy" statistic. It's labeling in the output has misguided
many people. It's computed solely from the frequency counts,
and as Cristiano pointed out, the Chi-square test does a much
better job of that. The fact that it's biased is just one more
defect.
-- --Bryan
- Next message: Bryan Olson: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- In reply to: Douglas A. Gwyn: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- Next in thread: Cristiano: "Re: diehard and ent results quesion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|