Re: random .. ?

From: David Wagner (daw_at_taverner.cs.berkeley.edu)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:56:05 +0000 (UTC)

Cristiano wrote:
>I'd say that DH seems better-suited for testing 32-bit pseudo-random
>generators (once you fix all the bugs).

IMHO, DIEHARD is not very useful for testing 32-bit PRGs. It can find
grotesquely broken PRGs, but there are other better ways to find grotesquely
broken PRGs. It is a fine sanity check just to make sure you haven't
overlooked something obvious (after all, it is easy enough to run DIEHARD
on your PRG output), but passing DIEHARD is much too low a bar. We can do
much better.

>For bits and physical generators it should be preferable to use a tester
>which needs a reasonable amount of bits (obviously I suggest RaBiGeTe).

Ok. I believe you. I don't have experience with RaBiGeTe vs DIEHARD.

Quantcast