X-Git-Url: https://bilbo.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/and/gitweb/16dcc.git/blobdiff_plain/d509acd9cc478541bd9cf2f33686e60f3b77cce5..c9d6a79d174af327059607a3e0a1f23ab7921a49:/prng.tex?ds=inline

diff --git a/prng.tex b/prng.tex
index 8acfce7..4dbeea7 100644
--- a/prng.tex
+++ b/prng.tex
@@ -110,23 +110,25 @@ $\textcircled{c}$&
 %%%%% n= 7
 \hline
 &
-[111, 124, 93, 120, 122, 90, 113, 88, 115, 126, 125, 84, 123, 98, 
+[111, 124, 93, 120, 122, 114, 89, 121, 87, 126, 125, 84, 123, 82, 
 &&\\
-&112, 96, 109, 106, 77, 110, 99, 74, 104, 72, 71, 100, 117, 116, 
+&112, 80, 79, 106, 105, 110, 75, 107, 73, 108, 119, 100, 117, 116, 
 &&\\
-&103, 102, 65, 97, 31, 86, 95, 28, 27, 91, 121, 92, 119, 118, 69, 
+&103, 102, 101, 97, 31, 86, 95, 94, 83, 26, 88, 24, 71, 118, 69, 
 &&\\
-&68, 87, 114, 89, 81, 15, 76, 79, 108, 107, 10, 105, 8, 7, 6, 101, 
-&&\\
-$\textcircled{d}$&70, 75, 82, 64, 0, 127, 54, 53, 62, 51, 59, 56, 60, 39, 52, 37, 
+&68, 115, 90, 113, 16, 15, 76, 109, 72, 74, 10, 9, 104, 7, 6, 65, 
 &&\\
+$\textcircled{d}$ &70, 99, 98, 64, 96, 127, 54, 53, 62, 51, 59, 56, 60, 39, 52, 37, &7 &99\\
 &36, 55, 58, 57, 49, 63, 44, 47, 40, 42, 46, 45, 41, 35, 34, 33, 
 &&\\
-&38, 43, 50, 32, 48, 29, 94, 61, 24, 26, 18, 17, 25, 19, 30, 85, 
+&38, 43, 50, 32, 48, 29, 28, 61, 92, 91, 18, 17, 25, 19, 30, 85, 
+&&\\
+&22, 27, 2, 81, 0, 13, 78, 77, 14, 3, 11, 8, 12, 23, 4, 21, 20, 
 &&\\
-&22, 83, 2, 16, 80, 13, 78, 9, 14, 3, 11, 73, 12, 23, 4, 21, 20, 
+&67, 66, 5, 1]
 &&\\
-&67, 66, 5, 1] &&\\
+
+
 %%%%%n=8
 \hline
 &
@@ -178,42 +180,74 @@ $\textcircled{e}$&151, 149, 19, 210, 144, 152, 141, 206, 13, 12, 171, 10, 201, 1
 Let us first discuss about results against the NIST test suite. 
 In our experiments, 100 sequences (s = 100) of 1,000,000 bits are generated and tested.
 If the value $\mathbb{P}_T$ of any test is smaller than 0.0001, the sequences are considered to be not good enough
-and the generator is unsuitable. Table~\ref{The passing rate} shows $\mathbb{P}_T$ of sequences based on discrete
-chaotic iterations using different schemes. If there are at least two statistical values in a test, this test is
+and the generator is unsuitable. 
+
+Table~\ref{The passing rate} shows $\mathbb{P}_T$ of sequences based 
+on $\chi_{\textit{16HamG}}$ using different functions, namely
+$\textcircled{a}$,\ldots, $\textcircled{e}$.
+In this algorithm implementation, 
+the embedded PRNG \textit{Random} is the default Python PRNG, \textit{i.e.},
+the Mersenne Twister Algorithm~\cite{matsumoto1998mersenne}. 
+Implementations for $\mathsf{N}=4, \dots, 8$ of this algorithm is evaluated
+through the NIST test suite and results are given in columns 
+$\textit{MT}_4$, \ldots,  $\textit{MT}_8$.
+If there are at least two statistical values in a test, this test is
 marked with an asterisk and the average value is computed to characterize the statistics.
-We can see in Table \ref{The passing rate} that all the rates are greater than 97/100, \textit{i.e.}, all the generators 
-achieve to pass the NIST battery of tests.
 
+We first can see in Table \ref{The passing rate} that all the rates 
+are greater than 97/100, \textit{i.e.}, all the generators 
+achieve to pass the NIST battery of tests.
+It can be noticed that adding chaos properties for Mersenne Twister 
+algorithm does not reduce its security aginst this statistical tests.
 
 
 \begin{table*} 
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
 \begin{center}
-\begin{scriptsize}
+\begin{tiny}
 \setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
 
 
-\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
-\hline
-Method &$\textcircled{a}$& $\textcircled{b}$ & $\textcircled{c}$ & $\textcircled{d}$ & $\textcircled{e}$   \\ \hline\hline
-Frequency (Monobit)& 0.851 (0.98)& 0.719 (0.99)& 0.699 (0.99)& 0.514 (1.0)& 0.798 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Frequency (Monobit)& 0.851 (0.98)& 0.719 (0.99)& 0.699 (0.99)& 0.514 (1.0)& 0.798 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Frequency  within a Block& 0.262 (0.98)& 0.699 (0.98)& 0.867 (0.99)& 0.145 (1.0)& 0.455 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Cumulative Sums (Cusum) *& 0.301 (0.98)& 0.521 (0.99)& 0.688 (0.99)& 0.888 (1.0)& 0.598 (1.0)\\ \hline 
-Runs& 0.224 (0.97)& 0.383 (0.97)& 0.108 (0.96)& 0.213 (0.99)& 0.616 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Longest Run of 1s & 0.383 (1.0)& 0.474 (1.0)& 0.983 (0.99)& 0.699 (0.98)& 0.897 (0.96)\\ \hline 
-Binary Matrix Rank& 0.213 (1.0)& 0.867 (0.99)& 0.494 (0.98)& 0.162 (0.99)& 0.924 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Disc. Fourier Transf. (Spect.)& 0.474 (1.0)& 0.739 (0.99)& 0.012 (1.0)& 0.678 (0.98)& 0.437 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Unoverlapping Templ. Match.*& 0.505 (0.990)& 0.521 (0.990)& 0.510 (0.989)& 0.511 (0.990)& 0.499 (0.990)\\ \hline 
-Overlapping Temp. Match.& 0.574 (0.98)& 0.304 (0.99)& 0.437 (0.97)& 0.759 (0.98)& 0.275 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Maurer's Universal Statistical& 0.759 (0.96)& 0.699 (0.97)& 0.191 (0.98)& 0.699 (1.0)& 0.798 (0.97)\\ \hline 
-Approximate Entropy (m=10)& 0.759 (0.99)& 0.162 (0.99)& 0.867 (0.99)& 0.534 (1.0)& 0.616 (0.99)\\ \hline 
-Random Excursions *& 0.666 (0.994)& 0.410 (0.962)& 0.287 (0.998)& 0.365 (0.994)& 0.480 (0.985)\\ \hline 
-Random Excursions Variant *& 0.337 (0.988)& 0.519 (0.984)& 0.549 (0.994)& 0.225 (0.995)& 0.533 (0.993)\\ \hline 
-Serial* (m=10)& 0.630 (0.99)& 0.529 (0.99)& 0.460 (0.99)& 0.302 (0.995)& 0.360 (0.985)\\ \hline 
-Linear Complexity& 0.719 (1.0)& 0.739 (0.99)& 0.759 (0.98)& 0.122 (0.97)& 0.514 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
+% \hline
+% Method &$\textcircled{a}$& $\textcircled{b}$ & $\textcircled{c}$ & $\textcircled{d}$ & $\textcircled{e}$   \\ \hline\hline
+% Frequency (Monobit)& 0.851 (0.98)& 0.719 (0.99)& 0.699 (0.99)& 0.514 (1.0)& 0.798 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Frequency (Monobit)& 0.851 (0.98)& 0.719 (0.99)& 0.699 (0.99)& 0.514 (1.0)& 0.798 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Frequency  within a Block& 0.262 (0.98)& 0.699 (0.98)& 0.867 (0.99)& 0.145 (1.0)& 0.455 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Cumulative Sums (Cusum) *& 0.301 (0.98)& 0.521 (0.99)& 0.688 (0.99)& 0.888 (1.0)& 0.598 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+% Runs& 0.224 (0.97)& 0.383 (0.97)& 0.108 (0.96)& 0.213 (0.99)& 0.616 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Longest Run of 1s & 0.383 (1.0)& 0.474 (1.0)& 0.983 (0.99)& 0.699 (0.98)& 0.897 (0.96)\\ \hline 
+% Binary Matrix Rank& 0.213 (1.0)& 0.867 (0.99)& 0.494 (0.98)& 0.162 (0.99)& 0.924 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Disc. Fourier Transf. (Spect.)& 0.474 (1.0)& 0.739 (0.99)& 0.012 (1.0)& 0.678 (0.98)& 0.437 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Unoverlapping Templ. Match.*& 0.505 (0.990)& 0.521 (0.990)& 0.510 (0.989)& 0.511 (0.990)& 0.499 (0.990)\\ \hline 
+% Overlapping Temp. Match.& 0.574 (0.98)& 0.304 (0.99)& 0.437 (0.97)& 0.759 (0.98)& 0.275 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Maurer's Universal Statistical& 0.759 (0.96)& 0.699 (0.97)& 0.191 (0.98)& 0.699 (1.0)& 0.798 (0.97)\\ \hline 
+% Approximate Entropy (m=10)& 0.759 (0.99)& 0.162 (0.99)& 0.867 (0.99)& 0.534 (1.0)& 0.616 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+% Random Excursions *& 0.666 (0.994)& 0.410 (0.962)& 0.287 (0.998)& 0.365 (0.994)& 0.480 (0.985)\\ \hline 
+% Random Excursions Variant *& 0.337 (0.988)& 0.519 (0.984)& 0.549 (0.994)& 0.225 (0.995)& 0.533 (0.993)\\ \hline 
+% Serial* (m=10)& 0.630 (0.99)& 0.529 (0.99)& 0.460 (0.99)& 0.302 (0.995)& 0.360 (0.985)\\ \hline 
+% Linear Complexity& 0.719 (1.0)& 0.739 (0.99)& 0.759 (0.98)& 0.122 (0.97)& 0.514 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r||r|r|r|r|r|}
+ \hline 
+Test & $\textit{MT}_4$ & $\textit{MT}_5$& $\textit{MT}_6$& $\textit{MT}_7$& $\textit{MT}_8$
+&$\textcircled{a}$& $\textcircled{b}$ & $\textcircled{c}$ & $\textcircled{d}$ & $\textcircled{e}$ \\ \hline 
+Frequency (Monobit)& 0.924 (1.0)& 0.678 (0.98)& 0.102 (0.97)& 0.213 (0.98)& 0.719 (0.99)& 0.129 (1.0)& 0.181 (1.0)& 0.637 (0.99)& 0.935 (1.0)& 0.978 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Frequency  within a Block& 0.514 (1.0)& 0.419 (0.98)& 0.129 (0.98)& 0.275 (0.99)& 0.455 (0.99)& 0.275 (1.0)& 0.534 (0.98)& 0.066 (1.0)& 0.719 (1.0)& 0.366 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Cumulative Sums (Cusum) *& 0.668 (1.0)& 0.568 (0.99)& 0.881 (0.98)& 0.529 (0.98)& 0.657 (0.995)& 0.695 (1.0)& 0.540 (1.0)& 0.514 (0.985)& 0.773 (0.995)& 0.506 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+Runs& 0.494 (0.99)& 0.595 (0.97)& 0.071 (0.97)& 0.017 (1.0)& 0.834 (1.0)& 0.897 (0.99)& 0.051 (1.0)& 0.102 (0.98)& 0.616 (0.99)& 0.191 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Longest Run of Ones in a Block& 0.366 (0.99)& 0.554 (1.0)& 0.042 (0.99)& 0.051 (0.99)& 0.897 (0.97)& 0.851 (1.0)& 0.595 (0.99)& 0.419 (0.98)& 0.616 (0.98)& 0.897 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Binary Matrix Rank& 0.275 (0.98)& 0.494 (0.99)& 0.719 (1.0)& 0.334 (0.98)& 0.637 (0.99)& 0.419 (1.0)& 0.946 (0.99)& 0.319 (0.99)& 0.739 (0.97)& 0.366 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Discrete Fourier Transform (Spectral)& 0.122 (0.98)& 0.108 (0.99)& 0.108 (1.0)& 0.514 (0.99)& 0.534 (0.98)& 0.867 (1.0)& 0.514 (1.0)& 0.145 (1.0)& 0.224 (0.99)& 0.304 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Non-overlapping Template Matching*& 0.483 (0.990)& 0.507 (0.990)& 0.520 (0.988)& 0.494 (0.988)& 0.515 (0.989)& 0.542 (0.990)& 0.512 (0.989)& 0.505 (0.990)& 0.494 (0.989)& 0.493 (0.991)\\ \hline 
+Overlapping Template Matching& 0.595 (0.99)& 0.759 (1.0)& 0.637 (1.0)& 0.554 (0.99)& 0.236 (1.0)& 0.275 (0.99)& 0.080 (0.99)& 0.574 (0.98)& 0.798 (0.99)& 0.834 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+Maurer's "Universal Statistical"& 0.202 (0.99)& 0.000 (0.99)& 0.514 (0.98)& 0.883 (0.97)& 0.366 (0.99)& 0.383 (0.99)& 0.991 (0.98)& 0.851 (1.0)& 0.595 (0.98)& 0.514 (1.0)\\ \hline 
+Approximate Entropy (m=10)& 0.616 (0.99)& 0.145 (0.99)& 0.455 (0.99)& 0.262 (0.97)& 0.494 (1.0)& 0.935 (1.0)& 0.719 (1.0)& 0.883 (1.0)& 0.719 (0.97)& 0.366 (0.99)\\ \hline 
+Random Excursions *& 0.275 (1.0)& 0.495 (0.975)& 0.465 (0.979)& 0.452 (0.991)& 0.260 (0.989)& 0.396 (0.991)& 0.217 (0.989)& 0.445 (0.975)& 0.743 (0.993)& 0.380 (0.990)\\ \hline 
+Random Excursions Variant *& 0.382 (0.995)& 0.400 (0.994)& 0.417 (0.984)& 0.456 (0.991)& 0.389 (0.991)& 0.486 (0.997)& 0.373 (0.981)& 0.415 (0.994)& 0.424 (0.991)& 0.380 (0.991)\\ \hline 
+Serial* (m=10)& 0.629 (0.99)& 0.963 (0.99)& 0.366 (0.995)& 0.537 (0.985)& 0.253 (0.995)& 0.350 (1.0)& 0.678 (0.995)& 0.287 (0.995)& 0.740 (0.99)& 0.301 (0.98)\\ \hline 
+Linear Complexity& 0.494 (0.99)& 0.514 (0.98)& 0.145 (1.0)& 0.657 (0.98)& 0.145 (0.99)& 0.455 (0.99)& 0.867 (1.0)& 0.401 (0.99)& 0.191 (0.97)& 0.699 (1.0)\\ \hline 
 \end{tabular}
-\end{scriptsize}
+\end{tiny}
 \end{center}
 \caption{NIST SP 800-22 test results ($\mathbb{P}_T$)}
 \label{The passing rate}