1 %\documentclass{article}
2 \documentclass[10pt,journal,letterpaper,compsoc]{IEEEtran}
3 \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
4 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
11 \usepackage[ruled,vlined]{algorithm2e}
13 \usepackage[standard]{ntheorem}
14 \usepackage{algorithmic}
20 % Pour mathds : les ensembles IR, IN, etc.
23 % Pour avoir des intervalles d'entiers
27 % Pour faire des sous-figures dans les figures
28 \usepackage{subfigure}
32 \newtheorem{notation}{Notation}
34 \newcommand{\X}{\mathcal{X}}
35 \newcommand{\Go}{G_{f_0}}
36 \newcommand{\B}{\mathds{B}}
37 \newcommand{\N}{\mathds{N}}
38 \newcommand{\BN}{\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}}
41 \newcommand{\alert}[1]{\begin{color}{blue}\textit{#1}\end{color}}
43 \title{Efficient and Cryptographically Secure Generation of Chaotic Pseudorandom Numbers on GPU}
46 \author{Jacques M. Bahi, Rapha\"{e}l Couturier, Christophe
47 Guyeux, and Pierre-Cyrille Héam\thanks{Authors in alphabetic order}}
50 \IEEEcompsoctitleabstractindextext{
52 In this paper we present a new pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) on
53 graphics processing units (GPU). This PRNG is based on the so-called chaotic iterations. It
54 is firstly proven to be chaotic according to the Devaney's formulation. We thus propose an efficient
55 implementation for GPU that successfully passes the {\it BigCrush} tests, deemed to be the hardest
56 battery of tests in TestU01. Experiments show that this PRNG can generate
57 about 20 billion of random numbers per second on Tesla C1060 and NVidia GTX280
59 It is then established that, under reasonable assumptions, the proposed PRNG can be cryptographically
61 A chaotic version of the Blum-Goldwasser asymmetric key encryption scheme is finally proposed.
69 \IEEEdisplaynotcompsoctitleabstractindextext
70 \IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle
73 \section{Introduction}
75 Randomness is of importance in many fields such as scientific simulations or cryptography.
76 ``Random numbers'' can mainly be generated either by a deterministic and reproducible algorithm
77 called a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG), or by a physical non-deterministic
78 process having all the characteristics of a random noise, called a truly random number
80 In this paper, we focus on reproducible generators, useful for instance in
81 Monte-Carlo based simulators or in several cryptographic schemes.
82 These domains need PRNGs that are statistically irreproachable.
83 In some fields such as in numerical simulations, speed is a strong requirement
84 that is usually attained by using parallel architectures. In that case,
85 a recurrent problem is that a deflation of the statistical qualities is often
86 reported, when the parallelization of a good PRNG is realized.
87 This is why ad-hoc PRNGs for each possible architecture must be found to
88 achieve both speed and randomness.
89 On the other side, speed is not the main requirement in cryptography: the great
90 need is to define \emph{secure} generators able to withstand malicious
91 attacks. Roughly speaking, an attacker should not be able in practice to make
92 the distinction between numbers obtained with the secure generator and a true random
94 Finally, a small part of the community working in this domain focuses on a
95 third requirement, that is to define chaotic generators.
96 The main idea is to take benefits from a chaotic dynamical system to obtain a
97 generator that is unpredictable, disordered, sensible to its seed, or in other word chaotic.
98 Their desire is to map a given chaotic dynamics into a sequence that seems random
99 and unassailable due to chaos.
100 However, the chaotic maps used as a pattern are defined in the real line
101 whereas computers deal with finite precision numbers.
102 This distortion leads to a deflation of both chaotic properties and speed.
103 Furthermore, authors of such chaotic generators often claim their PRNG
104 as secure due to their chaos properties, but there is no obvious relation
105 between chaos and security as it is understood in cryptography.
106 This is why the use of chaos for PRNG still remains marginal and disputable.
108 The authors' opinion is that topological properties of disorder, as they are
109 properly defined in the mathematical theory of chaos, can reinforce the quality
110 of a PRNG. But they are not substitutable for security or statistical perfection.
111 Indeed, to the authors' mind, such properties can be useful in the two following situations. On the
112 one hand, a post-treatment based on a chaotic dynamical system can be applied
113 to a PRNG statistically deflective, in order to improve its statistical
114 properties. Such an improvement can be found, for instance, in~\cite{bgw09:ip,bcgr11:ip}.
115 On the other hand, chaos can be added to a fast, statistically perfect PRNG and/or a
116 cryptographically secure one, in case where chaos can be of interest,
117 \emph{only if these last properties are not lost during
118 the proposed post-treatment}. Such an assumption is behind this research work.
119 It leads to the attempts to define a
120 family of PRNGs that are chaotic while being fast and statistically perfect,
121 or cryptographically secure.
122 Let us finish this paragraph by noticing that, in this paper,
123 statistical perfection refers to the ability to pass the whole
124 {\it BigCrush} battery of tests, which is widely considered as the most
125 stringent statistical evaluation of a sequence claimed as random.
126 This battery can be found in the well-known TestU01 package~\cite{LEcuyerS07}.
127 Chaos, for its part, refers to the well-established definition of a
128 chaotic dynamical system proposed by Devaney~\cite{Devaney}.
130 More precisely, each time we performed a test on a PRNG, we ran it
131 twice in order to observe if all p-values are inside [0.01, 0.99]. In
132 fact, we observed that few p-values (less than ten) are sometimes
133 outside this interval but inside [0.001, 0.999], so that is why a
134 second run allows us to confirm that the values outside are not for
135 the same test. With this approach all our PRNGs pass the {\it
136 BigCrush} successfully and all p-values are at least once inside
140 In a previous work~\cite{bgw09:ip,guyeux10} we have proposed a post-treatment on PRNGs making them behave
141 as a chaotic dynamical system. Such a post-treatment leads to a new category of
142 PRNGs. We have shown that proofs of Devaney's chaos can be established for this
143 family, and that the sequence obtained after this post-treatment can pass the
144 NIST~\cite{Nist10}, DieHARD~\cite{Marsaglia1996}, and TestU01~\cite{LEcuyerS07} batteries of tests, even if the inputted generators
146 The proposition of this paper is to improve widely the speed of the formerly
147 proposed generator, without any lack of chaos or statistical properties.
148 In particular, a version of this PRNG on graphics processing units (GPU)
150 Although GPU was initially designed to accelerate
151 the manipulation of images, they are nowadays commonly used in many scientific
152 applications. Therefore, it is important to be able to generate pseudorandom
153 numbers inside a GPU when a scientific application runs in it. This remark
154 motivates our proposal of a chaotic and statistically perfect PRNG for GPU.
156 allows us to generate almost 20 billion of pseudorandom numbers per second.
157 Furthermore, we show that the proposed post-treatment preserves the
158 cryptographical security of the inputted PRNG, when this last has such a
160 Last, but not least, we propose a rewriting of the Blum-Goldwasser asymmetric
161 key encryption protocol by using the proposed method.
163 The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{section:related
164 works} we review some GPU implementations of PRNGs. Section~\ref{section:BASIC
165 RECALLS} gives some basic recalls on the well-known Devaney's formulation of chaos,
166 and on an iteration process called ``chaotic
167 iterations'' on which the post-treatment is based.
168 The proposed PRNG and its proof of chaos are given in Section~\ref{sec:pseudorandom}.
169 Section~\ref{sec:efficient PRNG} presents an efficient
170 implementation of this chaotic PRNG on a CPU, whereas Section~\ref{sec:efficient PRNG
171 gpu} describes and evaluates theoretically the GPU implementation.
172 Such generators are experimented in
173 Section~\ref{sec:experiments}.
174 We show in Section~\ref{sec:security analysis} that, if the inputted
175 generator is cryptographically secure, then it is the case too for the
176 generator provided by the post-treatment.
177 Such a proof leads to the proposition of a cryptographically secure and
178 chaotic generator on GPU based on the famous Blum Blum Shub
179 in Section~\ref{sec:CSGPU}, and to an improvement of the
180 Blum-Goldwasser protocol in Sect.~\ref{Blum-Goldwasser}.
181 This research work ends by a conclusion section, in which the contribution is
182 summarized and intended future work is presented.
187 \section{Related works on GPU based PRNGs}
188 \label{section:related works}
190 Numerous research works on defining GPU based PRNGs have already been proposed in the
191 literature, so that exhaustivity is impossible.
192 This is why authors of this document only give reference to the most significant attempts
193 in this domain, from their subjective point of view.
194 The quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second is mentioned here
195 only when the information is given in the related work.
196 A million numbers per second will be simply written as
197 1MSample/s whereas a billion numbers per second is 1GSample/s.
199 In \cite{Pang:2008:cec} a PRNG based on cellular automata is defined
200 with no requirement to an high precision integer arithmetic or to any bitwise
201 operations. Authors can generate about
202 3.2MSamples/s on a GeForce 7800 GTX GPU, which is quite an old card now.
203 However, there is neither a mention of statistical tests nor any proof of
204 chaos or cryptography in this document.
206 In \cite{ZRKB10}, the authors propose different versions of efficient GPU PRNGs
207 based on Lagged Fibonacci or Hybrid Taus. They have used these
208 PRNGs for Langevin simulations of biomolecules fully implemented on
209 GPU. Performances of the GPU versions are far better than those obtained with a
210 CPU, and these PRNGs succeed to pass the {\it BigCrush} battery of TestU01.
211 However the evaluations of the proposed PRNGs are only statistical ones.
214 Authors of~\cite{conf/fpga/ThomasHL09} have studied the implementation of some
215 PRNGs on different computing architectures: CPU, field-programmable gate array
216 (FPGA), massively parallel processors, and GPU. This study is of interest, because
217 the performance of the same PRNGs on different architectures are compared.
218 FPGA appears as the fastest and the most
219 efficient architecture, providing the fastest number of generated pseudorandom numbers
221 However, we notice that authors can ``only'' generate between 11 and 16GSamples/s
222 with a GTX 280 GPU, which should be compared with
223 the results presented in this document.
224 We can remark too that the PRNGs proposed in~\cite{conf/fpga/ThomasHL09} are only
225 able to pass the {\it Crush} battery, which is far easier than the {\it Big Crush} one.
227 Lastly, Cuda has developed a library for the generation of pseudorandom numbers called
228 Curand~\cite{curand11}. Several PRNGs are implemented, among
230 Xorwow~\cite{Marsaglia2003} and some variants of Sobol. The tests reported show that
231 their fastest version provides 15GSamples/s on the new Fermi C2050 card.
232 But their PRNGs cannot pass the whole TestU01 battery (only one test is failed).
235 We can finally remark that, to the best of our knowledge, no GPU implementation has been proven to be chaotic, and the cryptographically secure property has surprisingly never been considered.
237 \section{Basic Recalls}
238 \label{section:BASIC RECALLS}
240 This section is devoted to basic definitions and terminologies in the fields of
241 topological chaos and chaotic iterations. We assume the reader is familiar
242 with basic notions on topology (see for instance~\cite{Devaney}).
245 \subsection{Devaney's Chaotic Dynamical Systems}
247 In the sequel $S^{n}$ denotes the $n^{th}$ term of a sequence $S$ and $V_{i}$
248 denotes the $i^{th}$ component of a vector $V$. $f^{k}=f\circ ...\circ f$
249 is for the $k^{th}$ composition of a function $f$. Finally, the following
250 notation is used: $\llbracket1;N\rrbracket=\{1,2,\hdots,N\}$.
253 Consider a topological space $(\mathcal{X},\tau)$ and a continuous function $f :
254 \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$.
257 The function $f$ is said to be \emph{topologically transitive} if, for any pair of open sets
258 $U,V \subset \mathcal{X}$, there exists $k>0$ such that $f^k(U) \cap V \neq
263 An element $x$ is a \emph{periodic point} for $f$ of period $n\in \mathds{N}^*$
264 if $f^{n}(x)=x$.% The set of periodic points of $f$ is denoted $Per(f).$
268 $f$ is said to be \emph{regular} on $(\mathcal{X}, \tau)$ if the set of periodic
269 points for $f$ is dense in $\mathcal{X}$: for any point $x$ in $\mathcal{X}$,
270 any neighborhood of $x$ contains at least one periodic point (without
271 necessarily the same period).
275 \begin{definition}[Devaney's formulation of chaos~\cite{Devaney}]
276 The function $f$ is said to be \emph{chaotic} on $(\mathcal{X},\tau)$ if $f$ is regular and
277 topologically transitive.
280 The chaos property is strongly linked to the notion of ``sensitivity'', defined
281 on a metric space $(\mathcal{X},d)$ by:
284 \label{sensitivity} The function $f$ has \emph{sensitive dependence on initial conditions}
285 if there exists $\delta >0$ such that, for any $x\in \mathcal{X}$ and any
286 neighborhood $V$ of $x$, there exist $y\in V$ and $n > 0$ such that
287 $d\left(f^{n}(x), f^{n}(y)\right) >\delta $.
289 The constant $\delta$ is called the \emph{constant of sensitivity} of $f$.
292 Indeed, Banks \emph{et al.} have proven in~\cite{Banks92} that when $f$ is
293 chaotic and $(\mathcal{X}, d)$ is a metric space, then $f$ has the property of
294 sensitive dependence on initial conditions (this property was formerly an
295 element of the definition of chaos). To sum up, quoting Devaney
296 in~\cite{Devaney}, a chaotic dynamical system ``is unpredictable because of the
297 sensitive dependence on initial conditions. It cannot be broken down or
298 simplified into two subsystems which do not interact because of topological
299 transitivity. And in the midst of this random behavior, we nevertheless have an
300 element of regularity''. Fundamentally different behaviors are consequently
301 possible and occur in an unpredictable way.
305 \subsection{Chaotic Iterations}
306 \label{sec:chaotic iterations}
309 Let us consider a \emph{system} with a finite number $\mathsf{N} \in
310 \mathds{N}^*$ of elements (or \emph{cells}), so that each cell has a
311 Boolean \emph{state}. Having $\mathsf{N}$ Boolean values for these
312 cells leads to the definition of a particular \emph{state of the
313 system}. A sequence which elements belong to $\llbracket 1;\mathsf{N}
314 \rrbracket $ is called a \emph{strategy}. The set of all strategies is
315 denoted by $\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}.$
318 \label{Def:chaotic iterations}
319 The set $\mathds{B}$ denoting $\{0,1\}$, let
320 $f:\mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}\longrightarrow \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$ be
321 a function and $S\in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}$ be a ``strategy''. The so-called
322 \emph{chaotic iterations} are defined by $x^0\in
323 \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$ and
325 \forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast }, \forall i\in
326 \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket ,x_i^n=\left\{
328 x_i^{n-1} & \text{ if }S^n\neq i \\
329 \left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^n} & \text{ if }S^n=i.
334 In other words, at the $n^{th}$ iteration, only the $S^{n}-$th cell is
335 \textquotedblleft iterated\textquotedblright . Note that in a more
336 general formulation, $S^n$ can be a subset of components and
337 $\left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^{n}}$ can be replaced by
338 $\left(f(x^{k})\right)_{S^{n}}$, where $k<n$, describing for example,
339 delays transmission~\cite{Robert1986,guyeux10}. Finally, let us remark that
340 the term ``chaotic'', in the name of these iterations, has \emph{a
341 priori} no link with the mathematical theory of chaos, presented above.
344 Let us now recall how to define a suitable metric space where chaotic iterations
345 are continuous. For further explanations, see, e.g., \cite{guyeux10}.
347 Let $\delta $ be the \emph{discrete Boolean metric}, $\delta
348 (x,y)=0\Leftrightarrow x=y.$ Given a function $f$, define the function
349 $F_{f}: \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket\times \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}
350 \longrightarrow \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$
353 & (k,E) & \longmapsto & \left( E_{j}.\delta (k,j)+ f(E)_{k}.\overline{\delta
354 (k,j)}\right) _{j\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket}%
357 \noindent where + and . are the Boolean addition and product operations.
358 Consider the phase space:
360 \mathcal{X} = \llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N} \times
361 \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N},
363 \noindent and the map defined on $\mathcal{X}$:
365 G_f\left(S,E\right) = \left(\sigma(S), F_f(i(S),E)\right), \label{Gf}
367 \noindent where $\sigma$ is the \emph{shift} function defined by $\sigma
368 (S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}}\in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow (S^{n+1})_{n\in
369 \mathds{N}}\in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}$ and $i$ is the \emph{initial function}
370 $i:(S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}} \in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow S^{0}\in \llbracket
371 1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket$. Then the chaotic iterations proposed in
372 Definition \ref{Def:chaotic iterations} can be described by the following iterations:
376 X^0 \in \mathcal{X} \\
382 With this formulation, a shift function appears as a component of chaotic
383 iterations. The shift function is a famous example of a chaotic
384 map~\cite{Devaney} but its presence is not sufficient enough to claim $G_f$ as
386 To study this claim, a new distance between two points $X = (S,E), Y =
387 (\check{S},\check{E})\in
388 \mathcal{X}$ has been introduced in \cite{guyeux10} as follows:
390 d(X,Y)=d_{e}(E,\check{E})+d_{s}(S,\check{S}),
396 \displaystyle{d_{e}(E,\check{E})} & = & \displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{N}%
397 }\delta (E_{k},\check{E}_{k})}, \\
398 \displaystyle{d_{s}(S,\check{S})} & = & \displaystyle{\dfrac{9}{\mathsf{N}}%
399 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\dfrac{|S^k-\check{S}^k|}{10^{k}}}.%
405 This new distance has been introduced to satisfy the following requirements.
407 \item When the number of different cells between two systems is increasing, then
408 their distance should increase too.
409 \item In addition, if two systems present the same cells and their respective
410 strategies start with the same terms, then the distance between these two points
411 must be small because the evolution of the two systems will be the same for a
412 while. Indeed, both dynamical systems start with the same initial condition,
413 use the same update function, and as strategies are the same for a while, furthermore
414 updated components are the same as well.
416 The distance presented above follows these recommendations. Indeed, if the floor
417 value $\lfloor d(X,Y)\rfloor $ is equal to $n$, then the systems $E, \check{E}$
418 differ in $n$ cells ($d_e$ is indeed the Hamming distance). In addition, $d(X,Y) - \lfloor d(X,Y) \rfloor $ is a
419 measure of the differences between strategies $S$ and $\check{S}$. More
420 precisely, this floating part is less than $10^{-k}$ if and only if the first
421 $k$ terms of the two strategies are equal. Moreover, if the $k^{th}$ digit is
422 nonzero, then the $k^{th}$ terms of the two strategies are different.
423 The impact of this choice for a distance will be investigated at the end of the document.
425 Finally, it has been established in \cite{guyeux10} that,
428 Let $f$ be a map from $\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ to itself. Then $G_{f}$ is continuous in
429 the metric space $(\mathcal{X},d)$.
432 The chaotic property of $G_f$ has been firstly established for the vectorial
433 Boolean negation $f_0(x_1,\hdots, x_\mathsf{N}) = (\overline{x_1},\hdots, \overline{x_\mathsf{N}})$ \cite{guyeux10}. To obtain a characterization, we have secondly
434 introduced the notion of asynchronous iteration graph recalled bellow.
436 Let $f$ be a map from $\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ to itself. The
437 {\emph{asynchronous iteration graph}} associated with $f$ is the
438 directed graph $\Gamma(f)$ defined by: the set of vertices is
439 $\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$; for all $x\in\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ and
440 $i\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket$,
441 the graph $\Gamma(f)$ contains an arc from $x$ to $F_f(i,x)$.
442 The relation between $\Gamma(f)$ and $G_f$ is clear: there exists a
443 path from $x$ to $x'$ in $\Gamma(f)$ if and only if there exists a
444 strategy $s$ such that the parallel iteration of $G_f$ from the
445 initial point $(s,x)$ reaches the point $x'$.
446 We have then proven in \cite{bcgr11:ip} that,
450 \label{Th:Caractérisation des IC chaotiques}
451 Let $f:\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}\to\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$. $G_f$ is chaotic (according to Devaney)
452 if and only if $\Gamma(f)$ is strongly connected.
455 Finally, we have established in \cite{bcgr11:ip} that,
457 Let $f: \mathds{B}^{n} \rightarrow \mathds{B}^{n}$, $\Gamma(f)$ its
458 iteration graph, $\check{M}$ its adjacency
460 a $n\times n$ matrix defined by
462 M_{ij} = \frac{1}{n}\check{M}_{ij}$ %\textrm{
464 $M_{ii} = 1 - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1, j\neq i}^n \check{M}_{ij}$ otherwise.
466 If $\Gamma(f)$ is strongly connected, then
467 the output of the PRNG detailed in Algorithm~\ref{CI Algorithm} follows
468 a law that tends to the uniform distribution
469 if and only if $M$ is a double stochastic matrix.
473 These results of chaos and uniform distribution have led us to study the possibility of building a
474 pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) based on the chaotic iterations.
475 As $G_f$, defined on the domain $\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^{\mathds{N}}
476 \times \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$, is built from Boolean networks $f : \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}
477 \rightarrow \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$, we can preserve the theoretical properties on $G_f$
478 during implementations (due to the discrete nature of $f$). Indeed, it is as if
479 $\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ represents the memory of the computer whereas $\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N}
480 \rrbracket^{\mathds{N}}$ is its input stream (the seeds, for instance, in PRNG, or a physical noise in TRNG).
481 Let us finally remark that the vectorial negation satisfies the hypotheses of both theorems above.
483 \section{Application to Pseudorandomness}
484 \label{sec:pseudorandom}
486 \subsection{A First Pseudorandom Number Generator}
488 We have proposed in~\cite{bgw09:ip} a new family of generators that receives
489 two PRNGs as inputs. These two generators are mixed with chaotic iterations,
490 leading thus to a new PRNG that
492 should improve the statistical properties of each
493 generator taken alone.
494 Furthermore, the generator obtained by this way possesses various chaos properties that none of the generators used as input
499 \begin{algorithm}[h!]
501 \KwIn{a function $f$, an iteration number $b$, an initial configuration $x^0$
503 \KwOut{a configuration $x$ ($n$ bits)}
505 $k\leftarrow b + PRNG_1(b)$\;
508 $s\leftarrow{PRNG_2(n)}$\;
509 $x\leftarrow{F_f(s,x)}$\;
513 \caption{An arbitrary round of $Old~ CI~ PRNG_f(PRNG_1,PRNG_2)$}
520 This generator is synthesized in Algorithm~\ref{CI Algorithm}.
521 It takes as input: a Boolean function $f$ satisfying Theorem~\ref{Th:Caractérisation des IC chaotiques};
522 an integer $b$, ensuring that the number of executed iterations
523 between two outputs is at least $b$
524 and at most $2b+1$; and an initial configuration $x^0$.
525 It returns the new generated configuration $x$. Internally, it embeds two
526 inputted generators $PRNG_i(k), i=1,2$,
527 which must return integers
528 uniformly distributed
529 into $\llbracket 1 ; k \rrbracket$.
530 For instance, these PRNGs can be the \textit{XORshift}~\cite{Marsaglia2003},
531 being a category of very fast PRNGs designed by George Marsaglia
532 that repeatedly uses the transform of exclusive or (XOR, $\oplus$) on a number
533 with a bit shifted version of it. Such a PRNG, which has a period of
534 $2^{32}-1=4.29\times10^9$, is summed up in Algorithm~\ref{XORshift}.
535 This XORshift, or any other reasonable PRNG, is used
536 in our own generator to compute both the number of iterations between two
537 outputs (provided by $PRNG_1$) and the strategy elements ($PRNG_2$).
539 %This former generator has successively passed various batteries of statistical tests, as the NIST~\cite{bcgr11:ip}, DieHARD~\cite{Marsaglia1996}, and TestU01~\cite{LEcuyerS07} ones.
542 \begin{algorithm}[h!]
544 \KwIn{the internal configuration $z$ (a 32-bit word)}
545 \KwOut{$y$ (a 32-bit word)}
546 $z\leftarrow{z\oplus{(z\ll13)}}$\;
547 $z\leftarrow{z\oplus{(z\gg17)}}$\;
548 $z\leftarrow{z\oplus{(z\ll5)}}$\;
552 \caption{An arbitrary round of \textit{XORshift} algorithm}
557 \subsection{A ``New CI PRNG''}
559 In order to make the Old CI PRNG usable in practice, we have proposed
560 an adapted version of the chaotic iteration based generator in~\cite{bg10:ip}.
561 In this ``New CI PRNG'', we prevent from changing twice a given
562 bit between two outputs.
563 This new generator is designed by the following process.
565 First of all, some chaotic iterations have to be done to generate a sequence
566 $\left(x^n\right)_{n\in\mathds{N}} \in \left(\mathds{B}^{32}\right)^\mathds{N}$
567 of Boolean vectors, which are the successive states of the iterated system.
568 Some of these vectors will be randomly extracted and our pseudorandom bit
569 flow will be constituted by their components. Such chaotic iterations are
570 realized as follows. Initial state $x^0 \in \mathds{B}^{32}$ is a Boolean
571 vector taken as a seed and chaotic strategy $\left(S^n\right)_{n\in\mathds{N}}\in
572 \llbracket 1, 32 \rrbracket^\mathds{N}$ is
573 an \emph{irregular decimation} of $PRNG_2$ sequence, as described in
574 Algorithm~\ref{Chaotic iteration1}.
576 Then, at each iteration, only the $S^n$-th component of state $x^n$ is
577 updated, as follows: $x_i^n = x_i^{n-1}$ if $i \neq S^n$, else $x_i^n = \overline{x_i^{n-1}}$.
578 Such a procedure is equivalent to achieve chaotic iterations with
579 the Boolean vectorial negation $f_0$ and some well-chosen strategies.
580 Finally, some $x^n$ are selected
581 by a sequence $m^n$ as the pseudorandom bit sequence of our generator.
582 $(m^n)_{n \in \mathds{N}} \in \mathcal{M}^\mathds{N}$ is computed from $PRNG_1$, where $\mathcal{M}\subset \mathds{N}^*$ is a finite nonempty set of integers.
584 The basic design procedure of the New CI generator is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{Chaotic iteration1}.
585 The internal state is $x$, the output state is $r$. $a$ and $b$ are those computed by the two input
586 PRNGs. Lastly, the value $g(a)$ is an integer defined as in Eq.~\ref{Formula}.
587 This function is required to make the outputs uniform in $\llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket$
588 (the reader is referred to~\cite{bg10:ip} for more information).
595 0 \text{ if }0 \leqslant{y^n}<{C^0_{32}},\\
596 1 \text{ if }{C^0_{32}} \leqslant{y^n}<\sum_{i=0}^1{C^i_{32}},\\
597 2 \text{ if }\sum_{i=0}^1{C^i_{32}} \leqslant{y^n}<\sum_{i=0}^2{C^i_{32}},\\
598 \vdots~~~~~ ~~\vdots~~~ ~~~~\\
599 N \text{ if }\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}{C^i_{32}}\leqslant{y^n}<1.\\
605 \textbf{Input:} the internal state $x$ (32 bits)\\
606 \textbf{Output:} a state $r$ of 32 bits
607 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
610 \STATE$d_i\leftarrow{0}$\;
613 \STATE$a\leftarrow{PRNG_1()}$\;
614 \STATE$k\leftarrow{g(a)}$\;
615 \WHILE{$i=0,\dots,k$}
617 \STATE$b\leftarrow{PRNG_2()~mod~\mathsf{N}}$\;
618 \STATE$S\leftarrow{b}$\;
621 \STATE $x_S\leftarrow{ \overline{x_S}}$\;
622 \STATE $d_S\leftarrow{1}$\;
627 \STATE $k\leftarrow{ k+1}$\;
630 \STATE $r\leftarrow{x}$\;
633 \caption{An arbitrary round of the new CI generator}
634 \label{Chaotic iteration1}
639 \subsection{Improving the Speed of the Former Generator}
641 Instead of updating only one cell at each iteration,\begin{color}{red} we now propose to choose a
642 subset of components and to update them together, for speed improvements. Such a proposition leads\end{color}
643 to a kind of merger of the two sequences used in Algorithms
644 \ref{CI Algorithm} and \ref{Chaotic iteration1}. When the updating function is the vectorial negation,
645 this algorithm can be rewritten as follows:
650 x^0 \in \llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket, S \in \llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket^\mathds{N} \\
651 \forall n \in \mathds{N}^*, x^n = x^{n-1} \oplus S^n,
654 \label{equation Oplus0}
656 where $\oplus$ is for the bitwise exclusive or between two integers.
657 This rewriting can be understood as follows. The $n-$th term $S^n$ of the
658 sequence $S$, which is an integer of $\mathsf{N}$ binary digits, presents
659 the list of cells to update in the state $x^n$ of the system (represented
660 as an integer having $\mathsf{N}$ bits too). More precisely, the $k-$th
661 component of this state (a binary digit) changes if and only if the $k-$th
662 digit in the binary decomposition of $S^n$ is 1.
664 The single basic component presented in Eq.~\ref{equation Oplus0} is of
665 ordinary use as a good elementary brick in various PRNGs. It corresponds
666 to the following discrete dynamical system in chaotic iterations:
669 \forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast }, \forall i\in
670 \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket ,x_i^n=\left\{
672 x_i^{n-1} & \text{ if } i \notin \mathcal{S}^n \\
673 \left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^n} & \text{ if }i \in \mathcal{S}^n.
677 where $f$ is the vectorial negation and $\forall n \in \mathds{N}$,
678 $\mathcal{S}^n \subset \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$ is such that
679 $k \in \mathcal{S}^n$ if and only if the $k-$th digit in the binary
680 decomposition of $S^n$ is 1. Such chaotic iterations are more general
681 than the ones presented in Definition \ref{Def:chaotic iterations} because, instead of updating only one term at each iteration,
682 we select a subset of components to change.
685 Obviously, replacing the previous CI PRNG Algorithms by
686 Equation~\ref{equation Oplus0}, which is possible when the iteration function is
687 the vectorial negation, leads to a speed improvement
688 (the resulting generator will be referred as ``Xor CI PRNG''
691 of chaos obtained in~\cite{bg10:ij} have been established
692 only for chaotic iterations of the form presented in Definition
693 \ref{Def:chaotic iterations}. The question is now to determine whether the
694 use of more general chaotic iterations to generate pseudorandom numbers
695 faster, does not deflate their topological chaos properties.
697 \subsection{Proofs of Chaos of the General Formulation of the Chaotic Iterations}
699 Let us consider the discrete dynamical systems in chaotic iterations having
700 the general form: $\forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast }$, $ \forall i\in
701 \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket $,
706 x_i^{n-1} & \text{ if } i \notin \mathcal{S}^n \\
707 \left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^n} & \text{ if }i \in \mathcal{S}^n.
712 In other words, at the $n^{th}$ iteration, only the cells whose id is
713 contained into the set $S^{n}$ are iterated.
715 Let us now rewrite these general chaotic iterations as usual discrete dynamical
716 system of the form $X^{n+1}=f(X^n)$ on an ad hoc metric space. Such a formulation
717 is required in order to study the topological behavior of the system.
719 Let us introduce the following function:
722 \chi: & \llbracket 1; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket \times \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right) & \longrightarrow & \mathds{B}\\
723 & (i,X) & \longmapsto & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \textrm{if }i \notin X, \\ 1 & \textrm{if }i \in X, \end{array}\right.
726 where $\mathcal{P}\left(X\right)$ is for the powerset of the set $X$, that is, $Y \in \mathcal{P}\left(X\right) \Longleftrightarrow Y \subset X$.
728 Given a function $f:\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} \longrightarrow \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} $, define the function:
729 $F_{f}: \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket \right) \times \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}
730 \longrightarrow \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$
733 (P,E) & \longmapsto & \left( E_{j}.\chi (j,P)+f(E)_{j}.\overline{\chi(j,P)}\right) _{j\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket}%
736 where + and . are the Boolean addition and product operations, and $\overline{x}$
737 is the negation of the Boolean $x$.
738 Consider the phase space:
740 \mathcal{X} = \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N} \times
741 \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N},
743 \noindent and the map defined on $\mathcal{X}$:
745 G_f\left(S,E\right) = \left(\sigma(S), F_f(i(S),E)\right), %\label{Gf} %%RAPH, j'ai viré ce label qui existe déjà avant...
747 \noindent where $\sigma$ is the \emph{shift} function defined by $\sigma
748 (S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}}\in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow (S^{n+1})_{n\in
749 \mathds{N}}\in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}$ and $i$ is the \emph{initial function}
750 $i:(S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}} \in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow S^{0}\in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)$.
751 Then the general chaotic iterations defined in Equation \ref{general CIs} can
752 be described by the following discrete dynamical system:
756 X^0 \in \mathcal{X} \\
762 Once more, a shift function appears as a component of these general chaotic
765 To study the Devaney's chaos property, a distance between two points
766 $X = (S,E), Y = (\check{S},\check{E})$ of $\mathcal{X}$ must be defined.
769 d(X,Y)=d_{e}(E,\check{E})+d_{s}(S,\check{S}),
772 \noindent where $ \displaystyle{d_{e}(E,\check{E})} = \displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{N}%
773 }\delta (E_{k},\check{E}_{k})}$ is once more the Hamming distance, and
774 $ \displaystyle{d_{s}(S,\check{S})} = \displaystyle{\dfrac{9}{\mathsf{N}}%
775 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\dfrac{|S^k\Delta {S}^k|}{10^{k}}}$,
776 %%RAPH : ici, j'ai supprimé tous les sauts à la ligne
779 %% \begin{array}{lll}
780 %% \displaystyle{d_{e}(E,\check{E})} & = & \displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{N}%
781 %% }\delta (E_{k},\check{E}_{k})} \textrm{ is once more the Hamming distance}, \\
782 %% \displaystyle{d_{s}(S,\check{S})} & = & \displaystyle{\dfrac{9}{\mathsf{N}}%
783 %% \sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\dfrac{|S^k\Delta {S}^k|}{10^{k}}}.%
787 where $|X|$ is the cardinality of a set $X$ and $A\Delta B$ is for the symmetric difference, defined for sets A, B as
788 $A\,\Delta\,B = (A \setminus B) \cup (B \setminus A)$.
792 The function $d$ defined in Eq.~\ref{nouveau d} is a metric on $\mathcal{X}$.
796 $d_e$ is the Hamming distance. We will prove that $d_s$ is a distance
797 too, thus $d$, as being the sum of two distances, will also be a distance.
799 \item Obviously, $d_s(S,\check{S})\geqslant 0$, and if $S=\check{S}$, then
800 $d_s(S,\check{S})=0$. Conversely, if $d_s(S,\check{S})=0$, then
801 $\forall k \in \mathds{N}, |S^k\Delta {S}^k|=0$, and so $\forall k, S^k=\check{S}^k$.
802 \item $d_s$ is symmetric
803 ($d_s(S,\check{S})=d_s(\check{S},S)$) due to the commutative property
804 of the symmetric difference.
805 \item Finally, $|S \Delta S''| = |(S \Delta \varnothing) \Delta S''|= |S \Delta (S'\Delta S') \Delta S''|= |(S \Delta S') \Delta (S' \Delta S'')|\leqslant |S \Delta S'| + |S' \Delta S''|$,
806 and so for all subsets $S,S',$ and $S''$ of $\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$,
807 we have $d_s(S,S'') \leqslant d_e(S,S')+d_s(S',S'')$, and the triangle
808 inequality is obtained.
813 Before being able to study the topological behavior of the general
814 chaotic iterations, we must first establish that:
817 For all $f:\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} \longrightarrow \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} $, the function $G_f$ is continuous on
818 $\left( \mathcal{X},d\right)$.
823 We use the sequential continuity.
824 Let $(S^n,E^n)_{n\in \mathds{N}}$ be a sequence of the phase space $%
825 \mathcal{X}$, which converges to $(S,E)$. We will prove that $\left(
826 G_{f}(S^n,E^n)\right) _{n\in \mathds{N}}$ converges to $\left(
827 G_{f}(S,E)\right) $. Let us remark that for all $n$, $S^n$ is a strategy,
828 thus, we consider a sequence of strategies (\emph{i.e.}, a sequence of
830 As $d((S^n,E^n);(S,E))$ converges to 0, each distance $d_{e}(E^n,E)$ and $d_{s}(S^n,S)$ converges
831 to 0. But $d_{e}(E^n,E)$ is an integer, so $\exists n_{0}\in \mathds{N},$ $%
832 d_{e}(E^n,E)=0$ for any $n\geqslant n_{0}$.\newline
833 In other words, there exists a threshold $n_{0}\in \mathds{N}$ after which no
834 cell will change its state:
835 $\exists n_{0}\in \mathds{N},n\geqslant n_{0}\Rightarrow E^n = E.$
837 In addition, $d_{s}(S^n,S)\longrightarrow 0,$ so $\exists n_{1}\in %
838 \mathds{N},d_{s}(S^n,S)<10^{-1}$ for all indexes greater than or equal to $%
839 n_{1}$. This means that for $n\geqslant n_{1}$, all the $S^n$ have the same
840 first term, which is $S^0$: $\forall n\geqslant n_{1},S_0^n=S_0.$
842 Thus, after the $max(n_{0},n_{1})^{th}$ term, states of $E^n$ and $E$ are
843 identical and strategies $S^n$ and $S$ start with the same first term.\newline
844 Consequently, states of $G_{f}(S^n,E^n)$ and $G_{f}(S,E)$ are equal,
845 so, after the $max(n_0, n_1)^{th}$ term, the distance $d$ between these two points is strictly less than 1.\newline
846 \noindent We now prove that the distance between $\left(
847 G_{f}(S^n,E^n)\right) $ and $\left( G_{f}(S,E)\right) $ is convergent to
848 0. Let $\varepsilon >0$. \medskip
850 \item If $\varepsilon \geqslant 1$, we see that the distance
851 between $\left( G_{f}(S^n,E^n)\right) $ and $\left( G_{f}(S,E)\right) $ is
852 strictly less than 1 after the $max(n_{0},n_{1})^{th}$ term (same state).
854 \item If $\varepsilon <1$, then $\exists k\in \mathds{N},10^{-k}\geqslant
855 \varepsilon > 10^{-(k+1)}$. But $d_{s}(S^n,S)$ converges to 0, so
857 \exists n_{2}\in \mathds{N},\forall n\geqslant
858 n_{2},d_{s}(S^n,S)<10^{-(k+2)},
860 thus after $n_{2}$, the $k+2$ first terms of $S^n$ and $S$ are equal.
862 \noindent As a consequence, the $k+1$ first entries of the strategies of $%
863 G_{f}(S^n,E^n)$ and $G_{f}(S,E)$ are the same ($G_{f}$ is a shift of strategies) and due to the definition of $d_{s}$, the floating part of
864 the distance between $(S^n,E^n)$ and $(S,E)$ is strictly less than $%
865 10^{-(k+1)}\leqslant \varepsilon $.
868 %%RAPH : ici j'ai rajouté une ligne
870 \forall \varepsilon >0,$ $\exists N_{0}=max(n_{0},n_{1},n_{2})\in \mathds{N}
871 ,$ $\forall n\geqslant N_{0},$
872 $ d\left( G_{f}(S^n,E^n);G_{f}(S,E)\right)
873 \leqslant \varepsilon .
875 $G_{f}$ is consequently continuous.
879 It is now possible to study the topological behavior of the general chaotic
880 iterations. We will prove that,
883 \label{t:chaos des general}
884 The general chaotic iterations defined on Equation~\ref{general CIs} satisfy
885 the Devaney's property of chaos.
888 Let us firstly prove the following lemma.
890 \begin{lemma}[Strong transitivity]
892 For all couples $X,Y \in \mathcal{X}$ and any neighborhood $V$ of $X$, we can
893 find $n \in \mathds{N}^*$ and $X' \in V$ such that $G^n(X')=Y$.
897 Let $X=(S,E)$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $k_0 = \lfloor log_{10}(\varepsilon)+1 \rfloor$.
898 Any point $X'=(S',E')$ such that $E'=E$ and $\forall k \leqslant k_0, S'^k=S^k$,
899 are in the open ball $\mathcal{B}\left(X,\varepsilon\right)$. Let us define
900 $\check{X} = \left(\check{S},\check{E}\right)$, where $\check{X}= G^{k_0}(X)$.
901 We denote by $s\subset \llbracket 1; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$ the set of coordinates
902 that are different between $\check{E}$ and the state of $Y$. Thus each point $X'$ of
903 the form $(S',E')$ where $E'=E$ and $S'$ starts with
904 $(S^0, S^1, \hdots, S^{k_0},s,\hdots)$, verifies the following properties:
906 \item $X'$ is in $\mathcal{B}\left(X,\varepsilon\right)$,
907 \item the state of $G_f^{k_0+1}(X')$ is the state of $Y$.
909 Finally the point $\left(\left(S^0, S^1, \hdots, S^{k_0},s,s^0, s^1, \hdots\right); E\right)$,
910 where $(s^0,s^1, \hdots)$ is the strategy of $Y$, satisfies the properties
911 claimed in the lemma.
914 We can now prove the Theorem~\ref{t:chaos des general}.
916 \begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{t:chaos des general}]
917 Firstly, strong transitivity implies transitivity.
919 Let $(S,E) \in\mathcal{X}$ and $\varepsilon >0$. To
920 prove that $G_f$ is regular, it is sufficient to prove that
921 there exists a strategy $\tilde S$ such that the distance between
922 $(\tilde S,E)$ and $(S,E)$ is less than $\varepsilon$, and such that
923 $(\tilde S,E)$ is a periodic point.
925 Let $t_1=\lfloor-\log_{10}(\varepsilon)\rfloor$, and let $E'$ be the
926 configuration that we obtain from $(S,E)$ after $t_1$ iterations of
927 $G_f$. As $G_f$ is strongly transitive, there exists a strategy $S'$
928 and $t_2\in\mathds{N}$ such
929 that $E$ is reached from $(S',E')$ after $t_2$ iterations of $G_f$.
931 Consider the strategy $\tilde S$ that alternates the first $t_1$ terms
932 of $S$ and the first $t_2$ terms of $S'$:
933 %%RAPH : j'ai coupé la ligne en 2
935 S=(S_0,\dots,S_{t_1-1},S'_0,\dots,S'_{t_2-1},S_0,$$$$\dots,S_{t_1-1},S'_0,\dots,S'_{t_2-1},S_0,\dots).$$ It
936 is clear that $(\tilde S,E)$ is obtained from $(\tilde S,E)$ after
937 $t_1+t_2$ iterations of $G_f$. So $(\tilde S,E)$ is a periodic
938 point. Since $\tilde S_t=S_t$ for $t<t_1$, by the choice of $t_1$, we
939 have $d((S,E),(\tilde S,E))<\epsilon$.
944 \section{Statistical Improvements Using Chaotic Iterations}
946 \label{The generation of pseudorandom sequence}
949 Let us now explain why we are reasonable grounds to believe that chaos
950 can improve statistical properties.
951 We will show in this section that, when mixing defective PRNGs with
952 chaotic iterations, the result presents better statistical properties
953 (this section summarizes the work of~\cite{bfg12a:ip}).
955 \subsection{Details of some Existing Generators}
957 The list of defective PRNGs we will use
958 as inputs for the statistical tests to come is introduced here.
960 Firstly, the simple linear congruency generator (LCGs) will be used.
961 It is defined by the following recurrence:
963 x^n = (ax^{n-1} + c)~mod~m
966 where $a$, $c$, and $x^0$ must be, among other things, non-negative and less than
967 $m$~\cite{LEcuyerS07}. In what follows, 2LCGs and 3LCGs refer as two (resp. three)
968 combinations of such LCGs. For further details, see~\cite{bfg12a:ip,combined_lcg}.
970 Secondly, the multiple recursive generators (MRGs) will be used too, which
971 are based on a linear recurrence of order
972 $k$, modulo $m$~\cite{LEcuyerS07}:
974 x^n = (a^1x^{n-1}+~...~+a^kx^{n-k})~mod~m
977 Combination of two MRGs (referred as 2MRGs) is also used in these experimentations.
979 Generators based on linear recurrences with carry will be regarded too.
980 This family of generators includes the add-with-carry (AWC) generator, based on the recurrence:
984 x^n = (x^{n-r} + x^{n-s} + c^{n-1})~mod~m, \\
985 c^n= (x^{n-r} + x^{n-s} + c^{n-1}) / m, \end{array}\end{equation}
986 the SWB generator, having the recurrence:
990 x^n = (x^{n-r} - x^{n-s} - c^{n-1})~mod~m, \\
993 1 ~~~~~\text{if}~ (x^{i-r} - x^{i-s} - c^{i-1})<0\\
994 0 ~~~~~\text{else},\end{array} \right. \end{array}\end{equation}
995 and the SWC generator designed by R. Couture, which is based on the following recurrence:
999 x^n = (a^1x^{n-1} \oplus ~...~ \oplus a^rx^{n-r} \oplus c^{n-1}) ~ mod ~ 2^w, \\
1000 c^n = (a^1x^{n-1} \oplus ~...~ \oplus a^rx^{n-r} \oplus c^{n-1}) ~ / ~ 2^w. \end{array}\end{equation}
1002 Then the generalized feedback shift register (GFSR) generator has been implemented, that is:
1004 x^n = x^{n-r} \oplus x^{n-k}
1009 Finally, the nonlinear inversive generator~\cite{LEcuyerS07} has been regarded too, which is:
1016 (a^1 + a^2 / z^{n-1})~mod~m & \text{if}~ z^{n-1} \neq 0 \\
1017 a^1 & \text{if}~ z^{n-1} = 0 .\end{array} \right. \end{array}\end{equation}
1022 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1023 \caption{TestU01 Statistical Test}
1026 \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1028 Test name &Tests& Logistic & XORshift & ISAAC\\
1029 Rabbit & 38 &21 &14 &0 \\
1030 Alphabit & 17 &16 &9 &0 \\
1031 Pseudo DieHARD &126 &0 &2 &0 \\
1032 FIPS\_140\_2 &16 &0 &0 &0 \\
1033 SmallCrush &15 &4 &5 &0 \\
1034 Crush &144 &95 &57 &0 \\
1035 Big Crush &160 &125 &55 &0 \\ \hline
1036 Failures & &261 &146 &0 \\
1044 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1045 \caption{TestU01 Statistical Test for Old CI algorithms ($\mathsf{N}=4$)}
1046 \label{TestU01 for Old CI}
1048 \begin{tabular}{lcccc}
1050 \multirow{3}*{Test name} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Old CI}\\
1051 &Logistic& XORshift& ISAAC&ISAAC \\
1053 &Logistic& XORshift& XORshift&ISAAC \\ \cmidrule(r){2-5}
1054 Rabbit &7 &2 &0 &0 \\
1055 Alphabit & 3 &0 &0 &0 \\
1056 DieHARD &0 &0 &0 &0 \\
1057 FIPS\_140\_2 &0 &0 &0 &0 \\
1058 SmallCrush &2 &0 &0 &0 \\
1059 Crush &47 &4 &0 &0 \\
1060 Big Crush &79 &3 &0 &0 \\ \hline
1061 Failures &138 &9 &0 &0 \\
1070 \subsection{Statistical tests}
1071 \label{Security analysis}
1073 Three batteries of tests are reputed and usually used
1074 to evaluate the statistical properties of newly designed pseudorandom
1075 number generators. These batteries are named DieHard~\cite{Marsaglia1996},
1076 the NIST suite~\cite{ANDREW2008}, and the most stringent one called
1077 TestU01~\cite{LEcuyerS07}, which encompasses the two other batteries.
1081 \label{Results and discussion}
1083 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1084 \caption{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rates for PRNGs without CI}
1085 \label{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for PRNGs without CI}
1087 \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1089 Types of PRNGs & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Linear PRNGs} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Lagged PRNGs} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ICG PRNGs} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Mixed PRNGs}\\ \hline
1090 \backslashbox{\textbf{$Tests$}} {\textbf{$PRNG$}} & LCG& MRG& AWC & SWB & SWC & GFSR & INV & LCG2& LCG3& MRG2 \\ \hline
1091 NIST & 11/15 & 14/15 &\textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} & 14/15 & 14/15 & 14/15 & 14/15& 14/15& 14/15 \\ \hline
1092 DieHARD & 16/18 & 16/18 & 15/18 & 16/18 & \textbf{18/18} & 16/18 & 16/18 & 16/18& 16/18& 16/18\\ \hline
1096 Table~\ref{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for PRNGs without CI} shows the
1097 results on the two firsts batteries recalled above, indicating that all the PRNGs presented
1098 in the previous section
1099 cannot pass all these tests. In other words, the statistical quality of these PRNGs cannot
1100 fulfill the up-to-date standards presented previously. We have shown in~\cite{bfg12a:ip} that the use of chaotic
1101 iterations can solve this issue.
1103 %illustrate the effects of chaotic iterations on these defective PRNGs, experiments have been divided in three parts~\cite{bfg12a:ip}:
1105 % \item \textbf{Single CIPRNG}: The PRNGs involved in CI computing are of the same category.
1106 % \item \textbf{Mixed CIPRNG}: Two different types of PRNGs are mixed during the chaotic iterations process.
1107 % \item \textbf{Multiple CIPRNG}: The generator is obtained by repeating the composition of the iteration function as follows: $x^0\in \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$, and $\forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast },\forall i\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket, x_i^n=$
1112 %x_i^{n-1}~~~~~\text{if}~S^n\neq i \\
1113 %\forall j\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{m}\rrbracket,f^m(x^{n-1})_{S^{nm+j}}~\text{if}~S^{nm+j}=i.\end{array} \right. \end{array}
1115 %$m$ is called the \emph{functional power}.
1118 The obtained results are reproduced in Table
1119 \ref{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for single CIPRNGs}.
1120 The scores written in boldface indicate that all the tests have been passed successfully, whereas an
1121 asterisk ``*'' means that the considered passing rate has been improved.
1122 The improvements are obvious for both the ``Old CI'' and ``New CI'' generators.
1123 Concerning the ``Xor CI PRNG'', the speed improvement makes that statistical
1124 results are not as good as for the two other versions of these CIPRNGs.
1128 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1129 \caption{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rates for PRNGs with CI}
1130 \label{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for single CIPRNGs}
1132 \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1134 Types of PRNGs & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Linear PRNGs} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Lagged PRNGs} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ICG PRNGs} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Mixed PRNGs}\\ \hline
1135 \backslashbox{\textbf{$Tests$}} {\textbf{$Single~CIPRNG$}} & LCG & MRG & AWC & SWB & SWC & GFSR & INV& LCG2 & LCG3& MRG2 \\ \hline\hline
1136 Old CIPRNG\\ \hline \hline
1137 NIST & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} *& \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} \\ \hline
1138 DieHARD & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} *& \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} *& \textbf{18/18} * \\ \hline
1139 New CIPRNG\\ \hline \hline
1140 NIST & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} *& \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} \\ \hline
1141 DieHARD & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} *& \textbf{18/18} *\\ \hline
1142 Xor CIPRNG\\ \hline\hline
1143 NIST & 14/15*& \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} & 14/15 & \textbf{15/15} * & 14/15& \textbf{15/15} * & \textbf{15/15} *& \textbf{15/15} \\ \hline
1144 DieHARD & 16/18 & 16/18 & 17/18* & \textbf{18/18} * & \textbf{18/18} & \textbf{18/18} * & 16/18 & 16/18 & 16/18& 16/18\\ \hline
1149 We have then investigate in~\cite{bfg12a:ip} if it is possible to improve
1150 the statistical behavior of the Xor CI version by combining more than one
1151 $\oplus$ operation. Results are summarized in~\ref{threshold}, showing
1152 that rapid and perfect PRNGs, regarding the NIST and DieHARD batteries, can be obtained
1153 using chaotic iterations on defective generators.
1156 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1157 \caption{Number of $\oplus$ operations to pass the whole NIST and DieHARD batteries}
1160 \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1162 Inputted $PRNG$ & LCG & MRG & SWC & GFSR & INV& LCG2 & LCG3 & MRG2 \\ \hline\hline
1163 Threshold value $m$& 19 & 7 & 2& 1 & 11& 9& 3& 4\\ \hline\hline
1167 Finally, the TestU01 battery as been launched on three well-known generators
1168 (a logistic map, a simple XORshift, and the cryptographically secure ISAAC,
1169 see Table~\ref{TestU011}). These results can be compared with
1170 Table~\ref{TestU01 for Old CI}, which gives the scores obtained by the
1171 Old CI PRNG that has received these generators.
1174 Next subsection gives a concrete implementation of this Xor CI PRNG, which will
1175 new be simply called CIPRNG, or ``the proposed PRNG'', if this statement does not
1179 \subsection{Efficient Implementation of a PRNG based on Chaotic Iterations}
1180 \label{sec:efficient PRNG}
1182 %Based on the proof presented in the previous section, it is now possible to
1183 %improve the speed of the generator formerly presented in~\cite{bgw09:ip,guyeux10}.
1184 %The first idea is to consider
1185 %that the provided strategy is a pseudorandom Boolean vector obtained by a
1187 %An iteration of the system is simply the bitwise exclusive or between
1188 %the last computed state and the current strategy.
1189 %Topological properties of disorder exhibited by chaotic
1190 %iterations can be inherited by the inputted generator, we hope by doing so to
1191 %obtain some statistical improvements while preserving speed.
1193 %%RAPH : j'ai viré tout ca
1194 %% Let us give an example using 16-bits numbers, to clearly understand how the bitwise xor operations
1197 %% Suppose that $x$ and the strategy $S^i$ are given as
1199 %% Table~\ref{TableExemple} shows the result of $x \oplus S^i$.
1202 %% \begin{scriptsize}
1204 %% \begin{array}{|cc|cccccccccccccccc|}
1206 %% x &=&1&0&1&1&1&0&1&0&1&0&0&1&0&0&1&0\\
1208 %% S^i &=&0&1&1&0&0&1&1&0&1&1&1&0&0&1&1&1\\
1210 %% x \oplus S^i&=&1&1&0&1&1&1&0&0&0&1&1&1&0&1&0&1\\
1217 %% \caption{Example of an arbitrary round of the proposed generator}
1218 %% \label{TableExemple}
1224 \lstset{language=C,caption={C code of the sequential PRNG based on chaotic iterations},label=algo:seqCIPRNG}
1228 unsigned int CIPRNG() {
1229 static unsigned int x = 123123123;
1230 unsigned long t1 = xorshift();
1231 unsigned long t2 = xor128();
1232 unsigned long t3 = xorwow();
1233 x = x^(unsigned int)t1;
1234 x = x^(unsigned int)(t2>>32);
1235 x = x^(unsigned int)(t3>>32);
1236 x = x^(unsigned int)t2;
1237 x = x^(unsigned int)(t1>>32);
1238 x = x^(unsigned int)t3;
1246 In Listing~\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG} a sequential version of the proposed PRNG based
1247 on chaotic iterations is presented. The xor operator is represented by
1248 \textasciicircum. This function uses three classical 64-bits PRNGs, namely the
1249 \texttt{xorshift}, the \texttt{xor128}, and the
1250 \texttt{xorwow}~\cite{Marsaglia2003}. In the following, we call them ``xor-like
1251 PRNGs''. As each xor-like PRNG uses 64-bits whereas our proposed generator
1252 works with 32-bits, we use the command \texttt{(unsigned int)}, that selects the
1253 32 least significant bits of a given integer, and the code \texttt{(unsigned
1254 int)(t$>>$32)} in order to obtain the 32 most significant bits of \texttt{t}.
1256 Thus producing a pseudorandom number needs 6 xor operations with 6 32-bits numbers
1257 that are provided by 3 64-bits PRNGs. This version successfully passes the
1258 stringent BigCrush battery of tests~\cite{LEcuyerS07}.
1260 \section{Efficient PRNGs based on Chaotic Iterations on GPU}
1261 \label{sec:efficient PRNG gpu}
1263 In order to take benefits from the computing power of GPU, a program
1264 needs to have independent blocks of threads that can be computed
1265 simultaneously. In general, the larger the number of threads is, the
1266 more local memory is used, and the less branching instructions are
1267 used (if, while, ...), the better the performances on GPU is.
1268 Obviously, having these requirements in mind, it is possible to build
1269 a program similar to the one presented in Listing
1270 \ref{algo:seqCIPRNG}, which computes pseudorandom numbers on GPU. To
1271 do so, we must firstly recall that in the CUDA~\cite{Nvid10}
1272 environment, threads have a local identifier called
1273 \texttt{ThreadIdx}, which is relative to the block containing
1274 them. Furthermore, in CUDA, parts of the code that are executed by the GPU, are
1275 called {\it kernels}.
1278 \subsection{Naive Version for GPU}
1281 It is possible to deduce from the CPU version a quite similar version adapted to GPU.
1282 The simple principle consists in making each thread of the GPU computing the CPU version of our PRNG.
1283 Of course, the three xor-like
1284 PRNGs used in these computations must have different parameters.
1285 In a given thread, these parameters are
1286 randomly picked from another PRNGs.
1287 The initialization stage is performed by the CPU.
1288 To do it, the ISAAC PRNG~\cite{Jenkins96} is used to set all the
1289 parameters embedded into each thread.
1291 The implementation of the three
1292 xor-like PRNGs is straightforward when their parameters have been
1293 allocated in the GPU memory. Each xor-like works with an internal
1294 number $x$ that saves the last generated pseudorandom number. Additionally, the
1295 implementation of the xor128, the xorshift, and the xorwow respectively require
1296 4, 5, and 6 unsigned long as internal variables.
1301 \KwIn{InternalVarXorLikeArray: array with internal variables of the 3 xor-like
1302 PRNGs in global memory\;
1303 NumThreads: number of threads\;}
1304 \KwOut{NewNb: array containing random numbers in global memory}
1305 \If{threadIdx is concerned by the computation} {
1306 retrieve data from InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadIdx] in local variables\;
1308 compute a new PRNG as in Listing\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG}\;
1309 store the new PRNG in NewNb[NumThreads*threadIdx+i]\;
1311 store internal variables in InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadIdx]\;
1314 \caption{Main kernel of the GPU ``naive'' version of the PRNG based on chaotic iterations}
1315 \label{algo:gpu_kernel}
1320 Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel} presents a naive implementation of the proposed PRNG on
1321 GPU. Due to the available memory in the GPU and the number of threads
1322 used simultaneously, the number of random numbers that a thread can generate
1323 inside a kernel is limited (\emph{i.e.}, the variable \texttt{n} in
1324 algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel}). For instance, if $100,000$ threads are used and
1325 if $n=100$\footnote{in fact, we need to add the initial seed (a 32-bits number)},
1326 then the memory required to store all of the internals variables of both the xor-like
1327 PRNGs\footnote{we multiply this number by $2$ in order to count 32-bits numbers}
1328 and the pseudorandom numbers generated by our PRNG, is equal to $100,000\times ((4+5+6)\times
1329 2+(1+100))=1,310,000$ 32-bits numbers, that is, approximately $52$Mb.
1331 This generator is able to pass the whole BigCrush battery of tests, for all
1332 the versions that have been tested depending on their number of threads
1333 (called \texttt{NumThreads} in our algorithm, tested up to $5$ million).
1336 The proposed algorithm has the advantage of manipulating independent
1337 PRNGs, so this version is easily adaptable on a cluster of computers too. The only thing
1338 to ensure is to use a single ISAAC PRNG. To achieve this requirement, a simple solution consists in
1339 using a master node for the initialization. This master node computes the initial parameters
1340 for all the different nodes involved in the computation.
1343 \subsection{Improved Version for GPU}
1345 As GPU cards using CUDA have shared memory between threads of the same block, it
1346 is possible to use this feature in order to simplify the previous algorithm,
1347 i.e., to use less than 3 xor-like PRNGs. The solution consists in computing only
1348 one xor-like PRNG by thread, saving it into the shared memory, and then to use the results
1349 of some other threads in the same block of threads. In order to define which
1350 thread uses the result of which other one, we can use a combination array that
1351 contains the indexes of all threads and for which a combination has been
1354 In Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2}, two combination arrays are used. The
1355 variable \texttt{offset} is computed using the value of
1356 \texttt{combination\_size}. Then we can compute \texttt{o1} and \texttt{o2}
1357 representing the indexes of the other threads whose results are used by the
1358 current one. In this algorithm, we consider that a 32-bits xor-like PRNG has
1359 been chosen. In practice, we use the xor128 proposed in~\cite{Marsaglia2003} in
1360 which unsigned longs (64 bits) have been replaced by unsigned integers (32
1363 This version can also pass the whole {\it BigCrush} battery of tests.
1367 \KwIn{InternalVarXorLikeArray: array with internal variables of 1 xor-like PRNGs
1369 NumThreads: Number of threads\;
1370 array\_comb1, array\_comb2: Arrays containing combinations of size combination\_size\;}
1372 \KwOut{NewNb: array containing random numbers in global memory}
1373 \If{threadId is concerned} {
1374 retrieve data from InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadId] in local variables including shared memory and x\;
1375 offset = threadIdx\%combination\_size\;
1376 o1 = threadIdx-offset+array\_comb1[offset]\;
1377 o2 = threadIdx-offset+array\_comb2[offset]\;
1380 t=t\textasciicircum shmem[o1]\textasciicircum shmem[o2]\;
1381 shared\_mem[threadId]=t\;
1382 x = x\textasciicircum t\;
1384 store the new PRNG in NewNb[NumThreads*threadId+i]\;
1386 store internal variables in InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadId]\;
1389 \caption{Main kernel for the chaotic iterations based PRNG GPU efficient
1391 \label{algo:gpu_kernel2}
1394 \subsection{Theoretical Evaluation of the Improved Version}
1396 A run of Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2} consists in an operation ($x=x\oplus t$) having
1397 the form of Equation~\ref{equation Oplus}, which is equivalent to the iterative
1398 system of Eq.~\ref{eq:generalIC}. That is, an iteration of the general chaotic
1399 iterations is realized between the last stored value $x$ of the thread and a strategy $t$
1400 (obtained by a bitwise exclusive or between a value provided by a xor-like() call
1401 and two values previously obtained by two other threads).
1402 To be certain that we are in the framework of Theorem~\ref{t:chaos des general},
1403 we must guarantee that this dynamical system iterates on the space
1404 $\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}\times\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$.
1405 The left term $x$ obviously belongs to $\mathds{B}^ \mathsf{N}$.
1406 To prevent from any flaws of chaotic properties, we must check that the right
1407 term (the last $t$), corresponding to the strategies, can possibly be equal to any
1408 integer of $\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$.
1410 Such a result is obvious, as for the xor-like(), all the
1411 integers belonging into its interval of definition can occur at each iteration, and thus the
1412 last $t$ respects the requirement. Furthermore, it is possible to
1413 prove by an immediate mathematical induction that, as the initial $x$
1414 is uniformly distributed (it is provided by a cryptographically secure PRNG),
1415 the two other stored values shmem[o1] and shmem[o2] are uniformly distributed too,
1416 (this is the induction hypothesis), and thus the next $x$ is finally uniformly distributed.
1418 Thus Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2} is a concrete realization of the general
1419 chaotic iterations presented previously, and for this reason, it satisfies the
1420 Devaney's formulation of a chaotic behavior.
1422 \section{Experiments}
1423 \label{sec:experiments}
1425 Different experiments have been performed in order to measure the generation
1426 speed. We have used a first computer equipped with a Tesla C1060 NVidia GPU card
1428 Intel Xeon E5530 cadenced at 2.40 GHz, and
1429 a second computer equipped with a smaller CPU and a GeForce GTX 280.
1431 cards have 240 cores.
1433 In Figure~\ref{fig:time_xorlike_gpu} we compare the quantity of pseudorandom numbers
1434 generated per second with various xor-like based PRNGs. In this figure, the optimized
1435 versions use the {\it xor64} described in~\cite{Marsaglia2003}, whereas the naive versions
1436 embed the three xor-like PRNGs described in Listing~\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG}. In
1437 order to obtain the optimal performances, the storage of pseudorandom numbers
1438 into the GPU memory has been removed. This step is time consuming and slows down the numbers
1439 generation. Moreover this storage is completely
1440 useless, in case of applications that consume the pseudorandom
1441 numbers directly after generation. We can see that when the number of threads is greater
1442 than approximately 30,000 and lower than 5 million, the number of pseudorandom numbers generated
1443 per second is almost constant. With the naive version, this value ranges from 2.5 to
1444 3GSamples/s. With the optimized version, it is approximately equal to
1445 20GSamples/s. Finally we can remark that both GPU cards are quite similar, but in
1446 practice, the Tesla C1060 has more memory than the GTX 280, and this memory
1447 should be of better quality.
1448 As a comparison, Listing~\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG} leads to the generation of about
1449 138MSample/s when using one core of the Xeon E5530.
1451 \begin{figure}[htbp]
1453 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{curve_time_xorlike_gpu.pdf}
1455 \caption{Quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second with the xorlike-based PRNG}
1456 \label{fig:time_xorlike_gpu}
1463 In Figure~\ref{fig:time_bbs_gpu} we highlight the performances of the optimized
1464 BBS-based PRNG on GPU. On the Tesla C1060 we obtain approximately 700MSample/s
1465 and on the GTX 280 about 670MSample/s, which is obviously slower than the
1466 xorlike-based PRNG on GPU. However, we will show in the next sections that this
1467 new PRNG has a strong level of security, which is necessarily paid by a speed
1470 \begin{figure}[htbp]
1472 \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{curve_time_bbs_gpu.pdf}
1474 \caption{Quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second using the BBS-based PRNG}
1475 \label{fig:time_bbs_gpu}
1478 All these experiments allow us to conclude that it is possible to
1479 generate a very large quantity of pseudorandom numbers statistically perfect with the xor-like version.
1480 To a certain extend, it is also the case with the secure BBS-based version, the speed deflation being
1481 explained by the fact that the former version has ``only''
1482 chaotic properties and statistical perfection, whereas the latter is also cryptographically secure,
1483 as it is shown in the next sections.
1491 \section{Security Analysis}
1492 \label{sec:security analysis}
1496 In this section the concatenation of two strings $u$ and $v$ is classically
1498 In a cryptographic context, a pseudorandom generator is a deterministic
1499 algorithm $G$ transforming strings into strings and such that, for any
1500 seed $s$ of length $m$, $G(s)$ (the output of $G$ on the input $s$) has size
1501 $\ell_G(m)$ with $\ell_G(m)>m$.
1502 The notion of {\it secure} PRNGs can now be defined as follows.
1505 A cryptographic PRNG $G$ is secure if for any probabilistic polynomial time
1506 algorithm $D$, for any positive polynomial $p$, and for all sufficiently
1508 $$| \mathrm{Pr}[D(G(U_m))=1]-Pr[D(U_{\ell_G(m)})=1]|< \frac{1}{p(m)},$$
1509 where $U_r$ is the uniform distribution over $\{0,1\}^r$ and the
1510 probabilities are taken over $U_m$, $U_{\ell_G(m)}$ as well as over the
1511 internal coin tosses of $D$.
1514 Intuitively, it means that there is no polynomial time algorithm that can
1515 distinguish a perfect uniform random generator from $G$ with a non
1516 negligible probability. The interested reader is referred
1517 to~\cite[chapter~3]{Goldreich} for more information. Note that it is
1518 quite easily possible to change the function $\ell$ into any polynomial
1519 function $\ell^\prime$ satisfying $\ell^\prime(m)>m)$~\cite[Chapter 3.3]{Goldreich}.
1521 The generation schema developed in (\ref{equation Oplus}) is based on a
1522 pseudorandom generator. Let $H$ be a cryptographic PRNG. We may assume,
1523 without loss of generality, that for any string $S_0$ of size $N$, the size
1524 of $H(S_0)$ is $kN$, with $k>2$. It means that $\ell_H(N)=kN$.
1525 Let $S_1,\ldots,S_k$ be the
1526 strings of length $N$ such that $H(S_0)=S_1 \ldots S_k$ ($H(S_0)$ is the concatenation of
1527 the $S_i$'s). The cryptographic PRNG $X$ defined in (\ref{equation Oplus})
1528 is the algorithm mapping any string of length $2N$ $x_0S_0$ into the string
1529 $(x_0\oplus S_0 \oplus S_1)(x_0\oplus S_0 \oplus S_1\oplus S_2)\ldots
1530 (x_o\bigoplus_{i=0}^{i=k}S_i)$. One in particular has $\ell_{X}(2N)=kN=\ell_H(N)$.
1531 We claim now that if this PRNG is secure,
1532 then the new one is secure too.
1535 \label{cryptopreuve}
1536 If $H$ is a secure cryptographic PRNG, then $X$ is a secure cryptographic
1541 The proposition is proved by contraposition. Assume that $X$ is not
1542 secure. By Definition, there exists a polynomial time probabilistic
1543 algorithm $D$, a positive polynomial $p$, such that for all $k_0$ there exists
1544 $N\geq \frac{k_0}{2}$ satisfying
1545 $$| \mathrm{Pr}[D(X(U_{2N}))=1]-\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{kN}=1]|\geq \frac{1}{p(2N)}.$$
1546 We describe a new probabilistic algorithm $D^\prime$ on an input $w$ of size
1549 \item Decompose $w$ into $w=w_1\ldots w_{k}$, where each $w_i$ has size $N$.
1550 \item Pick a string $y$ of size $N$ uniformly at random.
1551 \item Compute $z=(y\oplus w_1)(y\oplus w_1\oplus w_2)\ldots (y
1552 \bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k} w_i).$
1553 \item Return $D(z)$.
1557 Consider for each $y\in \mathbb{B}^{kN}$ the function $\varphi_{y}$
1558 from $\mathbb{B}^{kN}$ into $\mathbb{B}^{kN}$ mapping $w=w_1\ldots w_k$
1559 (each $w_i$ has length $N$) to
1560 $(y\oplus w_1)(y\oplus w_1\oplus w_2)\ldots (y
1561 \bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k_1} w_i).$ By construction, one has for every $w$,
1562 \begin{equation}\label{PCH-1}
1563 D^\prime(w)=D(\varphi_y(w)),
1565 where $y$ is randomly generated.
1566 Moreover, for each $y$, $\varphi_{y}$ is injective: if
1567 $(y\oplus w_1)(y\oplus w_1\oplus w_2)\ldots (y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k_1}
1568 w_i)=(y\oplus w_1^\prime)(y\oplus w_1^\prime\oplus w_2^\prime)\ldots
1569 (y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k} w_i^\prime)$, then for every $1\leq j\leq k$,
1570 $y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=j} w_i^\prime=y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=j} w_i$. It follows,
1571 by a direct induction, that $w_i=w_i^\prime$. Furthermore, since $\mathbb{B}^{kN}$
1572 is finite, each $\varphi_y$ is bijective. Therefore, and using (\ref{PCH-1}),
1574 $\mathrm{Pr}[D^\prime(U_{kN})=1]=\mathrm{Pr}[D(\varphi_y(U_{kN}))=1]$ and,
1576 \begin{equation}\label{PCH-2}
1577 \mathrm{Pr}[D^\prime(U_{kN})=1]=\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{kN})=1].
1580 Now, using (\ref{PCH-1}) again, one has for every $x$,
1581 \begin{equation}\label{PCH-3}
1582 D^\prime(H(x))=D(\varphi_y(H(x))),
1584 where $y$ is randomly generated. By construction, $\varphi_y(H(x))=X(yx)$,
1586 \begin{equation}%\label{PCH-3} %%RAPH : j'ai viré ce label qui existe déjà, il est 3 ligne avant
1587 D^\prime(H(x))=D(yx),
1589 where $y$ is randomly generated.
1592 \begin{equation}\label{PCH-4}
1593 \mathrm{Pr}[D^\prime(H(U_{N}))=1]=\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{2N})=1].
1595 From (\ref{PCH-2}) and (\ref{PCH-4}), one can deduce that
1596 there exists a polynomial time probabilistic
1597 algorithm $D^\prime$, a positive polynomial $p$, such that for all $k_0$ there exists
1598 $N\geq \frac{k_0}{2}$ satisfying
1599 $$| \mathrm{Pr}[D(H(U_{N}))=1]-\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{kN}=1]|\geq \frac{1}{p(2N)},$$
1600 proving that $H$ is not secure, which is a contradiction.
1604 \section{Cryptographical Applications}
1606 \subsection{A Cryptographically Secure PRNG for GPU}
1609 It is possible to build a cryptographically secure PRNG based on the previous
1610 algorithm (Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2}). Due to Proposition~\ref{cryptopreuve},
1611 it simply consists in replacing
1612 the {\it xor-like} PRNG by a cryptographically secure one.
1613 We have chosen the Blum Blum Shub generator~\cite{BBS} (usually denoted by BBS) having the form:
1614 $$x_{n+1}=x_n^2~ mod~ M$$ where $M$ is the product of two prime numbers (these
1615 prime numbers need to be congruent to 3 modulus 4). BBS is known to be
1616 very slow and only usable for cryptographic applications.
1619 The modulus operation is the most time consuming operation for current
1620 GPU cards. So in order to obtain quite reasonable performances, it is
1621 required to use only modulus on 32-bits integer numbers. Consequently
1622 $x_n^2$ need to be lesser than $2^{32}$, and thus the number $M$ must be
1623 lesser than $2^{16}$. So in practice we can choose prime numbers around
1624 256 that are congruent to 3 modulus 4. With 32-bits numbers, only the
1625 4 least significant bits of $x_n$ can be chosen (the maximum number of
1626 indistinguishable bits is lesser than or equals to
1627 $log_2(log_2(M))$). In other words, to generate a 32-bits number, we need to use
1628 8 times the BBS algorithm with possibly different combinations of $M$. This
1629 approach is not sufficient to be able to pass all the tests of TestU01,
1630 as small values of $M$ for the BBS lead to
1631 small periods. So, in order to add randomness we have proceeded with
1632 the followings modifications.
1635 Firstly, we define 16 arrangement arrays instead of 2 (as described in
1636 Algorithm \ref{algo:gpu_kernel2}), but only 2 of them are used at each call of
1637 the PRNG kernels. In practice, the selection of combination
1638 arrays to be used is different for all the threads. It is determined
1639 by using the three last bits of two internal variables used by BBS.
1640 %This approach adds more randomness.
1641 In Algorithm~\ref{algo:bbs_gpu},
1642 character \& is for the bitwise AND. Thus using \&7 with a number
1643 gives the last 3 bits, thus providing a number between 0 and 7.
1645 Secondly, after the generation of the 8 BBS numbers for each thread, we
1646 have a 32-bits number whose period is possibly quite small. So
1647 to add randomness, we generate 4 more BBS numbers to
1648 shift the 32-bits numbers, and add up to 6 new bits. This improvement is
1649 described in Algorithm~\ref{algo:bbs_gpu}. In practice, the last 2 bits
1650 of the first new BBS number are used to make a left shift of at most
1651 3 bits. The last 3 bits of the second new BBS number are added to the
1652 strategy whatever the value of the first left shift. The third and the
1653 fourth new BBS numbers are used similarly to apply a new left shift
1656 Finally, as we use 8 BBS numbers for each thread, the storage of these
1657 numbers at the end of the kernel is performed using a rotation. So,
1658 internal variable for BBS number 1 is stored in place 2, internal
1659 variable for BBS number 2 is stored in place 3, ..., and finally, internal
1660 variable for BBS number 8 is stored in place 1.
1665 \KwIn{InternalVarBBSArray: array with internal variables of the 8 BBS
1667 NumThreads: Number of threads\;
1668 array\_comb: 2D Arrays containing 16 combinations (in first dimension) of size combination\_size (in second dimension)\;
1669 array\_shift[4]=\{0,1,3,7\}\;
1672 \KwOut{NewNb: array containing random numbers in global memory}
1673 \If{threadId is concerned} {
1674 retrieve data from InternalVarBBSArray[threadId] in local variables including shared memory and x\;
1675 we consider that bbs1 ... bbs8 represent the internal states of the 8 BBS numbers\;
1676 offset = threadIdx\%combination\_size\;
1677 o1 = threadIdx-offset+array\_comb[bbs1\&7][offset]\;
1678 o2 = threadIdx-offset+array\_comb[8+bbs2\&7][offset]\;
1685 \tcp{two new shifts}
1686 shift=BBS3(bbs3)\&3\;
1688 t|=BBS1(bbs1)\&array\_shift[shift]\;
1689 shift=BBS7(bbs7)\&3\;
1691 t|=BBS2(bbs2)\&array\_shift[shift]\;
1692 t=t\textasciicircum shmem[o1]\textasciicircum shmem[o2]\;
1693 shared\_mem[threadId]=t\;
1694 x = x\textasciicircum t\;
1696 store the new PRNG in NewNb[NumThreads*threadId+i]\;
1698 store internal variables in InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadId] using a rotation\;
1701 \caption{main kernel for the BBS based PRNG GPU}
1702 \label{algo:bbs_gpu}
1705 In Algorithm~\ref{algo:bbs_gpu}, $n$ is for the quantity of random numbers that
1706 a thread has to generate. The operation t<<=4 performs a left shift of 4 bits
1707 on the variable $t$ and stores the result in $t$, and $BBS1(bbs1)\&15$ selects
1708 the last four bits of the result of $BBS1$. Thus an operation of the form
1709 $t<<=4; t|=BBS1(bbs1)\&15\;$ realizes in $t$ a left shift of 4 bits, and then
1710 puts the 4 last bits of $BBS1(bbs1)$ in the four last positions of $t$. Let us
1711 remark that the initialization $t$ is not a necessity as we fill it 4 bits by 4
1712 bits, until having obtained 32-bits. The two last new shifts are realized in
1713 order to enlarge the small periods of the BBS used here, to introduce a kind of
1714 variability. In these operations, we make twice a left shift of $t$ of \emph{at
1715 most} 3 bits, represented by \texttt{shift} in the algorithm, and we put
1716 \emph{exactly} the \texttt{shift} last bits from a BBS into the \texttt{shift}
1717 last bits of $t$. For this, an array named \texttt{array\_shift}, containing the
1718 correspondence between the shift and the number obtained with \texttt{shift} 1
1719 to make the \texttt{and} operation is used. For example, with a left shift of 0,
1720 we make an and operation with 0, with a left shift of 3, we make an and
1721 operation with 7 (represented by 111 in binary mode).
1723 It should be noticed that this generator has once more the form $x^{n+1} = x^n \oplus S^n$,
1724 where $S^n$ is referred in this algorithm as $t$: each iteration of this
1725 PRNG ends with $x = x \wedge t$. This $S^n$ is only constituted
1726 by secure bits produced by the BBS generator, and thus, due to
1727 Proposition~\ref{cryptopreuve}, the resulted PRNG is cryptographically
1733 \subsection{Practical Security Evaluation}
1735 Suppose now that the PRNG will work during
1736 $M=100$ time units, and that during this period,
1737 an attacker can realize $10^{12}$ clock cycles.
1738 We thus wonder whether, during the PRNG's
1739 lifetime, the attacker can distinguish this
1740 sequence from truly random one, with a probability
1741 greater than $\varepsilon = 0.2$.
1742 We consider that $N$ has 900 bits.
1744 The random process is the BBS generator, which
1745 is cryptographically secure. More precisely, it
1746 is $(T,\varepsilon)-$secure: no
1747 $(T,\varepsilon)-$distinguishing attack can be
1748 successfully realized on this PRNG, if~\cite{Fischlin}
1750 T \leqslant \dfrac{L(N)}{6 N (log_2(N))\varepsilon^{-2}M^2}-2^7 N \varepsilon^{-2} M^2 log_2 (8 N \varepsilon^{-1}M)
1752 where $M$ is the length of the output ($M=100$ in
1753 our example), and $L(N)$ is equal to
1755 2.8\times 10^{-3} exp \left(1.9229 \times (N ~ln(2)^\frac{1}{3}) \times ln(N~ln 2)^\frac{2}{3}\right)
1757 is the number of clock cycles to factor a $N-$bit
1760 A direct numerical application shows that this attacker
1761 cannot achieve its $(10^{12},0.2)$ distinguishing
1762 attack in that context.
1766 \subsection{Toward a Cryptographically Secure and Chaotic Asymmetric Cryptosystem}
1767 \label{Blum-Goldwasser}
1768 We finish this research work by giving some thoughts about the use of
1769 the proposed PRNG in an asymmetric cryptosystem.
1770 This first approach will be further investigated in a future work.
1772 \subsubsection{Recalls of the Blum-Goldwasser Probabilistic Cryptosystem}
1774 The Blum-Goldwasser cryptosystem is a cryptographically secure asymmetric key encryption algorithm
1775 proposed in 1984~\cite{Blum:1985:EPP:19478.19501}. The encryption algorithm
1776 implements a XOR-based stream cipher using the BBS PRNG, in order to generate
1777 the keystream. Decryption is done by obtaining the initial seed thanks to
1778 the final state of the BBS generator and the secret key, thus leading to the
1779 reconstruction of the keystream.
1781 The key generation consists in generating two prime numbers $(p,q)$,
1782 randomly and independently of each other, that are
1783 congruent to 3 mod 4, and to compute the modulus $N=pq$.
1784 The public key is $N$, whereas the secret key is the factorization $(p,q)$.
1787 Suppose Bob wishes to send a string $m=(m_0, \dots, m_{L-1})$ of $L$ bits to Alice:
1789 \item Bob picks an integer $r$ randomly in the interval $\llbracket 1,N\rrbracket$ and computes $x_0 = r^2~mod~N$.
1790 \item He uses the BBS to generate the keystream of $L$ pseudorandom bits $(b_0, \dots, b_{L-1})$, as follows. For $i=0$ to $L-1$,
1793 \item While $i \leqslant L-1$:
1795 \item Set $b_i$ equal to the least-significant\footnote{As signaled previously, BBS can securely output up to $\mathsf{N} = \lfloor log(log(N)) \rfloor$ of the least-significant bits of $x_i$ during each round.} bit of $x_i$,
1797 \item $x_i = (x_{i-1})^2~mod~N.$
1800 \item The ciphertext is computed by XORing the plaintext bits $m$ with the keystream: $ c = (c_0, \dots, c_{L-1}) = m \oplus b$. This ciphertext is $[c, y]$, where $y=x_{0}^{2^{L}}~mod~N.$
1804 When Alice receives $\left[(c_0, \dots, c_{L-1}), y\right]$, she can recover $m$ as follows:
1806 \item Using the secret key $(p,q)$, she computes $r_p = y^{((p+1)/4)^{L}}~mod~p$ and $r_q = y^{((q+1)/4)^{L}}~mod~q$.
1807 \item The initial seed can be obtained using the following procedure: $x_0=q(q^{-1}~{mod}~p)r_p + p(p^{-1}~{mod}~q)r_q~{mod}~N$.
1808 \item She recomputes the bit-vector $b$ by using BBS and $x_0$.
1809 \item Alice finally computes the plaintext by XORing the keystream with the ciphertext: $ m = c \oplus b$.
1813 \subsubsection{Proposal of a new Asymmetric Cryptosystem Adapted from Blum-Goldwasser}
1815 We propose to adapt the Blum-Goldwasser protocol as follows.
1816 Let $\mathsf{N} = \lfloor log(log(N)) \rfloor$ be the number of bits that can
1817 be obtained securely with the BBS generator using the public key $N$ of Alice.
1818 Alice will pick randomly $S^0$ in $\llbracket 0, 2^{\mathsf{N}-1}\rrbracket$ too, and
1819 her new public key will be $(S^0, N)$.
1821 To encrypt his message, Bob will compute
1822 %%RAPH : ici, j'ai mis un simple $
1824 $c = \left(m_0 \oplus (b_0 \oplus S^0), m_1 \oplus (b_0 \oplus b_1 \oplus S^0), \hdots, \right.$
1825 $ \left. m_{L-1} \oplus (b_0 \oplus b_1 \hdots \oplus b_{L-1} \oplus S^0) \right)$
1827 instead of $\left(m_0 \oplus b_0, m_1 \oplus b_1, \hdots, m_{L-1} \oplus b_{L-1} \right)$.
1829 The same decryption stage as in Blum-Goldwasser leads to the sequence
1830 $\left(m_0 \oplus S^0, m_1 \oplus S^0, \hdots, m_{L-1} \oplus S^0 \right)$.
1831 Thus, with a simple use of $S^0$, Alice can obtain the plaintext.
1832 By doing so, the proposed generator is used in place of BBS, leading to
1833 the inheritance of all the properties presented in this paper.
1835 \section{Conclusion}
1838 In this paper, a formerly proposed PRNG based on chaotic iterations
1839 has been generalized to improve its speed. It has been proven to be
1840 chaotic according to Devaney.
1841 Efficient implementations on GPU using xor-like PRNGs as input generators
1842 have shown that a very large quantity of pseudorandom numbers can be generated per second (about
1843 20Gsamples/s), and that these proposed PRNGs succeed to pass the hardest battery in TestU01,
1844 namely the BigCrush.
1845 Furthermore, we have shown that when the inputted generator is cryptographically
1846 secure, then it is the case too for the PRNG we propose, thus leading to
1847 the possibility to develop fast and secure PRNGs using the GPU architecture.
1848 \begin{color}{red} An improvement of the Blum-Goldwasser cryptosystem, making it
1849 behaves chaotically, has finally been proposed. \end{color}
1851 In future work we plan to extend this research, building a parallel PRNG for clusters or
1852 grid computing. Topological properties of the various proposed generators will be investigated,
1853 and the use of other categories of PRNGs as input will be studied too. The improvement
1854 of Blum-Goldwasser will be deepened. Finally, we
1855 will try to enlarge the quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second either
1856 in a simulation context or in a cryptographic one.
1860 \bibliographystyle{plain}
1861 \bibliography{mabase}