-\begin{color}{red}
-\section{Statistical Improvements Using Chaotic Iterations}
-
-\label{The generation of pseudo-random sequence}
-
-
-Let us now explain why we are reasonable grounds to believe that chaos
-can improve statistical properties.
-We will show in this section that, when mixing defective PRNGs with
-chaotic iterations, the result presents better statistical properties
-(this section summarizes the work of~\cite{bfg12a:ip}).
-
-\subsection{Details of some Existing Generators}
-
-The list of defective PRNGs we will use
-as inputs for the statistical tests to come is introduced here.
-
-Firstly, the simple linear congruency generator (LCGs) is defined by the following recurrence:
-\begin{equation}
-x^n = (ax^{n-1} + c)~mod~m
-\label{LCG}
-\end{equation}
-where $a$, $c$, and $x^0$ must be, among other things, non-negative and less than
-$m$~\cite{LEcuyerS07}. In what follows, 2LCGs and 3LCGs refer as two (resp. three)
-combinations of such LCGs. For further details, see~\cite{bfg12a:ip,combined_lcg}.
-
-Secondly, the multiple recursive generators (MRGs) is based on a linear recurrence of order
-$k$, modulo $m$~\cite{LEcuyerS07}:
-\begin{equation}
-x^n = (a^1x^{n-1}+~...~+a^kx^{n-k})~mod~m
-\label{MRG}
-\end{equation}
-Combination of two MRGs (referred as 2MRGs) is also be used in this paper.
-
-Thirdly, generators based on linear recurrences with carry will be regarded too in experimentations.
-This includes the add-with-carry (AWC) generator, based on the recurrence:
-\begin{equation}
-\label{AWC}
-\begin{array}{l}
-x^n = (x^{n-r} + x^{n-s} + c^{n-1})~mod~m, \\
-c^n= (x^{n-r} + x^{n-s} + c^{n-1}) / m, \end{array}\end{equation}
-the SWB generator, having the recurrence:
-\begin{equation}
-\label{SWB}
-\begin{array}{l}
-x^n = (x^{n-r} - x^{n-s} - c^{n-1})~mod~m, \\
-c^n=\left\{
-\begin{array}{l}
-1 ~~~~~\text{if}~ (x^{i-r} - x^{i-s} - c^{i-1})<0\\
-0 ~~~~~\text{else},\end{array} \right. \end{array}\end{equation}
-and the SWC generator designed by R. Couture, which is based on the following recurrence:
-\begin{equation}
-\label{SWC}
-\begin{array}{l}
-x^n = (a^1x^{n-1} \oplus ~...~ \oplus a^rx^{n-r} \oplus c^{n-1}) ~ mod ~ 2^w, \\
-c^n = (a^1x^{n-1} \oplus ~...~ \oplus a^rx^{n-r} \oplus c^{n-1}) ~ / ~ 2^w. \end{array}\end{equation}
-
-Then the generalized feedback shift register (GFSR) generator has been implemented, that is:
-\begin{equation}
-x^n = x^{n-r} \oplus x^{n-k}
-\label{GFSR}
-\end{equation}
-
-
-Finally, the nonlinear inversive generator~\cite{LEcuyerS07} has been regarded too, which is:
-
-\begin{equation}
-\label{INV}
-\begin{array}{l}
-x^n=\left\{
-\begin{array}{ll}
-(a^1 + a^2 / z^{n-1})~mod~m & \text{if}~ z^{n-1} \neq 0 \\
-a^1 & \text{if}~ z^{n-1} = 0 .\end{array} \right. \end{array}\end{equation}
-
-
-
-
-
-\subsection{Statistical tests}
-\label{Security analysis}
-
-Considering the properties of binary random sequences, various statistical tests can be designed
-to evaluate the assertion that the sequence is generated by a perfectly random source. We have
-performed some statistical tests for the CIPRNGs proposed here. These tests include NIST
-suite~\cite{ANDREW2008} and DieHARD battery of tests~\cite{DieHARD}. For completeness and
-for reference, we give in the following subsection a brief description of each of the
-aforementioned tests.
-
-
-
-\subsubsection{NIST statistical tests suite}
-
-Among the numerous standard tests for pseudo-randomness, a convincing way to show the randomness of the produced sequences is to confront them to the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) statistical tests, being an up-to-date tests suite proposed by the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL). A new version of the Statistical tests suite has been released in August 11, 2010.
-
-The NIST tests suite SP 800-22 is a statistical package consisting of 15 tests. They were developed to test the randomness of binary sequences produced by hardware or software based cryptographic pseudorandom number generators. These tests focus on a variety of different types of non-randomness that could exist in a sequence.
-
-For each statistical test, a set of $P-values$ (corresponding to the set of sequences) is produced.
-The interpretation of empirical results can be conducted in various ways.
-In this paper, the examination of the distribution of P-values to check for uniformity ($ P-value_{T}$) is used.
-The distribution of $P-values$ is examined to ensure uniformity.
-If $P-value_{T} \geqslant 0.0001$, then the sequences can be considered to be uniformly distributed.
-
-In our experiments, 100 sequences (s = 100), each with 1,000,000-bit long, are generated and tested. If the $P-value_{T}$ of any test is smaller than 0.0001, the sequences are considered to be not good enough and the generating algorithm is not suitable for usage.
-
-
-
-
-
-\subsubsection{DieHARD battery of tests}
-The DieHARD battery of tests has been the most sophisticated standard for over a decade. Because of the stringent requirements in the DieHARD tests suite, a generator passing this battery of
-tests can be considered good as a rule of thumb.
-
-The DieHARD battery of tests consists of 18 different independent statistical tests. This collection
- of tests is based on assessing the randomness of bits comprising 32-bit integers obtained from
-a random number generator. Each test requires $2^{23}$ 32-bit integers in order to run the full set
-of tests. Most of the tests in DieHARD return a $P-value$, which should be uniform on $[0,1)$ if the input file
-contains truly independent random bits. These $P-values$ are obtained by
-$P=F(X)$, where $F$ is the assumed distribution of the sample random variable $X$ (often normal).
-But that assumed $F$ is just an asymptotic approximation, for which the fit will be worst
-in the tails. Thus occasional $P-values$ near 0 or 1, such as 0.0012 or 0.9983, can occur.
-An individual test is considered to be failed if the $P-value$ approaches 1 closely, for example $P>0.9999$.
-
-
-\subsection{Results and discussion}
-\label{Results and discussion}
-\begin{table*}
-\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
-\caption{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rates for PRNGs without CI}
-\label{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for PRNGs without CI}
-\centering
- \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
- \hline\hline
-Types of PRNGs & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Linear PRNGs} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Lagged PRNGs} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ICG PRNGs} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Mixed PRNGs}\\ \hline
-\backslashbox{\textbf{$Tests$}} {\textbf{$PRNG$}} & LCG& MRG& AWC & SWB & SWC & GFSR & INV & LCG2& LCG3& MRG2 \\ \hline
-NIST & 11/15 & 14/15 &\textbf{15/15} & \textbf{15/15} & 14/15 & 14/15 & 14/15 & 14/15& 14/15& 14/15 \\ \hline
-DieHARD & 16/18 & 16/18 & 15/18 & 16/18 & \textbf{18/18} & 16/18 & 16/18 & 16/18& 16/18& 16/18\\ \hline
-\end{tabular}
-\end{table*}
-
-Table~\ref{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for PRNGs without CI} shows the results on the batteries recalled above, indicating that almost all the PRNGs cannot pass all their tests. In other words, the statistical quality of these PRNGs cannot fulfill the up-to-date standards presented previously. We will show that the CIPRNG can solve this issue.
-
-To illustrate the effects of this CIPRNG in detail, experiments will be divided in three parts:
-\begin{enumerate}
- \item \textbf{Single CIPRNG}: The PRNGs involved in CI computing are of the same category.
- \item \textbf{Mixed CIPRNG}: Two different types of PRNGs are mixed during the chaotic iterations process.
- \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 $\forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast },\forall i\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket,$
-\begin{equation}
-\begin{array}{l}
-x_i^n=\left\{
-\begin{array}{l}
-x_i^{n-1}~~~~~\text{if}~S^n\neq i \\
-\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}
-\end{equation}
-$m$ is called the \emph{functional power}.
-\end{enumerate}
-
-
-We have performed statistical analysis of each of the aforementioned CIPRNGs.
-The results are reproduced in Tables~\ref{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for PRNGs without CI} and \ref{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for single CIPRNGs}.
-The scores written in boldface indicate that all the tests have been passed successfully, whereas an asterisk ``*'' means that the considered passing rate has been improved.
-
-\subsubsection{Tests based on the Single CIPRNG}
-
-\begin{table*}
-\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
-\caption{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rates for PRNGs with CI}
-\label{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for single CIPRNGs}
-\centering
- \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
- \hline
-Types of PRNGs & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Linear PRNGs} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Lagged PRNGs} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{ICG PRNGs} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Mixed PRNGs}\\ \hline
-\backslashbox{\textbf{$Tests$}} {\textbf{$Single~CIPRNG$}} & LCG & MRG & AWC & SWB & SWC & GFSR & INV& LCG2 & LCG3& MRG2 \\ \hline\hline
-Old CIPRNG\\ \hline \hline
-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
-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
-New CIPRNG\\ \hline \hline
-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
-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
-Xor CIPRNG\\ \hline\hline
-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
-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
-\end{tabular}
-\end{table*}
-
-The statistical tests results of the PRNGs using the single CIPRNG method are given in Table~\ref{NIST and DieHARD tests suite passing rate the for single CIPRNGs}.
-We can observe that, except for the Xor CIPRNG, all of the CIPRNGs have passed the 15 tests of the NIST battery and the 18 tests of the DieHARD one.
-Moreover, considering these scores, we can deduce that both the single Old CIPRNG and the single New CIPRNG are relatively steadier than the single Xor CIPRNG approach, when applying them to different PRNGs.
-However, the Xor CIPRNG is obviously the fastest approach to generate a CI random sequence, and it still improves the statistical properties relative to each generator taken alone, although the test values are not as good as desired.
-
-Therefore, all of these three ways are interesting, for different reasons, in the production of pseudorandom numbers and,
-on the whole, the single CIPRNG method can be considered to adapt to or improve all kinds of PRNGs.
-
-To have a realization of the Xor CIPRNG that can pass all the tests embedded into the NIST battery, the Xor CIPRNG with multiple functional powers are investigated in Section~\ref{Tests based on Multiple CIPRNG}.
-
-
-\subsubsection{Tests based on the Mixed CIPRNG}
-
-To compare the previous approach with the CIPRNG design that uses a Mixed CIPRNG, we have taken into account the same inputted generators than in the previous section.
-These inputted couples $(PRNG_1,PRNG_2)$ of PRNGs are used in the Mixed approach as follows:
-\begin{equation}
-\left\{
-\begin{array}{l}
-x^0 \in \llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket, S \in \llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket^\mathds{N} \\
-\forall n \in \mathds{N}^*, x^n = x^{n-1} \oplus PRNG_1\oplus PRNG_2,
-\end{array}
-\right.
-\label{equation Oplus}
-\end{equation}
-
-With this Mixed CIPRNG approach, both the Old CIPRNG and New CIPRNG continue to pass all the NIST and DieHARD suites.
-In addition, we can see that the PRNGs using a Xor CIPRNG approach can pass more tests than previously.
-The main reason of this success is that the Mixed Xor CIPRNG has a longer period.
-Indeed, let $n_{P}$ be the period of a PRNG $P$, then the period deduced from the single Xor CIPRNG approach is obviously equal to:
-\begin{equation}
-n_{SXORCI}=
-\left\{
-\begin{array}{ll}
-n_{P}&\text{if~}x^0=x^{n_{P}}\\
-2n_{P}&\text{if~}x^0\neq x^{n_{P}}.\\
-\end{array}
-\right.
-\label{equation Oplus}
-\end{equation}
-
-Let us now denote by $n_{P1}$ and $n_{P2}$ the periods of respectively the $PRNG_1$ and $PRNG_2$ generators, then the period of the Mixed Xor CIPRNG will be:
-\begin{equation}
-n_{XXORCI}=
-\left\{
-\begin{array}{ll}
-LCM(n_{P1},n_{P2})&\text{if~}x^0=x^{LCM(n_{P1},n_{P2})}\\
-2LCM(n_{P1},n_{P2})&\text{if~}x^0\neq x^{LCM(n_{P1},n_{P2})}.\\
-\end{array}
-\right.
-\label{equation Oplus}
-\end{equation}
-
-In Table~\ref{DieHARD fail mixex CIPRNG}, we only show the results for the Mixed CIPRNGs that cannot pass all DieHARD suites (the NIST tests are all passed). It demonstrates that Mixed Xor CIPRNG involving LCG, MRG, LCG2, LCG3, MRG2, or INV cannot pass the two following tests, namely the ``Matrix Rank 32x32'' and the ``COUNT-THE-1's'' tests contained into the DieHARD battery. Let us recall their definitions:
-
-\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{Matrix Rank 32x32.} A random 32x32 binary matrix is formed, each row having a 32-bit random vector. Its rank is an integer that ranges from 0 to 32. Ranks less than 29 must be rare, and their occurences must be pooled with those of rank 29. To achieve the test, ranks of 40,000 such random matrices are obtained, and a chisquare test is performed on counts for ranks 32,31,30 and for ranks $\leq29$.
-
- \item \textbf{COUNT-THE-1's TEST} Consider the file under test as a stream of bytes (four per 2 bit integer). Each byte can contain from 0 to 8 1's, with probabilities 1,8,28,56,70,56,28,8,1 over 256. Now let the stream of bytes provide a string of overlapping 5-letter words, each ``letter'' taking values A,B,C,D,E. The letters are determined by the number of 1's in a byte: 0,1, or 2 yield A, 3 yields B, 4 yields C, 5 yields D and 6,7, or 8 yield E. Thus we have a monkey at a typewriter hitting five keys with various probabilities (37,56,70,56,37 over 256). There are $5^5$ possible 5-letter words, and from a string of 256,000 (over-lapping) 5-letter words, counts are made on the frequencies for each word. The quadratic form in the weak inverse of the covariance matrix of the cell counts provides a chisquare test: Q5-Q4, the difference of the naive Pearson sums of $(OBS-EXP)^2/EXP$ on counts for 5- and 4-letter cell counts.
-\end{itemize}
-
-The reason of these fails is that the output of LCG, LCG2, LCG3, MRG, and MRG2 under the experiments are in 31-bit. Compare with the Single CIPRNG, using different PRNGs to build CIPRNG seems more efficient in improving random number quality (mixed Xor CI can 100\% pass NIST, but single cannot).
-
-\begin{table*}
-\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
-\caption{Scores of mixed Xor CIPRNGs when considering the DieHARD battery}
-\label{DieHARD fail mixex CIPRNG}
-\centering
- \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
- \hline
-\backslashbox{\textbf{$PRNG_1$}} {\textbf{$PRNG_0$}} & LCG & MRG & INV & LCG2 & LCG3 & MRG2 \\ \hline\hline
-LCG &\backslashbox{} {} &16/18&16/18 &16/18 &16/18 &16/18\\ \hline
-MRG &16/18 &\backslashbox{} {} &16/18&16/18 &16/18 &16/18\\ \hline
-INV &16/18 &16/18&\backslashbox{} {} &16/18 &16/18&16/18 \\ \hline
-LCG2 &16/18 &16/18 &16/18 &\backslashbox{} {} &16/18&16/18\\ \hline
-LCG3 &16/18 &16/18 &16/18&16/18&\backslashbox{} {} &16/18\\ \hline
-MRG2 &16/18 &16/18 &16/18&16/18 &16/18 &\backslashbox{} {} \\ \hline
-\end{tabular}
-\end{table*}
-
-\subsubsection{Tests based on the Multiple CIPRNG}
-\label{Tests based on Multiple CIPRNG}
-
-Until now, the combination of at most two input PRNGs has been investigated.
-We now regard the possibility to use a larger number of generators to improve the statistics of the generated pseudorandom numbers, leading to the multiple functional power approach.
-For the CIPRNGs which have already pass both the NIST and DieHARD suites with 2 inputted PRNGs (all the Old and New CIPRNGs, and some of the Xor CIPRNGs), it is not meaningful to consider their adaption of this multiple CIPRNG method, hence only the Multiple Xor CIPRNGs, having the following form, will be investigated.
-\begin{equation}
-\left\{
-\begin{array}{l}
-x^0 \in \llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket, S \in \llbracket 0, 2^\mathsf{N}-1 \rrbracket^\mathds{N} \\
-\forall n \in \mathds{N}^*, x^n = x^{n-1} \oplus S^{nm}\oplus S^{nm+1}\ldots \oplus S^{nm+m-1} ,
-\end{array}
-\right.
-\label{equation Oplus}
-\end{equation}
-
-The question is now to determine the value of the threshold $m$ (the functional power) making the multiple CIPRNG being able to pass the whole NIST battery.
-Such a question is answered in Table~\ref{threshold}.
-
+%\section{Statistical Improvements Using Chaotic Iterations}
+
+%\label{The generation of pseudorandom sequence}
+
+
+%Let us now explain why we have reasonable ground to believe that chaos
+%can improve statistical properties.
+%We will show in this section that chaotic properties as defined in the
+%mathematical theory of chaos are related to some statistical tests that can be found
+%in the NIST battery. Furthermore, we will check that, when mixing defective PRNGs with
+%chaotic iterations, the new generator presents better statistical properties
+%(this section summarizes and extends the work of~\cite{bfg12a:ip}).
+
+
+
+%\subsection{Qualitative relations between topological properties and statistical tests}
+
+
+%There are various relations between topological properties that describe an unpredictable behavior for a discrete
+%dynamical system on the one
+%hand, and statistical tests to check the randomness of a numerical sequence
+%on the other hand. These two mathematical disciplines follow a similar
+%objective in case of a recurrent sequence (to characterize an intrinsically complicated behavior for a
+%recurrent sequence), with two different but complementary approaches.
+%It is true that the following illustrative links give only qualitative arguments,
+%and proofs should be provided later to make such arguments irrefutable. However
+%they give a first understanding of the reason why we think that chaotic properties should tend
+%to improve the statistical quality of PRNGs.
+%%
+%Let us now list some of these relations between topological properties defined in the mathematical
+%theory of chaos and tests embedded into the NIST battery. %Such relations need to be further
+%%investigated, but they presently give a first illustration of a trend to search similar properties in the
+%%two following fields: mathematical chaos and statistics.
+
+
+%\begin{itemize}
+% \item \textbf{Regularity}. As stated in Section~\ref{subsec:Devaney}, a chaotic dynamical system must
+%have an element of regularity. Depending on the chosen definition of chaos, this element can be the existence of
+%a dense orbit, the density of periodic points, etc. The key idea is that a dynamical system with no periodicity
+%is not as chaotic as a system having periodic orbits: in the first situation, we can predict something and gain a
+%knowledge about the behavior of the system, that is, it never enters into a loop. A similar importance for periodicity is emphasized in
+%the two following NIST tests~\cite{Nist10}:
+% \begin{itemize}
+% \item \textbf{Non-overlapping Template Matching Test}. Detect generators that produce too many occurrences of a given non-periodic (aperiodic) pattern.
+% \item \textbf{Discrete Fourier Transform (Spectral) Test}. Detect periodic features (i.e., repetitive patterns that are close one to another) in the tested sequence that would indicate a deviation from the assumption of randomness.
+% \end{itemize}
+
+%\item \textbf{Transitivity}. This topological property previously introduced states that the dynamical system is intrinsically complicated: it cannot be simplified into
+%two subsystems that do not interact, as we can find in any neighborhood of any point another point whose orbit visits the whole phase space.
+%This focus on the places visited by the orbits of the dynamical system takes various nonequivalent formulations in the mathematical theory
+%of chaos, namely: transitivity, strong transitivity, total transitivity, topological mixing, and so on~\cite{bg10:ij}. A similar attention
+%is brought on the states visited during a random walk in the two tests below~\cite{Nist10}:
+% \begin{itemize}
+% \item \textbf{Random Excursions Variant Test}. Detect deviations from the expected number of visits to various states in the random walk.
+% \item \textbf{Random Excursions Test}. Determine if the number of visits to a particular state within a cycle deviates from what one would expect for a random sequence.
+% \end{itemize}
+
+%\item \textbf{Chaos according to Li and Yorke}. Two points of the phase space $(x,y)$ define a couple of Li-Yorke when $\limsup_{n \rightarrow +\infty} d(f^{(n)}(x), f^{(n)}(y))>0$ et $\liminf_{n \rightarrow +\infty} d(f^{(n)}(x), f^{(n)}(y))=0$, meaning that their orbits always oscillate as the iterations pass. When a system is compact and contains an uncountable set of such points, it is claimed as chaotic according
+%to Li-Yorke~\cite{Li75,Ruette2001}. A similar property is regarded in the following NIST test~\cite{Nist10}.
+% \begin{itemize}
+% \item \textbf{Runs Test}. To determine whether the number of runs of ones and zeros of various lengths is as expected for a random sequence. In particular, this test determines whether the oscillation between such zeros and ones is too fast or too slow.
+% \end{itemize}
+% \item \textbf{Topological entropy}. The desire to formulate an equivalency of the thermodynamics entropy
+%has emerged both in the topological and statistical fields. Once again, a similar objective has led to two different
+%rewritting of an entropy based disorder: the famous Shannon definition of entropy is approximated in the statistical approach,
+%whereas topological entropy is defined as follows:
+%$x,y \in \mathcal{X}$ are $\varepsilon-$\emph{separated in time $n$} if there exists $k \leqslant n$ such that $d\left(f^{(k)}(x),f^{(k)}(y)\right)>\varepsilon$. Then $(n,\varepsilon)-$separated sets are sets of points that are all $\varepsilon-$separated in time $n$, which
+%leads to the definition of $s_n(\varepsilon,Y)$, being the maximal cardinality of all $(n,\varepsilon)-$separated sets. Using these notations,
+%the topological entropy is defined as follows: $$h_{top}(\mathcal{X},f) = \displaystyle{\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \Big[ \limsup_{n \rightarrow +\infty} \dfrac{1}{n} \log s_n(\varepsilon,\mathcal{X})\Big]}.$$
+%This value measures the average exponential growth of the number of distinguishable orbit segments.
+%In this sense, it measures the complexity of the topological dynamical system, whereas
+%the Shannon approach comes to mind when defining the following test~\cite{Nist10}:
+% \begin{itemize}
+%\item \textbf{Approximate Entropy Test}. Compare the frequency of the overlapping blocks of two consecutive/adjacent lengths ($m$ and $m+1$) against the expected result for a random sequence.
+% \end{itemize}
+
+% \item \textbf{Non-linearity, complexity}. Finally, let us remark that non-linearity and complexity are
+%not only sought in general to obtain chaos, but they are also required for randomness, as illustrated by the two tests below~\cite{Nist10}.
+% \begin{itemize}
+%\item \textbf{Binary Matrix Rank Test}. Check for linear dependence among fixed length substrings of the original sequence.
+%\item \textbf{Linear Complexity Test}. Determine whether or not the sequence is complex enough to be considered random.
+% \end{itemize}
+%\end{itemize}
+
+
+%We have proven in our previous works~\cite{guyeux12:bc} that chaotic iterations satisfying Theorem~\ref{Th:Caractérisation des IC chaotiques} are, among other
+%things, strongly transitive, topologically mixing, chaotic as defined by Li and Yorke,
+%and that they have a topological entropy and an exponent of Lyapunov both equal to $ln(\mathsf{N})$,
+%where $\mathsf{N}$ is the size of the iterated vector.
+%These topological properties make that we are ground to believe that a generator based on chaotic
+%iterations will probably be able to pass all the existing statistical batteries for pseudorandomness like
+%the NIST one. The following subsections, in which we prove that defective generators have their
+%statistical properties improved by chaotic iterations, show that such an assumption is true.
+
+%\subsection{Details of some Existing Generators}
+
+%The list of defective PRNGs we will use
+%as inputs for the statistical tests to come is introduced here.
+
+%Firstly, the simple linear congruency generators (LCGs) will be used.
+%They are defined by the following recurrence:
+%\begin{equation}
+%x^n = (ax^{n-1} + c)~mod~m,
+%\label{LCG}
+%\end{equation}
+%where $a$, $c$, and $x^0$ must be, among other things, non-negative and inferior to
+%$m$~\cite{LEcuyerS07}. In what follows, 2LCGs and 3LCGs refer to two (resp. three)
+%combinations of such LCGs. For further details, see~\cite{bfg12a:ip,combined_lcg}.
+
+%Secondly, the multiple recursive generators (MRGs) which will be used,
+%are based on a linear recurrence of order
+%$k$, modulo $m$~\cite{LEcuyerS07}:
+%\begin{equation}
+%x^n = (a^1x^{n-1}+~...~+a^kx^{n-k})~mod~m .
+%\label{MRG}
+%\end{equation}
+%The combination of two MRGs (referred as 2MRGs) is also used in these experiments.
