\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{fancybox}
\usepackage{amsmath}
+\usepackage{amscd}
\usepackage{moreverb}
\usepackage{commath}
+\usepackage{algorithm2e}
+\usepackage{listings}
+\usepackage[standard]{ntheorem}
-\title{Efficient generation of pseudo random numbers based on chaotic iterations on GPU}
+% Pour mathds : les ensembles IR, IN, etc.
+\usepackage{dsfont}
+
+% Pour avoir des intervalles d'entiers
+\usepackage{stmaryrd}
+
+\usepackage{graphicx}
+% Pour faire des sous-figures dans les figures
+\usepackage{subfigure}
+
+\usepackage{color}
+
+\newtheorem{notation}{Notation}
+
+\newcommand{\X}{\mathcal{X}}
+\newcommand{\Go}{G_{f_0}}
+\newcommand{\B}{\mathds{B}}
+\newcommand{\N}{\mathds{N}}
+\newcommand{\BN}{\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}}
+\let\sur=\overline
+
+\newcommand{\alert}[1]{\begin{color}{blue}\textit{#1}\end{color}}
+
+\title{Efficient and Cryptographically Secure Generation of Chaotic Pseudorandom Numbers on GPU}
\begin{document}
+
+\author{Jacques M. Bahi, Rapha\"{e}l Couturier, Christophe
+Guyeux, and Pierre-Cyrille Heam\thanks{Authors in alphabetic order}}
+
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
-This is the abstract
+In this paper we present a new pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) on
+graphics processing units (GPU). This PRNG is based on the so-called chaotic iterations. It
+is firstly proven to be chaotic according to the Devaney's formulation. We thus propose an efficient
+implementation for GPU that successfully passes the {\it BigCrush} tests, deemed to be the hardest
+battery of tests in TestU01. Experiments show that this PRNG can generate
+about 20 billions of random numbers per second on Tesla C1060 and NVidia GTX280
+cards.
+It is finally established that, under reasonable assumptions, the proposed PRNG can be cryptographically
+secure.
+
+
\end{abstract}
\section{Introduction}
-Interet des itérations chaotiques pour générer des nombre alea\\
-Interet de générer des nombres alea sur GPU
-...
+Randomness is of importance in many fields as scientific simulations or cryptography.
+``Random numbers'' can mainly be generated either by a deterministic and reproducible algorithm
+called a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG), or by a physical non-deterministic
+process having all the characteristics of a random noise, called a truly random number
+generator (TRNG).
+In this paper, we focus on reproducible generators, useful for instance in
+Monte-Carlo based simulators or in several cryptographic schemes.
+These domains need PRNGs that are statistically irreproachable.
+On some fields as in numerical simulations, speed is a strong requirement
+that is usually attained by using parallel architectures. In that case,
+a recurrent problem is that a deflate of the statistical qualities is often
+reported, when the parallelization of a good PRNG is realized.
+This is why ad-hoc PRNGs for each possible architecture must be found to
+achieve both speed and randomness.
+On the other side, speed is not the main requirement in cryptography: the great
+need is to define \emph{secure} generators being able to withstand malicious
+attacks. Roughly speaking, an attacker should not be able in practice to make
+the distinction between numbers obtained with the secure generator and a true random
+sequence.
+Finally, a small part of the community working in this domain focus on a
+third requirement, that is to define chaotic generators.
+The main idea is to take benefits from a chaotic dynamical system to obtain a
+generator that is unpredictable, disordered, sensible to its seed, or in other words chaotic.
+Their desire is to map a given chaotic dynamics into a sequence that seems random
+and unassailable due to chaos.
+However, the chaotic maps used as a pattern are defined in the real line
+whereas computers deal with finite precision numbers.
+This distortion leads to a deflation of both chaotic properties and speed.
+Furthermore, authors of such chaotic generators often claim their PRNG
+as secure due to their chaos properties, but there is no obvious relation
+between chaos and security as it is understood in cryptography.
+This is why the use of chaos for PRNG still remains marginal and disputable.
+
+The authors' opinion is that topological properties of disorder, as they are
+properly defined in the mathematical theory of chaos, can reinforce the quality
+of a PRNG. But they are not substitutable for security or statistical perfection.
+Indeed, to the authors' point of view, such properties can be useful in the two following situations. On the
+one hand, a post-treatment based on a chaotic dynamical system can be applied
+to a PRNG statistically deflective, in order to improve its statistical
+properties. Such an improvement can be found, for instance, in~\cite{bgw09:ip,bcgr11:ip}.
+On the other hand, chaos can be added to a fast, statistically perfect PRNG and/or a
+cryptographically secure one, in case where chaos can be of interest,
+\emph{only if these last properties are not lost during
+the proposed post-treatment}. Such an assumption is behind this research work.
+It leads to the attempts to define a
+family of PRNGs that are chaotic while being fast and statistically perfect,
+or cryptographically secure.
+Let us finish this paragraph by noticing that, in this paper,
+statistical perfection refers to the ability to pass the whole
+{\it BigCrush} battery of tests, which is widely considered as the most
+stringent statistical evaluation of a sequence claimed as random.
+This battery can be found into the well-known TestU01 package~\cite{LEcuyerS07}.
+Chaos, for its part, refers to the well-established definition of a
+chaotic dynamical system proposed by Devaney~\cite{Devaney}.
+
+
+In a previous work~\cite{bgw09:ip,guyeux10} we have proposed a post-treatment on PRNGs making them behave
+as a chaotic dynamical system. Such a post-treatment leads to a new category of
+PRNGs. We have shown that proofs of Devaney's chaos can be established for this
+family, and that the sequence obtained after this post-treatment can pass the
+NIST~\cite{Nist10}, DieHARD~\cite{Marsaglia1996}, and TestU01~\cite{LEcuyerS07} batteries of tests, even if the inputted generators
+cannot.
+The proposition of this paper is to improve widely the speed of the formerly
+proposed generator, without any lack of chaos or statistical properties.
+In particular, a version of this PRNG on graphics processing units (GPU)
+is proposed.
+Although GPU was initially designed to accelerate
+the manipulation of images, they are nowadays commonly used in many scientific
+applications. Therefore, it is important to be able to generate pseudorandom
+numbers inside a GPU when a scientific application runs in it. This remark
+motivates our proposal of a chaotic and statistically perfect PRNG for GPU.
+Such device
+allows us to generated almost 20 billions of pseudorandom numbers per second.
+Last, but not least, we show that the proposed post-treatment preserves the
+cryptographical security of the inputted PRNG, when this last has such a
+property.
+
+The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{section:related
+ works} we review some GPU implementations of PRNGs. Section~\ref{section:BASIC
+ RECALLS} gives some basic recalls on the well-known Devaney's formulation of chaos,
+ and on an iteration process called ``chaotic
+iterations'' on which the post-treatment is based.
+Proofs of chaos are given in Section~\ref{sec:pseudorandom}.
+Section~\ref{sec:efficient PRNG} presents an efficient
+implementation of this chaotic PRNG on a CPU, whereas Section~\ref{sec:efficient PRNG
+ gpu} describes the GPU implementation.
+Such generators are experimented in
+Section~\ref{sec:experiments}.
+We show in Section~\ref{sec:security analysis} that, if the inputted
+generator is cryptographically secure, then it is the case too for the
+generator provided by the post-treatment.
+Such a proof leads to the proposition of a cryptographically secure and
+chaotic generator on GPU based on the famous Blum Blum Shum
+in Section~\ref{sec:CSGPU}.
+This research work ends by a conclusion section, in which the contribution is
+summarized and intended future work is presented.
+
+
+
+
+\section{Related works on GPU based PRNGs}
+\label{section:related works}
+
+Numerous research works on defining GPU based PRNGs have yet been proposed in the
+literature, so that completeness is impossible.
+This is why authors of this document only give reference to the most significant attempts
+in this domain, from their subjective point of view.
+The quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second is mentioned here
+only when the information is given in the related work.
+A million numbers per second will be simply written as
+1MSample/s whereas a billion numbers per second is 1GSample/s.
+
+In \cite{Pang:2008:cec} a PRNG based on cellular automata is defined
+with no requirement to an high precision integer arithmetic or to any bitwise
+operations. Authors can generate about
+3.2MSamples/s on a GeForce 7800 GTX GPU, which is quite an old card now.
+However, there is neither a mention of statistical tests nor any proof of
+chaos or cryptography in this document.
+
+In \cite{ZRKB10}, the authors propose different versions of efficient GPU PRNGs
+based on Lagged Fibonacci or Hybrid Taus. They have used these
+PRNGs for Langevin simulations of biomolecules fully implemented on
+GPU. Performance of the GPU versions are far better than those obtained with a
+CPU, and these PRNGs succeed to pass the {\it BigCrush} battery of TestU01.
+However the evaluations of the proposed PRNGs are only statistical ones.
+
+
+Authors of~\cite{conf/fpga/ThomasHL09} have studied the implementation of some
+PRNGs on different computing architectures: CPU, field-programmable gate array
+(FPGA), massively parallel processors, and GPU. This study is of interest, because
+the performance of the same PRNGs on different architectures are compared.
+FPGA appears as the fastest and the most
+efficient architecture, providing the fastest number of generated pseudorandom numbers
+per joule.
+However, we can notice that authors can ``only'' generate between 11 and 16GSamples/s
+with a GTX 280 GPU, which should be compared with
+the results presented in this document.
+We can remark too that the PRNGs proposed in~\cite{conf/fpga/ThomasHL09} are only
+able to pass the {\it Crush} battery, which is very easy compared to the {\it Big Crush} one.
+
+Lastly, Cuda has developed a library for the generation of pseudorandom numbers called
+Curand~\cite{curand11}. Several PRNGs are implemented, among
+other things
+Xorwow~\cite{Marsaglia2003} and some variants of Sobol. The tests reported show that
+their fastest version provides 15GSamples/s on the new Fermi C2050 card.
+But their PRNGs cannot pass the whole TestU01 battery (only one test is failed).
+\newline
+\newline
+We can finally remark that, to the best of our knowledge, no GPU implementation have been proven to be chaotic, and the cryptographically secure property is surprisingly never regarded.
+
+\section{Basic Recalls}
+\label{section:BASIC RECALLS}
+
+This section is devoted to basic definitions and terminologies in the fields of
+topological chaos and chaotic iterations.
+\subsection{Devaney's Chaotic Dynamical Systems}
+
+In the sequel $S^{n}$ denotes the $n^{th}$ term of a sequence $S$ and $V_{i}$
+denotes the $i^{th}$ component of a vector $V$. $f^{k}=f\circ ...\circ f$
+is for the $k^{th}$ composition of a function $f$. Finally, the following
+notation is used: $\llbracket1;N\rrbracket=\{1,2,\hdots,N\}$.
+
+
+Consider a topological space $(\mathcal{X},\tau)$ and a continuous function $f :
+\mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{X}$.
+
+\begin{definition}
+$f$ is said to be \emph{topologically transitive} if, for any pair of open sets
+$U,V \subset \mathcal{X}$, there exists $k>0$ such that $f^k(U) \cap V \neq
+\varnothing$.
+\end{definition}
+
+\begin{definition}
+An element $x$ is a \emph{periodic point} for $f$ of period $n\in \mathds{N}^*$
+if $f^{n}(x)=x$.% The set of periodic points of $f$ is denoted $Per(f).$
+\end{definition}
+
+\begin{definition}
+$f$ is said to be \emph{regular} on $(\mathcal{X}, \tau)$ if the set of periodic
+points for $f$ is dense in $\mathcal{X}$: for any point $x$ in $\mathcal{X}$,
+any neighborhood of $x$ contains at least one periodic point (without
+necessarily the same period).
+\end{definition}
+
+
+\begin{definition}[Devaney's formulation of chaos~\cite{Devaney}]
+$f$ is said to be \emph{chaotic} on $(\mathcal{X},\tau)$ if $f$ is regular and
+topologically transitive.
+\end{definition}
+
+The chaos property is strongly linked to the notion of ``sensitivity'', defined
+on a metric space $(\mathcal{X},d)$ by:
+
+\begin{definition}
+\label{sensitivity} $f$ has \emph{sensitive dependence on initial conditions}
+if there exists $\delta >0$ such that, for any $x\in \mathcal{X}$ and any
+neighborhood $V$ of $x$, there exist $y\in V$ and $n > 0$ such that
+$d\left(f^{n}(x), f^{n}(y)\right) >\delta $.
+
+$\delta$ is called the \emph{constant of sensitivity} of $f$.
+\end{definition}
+
+Indeed, Banks \emph{et al.} have proven in~\cite{Banks92} that when $f$ is
+chaotic and $(\mathcal{X}, d)$ is a metric space, then $f$ has the property of
+sensitive dependence on initial conditions (this property was formerly an
+element of the definition of chaos). To sum up, quoting Devaney
+in~\cite{Devaney}, a chaotic dynamical system ``is unpredictable because of the
+sensitive dependence on initial conditions. It cannot be broken down or
+simplified into two subsystems which do not interact because of topological
+transitivity. And in the midst of this random behavior, we nevertheless have an
+element of regularity''. Fundamentally different behaviors are consequently
+possible and occur in an unpredictable way.
+
+
+
+\subsection{Chaotic Iterations}
+\label{sec:chaotic iterations}
+
+
+Let us consider a \emph{system} with a finite number $\mathsf{N} \in
+\mathds{N}^*$ of elements (or \emph{cells}), so that each cell has a
+Boolean \emph{state}. Having $\mathsf{N}$ Boolean values for these
+ cells leads to the definition of a particular \emph{state of the
+system}. A sequence which elements belong to $\llbracket 1;\mathsf{N}
+\rrbracket $ is called a \emph{strategy}. The set of all strategies is
+denoted by $\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}.$
+
+\begin{definition}
+\label{Def:chaotic iterations}
+The set $\mathds{B}$ denoting $\{0,1\}$, let
+$f:\mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}\longrightarrow \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$ be
+a function and $S\in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}$ be a ``strategy''. The so-called
+\emph{chaotic iterations} are defined by $x^0\in
+\mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}}$ and
+\begin{equation}
+\forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast }, \forall i\in
+\llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket ,x_i^n=\left\{
+\begin{array}{ll}
+ x_i^{n-1} & \text{ if }S^n\neq i \\
+ \left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^n} & \text{ if }S^n=i.
+\end{array}\right.
+\end{equation}
+\end{definition}
+
+In other words, at the $n^{th}$ iteration, only the $S^{n}-$th cell is
+\textquotedblleft iterated\textquotedblright . Note that in a more
+general formulation, $S^n$ can be a subset of components and
+$\left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^{n}}$ can be replaced by
+$\left(f(x^{k})\right)_{S^{n}}$, where $k<n$, describing for example,
+delays transmission~\cite{Robert1986,guyeux10}. Finally, let us remark that
+the term ``chaotic'', in the name of these iterations, has \emph{a
+priori} no link with the mathematical theory of chaos, presented above.
+
+
+Let us now recall how to define a suitable metric space where chaotic iterations
+are continuous. For further explanations, see, e.g., \cite{guyeux10}.
+
+Let $\delta $ be the \emph{discrete Boolean metric}, $\delta
+(x,y)=0\Leftrightarrow x=y.$ Given a function $f$, define the function:
+\begin{equation}
+\begin{array}{lrll}
+F_{f}: & \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket\times \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}} &
+\longrightarrow & \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}} \\
+& (k,E) & \longmapsto & \left( E_{j}.\delta (k,j)+f(E)_{k}.\overline{\delta
+(k,j)}\right) _{j\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket},%
+\end{array}%
+\end{equation}%
+\noindent where + and . are the Boolean addition and product operations.
+Consider the phase space:
+\begin{equation}
+\mathcal{X} = \llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N} \times
+\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N},
+\end{equation}
+\noindent and the map defined on $\mathcal{X}$:
+\begin{equation}
+G_f\left(S,E\right) = \left(\sigma(S), F_f(i(S),E)\right), \label{Gf}
+\end{equation}
+\noindent where $\sigma$ is the \emph{shift} function defined by $\sigma
+(S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}}\in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow (S^{n+1})_{n\in
+\mathds{N}}\in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}$ and $i$ is the \emph{initial function}
+$i:(S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}} \in \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow S^{0}\in \llbracket
+1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket$. Then the chaotic iterations proposed in
+Definition \ref{Def:chaotic iterations} can be described by the following iterations:
+\begin{equation}
+\left\{
+\begin{array}{l}
+X^0 \in \mathcal{X} \\
+X^{k+1}=G_{f}(X^k).%
+\end{array}%
+\right.
+\end{equation}%
+
+With this formulation, a shift function appears as a component of chaotic
+iterations. The shift function is a famous example of a chaotic
+map~\cite{Devaney} but its presence is not sufficient enough to claim $G_f$ as
+chaotic.
+To study this claim, a new distance between two points $X = (S,E), Y =
+(\check{S},\check{E})\in
+\mathcal{X}$ has been introduced in \cite{guyeux10} as follows:
+\begin{equation}
+d(X,Y)=d_{e}(E,\check{E})+d_{s}(S,\check{S}),
+\end{equation}
+\noindent where
+\begin{equation}
+\left\{
+\begin{array}{lll}
+\displaystyle{d_{e}(E,\check{E})} & = & \displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{N}%
+}\delta (E_{k},\check{E}_{k})}, \\
+\displaystyle{d_{s}(S,\check{S})} & = & \displaystyle{\dfrac{9}{\mathsf{N}}%
+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\dfrac{|S^k-\check{S}^k|}{10^{k}}}.%
+\end{array}%
+\right.
+\end{equation}
+
+
+This new distance has been introduced to satisfy the following requirements.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item When the number of different cells between two systems is increasing, then
+their distance should increase too.
+\item In addition, if two systems present the same cells and their respective
+strategies start with the same terms, then the distance between these two points
+must be small because the evolution of the two systems will be the same for a
+while. Indeed, the two dynamical systems start with the same initial condition,
+use the same update function, and as strategies are the same for a while, then
+components that are updated are the same too.
+\end{itemize}
+The distance presented above follows these recommendations. Indeed, if the floor
+value $\lfloor d(X,Y)\rfloor $ is equal to $n$, then the systems $E, \check{E}$
+differ in $n$ cells ($d_e$ is indeed the Hamming distance). In addition, $d(X,Y) - \lfloor d(X,Y) \rfloor $ is a
+measure of the differences between strategies $S$ and $\check{S}$. More
+precisely, this floating part is less than $10^{-k}$ if and only if the first
+$k$ terms of the two strategies are equal. Moreover, if the $k^{th}$ digit is
+nonzero, then the $k^{th}$ terms of the two strategies are different.
+The impact of this choice for a distance will be investigate at the end of the document.
+
+Finally, it has been established in \cite{guyeux10} that,
+
+\begin{proposition}
+Let $f$ be a map from $\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ to itself. Then $G_{f}$ is continuous in
+the metric space $(\mathcal{X},d)$.
+\end{proposition}
+
+The chaotic property of $G_f$ has been firstly established for the vectorial
+Boolean negation $f(x_1,\hdots, x_\mathsf{N}) = (\overline{x_1},\hdots, \overline{x_\mathsf{N}})$ \cite{guyeux10}. To obtain a characterization, we have secondly
+introduced the notion of asynchronous iteration graph recalled bellow.
+
+Let $f$ be a map from $\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ to itself. The
+{\emph{asynchronous iteration graph}} associated with $f$ is the
+directed graph $\Gamma(f)$ defined by: the set of vertices is
+$\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$; for all $x\in\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ and
+$i\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket$,
+the graph $\Gamma(f)$ contains an arc from $x$ to $F_f(i,x)$.
+The relation between $\Gamma(f)$ and $G_f$ is clear: there exists a
+path from $x$ to $x'$ in $\Gamma(f)$ if and only if there exists a
+strategy $s$ such that the parallel iteration of $G_f$ from the
+initial point $(s,x)$ reaches the point $x'$.
+
+We have finally proven in \cite{bcgr11:ip} that,
+
+
+\begin{theorem}
+\label{Th:Caractérisation des IC chaotiques}
+Let $f:\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}\to\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$. $G_f$ is chaotic (according to Devaney)
+if and only if $\Gamma(f)$ is strongly connected.
+\end{theorem}
+
+This result of chaos has lead us to study the possibility to build a
+pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) based on the chaotic iterations.
+As $G_f$, defined on the domain $\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket^{\mathds{N}}
+\times \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$, is build from Boolean networks $f : \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}
+\rightarrow \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$, we can preserve the theoretical properties on $G_f$
+during implementations (due to the discrete nature of $f$). It is as if
+$\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$ represents the memory of the computer whereas $\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N}
+\rrbracket^{\mathds{N}}$ is its input stream (the seeds, for instance, in PRNG, or a physical noise in TRNG).
+
+\section{Application to Pseudorandomness}
+\label{sec:pseudorandom}
+
+\subsection{A First Pseudorandom Number Generator}
+
+We have proposed in~\cite{bgw09:ip} a new family of generators that receives
+two PRNGs as inputs. These two generators are mixed with chaotic iterations,
+leading thus to a new PRNG that improves the statistical properties of each
+generator taken alone. Furthermore, our generator
+possesses various chaos properties that none of the generators used as input
+present.
+
+\begin{algorithm}[h!]
+%\begin{scriptsize}
+\KwIn{a function $f$, an iteration number $b$, an initial configuration $x^0$
+($n$ bits)}
+\KwOut{a configuration $x$ ($n$ bits)}
+$x\leftarrow x^0$\;
+$k\leftarrow b + \textit{XORshift}(b)$\;
+\For{$i=0,\dots,k$}
+{
+$s\leftarrow{\textit{XORshift}(n)}$\;
+$x\leftarrow{F_f(s,x)}$\;
+}
+return $x$\;
+%\end{scriptsize}
+\caption{PRNG with chaotic functions}
+\label{CI Algorithm}
+\end{algorithm}
+
+\begin{algorithm}[h!]
+\KwIn{the internal configuration $z$ (a 32-bit word)}
+\KwOut{$y$ (a 32-bit word)}
+$z\leftarrow{z\oplus{(z\ll13)}}$\;
+$z\leftarrow{z\oplus{(z\gg17)}}$\;
+$z\leftarrow{z\oplus{(z\ll5)}}$\;
+$y\leftarrow{z}$\;
+return $y$\;
+\medskip
+\caption{An arbitrary round of \textit{XORshift} algorithm}
+\label{XORshift}
+\end{algorithm}
+
+
+
+
+
+This generator is synthesized in Algorithm~\ref{CI Algorithm}.
+It takes as input: a Boolean function $f$ satisfying Theorem~\ref{Th:Caractérisation des IC chaotiques};
+an integer $b$, ensuring that the number of executed iterations is at least $b$
+and at most $2b+1$; and an initial configuration $x^0$.
+It returns the new generated configuration $x$. Internally, it embeds two
+\textit{XORshift}$(k)$ PRNGs~\cite{Marsaglia2003} that returns integers
+uniformly distributed
+into $\llbracket 1 ; k \rrbracket$.
+\textit{XORshift} is a category of very fast PRNGs designed by George Marsaglia,
+which repeatedly uses the transform of exclusive or (XOR, $\oplus$) on a number
+with a bit shifted version of it. This PRNG, which has a period of
+$2^{32}-1=4.29\times10^9$, is summed up in Algorithm~\ref{XORshift}. It is used
+in our PRNG to compute the strategy length and the strategy elements.
+
+
+We have proven in \cite{bcgr11:ip} that,
+\begin{theorem}
+ Let $f: \mathds{B}^{n} \rightarrow \mathds{B}^{n}$, $\Gamma(f)$ its
+ iteration graph, $\check{M}$ its adjacency
+ matrix and $M$ a $n\times n$ matrix defined as in the previous lemma.
+ If $\Gamma(f)$ is strongly connected, then
+ the output of the PRNG detailed in Algorithm~\ref{CI Algorithm} follows
+ a law that tends to the uniform distribution
+ if and only if $M$ is a double stochastic matrix.
+\end{theorem}
+
+This former generator as successively passed various batteries of statistical tests, as the NIST~\cite{bcgr11:ip}, DieHARD~\cite{Marsaglia1996}, and TestU01~\cite{LEcuyerS07}.
+
+\subsection{Improving the Speed of the Former Generator}
+
+Instead of updating only one cell at each iteration, we can try to choose a
+subset of components and to update them together. Such an attempt leads
+to a kind of merger of the two sequences used in Algorithm
+\ref{CI Algorithm}. When the updating function is the vectorial negation,
+this algorithm can be rewritten 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 S^n,
+\end{array}
+\right.
+\label{equation Oplus}
+\end{equation}
+where $\oplus$ is for the bitwise exclusive or between two integers.
+This rewritten can be understood as follows. The $n-$th term $S^n$ of the
+sequence $S$, which is an integer of $\mathsf{N}$ binary digits, presents
+the list of cells to update in the state $x^n$ of the system (represented
+as an integer having $\mathsf{N}$ bits too). More precisely, the $k-$th
+component of this state (a binary digit) changes if and only if the $k-$th
+digit in the binary decomposition of $S^n$ is 1.
+
+The single basic component presented in Eq.~\ref{equation Oplus} is of
+ordinary use as a good elementary brick in various PRNGs. It corresponds
+to the following discrete dynamical system in chaotic iterations:
+
+\begin{equation}
+\forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast }, \forall i\in
+\llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket ,x_i^n=\left\{
+\begin{array}{ll}
+ x_i^{n-1} & \text{ if } i \notin \mathcal{S}^n \\
+ \left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^n} & \text{ if }i \in \mathcal{S}^n.
+\end{array}\right.
+\label{eq:generalIC}
+\end{equation}
+where $f$ is the vectorial negation and $\forall n \in \mathds{N}$,
+$\mathcal{S}^n \subset \llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$ is such that
+$k \in \mathcal{S}^n$ if and only if the $k-$th digit in the binary
+decomposition of $S^n$ is 1. Such chaotic iterations are more general
+than the ones presented in Definition \ref{Def:chaotic iterations} for
+the fact that, instead of updating only one term at each iteration,
+we select a subset of components to change.
+
+
+Obviously, replacing Algorithm~\ref{CI Algorithm} by
+Equation~\ref{equation Oplus}, possible when the iteration function is
+the vectorial negation, leads to a speed improvement. However, proofs
+of chaos obtained in~\cite{bg10:ij} have been established
+only for chaotic iterations of the form presented in Definition
+\ref{Def:chaotic iterations}. The question is now to determine whether the
+use of more general chaotic iterations to generate pseudorandom numbers
+faster, does not deflate their topological chaos properties.
+
+\subsection{Proofs of Chaos of the General Formulation of the Chaotic Iterations}
+\label{deuxième def}
+Let us consider the discrete dynamical systems in chaotic iterations having
+the general form:
+
+\begin{equation}
+\forall n\in \mathds{N}^{\ast }, \forall i\in
+\llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket ,x_i^n=\left\{
+\begin{array}{ll}
+ x_i^{n-1} & \text{ if } i \notin \mathcal{S}^n \\
+ \left(f(x^{n-1})\right)_{S^n} & \text{ if }i \in \mathcal{S}^n.
+\end{array}\right.
+\label{general CIs}
+\end{equation}
+
+In other words, at the $n^{th}$ iteration, only the cells whose id is
+contained into the set $S^{n}$ are iterated.
+
+Let us now rewrite these general chaotic iterations as usual discrete dynamical
+system of the form $X^{n+1}=f(X^n)$ on an ad hoc metric space. Such a formulation
+is required in order to study the topological behavior of the system.
+
+Let us introduce the following function:
+\begin{equation}
+\begin{array}{cccc}
+ \chi: & \llbracket 1; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket \times \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right) & \longrightarrow & \mathds{B}\\
+ & (i,X) & \longmapsto & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & \textrm{if }i \notin X, \\ 1 & \textrm{if }i \in X, \end{array}\right.
+\end{array}
+\end{equation}
+where $\mathcal{P}\left(X\right)$ is for the powerset of the set $X$, that is, $Y \in \mathcal{P}\left(X\right) \Longleftrightarrow Y \subset X$.
+
+Given a function $f:\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} \longrightarrow \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} $, define the function:
+\begin{equation}
+\begin{array}{lrll}
+F_{f}: & \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket \right) \times \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}} &
+\longrightarrow & \mathds{B}^{\mathsf{N}} \\
+& (P,E) & \longmapsto & \left( E_{j}.\chi (j,P)+f(E)_{j}.\overline{\chi
+(j,P)}\right) _{j\in \llbracket1;\mathsf{N}\rrbracket},%
+\end{array}%
+\end{equation}%
+where + and . are the Boolean addition and product operations, and $\overline{x}$
+is the negation of the Boolean $x$.
+Consider the phase space:
+\begin{equation}
+\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N} \times
+\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N},
+\end{equation}
+\noindent and the map defined on $\mathcal{X}$:
+\begin{equation}
+G_f\left(S,E\right) = \left(\sigma(S), F_f(i(S),E)\right), \label{Gf}
+\end{equation}
+\noindent where $\sigma$ is the \emph{shift} function defined by $\sigma
+(S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}}\in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow (S^{n+1})_{n\in
+\mathds{N}}\in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}$ and $i$ is the \emph{initial function}
+$i:(S^{n})_{n\in \mathds{N}} \in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}\longrightarrow S^{0}\in \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1 ; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)$.
+Then the general chaotic iterations defined in Equation \ref{general CIs} can
+be described by the following discrete dynamical system:
+\begin{equation}
+\left\{
+\begin{array}{l}
+X^0 \in \mathcal{X} \\
+X^{k+1}=G_{f}(X^k).%
+\end{array}%
+\right.
+\end{equation}%
+
+Another time, a shift function appears as a component of these general chaotic
+iterations.
+
+To study the Devaney's chaos property, a distance between two points
+$X = (S,E), Y = (\check{S},\check{E})$ of $\mathcal{X}$ must be defined.
+Let us introduce:
+\begin{equation}
+d(X,Y)=d_{e}(E,\check{E})+d_{s}(S,\check{S}),
+\label{nouveau d}
+\end{equation}
+\noindent where
+\begin{equation}
+\left\{
+\begin{array}{lll}
+\displaystyle{d_{e}(E,\check{E})} & = & \displaystyle{\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{N}%
+}\delta (E_{k},\check{E}_{k})}\textrm{ is another time the Hamming distance}, \\
+\displaystyle{d_{s}(S,\check{S})} & = & \displaystyle{\dfrac{9}{\mathsf{N}}%
+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty }\dfrac{|S^k\Delta {S}^k|}{10^{k}}}.%
+\end{array}%
+\right.
+\end{equation}
+where $|X|$ is the cardinality of a set $X$ and $A\Delta B$ is for the symmetric difference, defined for sets A, B as
+$A\,\Delta\,B = (A \setminus B) \cup (B \setminus A)$.
+
+
+\begin{proposition}
+The function $d$ defined in Eq.~\ref{nouveau d} is a metric on $\mathcal{X}$.
+\end{proposition}
+
+\begin{proof}
+ $d_e$ is the Hamming distance. We will prove that $d_s$ is a distance
+too, thus $d$ will be a distance as sum of two distances.
+ \begin{itemize}
+\item Obviously, $d_s(S,\check{S})\geqslant 0$, and if $S=\check{S}$, then
+$d_s(S,\check{S})=0$. Conversely, if $d_s(S,\check{S})=0$, then
+$\forall k \in \mathds{N}, |S^k\Delta {S}^k|=0$, and so $\forall k, S^k=\check{S}^k$.
+ \item $d_s$ is symmetric
+($d_s(S,\check{S})=d_s(\check{S},S)$) due to the commutative property
+of the symmetric difference.
+\item Finally, $|S \Delta S''| = |(S \Delta \varnothing) \Delta S''|= |S \Delta (S'\Delta S') \Delta S''|= |(S \Delta S') \Delta (S' \Delta S'')|\leqslant |S \Delta S'| + |S' \Delta S''|$,
+and so for all subsets $S,S',$ and $S''$ of $\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$,
+we have $d_s(S,S'') \leqslant d_e(S,S')+d_s(S',S'')$, and the triangle
+inequality is obtained.
+ \end{itemize}
+\end{proof}
+
+
+Before being able to study the topological behavior of the general
+chaotic iterations, we must firstly establish that:
+
+\begin{proposition}
+ For all $f:\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} \longrightarrow \mathds{B}^\mathsf{N} $, the function $G_f$ is continuous on
+$\left( \mathcal{X},d\right)$.
+\end{proposition}
+
+
+\begin{proof}
+We use the sequential continuity.
+Let $(S^n,E^n)_{n\in \mathds{N}}$ be a sequence of the phase space $%
+\mathcal{X}$, which converges to $(S,E)$. We will prove that $\left(
+G_{f}(S^n,E^n)\right) _{n\in \mathds{N}}$ converges to $\left(
+G_{f}(S,E)\right) $. Let us remark that for all $n$, $S^n$ is a strategy,
+thus, we consider a sequence of strategies (\emph{i.e.}, a sequence of
+sequences).\newline
+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
+to 0. But $d_{e}(E^n,E)$ is an integer, so $\exists n_{0}\in \mathds{N},$ $%
+d_{e}(E^n,E)=0$ for any $n\geqslant n_{0}$.\newline
+In other words, there exists a threshold $n_{0}\in \mathds{N}$ after which no
+cell will change its state:
+$\exists n_{0}\in \mathds{N},n\geqslant n_{0}\Rightarrow E^n = E.$
+
+In addition, $d_{s}(S^n,S)\longrightarrow 0,$ so $\exists n_{1}\in %
+\mathds{N},d_{s}(S^n,S)<10^{-1}$ for all indexes greater than or equal to $%
+n_{1}$. This means that for $n\geqslant n_{1}$, all the $S^n$ have the same
+first term, which is $S^0$: $\forall n\geqslant n_{1},S_0^n=S_0.$
+
+Thus, after the $max(n_{0},n_{1})^{th}$ term, states of $E^n$ and $E$ are
+identical and strategies $S^n$ and $S$ start with the same first term.\newline
+Consequently, states of $G_{f}(S^n,E^n)$ and $G_{f}(S,E)$ are equal,
+so, after the $max(n_0, n_1)^{th}$ term, the distance $d$ between these two points is strictly less than 1.\newline
+\noindent We now prove that the distance between $\left(
+G_{f}(S^n,E^n)\right) $ and $\left( G_{f}(S,E)\right) $ is convergent to
+0. Let $\varepsilon >0$. \medskip
+\begin{itemize}
+\item If $\varepsilon \geqslant 1$, we see that distance
+between $\left( G_{f}(S^n,E^n)\right) $ and $\left( G_{f}(S,E)\right) $ is
+strictly less than 1 after the $max(n_{0},n_{1})^{th}$ term (same state).
+\medskip
+\item If $\varepsilon <1$, then $\exists k\in \mathds{N},10^{-k}\geqslant
+\varepsilon > 10^{-(k+1)}$. But $d_{s}(S^n,S)$ converges to 0, so
+\begin{equation*}
+\exists n_{2}\in \mathds{N},\forall n\geqslant
+n_{2},d_{s}(S^n,S)<10^{-(k+2)},
+\end{equation*}%
+thus after $n_{2}$, the $k+2$ first terms of $S^n$ and $S$ are equal.
+\end{itemize}
+\noindent As a consequence, the $k+1$ first entries of the strategies of $%
+G_{f}(S^n,E^n)$ 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
+the distance between $(S^n,E^n)$ and $(S,E)$ is strictly less than $%
+10^{-(k+1)}\leqslant \varepsilon $.\bigskip \newline
+In conclusion,
+$$
+\forall \varepsilon >0,\exists N_{0}=max(n_{0},n_{1},n_{2})\in \mathds{N}%
+,\forall n\geqslant N_{0},
+ d\left( G_{f}(S^n,E^n);G_{f}(S,E)\right)
+\leqslant \varepsilon .
+$$
+$G_{f}$ is consequently continuous.
+\end{proof}
+
+
+It is now possible to study the topological behavior of the general chaotic
+iterations. We will prove that,
+
+\begin{theorem}
+\label{t:chaos des general}
+ The general chaotic iterations defined on Equation~\ref{general CIs} satisfy
+the Devaney's property of chaos.
+\end{theorem}
+
+Let us firstly prove the following lemma.
+
+\begin{lemma}[Strong transitivity]
+\label{strongTrans}
+ For all couples $X,Y \in \mathcal{X}$ and any neighborhood $V$ of $X$, we can
+find $n \in \mathds{N}^*$ and $X' \in V$ such that $G^n(X')=Y$.
+\end{lemma}
+
+\begin{proof}
+ Let $X=(S,E)$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $k_0 = \lfloor log_{10}(\varepsilon)+1 \rfloor$.
+Any point $X'=(S',E')$ such that $E'=E$ and $\forall k \leqslant k_0, S'^k=S^k$,
+are in the open ball $\mathcal{B}\left(X,\varepsilon\right)$. Let us define
+$\check{X} = \left(\check{S},\check{E}\right)$, where $\check{X}= G^{k_0}(X)$.
+We denote by $s\subset \llbracket 1; \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$ the set of coordinates
+that are different between $\check{E}$ and the state of $Y$. Thus each point $X'$ of
+the form $(S',E')$ where $E'=E$ and $S'$ starts with
+$(S^0, S^1, \hdots, S^{k_0},s,\hdots)$, verifies the following properties:
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item $X'$ is in $\mathcal{B}\left(X,\varepsilon\right)$,
+ \item the state of $G_f^{k_0+1}(X')$ is the state of $Y$.
+\end{itemize}
+Finally the point $\left(\left(S^0, S^1, \hdots, S^{k_0},s,s^0, s^1, \hdots\right); E\right)$,
+where $(s^0,s^1, \hdots)$ is the strategy of $Y$, satisfies the properties
+claimed in the lemma.
+\end{proof}
+
+We can now prove the Theorem~\ref{t:chaos des general}...
+
+\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{t:chaos des general}]
+Firstly, strong transitivity implies transitivity.
+
+Let $(S,E) \in\mathcal{X}$ and $\varepsilon >0$. To
+prove that $G_f$ is regular, it is sufficient to prove that
+there exists a strategy $\tilde S$ such that the distance between
+$(\tilde S,E)$ and $(S,E)$ is less than $\varepsilon$, and such that
+$(\tilde S,E)$ is a periodic point.
-\section{Chaotic iterations}
+Let $t_1=\lfloor-\log_{10}(\varepsilon)\rfloor$, and let $E'$ be the
+configuration that we obtain from $(S,E)$ after $t_1$ iterations of
+$G_f$. As $G_f$ is strongly transitive, there exists a strategy $S'$
+and $t_2\in\mathds{N}$ such
+that $E$ is reached from $(S',E')$ after $t_2$ iterations of $G_f$.
-Présentation des itérations chaotiques
+Consider the strategy $\tilde S$ that alternates the first $t_1$ terms
+of $S$ and the first $t_2$ terms of $S'$: $$\tilde
+S=(S_0,\dots,S_{t_1-1},S'_0,\dots,S'_{t_2-1},S_0,\dots,S_{t_1-1},S'_0,\dots,S'_{t_2-1},S_0,\dots).$$ It
+is clear that $(\tilde S,E)$ is obtained from $(\tilde S,E)$ after
+$t_1+t_2$ iterations of $G_f$. So $(\tilde S,E)$ is a periodic
+point. Since $\tilde S_t=S_t$ for $t<t_1$, by the choice of $t_1$, we
+have $d((S,E),(\tilde S,E))<\epsilon$.
+\end{proof}
-\section{Efficient prng based on chaotic iterations}
-On parle du séquentiel avec des nombres 64 bits\\
-Faire le lien avec le paragraphe précédent (je considère que la stratégie s'appelle $S^i$\\
+\section{Efficient PRNG based on Chaotic Iterations}
+\label{sec:efficient PRNG}
-In order to implement efficiently a PRNG based on chaotic iterations it is
-possible to improve previous works [ref]. One solution consists in considering
-that the strategy used $S^i$ contains all the bits for which the negation is
-achieved out. Then instead of applying the negation on these bits we can simply
-apply the xor operator between the current number and the strategy $S^i$. In
-order to obtain the strategy we also use a classical PRNG.
+Based on the proof presented in the previous section, it is now possible to
+improve the speed of the generator formerly presented in~\cite{bgw09:ip,guyeux10}.
+The first idea is to consider
+that the provided strategy is a pseudorandom Boolean vector obtained by a
+given PRNG.
+An iteration of the system is simply the bitwise exclusive or between
+the last computed state and the current strategy.
+Topological properties of disorder exhibited by chaotic
+iterations can be inherited by the inputted generator, hoping by doing so to
+obtain some statistical improvements while preserving speed.
+
+
+Let us give an example using 16-bits numbers, to clearly understand how the bitwise xor operations
+are
+done.
+Suppose that $x$ and the strategy $S^i$ are given as
+binary vectors.
+Table~\ref{TableExemple} shows the result of $x \oplus S^i$.
+
+\begin{table}
+$$
+\begin{array}{|cc|cccccccccccccccc|}
+\hline
+x &=&1&0&1&1&1&0&1&0&1&0&0&1&0&0&1&0\\
+\hline
+S^i &=&0&1&1&0&0&1&1&0&1&1&1&0&0&1&1&1\\
+\hline
+x \oplus S^i&=&1&1&0&1&1&1&0&0&0&1&1&1&0&1&0&1\\
+\hline
+
+\hline
+ \end{array}
+$$
+\caption{Example of an arbitrary round of the proposed generator}
+\label{TableExemple}
+\end{table}
+
+
+
+\lstset{language=C,caption={C code of the sequential PRNG based on chaotic iterations},label=algo:seqCIPRNG}
+\begin{lstlisting}
+unsigned int CIPRNG() {
+ static unsigned int x = 123123123;
+ unsigned long t1 = xorshift();
+ unsigned long t2 = xor128();
+ unsigned long t3 = xorwow();
+ x = x^(unsigned int)t1;
+ x = x^(unsigned int)(t2>>32);
+ x = x^(unsigned int)(t3>>32);
+ x = x^(unsigned int)t2;
+ x = x^(unsigned int)(t1>>32);
+ x = x^(unsigned int)t3;
+ return x;
+}
+\end{lstlisting}
+
+
+
+
+
+In Listing~\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG} a sequential version of the proposed PRNG based on chaotic iterations
+ is presented. The xor operator is represented by \textasciicircum.
+This function uses three classical 64-bits PRNGs, namely the \texttt{xorshift}, the
+\texttt{xor128}, and the \texttt{xorwow}~\cite{Marsaglia2003}. In the following, we call them
+``xor-like PRNGs''.
+As
+each xor-like PRNG uses 64-bits whereas our proposed generator works with 32-bits,
+we use the command \texttt{(unsigned int)}, that selects the 32 least significant bits of a given integer, and the code
+\texttt{(unsigned int)(t3$>>$32)} in order to obtain the 32 most significant bits of \texttt{t}.
+
+So producing a pseudorandom number needs 6 xor operations
+with 6 32-bits numbers that are provided by 3 64-bits PRNGs. This version successfully passes the
+stringent BigCrush battery of tests~\cite{LEcuyerS07}.
+
+\section{Efficient PRNGs based on Chaotic Iterations on GPU}
+\label{sec:efficient PRNG gpu}
+
+In order to take benefits from the computing power of GPU, a program
+needs to have independent blocks of threads that can be computed
+simultaneously. In general, the larger the number of threads is, the
+more local memory is used, and the less branching instructions are
+used (if, while, ...), the better the performances on GPU is.
+Obviously, having these requirements in mind, it is possible to build
+a program similar to the one presented in Algorithm
+\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG}, which computes pseudorandom numbers on GPU. To
+do so, we must firstly recall that in the CUDA~\cite{Nvid10}
+environment, threads have a local identifier called
+\texttt{ThreadIdx}, which is relative to the block containing
+them. With CUDA parts of the code which are executed by the GPU are
+called {\it kernels}.
+
+
+\subsection{Naive Version for GPU}
+
+
+It is possible to deduce from the CPU version a quite similar version adapted to GPU.
+The simple principle consists to make each thread of the GPU computing the CPU version of our PRNG.
+Of course, the three xor-like
+PRNGs used in these computations must have different parameters.
+In a given thread, these lasts are
+randomly picked from another PRNGs.
+The initialization stage is performed by the CPU.
+To do it, the ISAAC PRNG~\cite{Jenkins96} is used to set all the
+parameters embedded into each thread.
+
+The implementation of the three
+xor-like PRNGs is straightforward when their parameters have been
+allocated in the GPU memory. Each xor-like works with an internal
+number $x$ that saves the last generated pseudorandom number. Additionally, the
+implementation of the xor128, the xorshift, and the xorwow respectively require
+4, 5, and 6 unsigned long as internal variables.
+
+\begin{algorithm}
+
+\KwIn{InternalVarXorLikeArray: array with internal variables of the 3 xor-like
+PRNGs in global memory\;
+NumThreads: number of threads\;}
+\KwOut{NewNb: array containing random numbers in global memory}
+\If{threadIdx is concerned by the computation} {
+ retrieve data from InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadIdx] in local variables\;
+ \For{i=1 to n} {
+ compute a new PRNG as in Listing\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG}\;
+ store the new PRNG in NewNb[NumThreads*threadIdx+i]\;
+ }
+ store internal variables in InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadIdx]\;
+}
+
+\caption{Main kernel of the GPU ``naive'' version of the PRNG based on chaotic iterations}
+\label{algo:gpu_kernel}
+\end{algorithm}
+
+Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel} presents a naive implementation of the proposed PRNG on
+GPU. Due to the available memory in the GPU and the number of threads
+used simultenaously, the number of random numbers that a thread can generate
+inside a kernel is limited (\emph{i.e.}, the variable \texttt{n} in
+algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel}). For instance, if $100,000$ threads are used and
+if $n=100$\footnote{in fact, we need to add the initial seed (a 32-bits number)},
+then the memory required to store all of the internals variables of both the xor-like
+PRNGs\footnote{we multiply this number by $2$ in order to count 32-bits numbers}
+and the pseudorandom numbers generated by our PRNG, is equal to $100,000\times ((4+5+6)\times
+2+(1+100))=1,310,000$ 32-bits numbers, that is, approximately $52$Mb.
+
+This generator is able to pass the whole BigCrush battery of tests, for all
+the versions that have been tested depending on their number of threads
+(called \texttt{NumThreads} in our algorithm, tested until $10$ millions).
+
+\begin{remark}
+The proposed algorithm has the advantage to manipulate independent
+PRNGs, so this version is easily adaptable on a cluster of computers too. The only thing
+to ensure is to use a single ISAAC PRNG. To achieve this requirement, a simple solution consists in
+using a master node for the initialization. This master node computes the initial parameters
+for all the differents nodes involves in the computation.
+\end{remark}
+
+\subsection{Improved Version for GPU}
+
+As GPU cards using CUDA have shared memory between threads of the same block, it
+is possible to use this feature in order to simplify the previous algorithm,
+i.e., to use less than 3 xor-like PRNGs. The solution consists in computing only
+one xor-like PRNG by thread, saving it into the shared memory, and then to use the results
+of some other threads in the same block of threads. In order to define which
+thread uses the result of which other one, we can use a combination array that
+contains the indexes of all threads and for which a combination has been
+performed.
+
+In Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2}, two combination arrays are used.
+The variable \texttt{offset} is computed using the value of
+\texttt{combination\_size}. Then we can compute \texttt{o1} and \texttt{o2}
+representing the indexes of the other threads whose results are used
+by the current one. In this algorithm, we consider that a 64-bits xor-like
+PRNG has been chosen, and so its two 32-bits parts are used.
+
+This version also can pass the whole {\it BigCrush} battery of tests.
+
+\begin{algorithm}
+
+\KwIn{InternalVarXorLikeArray: array with internal variables of 1 xor-like PRNGs
+in global memory\;
+NumThreads: Number of threads\;
+tab1, tab2: Arrays containing combinations of size combination\_size\;}
+
+\KwOut{NewNb: array containing random numbers in global memory}
+\If{threadId is concerned} {
+ retrieve data from InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadId] in local variables including shared memory and x\;
+ offset = threadIdx\%combination\_size\;
+ o1 = threadIdx-offset+tab1[offset]\;
+ o2 = threadIdx-offset+tab2[offset]\;
+ \For{i=1 to n} {
+ t=xor-like()\;
+ t=t $\hat{ }$ shmem[o1] $\hat{ }$ shmem[o2]\;
+ shared\_mem[threadId]=t\;
+ x = x $\hat{ }$ t\;
+
+ store the new PRNG in NewNb[NumThreads*threadId+i]\;
+ }
+ store internal variables in InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadId]\;
+}
+
+\caption{main kernel for the chaotic iterations based PRNG GPU efficient
+version}
+\label{algo:gpu_kernel2}
+\end{algorithm}
+
+\subsection{Theoretical Evaluation of the Improved Version}
+
+A run of Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2} consists in an operation ($x=x\oplus t$) having
+the form of Equation~\ref{equation Oplus}, which is equivalent to the iterative
+system of Eq.~\ref{eq:generalIC}. That is, an iteration of the general chaotic
+iterations is realized between the last stored value $x$ of the thread and a strategy $t$
+(obtained by a bitwise exclusive or between a value provided by a xor-like() call
+and two values previously obtained by two other threads).
+To be certain that we are in the framework of Theorem~\ref{t:chaos des general},
+we must guarantee that this dynamical system iterates on the space
+$\mathcal{X} = \mathcal{P}\left(\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket\right)^\mathds{N}\times\mathds{B}^\mathsf{N}$.
+The left term $x$ obviously belongs into $\mathds{B}^ \mathsf{N}$.
+To prevent from any flaws of chaotic properties, we must check that the right
+term (the last $t$), corresponding to the strategies, can possibly be equal to any
+integer of $\llbracket 1, \mathsf{N} \rrbracket$.
+
+Such a result is obvious, as for the xor-like(), all the
+integers belonging into its interval of definition can occur at each iteration, and thus the
+last $t$ respects the requirement. Furthermore, it is possible to
+prove by an immediate mathematical induction that, as the initial $x$
+is uniformly distributed (it is provided by a cryptographically secure PRNG),
+the two other stored values shmem[o1] and shmem[o2] are uniformly distributed too,
+(this can be stated by an immediate mathematical
+induction), and thus the next $x$ is finally uniformly distributed.
+
+Thus Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2} is a concrete realization of the general
+chaotic iterations presented previously, and for this reason, it satisfies the
+Devaney's formulation of a chaotic behavior.
+
+\section{Experiments}
+\label{sec:experiments}
+
+Different experiments have been performed in order to measure the generation
+speed. We have used a first computer equipped with a Tesla C1060 NVidia GPU card
+and an
+Intel Xeon E5530 cadenced at 2.40 GHz, and
+a second computer equipped with a smaller CPU and a GeForce GTX 280.
+All the
+cards have 240 cores.
+
+In Figure~\ref{fig:time_xorlike_gpu} we compare the quantity of pseudorandom numbers
+generated per second with various xor-like based PRNG. In this figure, the optimized
+versions use the {\it xor64} described in~\cite{Marsaglia2003}, whereas the naive versions
+embed the three xor-like PRNGs described in Listing~\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG}. In
+order to obtain the optimal performances, the storage of pseudorandom numbers
+into the GPU memory has been removed. This step is time consuming and slows down the numbers
+generation. Moreover this storage is completely
+useless, in case of applications that consume the pseudorandom
+numbers directly after generation. We can see that when the number of threads is greater
+than approximately 30,000 and lower than 5 millions, the number of pseudorandom numbers generated
+per second is almost constant. With the naive version, this value ranges from 2.5 to
+3GSamples/s. With the optimized version, it is approximately equal to
+20GSamples/s. Finally we can remark that both GPU cards are quite similar, but in
+practice, the Tesla C1060 has more memory than the GTX 280, and this memory
+should be of better quality.
+As a comparison, Listing~\ref{algo:seqCIPRNG} leads to the generation of about
+138MSample/s when using one core of the Xeon E5530.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
-\fbox{
-\begin{minipage}{14cm}
-unsigned int CIprng() \{\\
- static unsigned int x = 123123123;\\
- unsigned long t1 = xorshift();\\
- unsigned long t2 = xor128();\\
- unsigned long t3 = xorwow();\\
- x = x\textasciicircum (unsigned int)t1;\\
- x = x\textasciicircum (unsigned int)(t2$>>$32);\\
- x = x\textasciicircum (unsigned int)(t3$>>$32);\\
- x = x\textasciicircum (unsigned int)t2;\\
- x = x\textasciicircum (unsigned int)(t1$>>$32);\\
- x = x\textasciicircum (unsigned int)t3;\\
- return x;\\
-\}
-\end{minipage}
-}
+ \includegraphics[scale=.7]{curve_time_xorlike_gpu.pdf}
\end{center}
-\caption{sequential Chaotic Iteration PRNG}
-\label{algo:seqCIprng}
+\caption{Quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second with the xorlike-based PRNG}
+\label{fig:time_xorlike_gpu}
\end{figure}
-In Figure~\ref{algo:seqCIprng} a sequential version of our chaotic iterations
-based PRNG is presented. This version uses three classical 64 bits PRNG: the
-\texttt{xorshift}, the \texttt{xor128} and the \texttt{xorwow}. These three
-PRNGs are presented in~\cite{Marsaglia2003}. As each PRNG used works with
-64-bits and as our PRNG works with 32 bits, the use of \texttt{(unsigned int)}
-selects the 32 least significant bits whereas \texttt{(unsigned int)(t3$>>$32)}
-selects the 32 most significants bits of the variable \texttt{t}. This version
-sucesses the BigCrush of the TestU01 battery [P. L’ecuyer and
- R. Simard. Testu01].
-\section{Efficient prng based on chaotic iterations on GPU}
-On parle du passage du sequentiel au GPU
-\section{Experiments}
-On passe le BigCrush\\
-On donne des temps de générations sur GPU/CPU\\
-On donne des temps de générations de nombre sur GPU puis on rappatrie sur CPU / CPU ? bof bof, on verra
+In Figure~\ref{fig:time_bbs_gpu} we highlight the performances of the optimized
+BBS-based PRNG on GPU. On the Tesla C1060 we
+obtain approximately 700MSample/s and on the GTX 280 about 670MSample/s, which is
+obviously slower than the xorlike-based PRNG on GPU. However, we will show in the
+next sections that
+this new PRNG has a strong level of security, which is necessary paid by a speed
+reduction.
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\begin{center}
+ \includegraphics[scale=.7]{curve_time_bbs_gpu.pdf}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Quantity of pseudorandom numbers generated per second using the BBS-based PRNG}
+\label{fig:time_bbs_gpu}
+\end{figure}
+
+All these experiments allow us to conclude that it is possible to
+generate a very large quantity of pseudorandom numbers statistically perfect with the xor-like version.
+In a certain extend, it is the case too with the secure BBS-based version, the speed deflation being
+explained by the fact that the former version has ``only''
+chaotic properties and statistical perfection, whereas the latter is also cryptographically secure,
+as it is shown in the next sections.
+
-\section{Lyapunov}
+
+
+
+
+
+\section{Security Analysis}
+\label{sec:security analysis}
+
+
+
+In this section the concatenation of two strings $u$ and $v$ is classically
+denoted by $uv$.
+In a cryptographic context, a pseudorandom generator is a deterministic
+algorithm $G$ transforming strings into strings and such that, for any
+seed $k$ of length $k$, $G(k)$ (the output of $G$ on the input $k$) has size
+$\ell_G(k)$ with $\ell_G(k)>k$.
+The notion of {\it secure} PRNGs can now be defined as follows.
+
+\begin{definition}
+A cryptographic PRNG $G$ is secure if for any probabilistic polynomial time
+algorithm $D$, for any positive polynomial $p$, and for all sufficiently
+large $k$'s,
+$$| \mathrm{Pr}[D(G(U_k))=1]-Pr[D(U_{\ell_G(k)})=1]|< \frac{1}{p(k)},$$
+where $U_r$ is the uniform distribution over $\{0,1\}^r$ and the
+probabilities are taken over $U_N$, $U_{\ell_G(N)}$ as well as over the
+internal coin tosses of $D$.
+\end{definition}
+
+Intuitively, it means that there is no polynomial time algorithm that can
+distinguish a perfect uniform random generator from $G$ with a non
+negligible probability. The interested reader is referred
+to~\cite[chapter~3]{Goldreich} for more information. Note that it is
+quite easily possible to change the function $\ell$ into any polynomial
+function $\ell^\prime$ satisfying $\ell^\prime(N)>N)$~\cite[Chapter 3.3]{Goldreich}.
+
+The generation schema developed in (\ref{equation Oplus}) is based on a
+pseudorandom generator. Let $H$ be a cryptographic PRNG. We may assume,
+without loss of generality, that for any string $S_0$ of size $N$, the size
+of $H(S_0)$ is $kN$, with $k>2$. It means that $\ell_H(N)=kN$.
+Let $S_1,\ldots,S_k$ be the
+strings of length $N$ such that $H(S_0)=S_1 \ldots S_k$ ($H(S_0)$ is the concatenation of
+the $S_i$'s). The cryptographic PRNG $X$ defined in (\ref{equation Oplus})
+is the algorithm mapping any string of length $2N$ $x_0S_0$ into the string
+$(x_0\oplus S_0 \oplus S_1)(x_0\oplus S_0 \oplus S_1\oplus S_2)\ldots
+(x_o\bigoplus_{i=0}^{i=k}S_i)$. Particularly one has $\ell_{X}(2N)=kN=\ell_H(N)$.
+We claim now that if this PRNG is secure,
+then the new one is secure too.
+
+\begin{proposition}
+\label{cryptopreuve}
+If $H$ is a secure cryptographic PRNG, then $X$ is a secure cryptographic
+PRNG too.
+\end{proposition}
+
+\begin{proof}
+The proposition is proved by contraposition. Assume that $X$ is not
+secure. By Definition, there exists a polynomial time probabilistic
+algorithm $D$, a positive polynomial $p$, such that for all $k_0$ there exists
+$N\geq \frac{k_0}{2}$ satisfying
+$$| \mathrm{Pr}[D(X(U_{2N}))=1]-\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{kN}=1]|\geq \frac{1}{p(2N)}.$$
+We describe a new probabilistic algorithm $D^\prime$ on an input $w$ of size
+$kN$:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Decompose $w$ into $w=w_1\ldots w_{k}$, where each $w_i$ has size $N$.
+\item Pick a string $y$ of size $N$ uniformly at random.
+\item Compute $z=(y\oplus w_1)(y\oplus w_1\oplus w_2)\ldots (y
+ \bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k} w_i).$
+\item Return $D(z)$.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+Consider for each $y\in \mathbb{B}^{kN}$ the function $\varphi_{y}$
+from $\mathbb{B}^{kN}$ into $\mathbb{B}^{kN}$ mapping $w=w_1\ldots w_k$
+(each $w_i$ has length $N$) to
+$(y\oplus w_1)(y\oplus w_1\oplus w_2)\ldots (y
+ \bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k_1} w_i).$ By construction, one has for every $w$,
+\begin{equation}\label{PCH-1}
+D^\prime(w)=D(\varphi_y(w)),
+\end{equation}
+where $y$ is randomly generated.
+Moreover, for each $y$, $\varphi_{y}$ is injective: if
+$(y\oplus w_1)(y\oplus w_1\oplus w_2)\ldots (y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k_1}
+w_i)=(y\oplus w_1^\prime)(y\oplus w_1^\prime\oplus w_2^\prime)\ldots
+(y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=k} w_i^\prime)$, then for every $1\leq j\leq k$,
+$y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=j} w_i^\prime=y\bigoplus_{i=1}^{i=j} w_i$. It follows,
+by a direct induction, that $w_i=w_i^\prime$. Furthermore, since $\mathbb{B}^{kN}$
+is finite, each $\varphi_y$ is bijective. Therefore, and using (\ref{PCH-1}),
+one has
+\begin{equation}\label{PCH-2}
+\mathrm{Pr}[D^\prime(U_{kN})=1]=\mathrm{Pr}[D(\varphi_y(U_{kN}))=1]=\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{kN})=1].
+\end{equation}
+
+Now, using (\ref{PCH-1}) again, one has for every $x$,
+\begin{equation}\label{PCH-3}
+D^\prime(H(x))=D(\varphi_y(H(x))),
+\end{equation}
+where $y$ is randomly generated. By construction, $\varphi_y(H(x))=X(yx)$,
+thus
+\begin{equation}\label{PCH-3}
+D^\prime(H(x))=D(yx),
+\end{equation}
+where $y$ is randomly generated.
+It follows that
+
+\begin{equation}\label{PCH-4}
+\mathrm{Pr}[D^\prime(H(U_{N}))=1]=\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{2N})=1].
+\end{equation}
+ From (\ref{PCH-2}) and (\ref{PCH-4}), one can deduce that
+there exist a polynomial time probabilistic
+algorithm $D^\prime$, a positive polynomial $p$, such that for all $k_0$ there exists
+$N\geq \frac{k_0}{2}$ satisfying
+$$| \mathrm{Pr}[D(H(U_{N}))=1]-\mathrm{Pr}[D(U_{kN}=1]|\geq \frac{1}{p(2N)},$$
+proving that $H$ is not secure, a contradiction.
+\end{proof}
+
+
+\section{Cryptographical Applications}
+
+\subsection{A Cryptographically Secure PRNG for GPU}
+\label{sec:CSGPU}
+
+It is possible to build a cryptographically secure PRNG based on the previous
+algorithm (Algorithm~\ref{algo:gpu_kernel2}). Due to Proposition~\ref{cryptopreuve},
+it simply consists in replacing
+the {\it xor-like} PRNG by a cryptographically secure one.
+We have chosen the Blum Blum Shum generator~\cite{BBS} (usually denoted by BBS) having the form:
+$$x_{n+1}=x_n^2~ mod~ M$$ where $M$ is the product of two prime numbers. These
+prime numbers need to be congruent to 3 modulus 4. BBS is
+very slow and only usable for cryptographic applications.
+
+
+The modulus operation is the most time consuming operation for current
+GPU cards. So in order to obtain quite reasonable performances, it is
+required to use only modulus on 32 bits integer numbers. Consequently
+$x_n^2$ need to be less than $2^{32}$ and the number $M$ need to be
+less than $2^{16}$. So in practice we can choose prime numbers around
+256 that are congruent to 3 modulus 4. With 32 bits numbers, only the
+4 least significant bits of $x_n$ can be chosen (the maximum number of
+indistinguishable bits is lesser than or equals to
+$log_2(log_2(x_n))$). So to generate a 32 bits number, we need to use
+8 times the BBS algorithm with different combinations of $M$. This
+approach is not sufficient to pass all the tests of TestU01 because
+the fact of having chosen small values of $M$ for the BBS leads to
+have a small period. So, in order to add randomness we proceed with
+the followings modifications.
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+First we define 16 arrangement arrays instead of 2 (as described in
+algorithm \ref{algo:gpu_kernel2}) but only 2 are used at each call of
+the PRNG kernels. In practice, the selection of which combinations
+arrays will be used is different for all the threads and is determined
+by using the three last bits of two internal variables used by BBS.
+This approach adds more randomness. In algorithm~\ref{algo:bbs_gpu},
+character \& performs the AND bitwise. So using \&7 with a number
+gives the last 3 bits, so it provides a number between 0 and 7.
+\item
+Second, after the generation of the 8 BBS numbers for each thread we
+have a 32 bits number for which the period is possibly quite small. So
+to add randomness, we generate 4 more BBS numbers which allows us to
+shift the 32 bits numbers and add upto 6 new bits. This part is
+described in algorithm~\ref{algo:bbs_gpu}. In practice, if we call
+{\it strategy}, the number representing the strategy, the last 2 bits
+of the first new BBS number are used to make a left shift of at least
+3 bits. The last 3 bits of the second new BBS number are add to the
+strategy whatever the value of the first left shift. The third and the
+fourth new BBS numbers are used similarly to apply a new left shift
+and add 3 new bits.
+\item
+Finally, as we use 8 BBS numbers for each thread, the store of these
+numbers at the end of the kernel is performed using a rotation. So,
+internal variable for BBS number 1 is stored in place 2, internal
+variable for BBS number 2 is store ind place 3, ... and internal
+variable for BBS number 8 is stored in place 1.
+\end{itemize}
+
+
+\begin{algorithm}
+
+\KwIn{InternalVarBBSArray: array with internal variables of the 8 BBS
+in global memory\;
+NumThreads: Number of threads\;
+tab: 2D Arrays containing 16 combinations (in first dimension) of size combination\_size (in second dimension)\;}
+
+\KwOut{NewNb: array containing random numbers in global memory}
+\If{threadId is concerned} {
+ retrieve data from InternalVarBBSArray[threadId] in local variables including shared memory and x\;
+ we consider that bbs1 ... bbs8 represent the internal states of the 8 BBS numbers\;
+ offset = threadIdx\%combination\_size\;
+ o1 = threadIdx-offset+tab[bbs1\&7][offset]\;
+ o2 = threadIdx-offset+tab[8+bbs2\&7][offset]\;
+ \For{i=1 to n} {
+ t<<=4\;
+ t|=BBS1(bbs1)\&15\;
+ ...\;
+ t<<=4\;
+ t|=BBS8(bbs8)\&15\;
+ //two new shifts\;
+ t<<=BBS3(bbs3)\&3\;
+ t|=BBS1(bbs1)\&7\;
+ t<<=BBS7(bbs7)\&3\;
+ t|=BBS2(bbs2)\&7\;
+ t=t $\hat{ }$ shmem[o1] $\hat{ }$ shmem[o2]\;
+ shared\_mem[threadId]=t\;
+ x = x $\hat{ }$ t\;
+
+ store the new PRNG in NewNb[NumThreads*threadId+i]\;
+ }
+ store internal variables in InternalVarXorLikeArray[threadId] using a rotation\;
+}
+
+\caption{main kernel for the BBS based PRNG GPU}
+\label{algo:bbs_gpu}
+\end{algorithm}
+
+In algorithm~\ref{algo:bbs_gpu}, t<<=4 performs a left shift of 4 bits
+on the variable t and stores the result in t. BBS1(bbs1)\&15 selects
+the last four bits of the result of BBS1. It should be noticed that
+for the two new shifts, we use arbitrarily 4 BBSs that have previously
+been used.
+
+
+
+\subsection{Toward a Cryptographically Secure and Chaotic Asymmetric Cryptosystem}
+
+We finish this research work by giving some thoughts about the use of
+the proposed PRNG in an asymmetric cryptosystem.
+This first approach will be further investigated in a future work.
+
+\subsubsection{Recalls of the Blum-Goldwasser Probabilistic Cryptosystem}
+
+The Blum-Goldwasser cryptosystem is a cryptographically secure asymmetric key encryption algorithm
+proposed in 1984~\cite{Blum:1985:EPP:19478.19501}. The encryption algorithm
+implements a XOR-based stream cipher using the BBS PRNG, in order to generate
+the keystream. Decryption is done by obtaining the initial seed thanks to
+the final state of the BBS generator and the secret key, thus leading to the
+ reconstruction of the keystream.
+
+The key generation consists in generating two prime numbers $(p,q)$,
+randomly and independently of each other, that are
+ congruent to 3 mod 4, and to compute the modulus $N=pq$.
+The public key is $N$, whereas the secret key is the factorization $(p,q)$.
+
+
+Suppose Bob wishes to send a string $m=(m_0, \dots, m_{L-1})$ of $L$ bits to Alice:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Bob picks an integer $r$ randomly in the interval $\llbracket 1,N\rrbracket$ and computes $x_0 = r^2~mod~N$.
+\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 $L-1$,
+\begin{itemize}
+\item $i=0$.
+\item While $i \leqslant L-1$:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Set $b_i$ equal to the least-significant\footnote{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 $x_i$,
+\item $i=i+1$,
+\item $x_i = (x_{i-1})^2~mod~N.$
+\end{itemize}
+\end{itemize}
+\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 $y=x_{0}^{2^{L}}~mod~N.$
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+When Alice receives $\left[(c_0, \dots, c_{L-1}), y\right]$, she can recover $m$ as follows:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Using the secret key $(p,q)$, she computes $r_p = y^{((p+1)/4)^{L}}~mod~p$ and $r_q = y^{((q+1)/4)^{L}}~mod~q$.
+\item The initial seed can be obtained using the following procedure: $x_0=q(q^{-1}~{mod}~p)r_p + p(p^{-1}~{mod}~q)r_q~{mod}~N$.
+\item She recomputes the bit-vector $b$ by using BBS and $x_0$.
+\item Alice computes finally the plaintext by XORing the keystream with the ciphertext: $ m = c \oplus b$.
+\end{enumerate}
+
+
+\subsubsection{Proposal of a new Asymmetric Cryptosystem Adapted from Blum-Goldwasser}
+
+We propose to adapt the Blum-Goldwasser protocol as follows.
+Let $\mathsf{N} = \lfloor log(log(N)) \rfloor$ be the number of bits that can
+be obtained securely with the BBS generator using the public key $N$ of Alice.
+Alice will pick randomly $S^0$ in $\llbracket 0, 2^{\mathsf{N}-1}\rrbracket$ too, and
+her new public key will be $(S^0, N)$.
+
+To encrypt his message, Bob will compute
+\begin{equation}
+c = \left(m_0 \oplus (b_0 \oplus S^0), m_1 \oplus (b_0 \oplus b_1 \oplus S^0), \hdots, m_{L-1} \oplus (b_0 \oplus b_1 \hdots \oplus b_{L-1} \oplus S^0) \right)
+\end{equation}
+instead of $\left(m_0 \oplus b_0, m_1 \oplus b_1, \hdots, m_{L-1} \oplus b_{L-1} \right)$.
+
+The same decryption stage as in Blum-Goldwasser leads to the sequence
+$\left(m_0 \oplus S^0, m_1 \oplus S^0, \hdots, m_{L-1} \oplus S^0 \right)$.
+Thus, with a simple use of $S^0$, Alice can obtained the plaintext.
+By doing so, the proposed generator is used in place of BBS, leading to
+the inheritance of all the properties presented in this paper.
\section{Conclusion}
-\bibliographystyle{plain}
+
+
+In this paper we have presented a new class of PRNGs based on chaotic
+iterations. We have proven that these PRNGs are chaotic in the sense of Devaney.
+We also propose a PRNG cryptographically secure and its implementation on GPU.
+
+An efficient implementation on GPU based on a xor-like PRNG allows us to
+generate a huge number of pseudorandom numbers per second (about
+20Gsamples/s). This PRNG succeeds to pass the hardest batteries of TestU01.
+
+In future work we plan to extend this work for parallel PRNG for clusters or
+grid computing.
+
+
+
+\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{mabase}
\end{document}
