A comparative study and analysis of some pseudorandom number generator algorithms

Shobhit Sinha, SK Hafizul Islam, Mohammad S. Obaidat

2018

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1002/spy2.46
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

In this article, we have investigated the statistical nature of popular pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) present in the literature and have analyzed their performance against the battery of tests prescribed in NIST SP800‐22rev1a. Different tests performed in this article provide an insight into the PRNGs and have revealed if they are statistically random or not, which is the first criteria in being cryptographically secure. In our study, we have considered the following PRNGs: (a) Linear Congruential Generator, (b) WichMann‐Hill Algorithm, (c) Well Equidistributed Long Period Generator and (d) MIXMAX.