Hello. Le ven. 11 oct. 2019 à 15:54, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On 07/10/2019 15:00, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Hi. > > > > Le lun. 7 oct. 2019 à 15:54, Alex Herbert <alex.d.herb...@gmail.com> a > > écrit : > >> I have found a bug in the stress test application that affects all the > >> BigCrush results. > >> > >> This was found when updating the stress test application to support > >> 64-bit testing within PractRand, and testing of upper and lower 32-bits > >> from 64-bit out. An initial attempt to show that the lower 32-bits, bit > >> reversed, of the XOR_SHIFT_1024_S systematically fail Linear Complexity > >> tests did not work. > >> > >> The bug was a dual reversal of the platform byte-order. Code was added > >> to reverse the byte order in the link c application that read from stdin > >> and passes numbers to BigCrush. Later code was added to reverse the byte > >> order in the Java application so allowing Dieharder to work. The > >> original c application should have been updated but was not (despite the > >> fact I thought I had done this). So the byte order was not correct after > >> a dual reversal and the BigCrush results refer to a byte reversed output > >> sequence. > >> > >> I fixed the code and have verified that the stress test application can > >> identify Linear Complexity failures in XOR_SHIFT_1024_S. > >> > >> I am rerunning BigCrush for the other generators. > >> > >> Testing of generators with PractRand is still under trial and will > >> probably not make it for the 1.3 release. The only outstanding item for > >> 1.3 is continued work on updating the user guide. > > The userguide (and web site) can be updated at any time (between > > releases); it is not be a blocker. > > BigCrush has finished. Not much changed. > > I've added an option to look for systematic failures to the stress test > application. It is shown in the below table using the intersection > symbol (view these tables using a fixed width font): > > RNG New ∩ Old > ∩ > JDK 50,51,52,49,51 48 74,72,74,73,74 > 70 > WELL_512_A 6,7,8,6,6 6 7,6,6,6,6 > 6 > WELL_1024_A 5,4,5,5,4 4 4,4,5,4,4 > 4 > WELL_19937_A 2,2,3,3,3 2 3,3,2,2,2 > 2 > WELL_19937_C 4,2,2,2,2 2 2,2,3,2,2 > 2 > WELL_44497_A 3,2,2,2,3 2 2,2,2,2,3 > 2 > WELL_44497_B 2,2,2,2,2 2 2,3,2,2,2 > 2 > MT 2,3,2,2,3 2 2,3,2,2,2 > 2 > ISAAC 1,1,0,0,1 0 0,1,2,0,0 > 0 > SPLIT_MIX_64 0,0,0,1,0 0 1,0,0,0,0 > 0 > XOR_SHIFT_1024_S 1,0,0,0,2 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > TWO_CMRES 0,1,0,0,0 0 4,3,3,5,4 > 3 > MT_64 2,2,2,2,2 2 2,3,2,2,2 > 2 > MWC_256 0,1,1,1,0 0 0,0,0,2,0 > 0 > KISS 1,1,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > XOR_SHIFT_1024_S_PHI 0,2,0,0,1 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_64_S 1,2,3,1,1 1 1,1,2,1,3 > 1 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_64_SS 0,1,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_128_PLUS 0,0,1,0,0 0 1,2,2,1,1 > 1 > XO_SHI_RO_128_SS 1,0,1,0,0 0 0,1,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_128_PLUS 1,0,0,0,0 0 0,1,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_128_SS 1,1,1,0,0 0 1,0,1,0,0 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_256_PLUS 1,0,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_256_SS 0,0,0,0,1 0 0,1,0,2,1 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_512_PLUS 0,2,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,2,2 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_512_SS 0,0,0,0,0 0 0,1,0,1,0 > 0 > PCG_XSH_RR_32 0,0,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > PCG_XSH_RS_32 0,1,2,1,0 0 1,0,1,1,0 > 0 > PCG_RXS_M_XS_64 0,1,0,0,0 0 0,0,1,0,0 > 0 > PCG_MCG_XSH_RR_32 0,0,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > PCG_MCG_XSH_RS_32 2,1,0,1,0 0 1,1,0,0,0 > 0 > MSWS 0,0,0,1,2 0 0,0,0,1,0 > 0 > SFC_32 0,0,0,1,1 0 0,1,0,0,2 > 0 > SFC_64 0,0,0,1,2 0 0,1,0,0,1 > 0 > JSF_32 0,0,0,1,2 0 0,0,0,1,1 > 0 > JSF_64 0,0,2,0,0 0 1,1,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_128_PP 0,0,0,1,1 0 1,0,0,1,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_128_PP 0,0,0,0,0 0 0,1,0,1,0 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_256_PP 0,1,1,0,1 0 0,0,0,0,1 > 0 > XO_SHI_RO_512_PP 0,0,1,0,0 0 0,0,2,1,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_1024_PP 0,0,3,0,1 0 0,0,0,0,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_1024_S 0,1,0,0,0 0 0,0,0,1,0 > 0 > XO_RO_SHI_RO_1024_SS 0,1,0,0,0 0 0,1,0,0,1 > 0 > > Notable changes: > > JDK : 74,72,74,73,74 -> 50,51,52,49,51 > TWO_CMRES : 4,3,3,5,4 -> 0,1,0,0,0 > XO_SHI_RO_128_PLUS : 1,2,2,1,1 -> 0,0,1,0,0 > > > Changes of systematic failures: > > JDK : 70 -> 48 > TWO_CMRES : 3 -> 0 > XO_SHI_RO_128_PLUS : 1 -> 0 > > > Unchanged systematic failures: > > WELL_* and MT variants systematically fail linear complexity. WELL_512 > and WELL_1024 also fail matrix rank. > > The other generators have similar results before and after, i.e. no > systematic failures. > > Of note the PCG RR variants never fail. This was true in the old results > too. > > > I've added an option to the results command that generates the table for > the user guide to add the systematic failures in parentheses after the > failure counts, e.g. > > XO_SHI_RO_512_PP 0,0,1,0,0 (0) > > I am not sure if this is worthwhile. There are no cases amongst the good > generators (no systematic failures) where there are sporadic failures in > all 5 test runs. Thus all the good generators have at least one run with > no failures.
Perhaps, you could put in bold the name of good generators (those with no systematic failure). That would literally highlight the recommendation to avoid "java.util.Random". Regards, Gilles > > So the value would be mainly zero except for the generators noted above. > > Alex > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
