Papers › Statistical testing of random number generators and their improvement using randomness...

Statistical testing of random number generators and their improvement using randomness extraction

27 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.18716links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Cameron Foreman, Richie Yeung, Florian J. Curchod

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Random number generators (RNGs) are notoriously challenging to build and test, especially for cryptographic applications. While statistical tests cannot definitively guarantee an RNG's output quality, they are a powerful verification tool and the only universally applicable testing method. In this work, we design, implement, and present various post-processing methods, using randomness extractors, to improve the RNG output quality and compare them through statistical testing. We begin by performing intensive tests on three RNGs -- the 32-bit linear feedback shift register (LFSR), Intel's 'RDSEED,' and IDQuantique's 'Quantis' -- and compare their performance. Next, we apply the different post-processing methods to each RNG and conduct further intensive testing on the processed output. To facilitate this, we introduce a comprehensive statistical testing environment, based on existing test suites, that can be parametrised for lightweight (fast) to intensive testing.

PaperPDFCode

Code

cqcl/random_test officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections