Talk:Counter-based random number generator

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Needs more sources I think in background section? Adding a little tag Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Link to Random123 is broken

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The link is https://www.deshawresearch.com/resources_random123.html, but this now redirects to the general DE Shaw Research resources page https://www.deshawresearch.com/resources.html, which has no particular information on CBRNGs. (The issue is not unique to Wikipedia; the official Python documentation currently has the same broken link on this page: https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/random/bit_generators/index.html).

The old page is archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20111006042153/https://www.deshawresearch.com/resources_random123.html

The closest existing still-maintained page, still with a download link but with less information, seems to be: https://www.deshawresearch.com/downloads/download_random123.cgi/ 100.2.228.140 (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Squares RNG: the sentence does not match its sources

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Current text: This generator passes stringent tests of randomness^[8] and is considerably faster than Philox.

Ref [8] (L'Ecuyer et al., WSC 2021) discusses Squares in one passage, and what we quote is its concessive clause: The proposal passes standard empirical tests […] but it fails with only three rounds, and the method is highly heuristic — followed by the finding that keys are not all equally good (key 0 gives constant 0 output), so using 1, 2, …, s as stream keys, as often done in practice, the results will be very bad unless they are hashed first.

"Considerably faster than Philox" is unsourced: ref [8] makes no speed claim, and Widynski's abstract says only that the generators "may be the fastest counter-based generators", without naming Philox. Bastinf (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)Reply