Re: [boost] [random] Determining interest in Pseudo-Random Functions and Counter Based Random Number Generators

Subject: Re: [boost] [random] Determining interest in Pseudo-Random Functions and Counter Based Random Number Generators
From: thijs_at_[hidden]
Date: 2012-01-26 12:29:01

>> I'll look into your paper! We have an interest in parallel rng for a Monte
>> Carlo project, and after asking about boost efforts in this area here, and
>> then after reading about TRNG, we decided to give TRNG a try because it
>> looks very well designed. Our code will have a plugable prng design, so
>> from that point of view I have no real preference of you idea being part of
>> boost, TRNG or self-hosted. Being part of boost would be a slight benefit
>> because it reduces the number of external dependencies to just boost in our
>> project.
>> 
>> At the moment It might be most logical to contribute to TRNG because that
>> is mature and well designed, but that's my very subjective guess, and I'm
>> fine wherever it lands.
>> 
>> But first I should read your paper!
>> 
>> Thijs
>> 
>> 
> Our work is definitely complementary to TRNG.  We go beyond TRNG by arguing
> that if you use pseudo-random functions (which we call counter-based PRNGs
> in the paper), in lieu of conventional PRNGs, then things like 'skip' and
> 'jump' and 'jump2' become moot.  You simply don't need them.  On the other
> hand, if you have pseudo-random functions, then it's easy to implement
> skip() and jump() and jump2() for the benefit of applications that are
> already coded to a TRNG-like APIl.  In fact, I'll probably do that in a
> future release of the Random123 library.
> 
> Still, I would be pleased if our work became part of boost, and that boost
> wouuld be enhanced by its inclusion, so I'm still interested in finding a
> way to fit Random123 into boost.
> 

I'm looking into the lib now, and I must say that the counter based concept is very interesting. I like it a lot, and I hope that you would also preserve this state-less approach if you align it with boost. 

At first look it would be nice if this would indeed become part of boost. As a boost user I would vote for inclusion if there was a vote.

Cheers,
Thijs