How to test randomness (case in point - Shuffling)

First off, this question is ripped out from this question. I did it because I think this part is bigger than a sub-part of a longer question. If it offends, please pardon me.

Assume that you have a algorithm that generates randomness. Now how do you test it? Or to be more direct - Assume you have an algorithm that shuffles a deck of cards, how do you test that it's a perfectly random algorithm?

To add some theory to the problem - A deck of cards can be shuffled in 52! (52 factorial) different ways. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it by hand and write down the order of all cards. What is the probability that you would have gotten exactly that shuffle? Answer: 1 / 52!.

What is the chance that you, after shuffling, will get A, K, Q, J ... of each suit in a sequence? Answer 1 / 52!

So, just shuffling once and looking at the result will give you absolutely no information about your shuffling algorithms randomness. Twice and you have more information, Three even more...

How would you black box test a shuffling algorithm for randomness?

Solution 1:

Statistics. The de facto standard for testing RNGs is the Diehard suite (originally available at http://stat.fsu.edu/pub/diehard). Alternatively, the Ent program provides tests that are simpler to interpret but less comprehensive.

As for shuffling algorithms, use a well-known algorithm such as Fisher-Yates (a.k.a "Knuth Shuffle"). The shuffle will be uniformly random so long as the underlying RNG is uniformly random. If you are using Java, this algorithm is available in the standard library (see Collections.shuffle).

It probably doesn't matter for most applications, but be aware that most RNGs do not provide sufficient degrees of freedom to produce every possible permutation of a 52-card deck (explained here).

Solution 2:

Here's one simple check that you can perform. It uses generated random numbers to estimate Pi. It's not proof of randomness, but poor RNGs typically don't do well on it (they will return something like 2.5 or 3.8 rather ~3.14).

Ideally this would be just one of many tests that you would run to check randomness.

Something else that you can check is the standard deviation of the output. The expected standard deviation for a uniformly distributed population of values in the range 0..n approaches n/sqrt(12).

/**
 * This is a rudimentary check to ensure that the output of a given RNG
 * is approximately uniformly distributed.  If the RNG output is not
 * uniformly distributed, this method will return a poor estimate for the
 * value of pi.
 * @param rng The RNG to test.
 * @param iterations The number of random points to generate for use in the
 * calculation.  This value needs to be sufficiently large in order to
 * produce a reasonably accurate result (assuming the RNG is uniform).
 * Less than 10,000 is not particularly useful.  100,000 should be sufficient.
 * @return An approximation of pi generated using the provided RNG.
 */
public static double calculateMonteCarloValueForPi(Random rng,
                                                   int iterations)
{
    // Assumes a quadrant of a circle of radius 1, bounded by a box with
    // sides of length 1.  The area of the square is therefore 1 square unit
    // and the area of the quadrant is (pi * r^2) / 4.
    int totalInsideQuadrant = 0;
    // Generate the specified number of random points and count how many fall
    // within the quadrant and how many do not.  We expect the number of points
    // in the quadrant (expressed as a fraction of the total number of points)
    // to be pi/4.  Therefore pi = 4 * ratio.
    for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
    {
        double x = rng.nextDouble();
        double y = rng.nextDouble();
        if (isInQuadrant(x, y))
        {
            ++totalInsideQuadrant;
        }
    }
    // From these figures we can deduce an approximate value for Pi.
    return 4 * ((double) totalInsideQuadrant / iterations);
}

/**
 * Uses Pythagoras' theorem to determine whether the specified coordinates
 * fall within the area of the quadrant of a circle of radius 1 that is
 * centered on the origin.
 * @param x The x-coordinate of the point (must be between 0 and 1).
 * @param y The y-coordinate of the point (must be between 0 and 1).
 * @return True if the point is within the quadrant, false otherwise.
 */
private static boolean isInQuadrant(double x, double y)
{
    double distance = Math.sqrt((x * x) + (y * y));
    return distance <= 1;
}

Solution 3:

First, it is impossible to know for sure if a certain finite output is "truly random" since, as you point out, any output is possible.

What can be done, is to take a sequence of outputs and check various measurements of this sequence against what is more likely. You can derive a sort of confidence score that the generating algorithm is doing a good job.

For example, you could check the output of 10 different shuffles. Assign a number 0-51 to each card, and take the average of the card in position 6 across the shuffles. The convergent average is 25.5, so you would be surprised to see a value of 1 here. You could use the central limit theorem to get an estimate of how likely each average is for a given position.

But we shouldn't stop here! Because this algorithm could be fooled by a system that only alternates between two shuffles that are designed to give the exact average of 25.5 at each position. How can we do better?

We expect a uniform distribution (equal likelihood for any given card) at each position, across different shuffles. So among the 10 shuffles, we could try to verify that the choices 'look uniform.' This is basically just a reduced version of the original problem. You could check that the standard deviation looks reasonable, that the min is reasonable, and the max value as well. You could also check that other values, such as the closest two cards (by our assigned numbers), also make sense.

But we also can't just add various measurements like this ad infinitum, since, given enough statistics, any particular shuffle will appear highly unlikely for some reason (e.g. this is one of very few shuffles in which cards X,Y,Z appear in order). So the big question is: which is the right set of measurements to take? Here I have to admit that I don't know the best answer. However, if you have a certain application in mind, you can choose a good set of properties/measurements to test, and work with those -- this seems to be the way cryptographers handle things.