Additive vs multiplicative uniform pseudo-random number generators in the generation of Erlang variates

Abstract

This paper presents the comparative results of several test runs involving the use of several unit uniform random number generators with an inverse transform to generate Erland random variates with λ=1 and k = 3, 4, 5, and 6. The results show that two commonly used generators (a multiplicative and a mixed one) produce unacceptable results. Two others (an additive one and a multiplicative one) produce acceptable results. The computer system used is an IBM 370/3033.

A Third Classified Bibliography on Random Number Generation and Testing

“…Amason (1972) Atkinson (1982) Bartels (1978) Best and Fisher (1979) Burford (1978) Cheng (1984 Coleman and Saipe (1977) Devroye (1981d) Friday (1976) Greenwood (1977 Ho (1981) SOWEY Klein (1982) Kinderman and Monahan (1980) Klein (1982 Lewis (1983) Locks (1976) Marsaglia (1977) Marsaglia (1984) Phillips (1971) Ronning (1977) Schmeiser (I 980b) Schmeiser and Lal (1980) Kinderman, Monahan and Ramage (1977) Marsaglia (1980) Cheng (1978) Klein (1982) Locks (1976) Loukas (1984) Macomber and Myers (1978) Hoffman (1979) Johnson (1976) Johnson (1982 Johnson and Ramberg (1977) Johnson, Wang (1982) Kachitvichyanukul (1983) Kemp (l981b) Kemp and Loukas (l978a) Kemp and Loukas (1978b) Kronmal and Peterson (1981) [Part 1, Tsang (1982) Schmeiser and Lal (1982) Tadikamalla (1975) Tadikamalla (1978) Tadikamalla (1979) Tadikamalla (1981) Tadikamalla and Johnson (1978) Tadikamalla and Johnson (1981) Tadikamalla and Schriber (1977) Tsang (1982) Vaduva (1977) Marsaglia (1984) Stadlober (1982) Macomber and Myers (1983) Schriber (1977) Vaduva (1976)…”