Humans cannot consciously generate random numbers sequences: Polemic study

Figurska, Małgorzata; Stańczyk, M.; Kulesza, Kamil

doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2007.06.038

Cited by 33 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this is a different aspect of randomness than that of the process itself, QRNGs should also provide an advantage here: PRNGs are guaranteed to produce computable sequences in stark contrast to the incomputability of QRNGs [9][10][11][12]. Standard tests, however, have focused on intuitive aspects of randomness, such as the frequencies of certain (strings of) bits, but human intuition about randomness is notoriously poor [13,14] and many other symptoms of randomness remain untested. Indeed, the randomness of strings and sequences is an incomputable property and thus cannot be verified completely; moreover, it is characterised by an infinity of properties [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimentally probing the algorithmic randomness and incomputability of quantum randomness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advantages of quantum random number generators (QRNGs) over pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs) are normally attributed to the nature of quantum measurements. This is often seen as implying the superiority of the sequences of bits themselves generated by QRNGs, despite the absence of empirical tests supporting this. Nonetheless, one may expect sequences of bits generated by QRNGs to have properties that pseudo-random sequences do not; indeed, pseudorandom sequences are necessarily computable, a highly nontypical property of sequences.In this paper, we discuss the differences between QRNGs and PRNGs and the challenges involved in certifying the quality of QRNGs theoretically and testing their output experimentally. While QRNGs are often tested with standard suites of statistical tests, such tests are designed for PRNGs and only verify statistical properties of a QRNG, but are insensitive to many supposed advantages of QRNGs. We discuss the ability to test the incomputability and algorithmic complexity of QRNGs. While such properties cannot be directly verified with certainty, we show how one can construct indirect tests that may provide evidence for the incomputability of QRNGs. We use these tests to compare various PRNGs to a QRNG, based on superconducting transmon qutrits and certified by the Kochen-Specker Theorem, to see whether such evidence can be found in practice.While our tests fail to observe a strong advantage of the quantum random sequences due to algorithmic properties, the results are nonetheless informative: some of the test results are ambiguous and require further study, while others highlight difficulties that can guide the development of future tests of algorithmic randomness and incomputability.1 An example is the discovery in 2012 of a weakness in the encryption system used worldwide for online shopping, banking and email; the flaw was traced to the numbers a PRNG had produced [1]. As of 2018, Java still relies on a linear congruential generator, a low quality PRNG.arXiv:1806.08762v2 [quant-ph]

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimentally probing the algorithmic randomness and incomputability of quantum randomness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only advised PIN management option is committing it to memory. Changing is clearly unwise because humans are incapable of randomness [10], and this propensity will extend to PIN choice. There is plenty of evidence to show that many people choose the insecure options, changing and recording PINs [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring mental models underlying PIN management strategies

Renaud

Volkamer

2015

2015 World Congress on Internet Security (WorldCIS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PINs have been around for half a century and many insecure PIN-related practices are used. We attempted to mitigate by developing two new PIN memorial assistance mechanisms that we tested in an online study. We were not able to show an improvement in memorability, mostly because people did not use the memorial aids. We realised that a greater insight into PIN Management mental models was needed, in order the better to formulate mitigation approaches. We proceeded to study PINrelated mental models, and we present our findings in this paper. The insights we gained convinced us that security researchers should not presume that people want, or need, our advice or help in any security context; they might well prefer to continue with their usual trusted practices. Yet advice should indeed still be offered, for those who do want it, and we make some suggestions about what this advice should look like in the PIN context.

show abstract

“…The supposition that randomness occurs in nature is the basis for many theories in science and it constitutes the bedrock of quantum mechanics, as such, it can be assumed that natural occurrences like radioactive decay can be used to generate random numbers [8]. The use of computers and software to generate random numbers has been seen in algorithms such as the Mersenne twister [18] and Algorithm AS 183 [31].…”

Section: /14mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Possibility of Uniform Pseudo-random Number Generation by a Group of Humans

Ogunjo¹,

Dansu²,

Olukanye-David³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of humans to generate numbers that are really random has always been a subject of debate. This paper investigated the possibility for a group of humans to serve as random number generators. A total of 2344 students, who were not pre-informed to avoid bias, from different faculties within the Federal University of Technology Akure were asked to chose a random number between 1 and 10. Using various statistical tests, we sought answers to the possibility of predictors like participant’s test score, gender, age and school influencing their choice of random numbers. We discovered that the numbers generated are highly random and chaotic despite number 1 being the most selected number across all predictors that was considered. Our study found that gender, test score, age did not significantly influence the choice of number while faculty showed a significant relation α < 0.05.

show abstract

Humans cannot consciously generate random numbers sequences: Polemic study

Cited by 33 publications

References 14 publications

Experimentally probing the algorithmic randomness and incomputability of quantum randomness

Experimentally probing the algorithmic randomness and incomputability of quantum randomness

Exploring mental models underlying PIN management strategies

The Possibility of Uniform Pseudo-random Number Generation by a Group of Humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About