Fix Random

[Carter Schonwald]

Thx for the kick start.  Was taking some downtime and personal/work
projects as my focus and break after releasing the new vector last  month.
Random is on the top of my oss queue atm

On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 11:05 AM Carter Schonwald <
carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yup. I have some of these changes in a branch for a while.   Just was
> uncertain that those who share the common interface are ok with the current
> tyoeclass interface breaking.
>
> Sounds like everyone’s willing to deal with the needed breakage.
>
> I’ll have a release candidate to share publicly in a few weeks.
>
>
> Meta point: Dominic if you want to communicate with me try email. You seem
> to prefer anything but direct concrete communication with me. OTOH I guess
> we just are terrible at communicating with each other. And I guess that’s
> fine.   Just unfortunate.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 8:13 AM <dominic at steinitz.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello libraries,
>>
>> Following a great blog [post] by @lehins, a group of us (@curiousleo,
>> @lehins and me) are trying to improve the situation with the `random'
>> library.
>>
>> @curiousleo and I have created a [resource] that tests the quality of
>> Haskell random number generators via well known (and not so well known)
>> test suites: dieharder, TestU01, PractRand and gjrand. The current
>> `random' does not fare well especially with the use of the `split'
>> function (but this is well known and the [reason] why `QuickCheck' moved
>> from using it in [2.8] to using [tf-random] in [2.9] and latterly
>> [splitmix] in [2.13]): see [this] for example. On the other hand,
>> `splitmix' [passes] bigcrush[1].
>>
>> The putative proposal is to replace the current algorithm in `random'
>> with that of `splitmix'[2] and to remove the performance bottleneck by
>> changing the interface (the current interface causes the performance
>> infelicity by making "all of the integral numbers go through the
>> arbitrary precision Integer in order to produce the value in a desired
>> range") - see @lehin's blog for more details.
>>
>> Can anyone interested:
>>
>> * Create a separate issue for each concern they have (eg. range for
>>   floats (0, 1] vs [0, 1], etc.) [here].
>> * Submit PRs with target at the [interface-to-performance] branch (or
>>   into master if it is vastly different approach) with your suggested
>>   alternatives.
>>
>> If you are going to raise a concern then it might be worth reading some
>> of the [discussions] that have already taken place.
>>
>> We think once we have the API flashed out, switching to splitmix will be
>> a piece of cake and will require an addition of just a few lines of code
>> and removal of current StdGen related functionality. For historical
>> reasons instead of removing it we could move StdGen into a separate
>> module with a disclaimer not to use it, but that isn't terribly
>> important.
>>
>> The Random Team (@lehins, @curiousleo, @idontgetoutmuch)
>>
>>
>> [post] https://alexey.kuleshevi.ch/blog/2019/12/21/random-benchmarks/
>>
>> [resource] https://github.com/tweag/random-quality
>>
>> [reason]
>>
>> http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/183348/local_183348.pdf
>>
>> [2.8] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/QuickCheck-2.8
>>
>> [tf-random] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/tf-random
>>
>> [2.9] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/QuickCheck-2.9
>>
>> [splitmix] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/splitmix
>>
>> [2.13] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/QuickCheck-2.13
>>
>> [this]
>>
>> https://github.com/tweag/random-quality/blob/master/results/random-word32-split-practrand-1gb
>>
>> [passes]
>>
>> https://github.com/tweag/random-quality/blob/master/results/splitmix-word32-testu01-bigcrush
>>
>> [here] https://github.com/idontgetoutmuch/random/issues
>>
>> [interface-to-performance]
>> https://github.com/idontgetoutmuch/random/tree/interface-to-performance
>>
>> [discussions] https://github.com/idontgetoutmuch/random/pull/1
>>
>>
>>
>> Footnotes
>> _________
>>
>> [1] Just to clarify: both random and splitmix pass BigCrush. random
>> fails any statistical test immediately (e.g. [SmallCrush]
>> (
>> https://github.com/tweag/random-quality/blob/master/results/random-word32-split-testu01-smallcrush#L337-L349
>> )
>> and other even smaller ones) when a sequence based on split is
>> used. splitmix passes Crush when split is part of the sequence, but
>> I've seen it fail one test in BigCrush ("LinearComp"). So we should
>> just be careful here: splitmix itself passes BigCrush and split-based
>> sequences all pass Crush, but not all pass BigCrush.
>>
>> [2] `split' is already availaible as an instance: `instance Random
>> SMGen where'.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20200217/0534560e/attachment.html>