Good idea to seed a RNG each time you use it?

问题:

I'm using the Mersenne twister algorithm to shuffle playing cards. Each time the deck needs to be shuffled I seed it with time(NULL) + deckCutCardNumber which is where the user chose to cut the deck. Would I get better results from only seeding it the first hand and continuing to generate them with the same seed or is this method more random?

Thanks

回答1:

Assuming the user doesn't mess with the clock (or carefully reduce their cut number by exactly the time that has passed), they'll never see a repeated state of the PRNG anyway, so it doesn't make much difference what you do. You'll get a reasonable distribution out of the Mersenne Twister from any seed value[*], and at any feasible number of steps after re-seeding.

If you're keen to reseed, though, you could combine both approaches by seeding with the time, plus the user-chosen number, plus an output taken from the generator just before reseeding. That combines (part of, not all) the current state of the PRNG with the new seed data, so to some degree all of the past times and cut values (and number of uses of the PRNG) can affect the state, not just the most recent. Pouring more information into the seed value in this way could be considered "more random" than a seed involving less information and hence fewer plausible values.

The only thing about Mersenne Twister in particular is that if you can observe 600-odd outputs of it, then you can deduce its internal state and predict the rest of the output until it's reseeded. Then again, you probably wouldn't use MT for an application where that sort of thing matters: if you're relying on the reseed in any way then you should probably use a more secure PRNG to begin with. Clearly it doesn't matter for your application if the user can predict the values out of the PRNG, since the user knows the time just as well as you do. All of this tells you that it shouldn't matter how it's seeded, just so long as it isn't seeded with exactly the same value so that two games are identical. Hence it doesn't matter whether it's reseeded either.

[*] That's not strictly true, there are classes of weak seeds for MT. But as long as you take that into account when seeding (for instance, hash the seed before use so that bad values are unlikely to crop up by chance), you work around that.

回答2:

Only seed the PRNG once. The statistical properties of the generated sequence are only guaranteed after the seed. If you reseed every time, the resulting sequence may not have any predictable statistical properties.

For instance, consider a PRNG which always returns the seed value itself as the first number in the sequence, but which is perfectly uniform over its range. This constitutes a great PRNG, as long as you don't use the first number. However, if you reseed it before every use, say to an incrementing counter value, you have no randomness at all!

回答3:

It will be less random if you seed off of the user choice every time than if you only seed once. The reason being that the choice of cut will probably have a skewed distribution (maybe cutting at the 10th card is the most likely etc). If you want to continuously seed you should use something like the system time as the seed.

回答4:

Yes, you would get better results when not seeding every time. That's the purpose of a (good) random number generator.

In this special case the first value would just increase by the time you waited between the shuffles, while a continuously applied rng would give you numbers across it's whole range.

回答5:

It's neither more nor less random. It's not really random at all anyway, but you won't notice any difference if you reseed it every time or not.

However, I'd recommend against it because time returns an unsigned int, so if you call it twice in the same second, you'll get the same number, and hence the same numbers from the RNG. Then there's distribution and all that.

回答6:

I would suggest initializing the PRNG for each shuffle for a completely different reason: It allows you to quantify the state of the deck using only the seed, which means you can provide the seed to the user, or log it, or whatever suits, and be able to easily recreate the hand as dealt at a later stage.

You really should avoid seeding based on time, though - it's generally a better idea to use a source of randomness such as /dev/urandom instead.

Edit: Another argument for re-seeding occurs if you're worried about players guessing the internal state and therefore knowing what cards will be dealt in future. This is possible after observing 624 outputs from the Mersenne Twister (at least according to Wikipedia); this is only possible if you reuse the same PRNG. If this does matter, though, you certainly shouldn't be seeding based on time, and you should probably be using a cryptographically secure PRNG anyway.

回答7:

Re-seeding the random number generator will not give you any higher quality random numbers than seeding it once (quite the contrary in many cases, depending on your seed values).