Randomness evaluation of LD phase noise for

use as a continuous-variable random-number

generator
TATSUYA TOMARU*
Center for Exploratory Research, Research & Development Group, Hitachi, Ltd., Hatoyama, Saitama
350-0395, Japan
*tatsuya.tomaru.yq@hitachi.com

Abstract: Binary random numbers with an occurrence ratio of p:(1-p) (0 < p < 1) are needed
in some applications. They are obtainable if the phase noise of a laser diode (LD) is used as a
continuous-variable random-number generator. The problem is the existence of extra noise in
the measuring system. However, most of this noise can be removed by taking the difference
between consecutively measured values. This report confirms this by evaluating the
randomness of the phase noise of an LD as a continuous quantity. Our findings show that we
can easily obtain spontaneous-emission-based continuous-variable random numbers that
allow one to set any p.

© 2018 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

OCIS codes: (270.2500) Fluctuations, relaxations, and noise; (030.6600) Statistical optics; (120.5050) Phase
measurement.

1. Introduction
A random number generator is a basic IT tool, and it is an important component in
cryptography, Monte Carlo simulations, gaming, etc. Among a wide variety of methods for
achieving a random number generator, using quantum fluctuations of light is advantageous
from the viewpoints of its theoretical foundation and practicality. There are two methods for
directly using quantum fluctuations of light; one is to divide single photons into two ports
with a beamsplitter [1]; the other is to measure vacuum fluctuations with the homodyne
method [2,3]. However, because of the difficulty of making these methods fast enough, an
alternative, i.e., using amplified spontaneous emissions originating from quantum fluctuations,
has actively been studied; it can be accomplished by using the phase noise of a continuous-
wave (cw) laser diode (LD) [4-6], phase noise of a gain-switched LD [7,8], a super-
luminescent diode [9], a fiber amplifier [10], etc.
A random number generator usually generates binary random numbers with a 1:1 ratio.
However, there are applications that use binary random numbers with an occurrence ratio of
p:(1-p) (0 < p < 1). For example, secure communications using noise exploit the
unpredictability of noise to assure secrecy; i.e., bit errors caused by noise that occur with
probability p are used [11]. Binary random numbers with an arbitrary ratio can be made from
continuous-variable random numbers by appropriately setting the threshold for judging 0 and
1 for binary random numbers. Thankfully, quantum fluctuations are continuous. This report
evaluates the randomness of the phase noise of a cw LD as a continuous quantity. Because
phase noise is Gaussian distributed, the tail part is less distributed. Therefore, the dependence
of p on the threshold is small when p is relatively small; i.e., p can be finely controlled. This
property is particularly advantageous in applications such as the above-mentioned secure
communications because the used intentional bit-error rate is small, e.g., p = 0.01 to 0.1 [11].
Recent random number generators that take advantage of amplified spontaneous emission
use an extractor to make the randomness complete [12,13]. The extractor removes any
regularity added by the measuring system. However, when the phase noise is used as a
continuous quantity, the extractor cannot simply be used because it is an algorithm for binary
random numbers with a 1:1 ratio. We need to devise a method of ensuring ideal randomness
without the ordinary extractor.
The noise added by the measuring system has been discussed by Mitchell et al. [14]. It
originates from the digitization and limited bandwidth of the measuring system. However, if
the signal intensity is much greater than the intensity of the additional noise and the
bandwidth is much larger than the sampling rate, these influences can be made negligible.
Accordingly, this report evaluates the randomness of the phase noise of a cw LD by using raw
data under these conditions. However, there is a correlation between consecutively measured
values due mainly to low-frequency components that come from the extra noise in the
measuring system. For this reason, we take the difference between consecutively measured
values as an output to remove the correlation.
As mentioned, the occurrence probability of p and 1-p for binary random numbers is
controlled by appropriately setting the threshold for judging 0 and 1 in the phase noise
measurement. The judgment needs to be done under the condition of no extra noise. As a
method of satisfying this requirement, we take the difference between consecutively
measured values. That is the point of this report. In other words, our aim is to remove the
extra noise in the stage of raw data reflecting the probability distribution of the phase noise of
the LD. This aim cannot be achieved if we use an ordinary extractor for binary random
numbers.
To show the effectiveness of taking the difference between consecutively measured
values, we evaluated outputs from the phase noise of a cw LD by using the autocorrelation
and a statistical test suite (NIST SP800-22 [15]). Because the latter is for evaluating binary
random numbers with a 1:1 ratio, it might not sound like an appropriate way of treating the
occurrence ratio of p:(1-p). However, the important point here is whether the measured phase
noise is random or not. That does not depend on p. Thus, we used this test suite for one of
evaluations. In using it, the outputs from the Gaussian phase noise of the LD are mapped to
an equally distributed one before testing. Because the test suite statistically judges the
randomness as a pass or failure at a significance level, there may be events that judge the
randomness of true random numbers as a failure, or inversely judge an incomplete
randomness as a pass. For this reason, we do not judge the randomness simply, but do so by
comparing the number of failure events with that for ideal random numbers. If there is no
large difference between them, the results suggest that the test is a pass and that we can
exclude an accidental misjudgment related to the significance level. The results of the
autocorrelation test and the test suite suggest that the outputs for the phase noise of an LD are
randomly distributed as a continuous quantity. In other words, the extra noise added by the
measuring system can almost completely be removed at the accuracy level of the
measurements and evaluations.
2. Principle of phase measuring
The phase of light can be measured with an asymmetric interferometer. Figure 1
schematically shows a phase-noise-measuring system. Let â ( t ) and b̂ ( t ) be the annihilation
operators of the signal and vacuum inputs into the beamsplitter 1 (BS1); let ĉ ( t ) and d̂ ( t )
be those of the outputs from BS1; let ê ( t ) and fˆ ( t ) be those of the outputs from the
beamsplitter 2 (BS2); and let ξ and η be the conversion efficiencies of the photo-detector
parts. The detector output is described as Iˆ ( t ) = ξ eˆ† ( t ) eˆ ( t ) − η fˆ † ( t ) fˆ ( t ) , where ê ( t ) and
fˆ ( t ) are described in terms of â ( t ) and b̂ ( t ) through the transformation of the beam
splitters [16]. Let us assume ξ = η and that the splitting ratio of BS1 and BS2 is 50:50. Then,
terms of â † ( t ) aˆ ( t ) and â † ( t + τ ) aˆ ( t + τ ) in Iˆ ( t ) canccel, where τ iss the delay timme in the
asymmetric in nterferometer. The effect of incomplete sattisfaction of ξ = η and the 500:50 ratio
is mentioned in section 3.1. We assume th he signal intenssity is sufficienntly larger thann quantum
fluctuations. Then,
T terms wiith b̂ ( t ) and b̂ † ( t ) can be neeglected, and
1
Iˆ ( t ) ≃ − ξ  aˆ † ( t + τ ) aˆ ( t ) + aˆ † ( t ) aˆ ( t + τ )  (1)
2
is obtained. Equation
E (1) co
onsists of interffering terms foor the two arm ms, and it contaains phase
information. In
I the followinng, we treat â ( t ) classically. Let a(t) = a0(tt)exp[-iφ(t)–iω
ωt], where
a0(t) is selecteed to be real. We
W tune the intterferometer suuch that ωτ = (nn + 1/2)π, wheere n is an
integer. Then,,
I ( t ) ≃ ( −1) ξ a0 ( t + τ ) a0 ( t ) sin δϕ
δ ( t ,τ ) .
n
(2)
Here, δφ(t,τ) = φ(t + τ) – φ(t) is phase noisse. Because wee treat a cw LDD, a0(t) is consstant. The
remaining parrameter in Eq. (2) is δφ(t,τ), and
a I(t) is direcctly related to δφ(t,τ) throughh the sine
function.

Fig. 1. Model of phase-noise

p measuuring system.

3. Experim
mental metho
od
3.1 Measurin
ng system
Figure 2 show ws the block diagram of the measuring ssystem. Outputt light from a constant
current-drivenn cw distributeed feedback (DDFB) LD (Opnnext LE7602LA AP350S, λ = 11549 nm)
was passed th hrough a banddpass filter (Saantec OTF-30M M-06S2) and a variable attennuator; it
was led to an asymmetric Michelson-Mor
M rley interferom
meter (AMM) w with a 400-ps ddelay line
(Optoplex) an nd received by balanced deetectors. The bbalanced detectors consistedd of two
photodiodes (PD)
( (Eudyna FRM3Z232BS S) with a preaamplifier havinng a bandwidthh of 2.45
GHz and a diifferential amp plifier (OKI KGL4142KD)
K w
with a bandwiddth of ∼11.3 G GHz. The
output from the balanced deetectors was measured
m with a spectrum annalyzer (HP 8563E) and
digital oscillo
oscopes (Tektroonix TDS784D D and MSO716604C). The sam mpling rate fr wwas 0.1, 1,
and 2.5 GSp ps. The TDS7 784D was useed for the 0.11- and 1-GSpps sampling, w while the
MSO71604C was used for the t 2.5-GSps sampling.
s Becaause the MSO771604C cannoot work at
2.5 GSps, data were first sampled
s at 12..5 GSps and tthen 1/5th of tthem were perriodically
selected.
The threshhold current off the LD was ~9 9 mA. The drivve current wass set to be Id = 12 mA as
a near-threshoold condition and
a Id = 70 mA A as a far-thresshold conditionn. The input inntensity to
the PD was set as ~-12 dBm m, and the outp put of the diffferential ampliffier was set to be about
half of the maximum
m output power whille the gain waas finely adjusted so that thhe output
would just co over the range of the oscillosscope. These cconditions assuured linearity. T The ωτ =
(n + 1/2)π coondition was ad djusted by mo
onitoring the taail of the output distributionn; i.e., the
interferometerr was tuned to obtain a symmmetric distributiion.
In the pro
ocess of obtaining Eq. (2), we
w assumed ξ = η and a 50:50 splitting ratiio of BS1
and BS2. When the satisfaction of those assumptions
a is incomplete, exxtra terms, i.e.,, constant
DC and amplitude fluctuattion terms, aree added to Eqq. (2). Howeveer, the DC terrm is cut
through DC-b blocks. The am mplitude flucttuations are noot only sufficiiently smaller than the
phase fluctuattions [16]; they only have a tiny effect in Eq. (2) because the term is based on
the incompletteness of the assymmetric interrferometer. Thhus, they are neegligible.

Fig. 2. Block diaagram of experimeental setup.

3.2 Autocorrrelation
The randomneess of the meassured values xj can be evaluaated through thheir autocorrelaation. The
( )( x ) (x − x )
2
a s(d) =  j=1 x j − x j − x j +d 
N N
autocorrelatio
on is defined as j +d j =1 j j
, wheree d is the
delay, the barr denotes the average
a for inffinite samples, and we assum me N >> 1. Because the
DC term is cut through DC C-blocks, we assume
a x j = x j + d = 0. In this case, s(d) sim
mplifies to
 
N N
j =1
x j x j +d
x 2j . Hereaftter, we will asssume x j = 0 aand omit the teerm. When s(dd) is near
j =1

zero and therre is no depen ndence on d, the measuredd values are exxpected to be random.
Whether s(d) is near zero orr not can be ch hecked by whetther the fluctuaations of s(d) aare within
the theoretical statistical fluctuations. Here, in adddition to the theoretical statistical
( )
12
t mutual corrrelation, whicch is defined aas m(d) =  j=1 x j y j x2j  j=1 y 2j
N N N
fluctuations, the j =1

using indepen ndently measu ured xj and yj, is a good reeference becauuse it is experimentally
obtained.
As shown n in section 4.2 2, there is 1/f noise
n mplifiers of thee balanced deteectors. In
in the am
addition, the amplifiers hav ve a cut-off freequency on thee low-frequenccy side, and D DC-blocks
are placed ata the input and a output teerminals of thhe amplifiers. If the low-ffrequency
components of o the random m noise are cutt off, even thee originally unncorrelated connsecutive
random-noisee signals will have h a correlation in accorddance with the lack of low-ffrequency
components. The correlation and the low-frequency com mponents due to the 1/f noisse can be
removed by taking the diffference betweeen consecutivve outputs. Thhus, we also ttested the
autocorrelatio
on of δxj = xj+1 – xj. Here, wee will consider the case of d = 1. Let us supppose the
ideal case of x j +d x j = 0 (d ≠ 0) and x 2j + d = x 2j , where we aassume fr ≤ 1/ττ. Then,

δ x =  ( x − x ) =  ( x2j+1 − 2 x j+1 x j + x2j ) = 2 x 2j ,

2
2
j j +1 j (3)
j j j j

δ x δ x j j +1
=  ( x j+1 − x j )(
) x j+2 − x j+1 ) =  ( x j+1 x j+2 − x2j+1 − x j x j+2 + x j x j+1 ) = − x2j+1 . (4)
j j j j

Thus,
s ( d ) =  δ x j δ x j+1 δ x 2
j
=  δ x j δ x j+1 δ x 2
j
= −00.5 . (5)
j j j j
Here, because the denominator is simply a normalization factor, we treated the denominator
and numerator independently in the averaging. Equation (5) indicates that there is an offset in
s(d) even if the outputs are random when d = 1. This offset should be removed from the
autocorrelation evaluation, and it was removed from the experimental results (see Fig. 7).
There is no offset related to Eq. (4) for d >1.
Statistical fluctuations of s(d) are estimated as follows for the ideal case by assuming that
xj and xj+d are uncorrelated and the average is x j = 0. Then, the variance of s(d) is σs2 =

( ) ( )
2 2
N N
j =1
x j x j +d j =1
x 2j . We again treat the denominator and numerator independently.


N
Because the average of j =1
x 2j is O(N) and its standard deviation is O(√N), the fluctuations

( ) (N x )
2 2

 x 2j ≃ N x 2j , and σs2 ≃
N N
of the denominator can be neglected. Then, j =1 j =1
x j x j +d 2
j
=

(N x )
2
N x 2j ⋅ x 2j +d 2
j
=1/N.
The case of differential data can be similarly calculated as follows. First, let us treat the
( δ x jδ x j+d ) ( δ x 2j ) . We
2 2
case of d ≥ 2. The variance of autocorrelation is σsd2 =
N N
j =1 j =1

again independently treat the denominator and numerator and neglect the fluctuations of the

( δ x j δ x j+d ) ( 2N x ) . The numerator is

2 2
denominator. Then, σsd2 ≃
N 2
j =1 j

2 2
N  N 
  δ x jδ x j+d  =  ( x j+1 x j+1+d − x j+1 x j+d − x j x j+1+d + x j x j+d ) 
 j=1   j=1 
( )
N N
=  x j+1 x j+1+d + x j+1 x j+d + x j x j+1+d + x j x j+d + 2 x j x j+d
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

j =1 j =2

= 4 N x + 2 ( N − 1) x ≃ 6 N x .
2 2 2
2 2 2
j j (6)
j

Thus, σsd2 ≃ 3/(2N). The case of d =1 is similarly calculated while there is the offset in
 N 
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
accordance with Eq. (4), i.e., σsd2 ≃   j =1 δ x j δ x j +1 −  j=1 δ x j δ x j +1  2 N x 2j . Here,
N

 
 δxδx
N
j =1 j j +1
= − N x 2j , and
2 2
N  N 
  δ x j δ x j +1  =   ( x j+1 x j +2 − x j+1 − x j x j+2 + x j x j +1 ) 
2

 j =1   j =1 
( )
N N N N
=  x 2j+1 x 2j+2 + x 2j x 2j+2 + x 2j x 2j+1 + 2 x 2j x 2j+1 +  x2j+1  x 2j +1

)+ N x
j =1 j =2 j =1 j =1

= 3N x + 2 ( N − 1) x + N x − x
2
j
2
2
j
2

( 4
j
2
j
2
2 2
j
2

2 2
≃ 7N xj + N xj ,
2 2 2
(7)
2
where N ≃ N – 1 and x 4j = 3x j for the Gaussian distribution were used at the last line. Thus,
2

σsd2 ≃ 7/(4N). For the mutual correlation, the variance is simply σm2 ≃ 1/N; moreover, it is the
same for the differential data, i.e., σmd2 ≃ 1/N.
3.3 Evaluation with test suite
Several test suites for evaluating binary random numbers have been developed, and NIST
SP800-22 is one of the best known among them [15]. Because the test suite is for evaluating
binary random numbers with a 1:1 ratio, it cannot be used directly to evaluate the intended
random numb bers with the occurrence ratio r of p:(1-pp). However, the important point is
whether the phase
p noise ass a whole is raandom or not.. If so, the tesst suite can bee used by
transforming the measured phase p noise intto binary valuees. We transforrmed it as folloows.
Values measured
m with the oscilloscope consist oof 8 bits. How wever, the am mount of
information iss not 8 bits beccause the distribution is not uuniform. The enntropy of inforrmation Ie
= -Σpilog2pi obtained
o from the probability y distribution oof the sampledd data is aboutt 4.5 bits.
Therefore, wee transformed the t 8-bit data in nto 4-bit data.
The most direct method d of transformiing the data is to divide the probability disstribution
into 16 region ns, as shown in i Fig. 3(a), where
w the bounndaries of the regions are deetermined
such that thee integrated prrobability of each e region iss equally distrributed. Howeever, it is
difficult to obtain
o a uniform distribution for the trannsformed 4-biit values owinng to the
insufficient reesolution in diigitization. Forr this reason, we mapped thhe 8-bit valuess to 4-bit
values on thee basis of thee probability distribution
d shoown in Fig. 33(b). In SP8000-22, 106
random numb bers compose one o unit in a tesst, and 1000 orr 2000 units arre used in one ttest. Thus,
we first calcuulated the prob ution for 1000 ×106/4 or 20000×106/4 samplles. Next,
bability distribu
the 8-bit valuees were mappeed to different 4-bit
4 values inn descending orrder until the 16th value,
th th
and the 17 -to o-32 values werew mapped to o 4-bit values iin the reverse ddirection to equualize the
probability distribution. Afteer that, the 8-b bit values were mapped in desscending orderr to the 4-
bit value of the temporary y minimum probability. Thrrough this mappping, the 4-bbit values
became almo ost uniformly distributed.
d Allthough this m mapping proceess is valid foor infinite
6
samples, we performed thee process for 1000×10 1 /4 or 2000×106/4 ssamples. Thereefore, the
process was an a approximatiion. However, 1000×106/4 orr 2000×106/4 ssamples are suufficiently
large for this approximation n. Here, the non nuniformity off the AD conveerter in the osccilloscope
was automaticcally compensaated for in the transformationn of the 8-bit vaalues into 4 bitt values.
As mentio oned above, because
b there is a correlatioon between cconsecutively m measured
values owing g to the 1/f noise
n and the cut off at loow frequency in the ampliffiers, the
randomness of o the raw dataa is insufficientt. Therefore, thhe correlation w was removed bby taking
the differencee between conssecutively meaasured values, similar to the case of autocoorrelation.
Although n differential daata can be made m from n+ 1 measured vvalues, we maade each
differential daatum from two o consecutively y measured vallues; i.e., we ussed 2n measured values
for n differenntial data. This idea is based on the followiing fact. The ddifferentiated ddata are 9
bits as a resullt of subtractioon. Because thee original 8-bitt data are transsformed into 99-bit data,
the differentiaated data havee artificial redu undancy if onlly n+1 measurred values are used. To
avoid artificiaal redundancy, we used 2n sam mples for n diffferential data.

Fig. 3. How to translate 256-value fluctuaations into 16-valuue random numberrs. (a) Simple way..
(b) Way
W of finely equaliizing the probabiliity distribution of 44-value random nuumbers.
3.4 About NIST SP800-22
NIST SP800-22 consists of 15 kinds of tests, the total number of which is 188. The simplest
test is checking the number of 0s and 1s. Another example is checking the appearance
probability of specific patterns. The reason why the total number of tests is large compared
with the number of the kinds is that the number of the specific patterns is large. In each test, a
quantity called the p-value is evaluated for a unit of 106 random numbers. The p-value
quantifies the deviations of randomness for each unit. It is defined as a value ranging from 0
to 1 for every kind of test. The definition has a property that the probability of the p-value
being less than or equal to x is x for ideal random numbers. The p-values were evaluated for
1000 or 2000 units in each test and the distribution of p-values was obtained. This evaluation
was performed on all 188 terms. The obtained distribution was compared with the ideal case
from the viewpoints of uniformity and proportion.
Uniformity is quantified as follows. The p-value range is divided into ten regions, where
the ideal random numbers are equally distributed on average; i.e., the expectation of each
region is 100 for 1000-unit samples; next, the distribution for each region is determined for
the measured samples; the deviations from the expectation are quantified with a quantity
called P-valueT, where 0 ≤ P-valueT ≤ 1 and the probability of the P-valueT being less than or
equal to x is x for ideal random numbers; a typical criterion for passing the uniformity test is
P-valueT ≥ 0.0001. This criterion corresponds to a test with a significance level of 0.01%. To
pass the uniformity test, P-valueT ≥ 0.0001 must be satisfied for all 188 terms. Because
0.9999188 = 0.981…, the test has a significance level of 1.9% on the whole [17]. As is
apparent from the concept of significance level, even true random numbers do not pass the
test sometimes. Therefore, we did not simply judge randomness from the obtained P-valueT;
rather we did so comprehensively by checking the failure probability at a significance level.
The proportion test typically counts the cases in which the p-value ≥ 0.01. The probability
of a p-value being equal to or greater than 0.01 is 99% for ideal random numbers, and the
counts with a p-value ≥ 0.01 are distributed with a binomial distribution of p = 0.99. The
proportion test checks whether the counts with a p-value ≥ 0.01 are in the 3σ range of the
binomial distribution of p = 0.99. The 3σ range for 1000 samples is 980 ≤ counts ≤ 1000, and
the probability for a sample to be in the 3σ range is 0.9985…. Because 0.9985…188 =
0.7591…, the test on the whole has a significance level of 24%. Similar to the uniformity test,
randomness is comprehensively judged by checking a failure probability at a significance
level.

4. Experimental results
4.1 Probability distribution
Figure 4 plots the probability distribution of the measured phase noise. The number of
data was 250×106, and the sampling rate was 0.1, 1, or 2.5 GSps. The results for each
sampling rate are shown together with Gaussian curves as a guide. Because the phase noise of
an LD originates from many spontaneous emissions, it is expected to be Gaussian distributed
in accordance with the central limit theorem. As shown, when Id = 70 mA, the phase noise is
not so large that sinδφ(t,τ) ≃ δφ(t,τ) is satisfied in Eq. (2), and the experimental results fit
Gaussian curves. When Id = 12 mA, the linear approximation for the sine function is not
applicable and the probability distribution drops at the tails. There is no dependence on
sampling rate. As will be shown in sections 4.3 and 4.4, the tail has no effect on the
randomness of the measured phase noise. This is because the shape of the distribution is not
essential for randomness. The measured phase noise is sufficiently ideal with respect to the
theoretical probability distribution.
 13
1011 Gaussian
10 9 100 MSps Id = 70 mA

Distribution (arb.units)
Measured
107 1 GSps
105 2.5 GSps
103
101 100 MSps
10-1 1 GSps
10-3 2.5 GSps
10-5
10-7 Id = 12 mA
10
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
Phase noise (arb.units)
Fig. 4. Probability distribution of phase noise. Gaussian curves are also drawn. Data were
acquired at three different sampling rates. Measured phase noise is ideally distributed with
respect to probability distribution.

4.2 Noise spectra

Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show noise spectra at Id =12 mA and 70 mA. Plots labeled “Phase noise”
show total noise, and plots labeled “Amp. noise” show the case without input light, i.e., noise
from the PD and the following amplifiers. The difference between these two plots is the net
phase noise. The phase noise at the near-threshold condition in Fig. 5(a) is larger than that in
Fig. 5(b). The dip at 2.5 GHz comes from an interference effect of the asymmetric
interferometer.

-30 -30
(a) 12 mA (b) 70 mA
Phase noise
-40 Phase noise -40
Noise (dB)

Noise (dB)

-50 -50
-60 -60 Amp. noise
Amp. noise
-70 Floor -70 Floor

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Frequency (GHz) Frequency (GHz)
Fig. 5. Power spectrum of phase noise.

-40 -86
(a) Phase noise 70 mA (b)
-50 -88 Thermo_on
-50 Thermo_off
-60
Noise (dB)
Noise (dB)

-60 1/f
Amp. noise -90
-70 -70 Amp. noise
0.01 0.1 1
-80 -92
Floor
Floor
-90 -94
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
Frequency (MHz) Frequency (MHz)
Fig. 6. (a) Power spectrum of phase noise. The horizontal axis of the inset is a log scale. (b)
Power spectrum of intensity noise. The extra noise at 20 MHz comes from the temperature
controller.
 Although Fig. 5 shows a smooth frequency dependence without any structure, there is a
peak near zero frequency. This peak is more apparent in Fig. 5(b) than in Fig. 5(a) because
the net phase noise is less in Fig. 5(b) than in Fig. 5(a). Figure 6 shows the spectrum
expanded near zero frequency. The extra noise is mainly at 20 MHz and consists of many line
spectra, although they are not resolved in Fig. 6(a). The extra noise seems to come from the
temperature controller for the LD. If so, it could be checked by turning the temperature
controller on and off. However, when the LD is not temperature-controlled, the operating
wavelength cannot be maintained, and we cannot obtain an interference signal. Thus, we
measured the intensity noise instead, which is shown in Fig. 6(b). The noise near 20 MHz
could be made to disappear by turning the temperature controller off. However, the extra
noise at 3 – 8 MHz and 10 – 15 MHz did not disappear even when the controller was turned
off, although it is not clearly shown in Fig. 6(b). This noise is expected to come from the laser
driver. Although these extra noise sources exist as long as the LD operates, a large part of
them can be removed by taking the difference between consecutively measured values. In
addition, the bandwidth of the extra noise is negligibly narrower than the whole bandwidth of
the random noise. Thus, the remaining extra noise is negligible for differential data.
The amplifier noise grows on the low-frequency side, as shown in Fig. 6(a). It consists of
1/f noise, apparent from the inset. It too can be removed by taking the difference between
consecutively measured values.
4.3 Autocorrelation
Figure 7(a) shows the autocorrelation of the raw data, and Fig. 7(b) shows that of the
differential data. For comparison, the mutual correlation data are shown in the inset; N = 1×,
2×, 3×, 4×, and 5×105 for the mutual correlation and N = 4×105 for the autocorrelation.
The autocorrelation of the raw data is generally large in the small-delay region (Fig. 7(a)).
One reason is the correlation based on the 1/f noise, the low-frequency cut off, and the LD-
driver- and temperature-controller-related noise. The correlation can be mostly removed by
taking the difference between consecutively measured values (Fig. 7(b)). When Id = 12 mA
and fr = 100 MSps and 1 GSps (plots (1) and (2) in Fig. 7(b)), the variance of the
autocorrelation is almost constant at a level of 2σsd. Because the mutual correlation is less
than 2σmd, the variance is slightly larger than that for the mutual correlation. However, the
difference is minor, suggesting that the randomness is almost ideal at the accuracy of the
measurements. However, under other conditions, the autocorrelation in the small-delay region
rather deteriorates. Generally, the autocorrelation for Id = 12 mA shows better performance
than that for Id = 70 mA. This is because the phase noise for Id = 12 mA is larger than that for
Id = 70 mA, as can be seen in Figs. 5(a) and (b), and because the correlation due to the extra
noise affects the autocorrelation more for Id = 70 mA than for Id = 12 mA. Moreover, even
when Id = 12 mA, the autocorrelation for fr = 2.5 GSps deteriorates in the small-delay region
(plot (3) in Fig. 7(b)). This is due to the bandwidth limitation. As shown in Fig. 5(a), the
measured phase noise has a dip at 2.5 GHz owing to the interference effect of the asymmetric
interferometer. The width of the spectrum in Fig. 5(a) is insufficient for 2.5-GSps sampling.
The above results suggest that when an LD is driven at near the threshold current and the
sampling rate is less than the bandwidth, the phase noise is almost ideally random at the
accuracy of the measurements.
 0.10
(6) 70 mA, 2.5 GSps (a) Raw data 0.02 (b) Differential data
(5) 70 mA, 1 GSps Number
Autocorrelation 0.05 Number
0.01

Autocorrelation
(3) 12 mA, 2.5 GSps (3) (5) of data
of data (4)
(2) 12 mA, 1 GSps
0.00 0.00
(4) 70 mA, 100 MSps
(1) 12 mA, 100 MSps (1)
-0.05 (1) (4) -0.01 (2) (1) (4)
(2) (5) (6) (2) (5)
(3) (6) -0.02 (3) (6)
-0.10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Delay Delay
Fig. 7. Autocorrelation. Insets show mutual correlation. The horizontal axis in the insets is the
number of data used for calculating the mutual correlation, i.e., 1×, 2×, 3×, 4×, and 5×105. (a)
Autocorrelation for raw data. Autocorrelation is large in the small-delay region owing mainly
to the low-frequency extra noise in the measuring system. (b) Autocorrelation for differential
data. The correlation due to the extra noise in the measuring system is mostly removed by
differentiating the consecutively measured values. When the LD is driven at a near-threshold
current, i.e., Id = 12 mA, the variance of the autocorrelation is almost constant except for the
case of 2.5 GSps sampling. The dotted lines indicate 2σsd (or 2σmd in the inset) for the ideal
case.

4.4 Evaluation using NIST SP800-22

Table 1 shows the results of the NIST SP800-22 tests. The tests were done two times at each
sampling rate for 1000-unit samples. A test for 2000-unit samples was also done for
differential data by combining two data sets of 1000 units. Table 1 indicates the number of
failures for 188 terms with respect to uniformity (U) and proportion (P). Tests with “0” mean
“pass.” There are many failures for the raw data, particularly at 2.5 GSps sampling. One
cause is the correlation due to the extra noise; the other is the bandwidth limitation.
The correlation can be removed by taking the difference between consecutively measured
values. The effect of this differentiation is clearly seen in Table 1(a). Here, the effect of the
bandwidth limitation is removed as well, and there is no clear dependence on the measuring
conditions, i.e., the sampling rate and drive current. The reason why the effect of bandwidth
limitation is removed is that the main frequency component cut off by the bandwidth
limitation is 2.5 GHz. The lack of the 2.5-GHz component that originally existed causes the
correlation between consecutively measured values. Because its frequency component is in-
phase between consecutively measured values, it was removed by taking the difference.
In Table 1(a), the uniformity test for differential data was passed in every case regardless
of the conditions. However, there should be statistical events in which true random numbers
are judged as failures and incomplete random numbers are judged as passes. Therefore,
random numbers should not be simply judged, but rather statistically judged on the whole.
The criterion for passing the uniformity test in Table 1(a) is P-valueT ≥ 0.0001. This
criterion means that the probability of failure is 1/10000 for ideal random numbers. Because
the number of test terms is 188, the criterion might be too loose. Thus, we changed the
criterion to P-valueT ≥ 0.01 (Table 1(b)). This stricter criterion leads to failures even for the
ideal random numbers once every 100 terms on average. The results in Table 1(b) have
statistical fluctuations, and a dependence on the measuring conditions would be in the
statistical fluctuations if it existed. Thus, we collectively evaluated the failure probability
without considering the measuring conditions. The failure events numbered 24 for the 1000-
unit case and 7 for the 2000-unit case. The failure probabilities were thus 24/(12×188) =
0.01063… and 7/(6×188) = 0.006205…, respectively. These values are near or less than 0.01
for ideal random numbers. They are summarized in Table 2(a).
 Table 1. Results of NIST SP800-22 test.

(a) Uniformity: P-valueT < 0.0001, Proportion: outside 3σ range

LD Sampling Raw data Differential data
current rate 1000 1000 1000 1000 2000
(mA) (GHz) U P U P U P U P U P
12 0.1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 0.1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
1 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0
2.5 7 6 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 1

(b) U: P-valueT < 0.01 (c) P: outside 2σ range

LD Sampling Differential Differential
current rate 1000 1000 2000 1000 1000 2000
(mA) (GHz) U U U U U U
12 0.1 2 0 2 0 2 5(1)
1 3 4 0 7 1 7(3)
2.5 3 4 2 1 1(1) 6(0)
70 0.1 1 1 0 1 5 5(2)
1 1 3 3 1 2 5(0)
2.5 1 1 0 3 1 5(3)
Failure counts for the 188 terms are shown. U denotes uniformity test, and P denotes proportion test. When both tests
result in a zero count, each test is a “pass.” The tests use 1000 or 2000 units of random number sequences. Each test
was performed two times for the 1000-unit case and once for the 2000-unit case at each sampling rate. The 2000-unit
case used the same data as the 1000-unit case. The numbers indicated in parentheses in (c) express the counts of the
values larger than the pass range under the 2σ condition. The failure counts in the differential data are reasonable,
judging from their statistical fluctuations.

Table 2. Failure counts and rates in NIST SP800-22 test.

(a) Uniformity
1000 2000
P-value-T Count Rate (%) Count Rate (%)
< 0.0001 Ideal 0.01 0.01
Experiment 0 0 0 0
< 0.01 Ideal 1 1
Experiment 24 1.06 7 0.621

(b) Proportion
Range 1000 2000
Count Rate (%) Count Rate (%)
Outside 3σ Ideal 0.150 0.147
Experiment 4 0.177 1 0.0887
Outside 2σ Ideal 1.65 3.18
Experiment 25 1.11 33 2.93
Outside 2σ Ideal 1.38 2.13
(lower side) Experiment 24 1.06 24 2.13
The rows labelled “3σ” and “2σ” indicate the results of the two-sided test, and the row labelled “2σ (lower)” indicates
the results of a one-sided test.

The results of the proportion test can be analyzed similarly. The failure events in the
proportion test for differential data in Table 1(a) totaled 4 for the 1000-unit case and 1 for the
2000-unit case. The failure probabilities were 0.001773… and 0.0008865…, respectively.
The failure probabilities for the 3σ criterion were 0.001496… for 1000 units and 0.001474 for
2000 units. Here, the range of 3σ was 980 ≤ proportion ≤ 1000 for 1000 units and 1966 ≤
proportion ≤ 1994 for 2000 units. The results are summarized in Table 2(b).
 Only a few failure events occurred under the 3σ criterion. These events can be increased
in number by changing the criterion to 2σ. The results are shown in Table 2(b). The range of
2σ is 983 ≤ proportion ≤ 997 for 1000 units and 1971 ≤ proportion ≤ 1989 for 2000 units.
The analysis so far has been one of a two-sided test. However, the deviation of incomplete
random numbers will generally be to the lower side. Thus, a one-sided test was also done for
the 2σ criterion. The results are also shown in Table 2(b).
The test results in Table 2 suggest that differential data have a failure probability near the
ideal case on the whole. Although NIST SP800-22 has room for improvement [17], the
obtained results support the randomness of the differential data given the use of the present
test suite.
5. Discussion
The phase noise of LDs operating near the threshold is dominated by noise originating from
spontaneous emission [18-22]. Therefore, when the phase noise is much larger than the noise
of the measuring system, we can in principle measure ideal random phase noise. The
condition is satisfied in ordinary experimental conditions, as shown in Fig. 5(a), i.e., , there is
the large difference between the phase noise and the amplifier noise intensities. The problem
is the correlation due to the extra noise in the measuring system. However, it can be removed
by taking the difference between consecutively measured values. The effect of the subtraction
is clearly seen in Figs. 7 (b). The other thing we should be concerned about is the bandwidth
limitation of the measuring system. As shown in Fig. 5, the system does not have sufficient
bandwidth for 2.5 GSps sampling. Indeed, the autocorrelation for 2.5 GSps sampling rather
deteriorates in the low-delay region, as shown in Fig. 7(b). Thus, the result is reasonable.
Because the bandwidth is sufficient for 0.1 and 1 GSps sampling, the autocorrelation shows
no delay dependence in those cases (plots (1) and (2) in Fig. 7(b)). These results indicate that
the measured phase noise of an LD is almost ideally random if the following conditions are
satisfied; i.e., the LD is driven at a near-threshold current, the signal intensity is much larger
than the amplifier noise in the measuring system, the necessary bandwidth is assured in the
measuring system, and the correlation due to the extra noise is removed. The results of the
NIST SP800-22 tests support this conclusion. Here, we should note that the results of the
NIST SP800-22 tests indicate a high level of randomness even for the far-threshold case of Id
= 70 mA and insufficient bandwidth case of 2.5 GSps sampling. Therefore, the practically
usable measuring conditions might cover a wider range than the theoretical conditions would
indicate, although we should make sure that the measuring system is correctly adjusted.
The probability distribution of the phase noise fits a Gaussian distribution very well. This
finding is further support showing the randomness of the phase noise. Thus, all the
experimental results support the conclusion that the randomness of the measured phase noise
of an LD is very high. This conclusion was arrived at by only taking the difference between
consecutively measured values as outputs. It means the measured phase noise of an LD can be
used as a continuous-variable random number generator. On this basis, by appropriately
setting the threshold for outputs, we can obtain binary random numbers with an occurrence
ratio of p:(1-p). However, the resolution of p is limited by that of the AD converter. A high-
resolution AD converter should thus be used in the measurement to increase the accuracy of p.
Lastly, we should mention the min-entropy, which is often referred to in recent reports
related to quantum random number generators [5]. This quantity estimates the possible
entropy that can be obtained from a nonuniform distribution. We directly calculated about 4.5
bits as the entropy obtainable from our experiment. The quantity corresponds to the min-
entropy. Although this quantity should be modified owing to the extra noise in the measuring
system and the small classical component included in the phase noise of an LD [19, 21], the
former is negligibly small, as shown in this report, and the latter is also negligibly small
because of the near-threshold operation [22]. Thus, the modification is also negligibly small.
To use the NIST SP800-22 as one of the evaluation tools, we transformed the measured phase
noise into 4-bit values. In addition, to remove the artificial redundancy, we reduced the
entropy of the measured values to half. Thus, the measured values are also appropriately
treated from the viewpoint of the min-entropy. However, our intention here is not to propose
a method for increasing the entropy of measured values, but rather to generate binary random
numbers with an occurrence ratio of p:(1-p) without an ordinary extractor that produces
binary random numbers with a 1:1 ratio. In accordance with this purpose, we proposed a
simple method that involves taking the difference between consecutively measured values
and showed that the extra noise can be almost completely removed. At the present stage, we
are thinking of taking one binary number from a set of consecutively measured values.
6. Summary
We aimed at obtaining binary random numbers with an occurrence ratio of p:(1-p) from the
phase noise of a cw LD. To ensure its foundation, we evaluated the phase noise as a
continuous quantity by using its autocorrelation and a statistical test suite without an ordinary
extractor for binary random numbers. Because the phase noise mainly originates from
spontaneous emission, if it is measured under appropriate conditions, it should have ideal
randomness. Here, the appropriate conditions are that (1) the LD is driven by a near-threshold
current, (2) the signal intensity is much greater than the additional-noise intensity, (3) the
bandwidth is larger than the sampling rate, and (4) the correlation due to the extra noise in the
measuring system is removed by taking the difference between consecutively measured
values. The autocorrelation results showed a reasonable dependence on the measuring
conditions. Therefore, when a cw LD is driven under the above conditions, the measured
phase noise has almost ideal randomness that is assured by spontaneous emission, making it
possible to use the phase noise of an LD as a continuous-variable random-number generator
and as a binary random number generator with an occurrence ratio of p:(1-p). Because phase
noise is Gaussian distributed, the tail part is less distributed, so p can be finely controlled. The
results of the NIST SP800-22 tests support this conclusion. Because the test results suggested
“pass” for all of the drive current and sampling rate conditions examined in this report, the
practically usable measuring conditions might actually cover a wider range than the
theoretical conditions suggest.
References
1. T. Jennewein, U. Achleitner, G. Weihs, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “A fast and compact quantum random
number generator,” Re, Sci. Instrum. 71(4), 1675 - 1680 (2000).
2. Y. Shen, L. Tian, and H. Zou, “Practical quantum random number generator based on measuring the shot noise
of vacuum states,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 063814 (2010).
3. C. Gabriel, C. Wittmann, D. Sych, R. Dong, W. Mauerer, U. L. Andersen, C. Marquardt, and Gerd Leuchs, “A
generator for unique quantum random numbers based on vacuum states,” Nature Photon. 4, 711 - 715 (2010).
4. B. Qi, Y.-M. Chi, H.-K. Lo, and L. Qian, “High-speed quantum random number generation by measuring phase
noise of a single-mode laser,” Opt. Lett. 35(3), 312 - 314 (2010).
5. F. Xu, B. Qi, X. Ma, H. Xu, H. Zheng, and H.-K. Lo, “Ultrafast quantum random number generation based on
quantum phase fluctuations,” Opt. Express 20(11), 12366 - 12377 (2012).
6. F. Raffaelli, P. Sibson, J. E. Kennard, D. H. Mahler, M. G. Thompson, and J. C. F. Matthews, “Generation of
random numbers by measuring phase fluctuations from a laser diode with a silicon-on-insulator chip,” Opt.
Express 26(16), 19730 - 19741 (2018).
7. Z. L. Yuan, M. Lucamarini, J. F. Dynes, B. Fröhlich, A. Plews, and A. J. Shields, “Robust random number
generation using steady-state emission of gain-switched laser diodes, “Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 261112 (2014).
8. C. Abellán, W. Amaya, M. Jofre, M. Curty, A. Acín, J. Capmany, V. Pruneri, and M.W. Mitchell, “Ultra-fast
quantum randomness generation by accelerated phase diffusion in a pulsed laser diode,” Opt. Express 22(2),
1645 - 1654 (2014).
9. X. Li, A. B. Cohen, T. E. Murphy, and R. Roy, “Scalable parallel physical random number generator based on a
superluminescent LED,” Opt. Lett. 36(6), 1020 - 1022 (2011).
10. C. R. S. Williams, J. C. Salevan, X. Li, R. Roy, and T. E. Murphy, “Fast physical random number generator
using amplified spontaneous emission,” Opt. Express 18(23), 23584 - 23597 (2010).
11. T. Tomaru, “Secret key generation from channel noise with the help of a common key,” arXiv1803.05090.
12. N. Nisan and A. Ta-Shma, Extracting Randomness: A Survey and New Constructions," J. Comp. Sys. Sci. 58,
148 - 173 (1999).
13. L. Trevisan, “Extractors and pseudorandom generators,” J. ACM 48, 860 - 879 (2001).
14. M. W. Mitchell, C. Abellan, and W. Amaya, “Strong experimental guarantees in ultrafast quantum random
number generation,” Phys. Rev. A 91, 012314 (2015).
15. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html
16. T. Tomaru, “Quantum mechanically formulated fluctuation characterization method using symmetric and
asymmetric interferometers,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28(6), 1502 - 1513 (2011).
17. Only two tests are responsible for most of the 188 terms in NIST SP800-22. Therefore, SP800-22 does not
evaluate binary random numbers equally with respect to the 15 kinds of tests. Although there is room for
improvement, it is beyond the scope of our study. Thus, we decided to use SP800-22 as it stands in order to
obtain one of evaluation figures.
18. C. Henry, “Theory of the Linewidth of Semiconductor Lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 18(2), 25 – 264
(1982).
19. K. Vahala, “Occupation fluctuation noise: A fundamental source of linewidth broadening in semiconductor
lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 43(2), 140 – 142 (1983).
20. D. Welford and A. Mooradian, “Observation of linewidth broadening in (GaAl)As diode lasers due to electron
number fluctuations,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 40(7), 560 – 562 (1982).
21. K. Kikuchi, T. Okoshi, and R. Arata, “Measurement of linewidth and FM-noise spectrum of 1.52 μm InGaAsP
lasers,” electron. Lett. 20(13), 535 - 536 (1984).
22. A. Villafranca, J. A. Lázaro, I. Salinas, and Ignacio Garcés, “Measurement of the Linewidth Enhancement
Factor in DFB Lasers Using a High-Resolution Optical Spectrum Analyzer,” IEEE Photon. Tech. Lett. 17(11),
2268 - 2270 (2005).