Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but… isn't this really about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_hash_function? "Perfect" doesn't represent a statement of quality here, if that's what you're alluding to.
No, I mean in the sense given on the page (I should've included the parenthetical in my quote)
> (e.g. a random permutation of all 32-bit integers)
Since they only use bijective primitives, it's trivially "perfect" in the "perfect hash function" sense.
To elaborate further on the definition I was going off (which may well not be what the author meant):
> A PRF is considered to be good if its behavior is indistinguishable from a truly random function. Therefore, given an output from either the truly random function or a PRF, there should be no efficient method to correctly determine whether the output was produced by the truly random function or the PRF.
Retr0id|1 year ago
> (e.g. a random permutation of all 32-bit integers)
Since they only use bijective primitives, it's trivially "perfect" in the "perfect hash function" sense.
To elaborate further on the definition I was going off (which may well not be what the author meant):
> A PRF is considered to be good if its behavior is indistinguishable from a truly random function. Therefore, given an output from either the truly random function or a PRF, there should be no efficient method to correctly determine whether the output was produced by the truly random function or the PRF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_function_family