SMHasher is a popular test suite created by Austin Appleby for testing hash functions for weaknesses and speed. There is also a more uptodate fork.
SMHasher is widely used in the design and vetting of noncryptographic hash functions. And noncryptographic hash functions often advertise that they pass the entire SMHasher test suite as a signal of hash quality.
This is a problem for hashes with large output sizes, and in this post we're going to explore why that is.
In the process of exploring that, we're also going to:
 Create a 128bit hash function that cleanly passes SMHasher, while nevertheless having issues that are obvious from analysis.
 Identify a common issue with most currently published largeoutput noncryptographic hashes.
Please note that this entire post is about hashes intended for use in nonadversarial conditions. Hashes that need to withstand attacks have additional considerations, and I'm not qualified to discuss that.^{1}
Goodhart's Law
There is a fundamental problem with designing hashes against SMHasher, which basically comes down to Goodhart's law:
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Don't get me wrong, SMHasher is a good test suite, and any largeoutput hash function worth its salt ought to pass it. But it is infeasible to catch all issues with empirical tests.
Because of this, if your approach to hash design is to keep tweaking your hash until it passes SMHasher, you will merely end up with a hash that is free of the issues that SMHasher can test for.^{9}
For hashes with small outputs (e.g. 32 or 64 bits), that's almost certainly fine. The use cases for such hashes (e.g. hash tables) expect and have to handle collisions anyway, so the quality requirements aren't nearly as stringent.
However, 128bit+ hashes are another story. Large hashes have different use cases, and in many of those use cases (e.g. contentaddressed systems, data fingerprinting, etc.) collisions are unacceptable, and can lead to data loss.
Additionally, large hashes are infeasible to thoroughly test for issues empirically due to their size. So if you design a large hash function by just tweaking it until it passes a test suite like SMHasher, it is very likely to still have issues that make collisions more likely than its output size suggests.
To help make my point, we're going to design a 128bit hash function that has clear issues when properly analyzed, but which nevertheless appears to have bestinclass quality according to SMHasher.
The Mixing Function
To get started, let's choose a mixing function for our hash. Mixing functions are at the heart of many hash function designs, and we'll be putting one at the heart of ours as well.
Mixing functions take a fixedsize chunk of data and mix up its bits. There are some qualities that you generally want out of a mixing function:
 It should be bijective. Or put differently, it should be reversible. Or put even more differently: it shouldn't lose any data.
 It should have good avalanche. Another way of putting this is that every input bit should be well diffused into the output. You can imagine putting a tiny drop of dye into a glass of water, and then mixing it all up to evenly distribute the dye. That's roughly the idea here, but with bits instead of drops of dye.
(There are other criteria that are also useful, but a discussion of them isn't necessary for this post.)
In our case, we're going to use a mixing function inspired by ThreeFish's MIX function. It takes two unsigned 64bit integers and mixes their bits up across the total 128 bits of both:
rotation_constants = [
12, 39, 21, 13, 32, 11, 24, 53,
17, 27, 57, 13, 50, 8, 52, 8
]
function mix(A, B, rounds):
for i in 0 to rounds:
A += B + 1
B = B.rotate_left(rotation_constant[i]) ^ A
Let's analyze this mixing function.
First, it's definitely bijective. All of the operations are trivially reversible, and we can easily write a function that undoes the mixing:
function unmix(A, B, rounds):
for i in reverse(0 to rounds):
B = (B ^ A).rotate_right(rotation_constant[i])
A = B + 1
So that's one check mark!
To analyze the avalanche, we can generate an avalanche diagram^{2}, which is essentially a graph of pixels where the vertical axis is the input bit, the horizontal axis is the output bit, and the color of a pixel indicates how much effect that input bit has on that output bit on average.
Here's an avalanche diagram for our mixing function with 1 round:
Black pixels mean that flipping the input bit never affects the output bit, and white means that it always affects it. Grays mean that sometimes there's an effect and sometimes not. Grays represent good diffusion. So 1 round is pretty awful, as it turns out.
Here's 4 and 8 rounds:
As you can see, more rounds improves the avalanche/diffusion. But we're still not quite there. For full avalanche this mix function actually needs 12 rounds, at which point the image becomes an even gray:
So with 12 rounds, this is a pretty good mix function! For our purposes it's also useful that we can tweak its quality to be anything from awful to good—we'll be exploiting that later.
Our First Bad Hash
Using our new mixing function, we're going to first create an awful hash that SMHasher does identify issues with.
We're going to take a blockbased approach to hashing our data. The idea is that we split up the input data into equalsized blocks, and shove them into our hash state one at a time. The last block may not always be large enough, so in that case we pad it out with zeros.
So here's our very first awful hash:
function goodhart_hash_1(input_data):
hash_state = [0, 0] // Two 64bit integers.
for block in input_data: // 128bit blocks.
pad_block_if_needed(block)
hash_state[0] ^= block.first_half
hash_state[1] ^= block.second_half
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
return hash_state
There are some really bad things about this hash, which we'll get to in a moment. But first, one apparently good property that this does have is its avalanche:
(Note: I've rotated this diagram 90 degrees for easier viewing, so now the input bits are the horizontal axis.)
This graph shows the avalanche of a 512bit input, and it looks perfect! This means that every input bit affects every output bit with roughly equal probability. So at first glance this seems awesome.
However, putting our hash through SMHasher^{3} tells a different story (full output):
AppendedZeroesTest  FAIL 
Avalanche Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Sparse' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Permutation' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Window' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Cyclic' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'TwoBytes' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Text' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Zeroes' Tests  FAIL 
Diff 'Differential' Tests  FAIL 
DiffDist 'Differential Distribution' Tests  Pass 
MomentChi2 Tests  Pass 
Prng Tests  Pass 
BIC 'Bit Independence Criteria' Tests  Pass 
That's quite a lot of failures!
(Note: if you want to reproduce the SMHasher results for the hashes we create in this post, the code is available.)
Fixing the First Failure
The very first failure, "AppendedZeroesTest", is a pretty obvious one.
The reason our hash fails this is because of our zeropadding scheme. If the last block is too small, we append enough zeros to make it the same size as the other blocks. The consequence is that we can't, for example, distinguish between a final 3byte block containing "abc" and a final 10byte block that starts with "abc" followed by seven 0 bytes.
And that's exactly what "AppendedZeroesTest" tests for.
There are a couple of approaches to address this. But the simplest—and the one we'll use—is to incorporate the input length into the hash. And that gives us Goodhart Hash 2:
function goodhart_hash_2(input_data):
hash_state = [0, 0] // Two 64bit integers.
for block in input_data: // 128bit blocks.
pad_block_if_needed(block)
hash_state[0] ^= block.first_half
hash_state[1] ^= block.second_half
// Incorporate the input length.
hash_state[0] ^= input_data.length()
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
return hash_state
By incorporating the input length, we ensure that extending the input data with zeros changes the resulting hash.
As a result, we now have two fewer failures in SMHasher (full output):
AppendedZeroesTest  Pass 
Avalanche Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Sparse' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Permutation' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Window' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Cyclic' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'TwoBytes' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Text' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Zeroes' Tests  Pass 
Diff 'Differential' Tests  FAIL 
DiffDist 'Differential Distribution' Tests  Pass 
MomentChi2 Tests  Pass 
Prng Tests  Pass 
BIC 'Bit Independence Criteria' Tests  Pass 
That's progress!
Fixing the Remaining Failures
The remaining failures all stem from the same underlying issue: we xor all the input blocks into the state without doing any mixing, and only mix at the end.
This has two major consequences:
 The input blocks can be shuffled however you like, and the resulting hash will be the same.
 Even if shuffling weren't a concern, the interaction between the bits of different blocks is simple rather than complex. For example, you can flip the first bit in one block, and flip the same bit in another block, and they cancel out.
Both of these issues can be resolved by doing mixing between xoring the input blocks. And that gives us Goodhart Hash 3:
function goodhart_hash_3(input_data):
hash_state = [0, 0] // Two 64bit integers.
for block in input_data: // 128bit blocks.
pad_block_if_needed(block)
hash_state[0] ^= block.first_half
hash_state[1] ^= block.second_half
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds) // Mix here too.
// Incorporate the input length.
hash_state[0] ^= input_data.length()
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
return hash_state
This fully resolves both issues:
 Since xoring combined with mixing is noncommutative, and we do it for every block, changing the order of the blocks results in different hashes.
 Since each input bit is fully diffused into the hash state before incorporating the next block, the relationship between the bits of different blocks is complex: flipping a single bit anywhere in the input can only (with overwhelming probability) be cancelled out by a complex change elsewhere in the input.
If we run this hash through SMHasher (full output):
AppendedZeroesTest  Pass 
Avalanche Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Sparse' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Permutation' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Window' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Cyclic' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'TwoBytes' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Text' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Zeroes' Tests  Pass 
Diff 'Differential' Tests  Pass 
DiffDist 'Differential Distribution' Tests  Pass 
MomentChi2 Tests  Pass 
Prng Tests  Pass 
BIC 'Bit Independence Criteria' Tests  Pass 
Tada! It passes all the tests!
In fact, although I haven't done the analysis needed to make any claims, this might actually be a highquality hash. It's also simple and fairly easy to understand.
Of course, I said we were going to make a bad hash that passes SMHasher, so you might feel a little let down right now. Don't worry, we're getting there.
The main problem with this hash is that it's not very fast. Which means we can't put up cool websites and boast about it being the most blazingly fastestest hash there evar wuz! And that's a problem, because people love speed. Gotta look good in those benchmarks.
Making Our Hash Faster and Worser
One way we can make our hash faster is to do fewer mixing rounds. Because really (he says foreshadowing), we surely don't need all of those rounds, and SMHasher will tell us if we have too few, right?
Let's give it a shot. We'll reduce the mix rounds in the inner loop to 4, which should make it over twice as fast! However, we'll still do a 12round mix after incorporating the input length to finalize everything.
Behold Goodhart Hash 4:
function goodhart_hash_4(input_data):
hash_state = [0, 0] // Two 64bit integers.
for block in input_data: // 128bit blocks.
pad_block_if_needed(block)
hash_state[0] ^= block.first_half
hash_state[1] ^= block.second_half
mix(hash_state, 4 rounds)
// Incorporate the input length.
hash_state[0] ^= input_data.length()
// Finalize.
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
return hash_state
So what does SMHasher say? (full output)
AppendedZeroesTest  Pass 
Avalanche Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Sparse' Tests  FAIL 
Keyset 'Permutation' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Window' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Cyclic' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'TwoBytes' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Text' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Zeroes' Tests  Pass 
Diff 'Differential' Tests  Pass 
DiffDist 'Differential Distribution' Tests  Pass 
MomentChi2 Tests  Pass 
Prng Tests  Pass 
BIC 'Bit Independence Criteria' Tests  Pass 
Damn, so close! We're only failing one test.
No matter! If 4 rounds isn't enough, we'll just bump 'em up to 5! That should do the trick.
Goodhart Hash 5:
function goodhart_hash_5(input_data):
hash_state = [0, 0] // Two 64bit integers.
for block in input_data: // 128bit blocks.
pad_block_if_needed(block)
hash_state[0] ^= block.first_half
hash_state[1] ^= block.second_half
mix(hash_state, 5 rounds)
// Incorporate the input length.
hash_state[0] ^= input_data.length()
// Finalize.
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
return hash_state
SMHasher's report (full output):
AppendedZeroesTest  Pass 
Avalanche Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Sparse' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Permutation' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Window' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Cyclic' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'TwoBytes' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Text' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Zeroes' Tests  Pass 
Diff 'Differential' Tests  Pass 
DiffDist 'Differential Distribution' Tests  Pass 
MomentChi2 Tests  Pass 
Prng Tests  Pass 
BIC 'Bit Independence Criteria' Tests  Pass 
We did it! We improved the performance of our hash by around 2x, while maintaining its quality! We know it's true, because SMHasher said so.
Right?
Goodhart's Law Again
Unfortunately, just because SMHasher gave a passing score doesn't mean our hash is actually as robust as its 128bit output size implies. In reality, "pass" in SMHasher just means "couldn't find an issue within the limitations of our tests".
The principle behind Goodhart's law is that most tests aren't exhaustive, and typically are also stand ins for the thing you actually want to know. In our case, we want to know if our hash is as robust as its 128bit size implies. But that's not feasible to test empirically, so instead SMHasher tests the subset of things that are feasible to test in the hope that it catches issues.
This has value if the hash is designed independently of the test suite, and the test suite is just used after the fact as a kind of sanity check. But if the hash is designed against the test, all bets are off.
And this is exactly what happened when we went from 4 mixing rounds to 5. All we did was push the issues with our hash barely outside of what SMHasher tests for. But the issue is still there.
Recall that to fix most of the errors from our initial awful hash, we had to add a mixing step between input blocks. On some level, all of those tests were (directly or indirectly) trying to ensure that this mixing was sufficient. At 4 rounds only one of those tests failed, but most of the other tests would have failed as well if given enough compute time and memory—they only passed because doing that isn't practical. Then when we bumped the mix rounds up to 5, the only failing holdout was pushed passed its breaking point as well, and passed.
Here's the avalanche diagram for 5 mixing rounds:
This is what Goodhart Hash 5 is doing between input blocks. It clearly isn't fully mixed/diffused.
Specifically, the average diffusion (in terms of Shannon entropy) is 106 bits, and the worstdiffused bit only has 45 bits of diffusion. And that's for random inputs. For a structuredinput test (an incrementing integer), the average is 66 bits and the worst is 24 bits.
That means we only reliably have 24 bits of complexity between blocks. Which means that in some cases, a single bit flip can be cancelled out by a 12bit change elsewhere in the input on average.
To be clear, that's not quite as bad as it sounds. Only specific input bits have this property, and the worst case is only triggered by certain input data. And even then the cancelling only happens at such low complexity in adjacent blocks, not any block within the whole input. So it's not as if the whole hash is reduced to the equivalent of a 24bit hash.
Nevertheless, our hash has a higher probability of collisions than its 128bit size suggests. This is a problem if we advertise it as a highquality hash, because people will then reasonably assume that the probability of collisions matches that 128bit size, and may subsequently use our hash where that's important.
A Final Awful Hash
To really drive the point home, let's make one last hash.
Unlike our previous hashes, which followed a fairly realistic progression, we're going to intentionally build this hash to be far, far weaker than its output size would imply. All while still passing SMHasher with flying colors.
Here's Goodhart Hash 6:
function goodhart_hash_6(input_data):
hash_state = [0, 0] // Two 64bit integers.
for block in input_data: // 128bit blocks.
pad_block_if_needed(block)
hash_state[0] ^= block.first_half
hash_state[1] ^= block.second_half
mix(hash_state, 5 rounds)
// Incorporate the input length.
hash_state[0] ^= input_data.length()
// Finalize.
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
// Be evil.
hash_state[1] = 0
mix(hash_state, 12 rounds)
return hash_state
The only difference between this and Goodhart Hash 5 is that at the very end we zero out the last 64 bits of the hash, and then mix everything up again.
The reason this is evil is because it strictly reduces our hash to the equivalent of a mere 64bit hash. All while still having an output that looks like a 128bit hash.
Here's what SMHasher says (full output):
AppendedZeroesTest  Pass 
Avalanche Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Sparse' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Permutation' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Window' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Cyclic' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'TwoBytes' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Text' Tests  Pass 
Keyset 'Zeroes' Tests  Pass 
Diff 'Differential' Tests  Pass 
DiffDist 'Differential Distribution' Tests  Pass 
MomentChi2 Tests  Pass 
Prng Tests  Pass 
BIC 'Bit Independence Criteria' Tests  Pass 
Still passes.
This specific evil trick could feasibly be teased out empirically, albeit with a very memoryhungry test.^{4} But the point is that these kinds of issues are in general infeasible to test for empirically with large hashes.
Sussing out issues with large hashes requires analysis, along with testing their individual components.
Which Large Hashes Are Good?
There are a few caveats to this section:
 "Good" or "bad" depends on application. Some applications may not need a 128bitequivalent hash, and the weaknesses of a particular hash may simply not matter in such cases.
 I want to reemphasize what I said at the beginning of this post: none of this is relevant to smalloutput hashes. Many of the hashes below also have smalloutput variants, and this analysis should not be taken to suggest anything about those variants.
 This is not an exhaustive list. These are just the hashes I've looked at so far, which tend to either be popular hashes or hashes developed by the same author(s) as another popular hash.
Additionally, this is not a full analysis of these hashes. Rather, this focuses on one particular weakness that many large noncryptographic hashes have in common. In fact, it's the same weakness we introduced into Goodhart Hash 4 and 5: not enough mixing between blocks.
What I've done is isolated the mixing component^{5} of each hash, and measured its avalanche/diffusion.
The table below lists the average and worst diffusion for random inputs, as well as the worst diffusion for patterned inputs^{6} (such as an incrementing counter). Worst diffusion means the diffusion of the leastdiffused input bit. The table also links to avalanche diagrams for random inputs.
Hash  Average Diffusion (random)  Worst Diffusion (random)  Worst Diffusion (structured)^{6}  Avalanche Diagram 

AquaHash  32 bits  32 bits  0 bits^{7}  diagram 
CityHash128 / FarmHash128^{5}  58  128 bits  3  58 bits  0  44 bits  diagram 
MeowHash 0.5^{8}  74 bits  32 bits  0 bits  diagram 
MetroHash128^{5}  29  64 bits  3  9 bits  0 bits  diagram 
Murmur3 128bit^{5}  83  123 bits  33  95 bits  24  71 bits  diagram 
xxHash3 128bit  38 bits  33 bits  0 bits  diagram 
In short, none of these hashes fully live up to their 128bit size. For many applications that's probably fine. But for some it's definitely not.
In any case, none of these hashes should be making unqualified claims of quality for their largeoutput variants.
(Note: if you want to reproduce the results in this table or check my work, the code is available.)
Conclusion
The wrong thing to take away from this post is that SMHasher is somehow a bad test suite. On the contrary, SMHasher is quite a good test suite.
The real take away is that despite SMHasher being a good test suite, it cannot—and will never be able to—reliably catch issues in largeoutput hashes. And especially given the use cases that largeoutput hashes often have, that means we shouldn't rely on SMHasher (or any other test suite) as a stamp of quality for them.
The only way to have real confidence in largeoutput hashes is through analysis and justification of their design. And if the creator(s) of a largeoutput hash want other people to use it, it is incumbent upon them to provide that analysis and justification.
If a creator doesn't provide that, don't trust the hash. We should hold our hashes to a higher standard.
Footnotes

Moreover, the norms around hashes with security claims are already much more rigorous. So the main thrust of this post, "you should publicly analyze and justify your hash designs", is redundant in that context since it's already expected.

Proper avalanche analysis should be done with more than eyeballing a diagram, but diagrams do provide important intuition for what's going on. I don't cover it in this post because it's not important to the point, but I did more than just look at avalanche diagrams to determine the number of rounds needed for full diffusion.

Throughout this article we omit SMHasher's seeding tests (e.g. the Perlin Noise test) because none of the hashes we build are seedable. However, note that simply prepending the seed to the input data makes both the good and seeminglygood hashes in this article pass all of the seeding tests as well.

Thanks to the birthday paradox, you would only need to compute ~13 billion hashes for a 99% chance of triggering a collision in a 64bitequivalent hash, which would handily catch this trick out. You would have to get a little clever in the implementation, since the birthday paradox depends on comparing every hash to every other hash. But that's certainly doable.

I say "mixing component", but many of these hashes are designed such that the mixing of the hash state and incorporating an input data block are intertwined, creating a combined "absorber" or "accumulator" component. In such cases, I test the combined component to ensure that it's representative of the hash.
Additionally, some hashes are so intertwined in the way they do things that it's difficult to really pin a precise number on them. In such cases, I've listed a minmax range that represents the diffusion at the start/end of incorporating the next block.

It's worth noting that a poor worst case for structured inputs may not actually be concerning depending on the rest of the hash design. In particular, if the overall hash design ensures that such patterned states are themselves vanishingly unlikely to occur, then it doesn't really matter. Nevertheless, I've included it in the table for completeness.

It might be surprising to see zero bits of diffusion listed in the table. What does that even mean?
The measure of diffusion used in the table is related to how biased the effects of an input bit are. The goal is for flipping the input bit to have a 50/50 chance of flipping any given output bit. So having no chance of flipping a given output bit and a 100% chance are both given the same score: zero.
If this seems like an odd measure, rest assured that in this table all zero scores are due to an input bit only affecting a single specific output bit.

MeowHash is special on this list in a couple of ways. First, it's still workinprogress. Second, its construction makes even the minmax diffusion approach a little misleading, so instead I've just listed the most conservative (i.e. most flattering) diffusion estimate.

After publishing this post, I realized that this paragraph probably comes across as me accusing some hashes of being designed that way. In particular the hashes that I list near the end of the post.
That wasn't my intention, and I explicitly am not making such accusations. My intention, as clumsy as it was, was rather to set up the progression of hash designs in the post.
Having said that, I do have a suspicion that some hashes are designed that way (though I won't point any fingers). But the main point of the article is that none of these hashes should be using things like SMHasher to assert their quality—they should instead be publishing design justifications along with the hashes.