What research went into choosing XorShift128+? (Paper is apparently <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1404.0390.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1404.0390.pdf</a>, which makes it seem like this still has quite a few failures on randomness tests.) Were any PRNG experts consulted? Did these folks consider <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pcg-random.org" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pcg-random.org</a> ? This talk was great <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pcg-random.org&#x2F;posts&#x2F;stanford-colloquium-talk.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pcg-random.org&#x2F;posts&#x2F;stanford-colloquium-talk.htm...</a><p>HN discussions of PCG Random: 1) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9887548" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9887548</a> 2) <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10544943" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10544943</a>