What would you recommend that isn't far worse, though? At least the PCG family tries; throwing that away can't give you better results. There's a good reason th

What would you recommend that isn't far worse, though? At least the PCG family tries; throwing that away can't give you better results. There's a good reason the PCG generators have remained robust against new tests, and why the well regarded competitors like the Mersenne Twister and Xoroshiro128+ have not. Unless the competition is actually using rigorous mathematics to talk about their statistical quality, and as far as I can find they are simply not[1], being empirically better is the only thing to argue about! Thus if O'Neil's approach finds weaknesses in the competitor's tested generators earlier[2], it's a stronger test. Even from the angle of unknown, theoretical attacks, competitors almost always build on trivially invertible functions, so you cannot expect them to be robust against generalized tests. The inverse transformation is always weak, so if this is trivial they cannot be robust against general classes of correlations. Unless you can actually show a (useful) non-cryptographic RNG that makes good justifications for its strength in formal terms, which I doubt you can, you're basically left with the fact that the PCG family is the only robustly vetted family in practice. If that isn't good enough for you, there's always ISAAC. [1] https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/50059/why-is-the-mersenne-twister-regarded-as-good/82490 https://cs.stackexchange.com/questions/50059/why-is-the-mers... [2] http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/visualizing-the-heart-of-some-prngs.html http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/visualizing-the-heart-of-som...