mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Msieve (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=83)

 frmky 2013-09-09 16:38

[QUOTE=bdodson;352500]OK, never mind the polyn search for 11,323+ C221:
[/QUOTE]
Damn! Here's the difference between ECM factoring and ECM pretesting. :smile:

 wombatman 2013-09-09 17:30

If I might ask a slightly stupid question, does "t55" refer to running the number of curves suggested by GMP-ECM to find a factor of a given digit length? If so, does "7t55" refer to doing this 7 times? Thanks!

 xilman 2013-09-09 17:31

[QUOTE=wombatman;352506]If I might ask a slightly stupid question, does "t55" refer to running the number of curves suggested by GMP-ECM to find a factor of a given digit length? If so, does "7t55" refer to doing this 7 times? Thanks![/QUOTE]That's how I use the term.

 lorgix 2013-09-09 18:40

[QUOTE=fivemack;352279]From trial sieving it looks like firejuggler's [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=351690&postcount=169[/URL] (c5=107173200) is the best of the C178 so far, with wombatman's [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=351781&postcount=176[/URL] in second place.

I think we're ready to think about sieving that one; may I propose

4788.5154

[code]
17285154910805941577069464828335617544658066950627644021728302169526833018711670895092479561808160256160945139573800969912234390238908363042669550995167201537635764747005337
[/code]as a next polynomial-selection target? It's received an enormous amount of ECM from yoyo@home - I suspect twice as many cycles as will be required for the sieving.[/QUOTE]
Probably a little late, but I found another decent poly for the C178. I will move on to the C175 now.

[CODE]R0: -11708475821133910619711215298497638
R1: 4937254133390405269
A0: -802914511260679636038420993144191107255975
A1: 374850392085650921707293481711138160
A2: 191485557559647650556457788274
A3: -14221948389865248927299
A4: -1608862500793698
A5: 20456280
skew 11155110.94, size 1.875e-017, alpha -7.644, combined = 1.030e-013 rroots = 5[/CODE]

 R.D. Silverman 2013-09-09 19:52

[QUOTE=frmky;352501]Damn! Here's the difference between ECM factoring and ECM pretesting. :smile:

2,1135+ (a horrible quartic otherwise) or 10,311+? or 2,1165+?

 wombatman 2013-09-10 02:52

Got a brand new one for the C173!
[CODE]polynomial selection complete
expected 2.27e-013 to > 2.61e-013
R0: -699386827836290316401216452717318
R1: 1398262035546010309
A0: 451266459216860959346617888115255632281
A1: 3173082985742773850470626537077816
A2: -3328539108882443923865205317
A3: -5471519931550117209376
A4: 723081393099036
A5: 103296600
skew 2163940.32, size 7.070e-017, alpha -7.033, combined = 2.305e-013 rroots = 5[/CODE]

 jasonp 2013-09-10 12:07

[QUOTE=wombatman;352506]If I might ask a slightly stupid question, does "t55" refer to running the number of curves suggested by GMP-ECM to find a factor of a given digit length? If so, does "7t55" refer to doing this 7 times? Thanks![/QUOTE]
See [url="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18544"]here[/url] for more discussion on this.

 wombatman 2013-09-10 13:10

Excellent! Thanks Jason.

 lorgix 2013-09-14 12:07

My best one so far for the C173 (I accidentally wrote "C175" in post #198):

[CODE]# norm 7.475154e-017 alpha -6.759886 e 2.120e-013 rroots 3
skew: 3918982.93
c0: -26415080140414525245706062556030815859200
c1: -6063026331364550036015896404157016
c2: 6283703731829456693443614374
c3: 339518266628882151732
c4: -346537303051239
c5: 51680664
Y0: -803283856170732121581861413596261
Y1: 928056297158488283[/CODE]

 RichD 2013-09-15 00:57

For c173 @ 4788:5154

The one to better is posted [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=337945&postcount=2102"]here[/URL].

 wombatman 2013-09-15 03:34

For convenience of viewing:

[CODE]# aq4788:5154
n: 17285154910805941577069464828335617544658066950627644021728302169526833018711670895092479561808160256160945139573800969912234390238908363042669550995167201537635764747005337
skew: 54453878.81
# skew 54453878.81, size 7.891e-17, alpha -8.253, combined = 2.438e-13 rroots = 5
Y0: -1984194768321507434058802020573021
Y1: 606427190915971723
c0: 17111183463229567250042987271571318169467520
c1: 5954767784533309908917895048435184628
c2: -48133715828031681374056493046
c3: -5548160975795079236918
c4: 18780066010531
c5: 562020[/CODE]

 RichD 2013-09-18 04:54

[QUOTE=wombatman;353027]For convenience of viewing:[/QUOTE]

Thanks [B]wombatman[/B], good idea.

If everybody thinks this is a good enough poly, I will start trial sieving for the other parameters shortly.

In the meantime, a c162 may be appearing in the near future. :smile:

 wombatman 2013-09-18 13:41

I'm certainly no expert, but the 2.305 score I got was easily the highest I ever saw on it. If anybody with more experience thinks it's worth running a little more time on, I can certainly help out with that.

 RichD 2013-09-19 00:50

c162

Aliquot Sequence 3408:i1361 is nearing the required ECM curves before switching to GNFS. The last term is found [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=3408&action=last&fr=0&to=100"]here[/URL] and the composite number is [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000632503312"]here[/URL].

A nice poly for this c162 would be appreciated. :smile:

 wombatman 2013-09-19 01:26

I'll start at 20M. Doc is updated: [url]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlFp2DvBLxsUdEtUMFE0bmk3blRQQlJhS2NkcEF2b0E&usp=sharing[/url]

 firejuggler 2013-09-19 04:26

Back from my trip, will get something on the C162, starting at 50M

 VBCurtis 2013-09-19 06:42

I'll start tomorrow at 34M.

 wombatman 2013-09-19 13:35

Here's an initial result from running overnight:

[CODE]
1.08e-012 to > 1.24e-012
polynomial selection complete
R0: -5719863062929676337189207185251
R1: 22460096987790239
A0: -128933402178292703902590771718898699400
A1: 421073405536632376084222761455394
A2: 155681802860956564421675381
A3: -433348276277450790316
A4: -61576771533214
A5: 20120100
skew 1984142.36, size 7.914e-016, alpha -7.172, combined = 9.684e-013 rroots = 5[/CODE]

 wombatman 2013-09-20 04:11

And here's one that's a bit better and is just shy of the expected range:

[CODE]polynomial selection complete
R0: -5715761102217972192913663491093
R1: 38563701940403731
A0: -94976223680906906931434983897990109960
A1: 149364296132506421129552303169504
A2: 134587764449354039562561949
A3: -152747267989982653284
A4: 28665952412356
A5: 20192400
skew 1730343.65, size 8.632e-016, alpha -7.223, combined = 1.031e-012 rroots = 3[/CODE]

 firejuggler 2013-09-20 07:18

my best so far
[code]
polynomial selection complete
R0: -4748246644759646013658813337922
R1: 42336859290668713
A0: -619873703155160995956575412212158768955
A1: 1965078609812576922972172806423063
A2: 619922077604339484846192349
A3: -669168682052209515627
A4: -105354140251766
A5: 51037800
skew 2417935.83, size 8.119e-016, alpha -7.716, combined = 9.668e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]

 VBCurtis 2013-09-21 23:56

I got a 9.53 from my first 24h, so this composite is easy to find 9.5-9.7 polys for. We've often had one hit (perhaps a couple of polys) score 10% or more higher than our next-best, so I think 1.05-1.10 should be considered required on this one.

I think 15-20 GPU days is about right for poly select, so I plan to run this one until Thursday morning, or until we produce something > 1.10 - whichever comes first.
-Curtis

 firejuggler 2013-09-22 00:03

fed up by not finding anything worthy of mention in the 50M ( I poked and hopped around like a running rabbit), I went to the other extreme : the low -low leading coeficient
[code]
R0: -10864032340092650460535029544092
R1: 32032727516451869
A0: -2275201192054343365143953099059240923817
A1: 3451968411914398551120853008480077
A2: 976773581797898710041933604
A3: -93678023521421115437
A4: -15242981230347
A5: 813960
skew 7832394.35, size 8.233e-016, alpha -7.195, combined = 9.917e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]
the skew mightbe a bit high but it is below 10M

 RichD 2013-09-22 01:09

c162

Thanks for all the work everyone has put in. I ran a test case the old fashion way on a GTX 460 just to see what results would pop out.
[CODE]./msieve -g 0 -np 9000000,9010000[/CODE]
[CODE]polynomial selection complete
R0: -6717830615961110570319523537559
R1: 177535805879560157
A0: -3445835305282719729631217061289121337480
A1: 1606749357594607864448001376070484
A2: 2416637138668796096247825314
A3: -157043862458620231949
A4: -201589771126864
A5: 9003540
skew 3734135.90, size 7.198e-16, alpha -7.813, combined = 9.003e-13 rroots = 5
elapsed time 01:58:45[/CODE]
It sounds like Curtis (and I have no idea what I am talking about in this thread) has the ideal situation figured out.

Lionel will grab the best poly(s) and take it from here near the end of the week.

 VBCurtis 2013-09-22 17:25

Day 2 produced a 1.06 and a 1.02 for me.

Getting closer...

The 1.06 has size norm 1.134 e-15 and alpha -8.45.

 firejuggler 2013-09-22 18:03

I have a 1.06 but with a skew in the 8M
[code]
polynomial selection complete
R0: -10677947295976653556937379369121
R1: 13890409330094671
A0: -1882698967868741615834498112375619451856
A1: 5449085563849428225995372678979884
A2: 112831863490588729696928604
A3: -169853532031477141371
A4: -1931876922250
A5: 887400
skew 8474905.70, size 9.142e-016, alpha -7.493, combined = 1.062e-012 rroots = 5
[/code]

 wombatman 2013-09-23 02:19

Looks like we might have a really good one!

[CODE]polynomial selection complete
R0: -5687267901887849117628057930336
R1: 50226349167486893
A0: 173005616341925019068425420358687999075
A1: 206061802204907426411915664451175
A2: -490930924636416636463430237
A3: -56469426027893147207
A4: 155360648044842
A5: 20703312
skew 1853378.17, size 1.010e-015, alpha -7.702, combined = 1.121e-012 rroots = 5[/CODE]

 debrouxl 2013-09-23 05:46

I'll pick up a polynomial for the C162 tonight, the one in post #220 unless something better trickles in.

 firejuggler 2013-09-23 07:01

[code]
R0: -9958502607381088781671996613155
R1: 143221703738676211
A0: -1535697080059276964417309512945888134324
A1: 2485770470444143530176565977570027
A2: 212731110894034066222615065
A3: -137504378769271273383
A4: -6007639133392
A5: 1257732
skew 6402007.49, size 1.053e-015, alpha -7.666, combined = 1.164e-012 rroots = 5
[/code]
not better than #220 but a worthy opponent, right?

 wombatman 2013-09-23 12:48

Unless the skew makes it way worse than mine, your score is slightly better. debrouxl, do you test sieve these? If so, could you report back which of the two does better?

 VBCurtis 2013-09-23 17:08

[QUOTE=wombatman;353871]Unless the skew makes it way worse than mine, your score is slightly better. debrouxl, do you test sieve these? If so, could you report back which of the two does better?[/QUOTE]

The E-score includes effects of skew, in that higher scores usually sieve better (with the caveat that the score's prediction is +- 5% or so; a 1.12 and 1.16 should be test-sieved usually, though with NFS@home's firepower it may not be worth the trouble).

The catch, as I understand it, with skew is that the skew is a measure of the ratio of the dimensions of the sieve region; a higher skew means the siever works in a narrower rectangle, possibly resulting in the need for more special-q. So, all else equal, we choose lower-skew polys in order to (probably) need fewer special-q, which makes for a lower chance of setbacks or having to exceed the special-q range that sieves well.

Since we know higher A5 values produce lower skew, the logic is that we can avoid having to consider this tradeoff overall by just not searching low A5 values. However, it seems pretty common to find a nice poly in those lower values (for reasons I do not know enough to understand).

Part of the reason I suggested we less-experienced folk do months of poly selection for the forum is to try to gain insight into these tradeoffs, and I write things like this in hopes an expert will correct me where I'm mistaken.

Even if they do not test-sieve these two polys, I will consider doing so to see how it works and the results.

 wombatman 2013-09-23 17:40

As someone who last took a math course (with Fourier transforms being the end-of-course material) approximately....5 or 6 years ago, I appreciate your writing out what your reasoning is. I think I understand what you're saying, and I would also be grateful for a better-versed forum member to come in and provide additional info/corrections.

I'll look forward to seeing what your test-sieving shows.

 debrouxl 2013-09-23 20:16

I test-sieved the polynomials from post #220 and post #222, and we have a clear winner :smile:

[code]# Post #220:
n: 123185130483506137603191442064883489372927504206113226437834768431648754408159660500479519543123321318633171550119649429370954650787254654692369907789231588824311
skew: 1853378.17
c0: 173005616341925019068425420358687999075
c1: 206061802204907426411915664451175
c2: -490930924636416636463430237
c3: -56469426027893147207
c4: 155360648044842
c5: 20703312
Y0: -5687267901887849117628057930336
Y1: 50226349167486893
type: gnfs
rlim: 67108863
alim: 67108863
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

-> Q0=33554431.5, QSTEP=100000.
-> makeJobFile(): q0=33554431.5, q1=33654431.5.
-> makeJobFile(): Adjusted to q0=33554431.5, q1=33654431.5.
-> Lattice sieving algebraic q-values from q=33554431.5 to 33654431.
=> "../gnfs-lasieve4I14e" -k -o spairs.out -v -n0 -a C162_3408_1361.job
gnfs-lasieve4I14e (with asm64): L1_BITS=15, SVN \$Revision: 412 \$
FBsize 2062450+0 (deg 5), 3957808+0 (deg 1)
total yield: 1573, q=33555283 (0.13668 sec/rel) ^C[/code]

Polynomial from post #222:
[code]# Post #222
n: 123185130483506137603191442064883489372927504206113226437834768431648754408159660500479519543123321318633171550119649429370954650787254654692369907789231588824311
skew: 6402007.49
c0: -1535697080059276964417309512945888134324
c1: 2485770470444143530176565977570027
c2: 212731110894034066222615065
c3: -137504378769271273383
c4: -6007639133392
c5: 1257732
Y0: -9958502607381088781671996613155
Y1: 143221703738676211
type: gnfs
rlim: 67108863
alim: 67108863
lpbr: 30
lpba: 30
mfbr: 60
mfba: 60
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6

-> Q0=33554431.5, QSTEP=100000.
-> makeJobFile(): q0=33554431.5, q1=33654431.5.
-> makeJobFile(): Adjusted to q0=33554431.5, q1=33654431.5.
-> Lattice sieving algebraic q-values from q=33554431.5 to 33654431.
=> "../gnfs-lasieve4I14e" -k -o spairs.out -v -n0 -a C162_3408_1361.job
gnfs-lasieve4I14e (with asm64): L1_BITS=15, SVN \$Revision: 412 \$
FBsize 2064657+0 (deg 5), 3957808+0 (deg 1)
total yield: 1710, q=33555271 (0.12154 sec/rel) ^C[/code]

The 5th degree coefficient of the better polynomial is more than an order of magnitude lower.

 wombatman 2013-09-23 20:26

Interesting that the lower C5 gives a better result!

 RichD 2013-09-23 23:35

It's all about the combined E-score. VBCurtis post [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=353891&postcount=224"]#224[/URL] was very informative, at least to me. :smile:

 LaurV 2013-09-24 02:26

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;353891]The E-score includes ....[/QUOTE]
+1 :goodposting:

 VBCurtis 2013-09-24 02:32

The test-sieve done here (in #226) shows that in this case, a poly with score 4% better sieved ~13% better, at least at this one special-q. Debrouxl was kind enough to post his parameter list, allowing us to compare the polys across the typical expected range of special-q values (according to T Mack, from 1/3rd rlim to rlim).

I claimed +- 5% for the E-score's accuracy; in this case, the 1.16 poly performed better than its score, while the 1.12 may have performed worse. Recall the E-score is an integral over the expected sieve region- but our actual sieve region may not be the region used by the E-score (right?).

If you head over to the Aliqueit forum, you'll find some team-sieve threads, for example [url]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=18478[/url]. Those threads have explicit instructions for how to call the siever directly from the command line, without use of factmsieve or yafu. We interested parties should test-sieve 0.5k ranges (that's -c 500) with -f set anywhere from 22M to 67M. If we test at every 5M, we'll get a very detailed picture of the relative performance of these two polys. It's not that we need it for this one instance, but this is a terrific opportunity to learn to use the tools.

If you try this, take note of the difference between production per special-q (the number of relations you get out of your -c 1000 range) and the production per second reported by lasieve. If my elementary grasp of skew is correct, the better poly will have a lower production per 500 range even while it's better per second.

If you try it, post your selected -f starting spot, and the time per relation for each poly.

 wombatman 2013-09-24 03:42

I may just have to do this overnight...I'll post what I get some time tomorrow!

 jasonp 2013-09-24 11:56

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;353938]Recall the E-score is an integral over the expected sieve region- but our actual sieve region may not be the region used by the E-score (right?).
[/QUOTE]
Yes. Further, the E score assumes the sieving region is a continuous block of points and not a lattice like it really is. Even worse, the E value assumes the sieving region is a rectangle that has the same area for all polynomials, and that the factor base bounds are always the same (and always fairly small). A real sieving uses much larger factor base bounds for large problems, and only samples the sieving region looking for lattice points that are more likely to be smooth.

You can make the E value more realistic but then the E-value you get will not be comparable with that of other tools if you're changing parameters for each poly select job.

 wombatman 2013-09-24 13:26

My results from running the small test sieve regions overnight:
For Post 220:
[CODE][CENTER] Warning: lowering FB_bound to 21999999.
total yield: 1207, q=22000501 (0.20302 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 26999999.
total yield: 1085, q=27000511 (0.21744 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 31999999.
total yield: 957, q=32000513 (0.22304 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 36999999.
total yield: 1171, q=37000501 (0.21331 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 41999999.
total yield: 971, q=42000503 (0.21170 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 46999999.
total yield: 1501, q=47000501 (0.22358 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 51999999.
total yield: 657, q=52000517 (0.24030 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 56999999.
total yield: 1188, q=57000511 (0.23651 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 61999999.
total yield: 1170, q=62000503 (0.24623 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 66999999.
total yield: 679, q=67000513 (0.27244 sec/rel)[/CENTER][/CODE]

For Post 222:
[CODE][CENTER] Warning: lowering FB_bound to 21999999.
total yield: 1121, q=22000501 (0.18275 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 26999999.
total yield: 1054, q=27000511 (0.18375 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 31999999.
total yield: 991, q=32000513 (0.18279 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 36999999.
total yield: 968, q=37000501 (0.19983 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 41999999.
total yield: 1243, q=42000503 (0.18840 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 46999999.
total yield: 1107, q=47000501 (0.20950 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 51999999.
total yield: 874, q=52000517 (0.19853 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 56999999.
total yield: 1107, q=57000511 (0.20067 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 61999999.
total yield: 1455, q=62000503 (0.22372 sec/rel)
Warning: lowering FB_bound to 66999999.
total yield: 1014, q=67000513 (0.22200 sec/rel)[/CENTER][/CODE]

This was using 32bit I14e siever (1 thread) on an AMD Phenom II X4. Post 222 is definitely better across the whole range. Very cool to understand how to do that now.

 VBCurtis 2013-09-24 16:11

Well, that means my grasp of skew is mistaken- the lower poly finds more relations during the series of trials than the upper poly (roughly 10,800 to 10,500).

Thanks for posting data! I think when I begin doing GNFS-150 projects, I'll sample three special-q ranges.

 henryzz 2013-09-24 16:17

Ranges of 500 looks a little small. You would get much better results with larger ranges.

 wombatman 2013-09-24 16:38

Do you mean too small as in it does not provide an accurate representation of the region? If so, what would you recommend? I used 500 just to do a quick check. For actual test sieving, I would use a range of something like 5,000 or 10,000, I think.

 jasonp 2013-09-24 19:05

To do a proper job of test sieving:

- pick your parameters and derive the number of relations X that those parameters would require to construct a matrix
- pick the expected special-Q range
- time how long it takes to sieve 1/1000 of the special-Q in that range
- compute X / (relations found) * (time needed to sieve)

This last item is the real figure of merit that we're trying to minimize. Of course that's a ton of tedious work, so only very large problems would benefit. Step 3 is necessary to catch the polynomials that start off fast but poop out as the special-q increase in size.

 RichD 2013-09-30 23:45

c166

Another Aliquot Sequence [URL="http://factordb.com/sequences.php?se=1&aq=4788&action=last"]4788[/URL] is approaching NFS ready state. A big [URL="http://factordb.com/index.php?id=1100000000633948129"]c166[/URL] remains in the way. Still plenty of ECM to do but this poly will also require a bit of time.

Any takers?

 firejuggler 2013-10-01 01:08

As usual, i'll put my 560 on it.

 wombatman 2013-10-01 01:58

I'll get on it as well.

 VBCurtis 2013-10-01 02:24

Yes, of course. We three soldiers respond to any summons from aliqueit or red-named posters. One of these days, we'll among us develop a sense of when a poly is 'good enough' compared to expectations....
-Curtis

 firejuggler 2013-10-01 02:38

expecting poly E from 5.49e-013 to > 6.31e-013
nothing good yet, 4.8e-13 in the 5M range, I try now in the 15-16M

 wombatman 2013-10-01 02:43

[URL="http://www.empowernetwork.com/BandFlea/files/2013/01/three-amigos.jpg"]Something like this, I imagine.[/URL]

 VBCurtis 2013-10-01 05:32

[QUOTE=wombatman;354718][URL="http://www.empowernetwork.com/BandFlea/files/2013/01/three-amigos.jpg"]Something like this, I imagine.[/URL][/QUOTE]

I might be Steve Martin's height! Though I'm as unfunny as Chevy, given my students' reactions this week.

 VBCurtis 2013-10-02 03:14

4788:C166

Found a 5.38:
[code]# norm 3.534603e-016 alpha -7.217812 e 5.388e-013 rroots 5
skew: 2475815.23
c0: -406863124232228097770612251596630707808
c1: 1397008484147485063276690890434320
c2: 1959559479994289870016918286
c3: -223873981131455264775
c4: -309981426719886
c5: 34871760
Y0: -47273014953449373402503531152735
Y1: 1730317388101909[/code]

 wombatman 2013-10-02 03:38

Beats the best I've found so far (5.18). Also, I'm finding that running -np1 on the GPU and then running -nps -npr separately is screaming fast.

 firejuggler 2013-10-02 16:16

Best so far is 5.14...
[code]
R0: -69499481355460328998078506311622
R1: 465404033160944009
A0: 893054565437073468528453235950677733085
A1: 2511797614938907011950743089188765
A2: -2719192542874456010358349743
A3: -460941393242470744181
A4: 126820984786298
A5: 5077296
skew 4491515.30, size 2.719e-016, alpha -7.152, combined = 5.143e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]

 firejuggler 2013-10-03 10:53

another one, pretty close to VBCurits's
[code]
R0: -33117504503117161374368743175645
R1: 289745110476613783
A0: 198597517620071762000877347570258564216
A1: 739534886795844444800384897768926
A2: -366246626185683843435072111
A3: -1046052875115274054676
A4: 300988932539270
A5: 206658060
skew 1317757.94, size 2.912e-016, alpha -6.998, combined = 5.374e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]

 wombatman 2013-10-03 12:57

Here's my best so far too:

[CODE]# norm 3.417502e-016 alpha -7.426297 e 5.252e-013 rroots 3
skew: 3383610.93
c0: -1333763129505261875407710058754044688061
c1: 3239404989985241933010889120382208
c2: 3066193050854242164741724486
c3: -90024775430248566173
c4: -291653453627960
c5: 20639700
Y0: -52500980393204885858075170563604
Y1: 630446021530596293[/CODE]

 wombatman 2013-10-04 00:35

C166 for RichD

Managed to get a 5.39:

[CODE]# norm 3.514670e-016 alpha -7.111533 e 5.394e-013 rroots 3
skew: 3488617.93
c0: -1532190310404755024435433175347737566139
c1: 3676253136046456933250836564000824
c2: -81541743881566127057867159
c3: -580564695976550014656
c4: 32579659023370
c5: 20850600
Y0: -52394338640184089981223380179140
Y1: 257044554902959283[/CODE]

 firejuggler 2013-10-04 01:22

Well, we 3 found quite equivalent poly... now to get an excepted score...

 RichD 2013-10-04 22:09

c166

Thanks for all the help. I believe [B]debrouxl[/B] will take the poly to NFS@Home when they are ready, as stated in this [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=354634&postcount=2134"]post[/URL].

I'm finishing up the last few curves in the next day or so.

 swellman 2013-10-05 02:15

[url=http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355256&postcount=920]Requesting a poly for C168_127_110[/url] to be sieved by NFS@Home if you guys are willing. This will be a record GNFS for the xyyxf project. Thanks in advance!

 wombatman 2013-10-05 03:46

Definitely willing--got a little more time on the C166 for RichD first, but you'll be up next.

 firejuggler 2013-10-05 11:07

I can't get anything remotly close to to my best score (5.37) for the 4788 sequence.
I will start looking at yours, swellman.
expecting poly E from 4.27e-013 to > 4.91e-013

 swellman 2013-10-05 12:58

Thank you all.

 debrouxl 2013-10-05 13:02

So... For the Aliquot C166, it looks like the polynomials with best E value are:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=354887&postcount=245[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355071&postcount=248[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355154&postcount=250[/url]

All three leading coefficients are high, though :unsure:
Last time (post #226), the polynomial with a leading coefficient in the 1M range largely beat the polynomial of similar E value with a leading coefficient in the 20% range.

 wombatman 2013-10-05 13:15

Post #247 ([url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=354958&postcount=247[/url]) has a leading coefficient in the 5M range, but with a slightly lower score. Maybe that would be worth checking out?

 firejuggler 2013-10-05 13:38

Debrouxl, i'll try with a very low LC for a few hours, in the 1M range.
As for swellman's C168, I have
[code]
n=518759670509518390499884894142825232305789370205934770356684820953606669616234831388561087386018771667622991938328056602692240129084683654895676978808741395629768407883
R0: -105317384837345063824645696506111
R1: 76838901016397327
A0: -2927567441266009430694267586261766169520
A1: 25173374174114924141817443838204354
A2: -21627216241283611979321015885
A3: -4512694379714443247124
A4: 799777113123900
A5: 40037400
skew 4653959.25, size 1.392e-016, alpha -7.562, combined = 3.362e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]

 firejuggler 2013-10-05 19:56

On the 4788.C166 front , I have one, the skew is slightly above 11M, but the score is *equivalent* to the 3 we offerred
[code]
R0: -78764596806719279335948607498706
R1: 704739813349024603
A0: -64097545582231836173154185834090974313893
A1: 57038273747787160306728671709353557
A2: -11922305817556816403635714269
A3: -867444673665392023597
A4: 78372426411442
A5: 2715720
skew 11681526.87, size 2.887e-016, alpha -8.163, combined = 5.314e-013 rroots = 3
[/code]

 wombatman 2013-10-05 22:03

I've started at 10M on the C168 for swellman since firejuggler's taking care of the low coefficient search for the C166.

 VBCurtis 2013-10-05 22:31

[QUOTE=debrouxl;355332]So... For the Aliquot C166, it looks like the polynomials with best E value are:
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=354887&postcount=245[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355071&postcount=248[/url]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355154&postcount=250[/url]

All three leading coefficients are high, though :unsure:
Last time (post #226), the polynomial with a leading coefficient in the 1M range largely beat the polynomial of similar E value with a leading coefficient in the 20% range.[/QUOTE]

Everything I have read on these forums indicates that low A5 coefficients are to be avoided, as the polys are no better (on average) than higher A5, but the skew is higher and the search takes longer per coeff than 8-digit A5s. Do you have something that counters these two items?

 firejuggler 2013-10-05 22:48

It may be coincidential but the poly with a leading coef of 1.2M beat one with a LC of 20 M (20% faster), while the score was equivalent (within 5%). So debrouxl want to test it again.

 VBCurtis 2013-10-05 23:51

Ah, I see. So we'll either have a sample size of 2 to indicate lower A5 values may perform better (and thus an interest in further testing), or we'll see it was a coincidence.

Two more days produced no better than 5.24. I am running a poly search for my own work today, but can continue this c166 Sunday-Monday if there is interest & patience.
-Curtis

 wombatman 2013-10-06 03:05

If we do something similar on this C168 for swellman, we can check it for a 3rd time.

 wombatman 2013-10-06 14:14

Best so far for the C168:

[CODE]# norm 2.054099e-016 alpha -8.201051 e 3.712e-013 rroots 5
skew: 13547506.24
c0: -1091049838048076230236436281364364658189135
c1: 504603769573285498246083360215541735
c2: -38768299583337983933127496777
c3: -5351429028937713649315
c4: 100138622851304
c5: 10001628
Y0: -138988572401982466384760027594008
Y1: 1199975415967612259[/CODE]

 firejuggler 2013-10-06 20:31

So far on the C168
[code]
R0: -80132560431598622469656914926773
R1: 341271651656533139
A0: -3925530804863703095840240389104558480
A1: 86410068762700275288821820483762
A2: 706298516970652533739095304
A3: 26497098487745183679
A4: -898254565334150
A5: 157007760
skew 842687.75, size 1.555e-016, alpha -5.723, combined = 3.666e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]

 wombatman 2013-10-07 01:51

Very slight improvement on the score:
[CODE]# norm 2.052260e-016 alpha -7.555741 e 3.881e-013 rroots 3
skew: 5385621.82
c0: -6257192400192652225441167271091421245545
c1: -3945606052772085028778758471635594
c2: 9308774563991543714210240940
c3: 341618027604120987286
c4: -150607283841495
c5: 10067400
Y0: -138806492519608695178613827452974
Y1: 424596711833392849[/CODE]

 sashamkrt 2013-10-07 04:54

C166 for RichD

Found one with a bad skew but higher score:

# norm 3.695902e-016 alpha -7.383306 e 5.567e-013 rroots 5
skew: 13474622.03
c0: -33210626476730825697882762404632692697704
c1: 26333818512286988595139568234039746
c2: -1058318687962661120245321539
c3: -482935203367991955378
c4: 1785076260818
c5: 613872
Y0: -106045564800808526376402542337169
Y1: 133157835424250393

 debrouxl 2013-10-07 06:22

So... here are the results of my belated sieving tests on "C166_4788_5159". In ascending order of leading coefficient:

[code]# norm 3.695902e-016 alpha -7.383306 e 5.567e-013 rroots 5
n: 8232663677075268552040028040427962613195004187737038472546008350527350790146813693136042827763089666937337785875075123500306235229888683807658826159126375359853768383
deg: 5
c0: -33210626476730825697882762404632692697704
c1: 26333818512286988595139568234039746
c2: -1058318687962661120245321539
c3: -482935203367991955378
c4: 1785076260818
c5: 613872
Y0: -106045564800808526376402542337169
Y1: 133157835424250393
type: gnfs
skew: 13474622.03
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
qintsize: 1000

# http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355359&postcount=269
#-> makeJobFile(): q0=67108863.5, q1=67208863.5.
[b]# total yield: 2151, q=67109923 (0.15340 sec/rel)[/b]
# 53 Special q, 134 reduction iterations
[/code]

[code]# skew 11681526.87, size 2.887e-016, alpha -8.163, combined = 5.314e-013, rroots = 3
n: 8232663677075268552040028040427962613195004187737038472546008350527350790146813693136042827763089666937337785875075123500306235229888683807658826159126375359853768383
deg: 5
c0: -64097545582231836173154185834090974313893
c1: 57038273747787160306728671709353557
c2: -11922305817556816403635714269
c3: -867444673665392023597
c4: 78372426411442
c5: 2715720
Y0: -78764596806719279335948607498706
Y1: 704739813349024603
type: gnfs
skew: 11681526.87
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
qintsize: 1000

# http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355359&postcount=260
#-> makeJobFile(): q0=67108863.5, q1=67208863.5.
[b]# total yield: 2356, q=67109923 (0.16306 sec/rel)[/b]
# 62 Special q, 152 reduction iterations
[/code]

[code]# skew 4491515.30, size 2.719e-016, alpha -7.152, combined = 5.143e-013 rroots = 5
n: 8232663677075268552040028040427962613195004187737038472546008350527350790146813693136042827763089666937337785875075123500306235229888683807658826159126375359853768383
deg: 5
c0: 893054565437073468528453235950677733085
c1: 2511797614938907011950743089188765
c2: -2719192542874456010358349743
c3: -460941393242470744181
c4: 126820984786298
c5: 5077296
Y0: -69499481355460328998078506311622
Y1: 465404033160944009
type: gnfs
skew: 4491515.30
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
qintsize: 1000

# http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355359&postcount=247
#-> makeJobFile(): q0=67108863.5, q1=67208863.5.
# total yield: 2032, q=67109923 (0.17590 sec/rel)
# 58 Special q, 150 reduction iterations
[/code]

[code]# norm 3.514670e-016 alpha -7.111533 e 5.394e-013 rroots 3
n: 8232663677075268552040028040427962613195004187737038472546008350527350790146813693136042827763089666937337785875075123500306235229888683807658826159126375359853768383
deg: 5
c0: -1532190310404755024435433175347737566139
c1: 3676253136046456933250836564000824
c2: -81541743881566127057867159
c3: -580564695976550014656
c4: 32579659023370
c5: 20850600
Y0: -52394338640184089981223380179140
Y1: 257044554902959283
type: gnfs
skew: 3488617.93
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
qintsize: 1000

# http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355359&postcount=250
#-> makeJobFile(): q0=67108863.5, q1=67208863.5.
# total yield: 2100, q=67109923 (0.16070 sec/rel)
# 55 Special q, 150 reduction iterations
[/code]

[code]# norm 3.534603e-016 alpha -7.217812 e 5.388e-013 rroots 5
n: 8232663677075268552040028040427962613195004187737038472546008350527350790146813693136042827763089666937337785875075123500306235229888683807658826159126375359853768383
deg: 5
c0: -406863124232228097770612251596630707808
c1: 1397008484147485063276690890434320
c2: 1959559479994289870016918286
c3: -223873981131455264775
c4: -309981426719886
c5: 34871760
Y0: -47273014953449373402503531152735
Y1: 1730317388101909
type: gnfs
skew: 2475815.23
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
qintsize: 1000

# http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355359&postcount=245
#-> makeJobFile(): q0=67108863.5, q1=67208863.5.
# total yield: 2016, q=67109923 (0.14132 sec/rel)
# 55 Special q, 161 reduction iterations

[/code]

[code]# skew 1317757.94, size 2.912e-016, alpha -6.998, combined = 5.374e-013 rroots = 5
n: 8232663677075268552040028040427962613195004187737038472546008350527350790146813693136042827763089666937337785875075123500306235229888683807658826159126375359853768383
deg: 5
c0: 198597517620071762000877347570258564216
c1: 739534886795844444800384897768926
c2: -366246626185683843435072111
c3: -1046052875115274054676
c4: 300988932539270
c5: 206658060
Y0: -33117504503117161374368743175645
Y1: 289745110476613783
type: gnfs
skew: 1317757.94
rlim: 134217727
alim: 134217727
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
qintsize: 1000

# http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=355359&postcount=248
#-> makeJobFile(): q0=67108863.5, q1=67208863.5.
# total yield: 1836, q=67109923 (0.16997 sec/rel)
# 51 Special q, 152 reduction iterations
[/code]

The winners are, this time again, the two polynomials with the lowest leading coefficients...
* the first one is faster than the second one but sieves less productively;
* the fifth one sieves faster than the first and second ones, but less productively than either, so we'd have to sieve over a wider range;
* polynomials 3, 4 and 6 sieve both more slowly and less productively than polynomial 2. The one with the highest leading coefficient is the worst...

My commentary: while it remains true that the extremely low leading coefficients (up to several thousands, maybe several dozen thousands) seldom yield the best polynomials, we already knew that high leading coefficients (dozens of millions, for a number of this difficulty) are bad.
The older pol5sel quickly increases the leading coefficient, and it produces polynomials which sieve noticeably less productively than msieve-produced polynomials.
I think that [i]for numbers of that size[/i], with run-of-the-mill polsel code, looking for polynomials with a leading coefficient above several dozen millions is a waste of electrons :smile:

Were all scores computed with the same version of msieve, BTW ?

 henryzz 2013-10-07 09:48

Currently the scores msieve produces are generated with a certain set of parameters(the same as pol5 from memory). Would higher(closer to reality) parameters on the best few polys provide a better idea of which is best?

 sashamkrt 2013-10-07 10:18

C166 for RichD

[QUOTE=debrouxl;355478]
Were all scores computed with the same version of msieve, BTW ?[/QUOTE]

One more poly to ckeck, it might sieve better :)

msieve v.1.52 (svn942)
# norm 3.682170e-016 alpha -7.976362 e 5.494e-013 rroots 5
skew: 11610079.61
c0: -9847862849022242800155773023665624456000
c1: 16301817747869811410359170706479000
c2: 7452362045018712127753989554
c3: -742047366030036453403
c4: -50776706006862
c5: 673200
Y0: -104106839917340321574536010026327
Y1: 169908656891663867

 firejuggler 2013-10-07 12:02

Swellman's C168
[code]
R0: -131875157916698331712033954516273
R1: 143947380856205903
A0: 10863135549907575815531071201377087481440
A1: 3680619155268645580126871328996976
A2: -4101959133382108448147843462
A3: -715128181658682572315
A4: 353098812987408
A5: 13006224
skew 3934944.07, size 1.931e-016, alpha -7.392, combined = 4.170e-013 rroots = 5
[/code]

 wombatman 2013-10-07 12:57

debrouxl, thanks for running through all of those--this is very helpful information (at least for me). My scores were produced from MSieve 1.52 (svn 944).

sashamkrt, welcome to the poly sieving group!

 firejuggler 2013-10-07 13:54

[QUOTE=debrouxl;355478]So... here are the results of my belated sieving tests on "C166_4788_5159". In ascending order of leading coefficient:

[code]# norm 3.695902e-016 alpha -7.383306 e 5.567e-013 rroots 5
[/code]

[code]# skew 11681526.87, size 2.887e-016, alpha -8.163, combined = 5.314e-013, rroots = 3
[/code]

[/QUOTE]

Could the yield/speed difference between #1 and #2 be explained by the e score difference?

 VBCurtis 2013-10-07 17:56

Why are you using anything other than sec/rel to judge a poly? Isn't the point of finding a good poly to find one that takes less time to perform the factorization?

#5 performs quite a lot faster than #1 or #2. What am I missing here?

Also, as firejuggler pointed out, comparisons are not made vs E-score here- #1 has a 5% higher score, but sieves ~6% faster. However, #5 scores 4% worse than #1 while sieving 4% faster.

 jasonp 2013-10-07 20:14

If none of the other parameters are changed, then seconds per relation is the correct measure. If you optimize the other parameters (e.g. factor base limits or special-q range) separately for each polynomial, then you have to use the total estimated sieving time.

 RichD 2013-10-07 21:47

In a perfect world, sec/rel would seem reasonable. There is an overhead in starting each range, something around 15 seconds before the first relation is recorded. That's why it is better to take a few million Qs per core at a time. With the relatively small work units (WU) of NFS@Home I believe [B]debrouxl[/B] is trying to balance the trade-off. I usually look for yield ratio to minimize the WUs. (Assuming all other parameters are the same.) Perhaps [B]debrouxl[/B] has more to say because he has been doing this longer than me. :smile:

 wombatman 2013-10-08 02:04

New best from my search for the C168:

[CODE]polynomial selection complete
R0: -137982521622728045011243408554463
R1: 1339655601011561771
A0: 42456904591149864315136445197306375920560
A1: 30670859550417145194573777446486006
A2: -7650991139046352760036346229
A3: -1045673741543574747132
A4: 146948730229980
A5: 10371600
skew 7295400.25, size 1.914e-016, alpha -7.572, combined = 4.147e-013 rroots = 5[/CODE]

And a 2nd one that's not quite as good:
[CODE]# norm 2.121910e-016 alpha -7.656116 e 3.927e-013 rroots 5
skew: 7644763.78
c0: 71758833171721317865765888880885183510775
c1: 49536046266198119164296136514381007
c2: -90590297181877360519419115
c3: -2765515707324151868651
c4: 68394972845396
c5: 10119900
Y0: -138662170971500796224221234208258
Y1: 347372753308990319[/CODE]

 debrouxl 2013-10-08 05:37

For the C166, #5 did indeed sieve ~13.3% faster than #2, but produced ~14.4% fewer relations on the range of 1K relations, so it's not significantly better or worse.

 sashamkrt 2013-10-08 06:40

C168 poly

[CODE]
n: 518759670509518390499884894142825232305789370205934770356684820953606669616234831388561087386018771667622991938328056602692240129084683654895676978808741395629768407883
# norm 2.390778e-016 alpha -7.157296 e 4.234e-013 rroots 5 skew: 19835022.68
c0: -14766991706078551413874024151190708222720
c1: 16481308623853322795154573138777216
c2: 8711799723929349110308763068
c3: 203660963131057337068
c4: -19625244765905
c5: 108528
Y0: -343466912683455792965746434341297
Y1: 550334592933944653
[/CODE]

 sashamkrt 2013-10-08 13:18

ะก168 polynoms with good scores and not so good skews

[CODE]
# norm 2.880607e-016 alpha -8.201338 e 4.765e-013 rroots 5
skew: 89100677.43
c0: -27857995650530594214542724173490926656056000
c1: 489092174862742972528340289017184040
c2: 30770925245570759449861491874
c3: -51337377580050003917
c4: -4407409358582
c5: 10200
Y0: -551154318026277087308020573543333
Y1: 109459496504263717

# norm 2.578144e-016 alpha -7.900994 e 4.453e-013 rroots 5
skew: 89152497.21
c0: -25294409365820382440286805545396176373535995
c1: 542383637474412430010304925218961429
c2: 30617383334984154264021694081
c3: -66563245603254143525
c4: -4363140797582
c5: 10200
Y0: -551154317931265040287858120286446
Y1: 109459496504263717

[/CODE]

 wombatman 2013-10-08 14:13

Wow! Very nice finds!

 VBCurtis 2013-10-09 03:28

[QUOTE=debrouxl;355575]For the C166, #5 did indeed sieve ~13.3% faster than #2, but produced ~14.4% fewer relations on the range of 1K relations, so it's not significantly better or worse.[/QUOTE]

Can you help me understand why you care about how many special-Q you need to search? I believe you're saying #5 will need 14% (or 100/86, which is more than 14%) more special-Q searched in order to produce the required number of relations, but even after taking that extra 14% into account that it will finish 13% faster than #2. The sec/rel is time per relation found, NOT time per special-Q searched. It looks to me like you're confusing the two.

The only time I see this having importance is when we're already stretching a version of the siever, and might run out of special-Q. That's not nearly the case here, is it?

 sashamkrt 2013-10-09 04:45

C168 poly

[CODE]
# norm 2.790210e-016 alpha -6.156376 e 4.506e-013 rroots 3
skew: 12473534.14
c0: 516236450022905700097829298234459693015
c1: 1155256345148460315833790376537509
c2: 801505740961731706078779054
c3: 187904124865251487543
c4: -5004361126321
c5: 21240
Y0: -475951112043062447304070700973752
Y1: 167570844707882773
[/CODE]

 LaurV 2013-10-09 06:47

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;355702]Can you help me understand ...[/QUOTE]
He says that in the same period of time, one guy runs 100 meters throwing out into the public one dollar at every 10 meters he runs, and the second guy runs 133 meters (13.3 % faster) but spitting one dollar every 14.6 meters (14.6% slower). At the end, the public collects 10 or 11 dollars from the first guy (depending where the thrown out the first dollar), and 10 or 11 from the second (again, depending on the luck), so there is no relevant comparison between the productivity of the two guys.

 firejuggler 2013-10-09 11:58

another low expo LD. will try now in a reasonnable range (12 to 17M)
[code]
R0: -174549336556401481202069007537515
R1: 440721410024969593
A0: -281491614847856620351679317663874215083264
A1: -52465697511380707542888318448808376
A2: 12109969047207747484463577258
A3: 316512889878104730031
A4: -48637872015544
A5: 3201660
skew 11587470.20, size 1.937e-016, alpha -8.325, combined = 4.227e-013 rroots =3
[/code]

 VBCurtis 2013-10-13 07:48

[QUOTE=LaurV;355717]He says that in the same period of time, one guy runs 100 meters throwing out into the public one dollar at every 10 meters he runs, and the second guy runs 133 meters (13.3 % faster) but spitting one dollar every 14.6 meters (14.6% slower). At the end, the public collects 10 or 11 dollars from the first guy (depending where the thrown out the first dollar), and 10 or 11 from the second (again, depending on the luck), so there is no relevant comparison between the productivity of the two guys.[/QUOTE]

This is what I thought he was trying to say. Here's the problem: The sec/rel is seconds per relation, NOT seconds per Q-tested. My guy spits out more dollars per second, even though the dollars per meter measure is worse. Why do we care how many meters he covers, if we collect the money 13% faster?

It takes my guy 14.6% more meters to get a dollar, but he runs 28% faster (roughly), so my guy throws dollars out 13% more often than the other guy. My point is that this is clearly better, and that you two are confusing sec/rel with sec/Q. Sec/rel is how often we get dollars, period. As long as the number of relations required for the two polys match (with all parameters equal, we should assume this), that is.

 EdH 2013-10-13 14:02

How do duplicate relations fit into the above scenarios?

 firejuggler 2013-10-13 15:43