That's definitely a polynomial, but the E-score is 12% worse than RichD's current best.

I know, I just worked on it for a few hours.

best score now @ 1.062e-014, getting closer

Passing through 13M nothing better.
A couple at 1.0xx but I can't seem to break past 1.2.

Has anyone tried the CADO tools? Someone might find a better poly with that.

ok, since I don't get any score above 1.062e-014 i'll post it

[code]
R0: -14016133491555487650798640794471329869
R1: 15145334617368450031
A0: 108437424465414630272002077935902244002227944784
A1: 7126524296785042580075549282652665939040
A2: -94907948987266914587625146628433
A3: -3383537662813944945185927
A4: 8159033334328823
A5: 25043688
skew 120539617.50, size 4.699e-019, alpha -8.378, combined = 1.062e-014 rroots = 5
[/code]
i'lll continue to search a bit

C194
 

Fourth best but a much lower skew.
[CODE]R0: -15667848600695216207592357699117730834
R1: 10830955214877446659
A0: -14732880060224579990675942933044193009933005725
A1: 424638831939124759282888841878408667673
A2: -63182328735733107024500149152957
A3: -1070752312995054014096777
A4: 9921527589311698
A5: 14348040
skew 104921236.45, size 5.311e-19, alpha -8.343, combined = 1.159e-14 rroots = 3[/CODE]

C194
 

As I am closing in on 20 Mil, a new number 1 (based on e-value) was found.
[CODE]R0: -14769649678254236071870801775658732945
R1: 4212581526470259037
A0: 260758480321916667685688193169037338514796556784
A1: 28369420161080102434132404082540766030308
A2: -319515688007256176977918750453824
A3: -976782223305603155968711
A4: 8240833399911082
A5: 19274736
skew 191733447.30, size 5.827e-19, alpha -8.959, combined = 1.221e-14 rroots = 5[/CODE]

I will shut down for a week after I complete 0-20M.

I'm sorry to say this, but I'm worried that the skews on all these polynomials are sufficiently high that the sieving yields will not be good; in my experience things drop off badly around skew=10^8. I would strongly recommend writing a little perl script to trial-sieve (you don't need to sieve very far, say 3K relations at each of 100M, 200M and 300M - look at the time-per-relation figure because it's much more stable than the yield) all the polynomials with E>1e-14.

I would be tempted to throw a couple of GPU-weeks at running c5=100M..200M with a stage1_norm set so that it takes a couple of GPU-weeks: I would do it myself if either of my GPUs were working.

Would degree 6 polys be worth trying? Or is it too far below the crossover from degree 5?

Chris

[QUOTE=chris2be8;406368]Would degree 6 polys be worth trying? Or is it too far below the crossover from degree 5?

Chris[/QUOTE]

It's pretty far below the crossover, but spending a GPU day and test-sieving will tell us how far. My guess from previous tests on some of the previous forum-distributed poly searches is 20% or so worse, but I'd like empirical data.

Mr Womack-
What do you suggest for alim/rlim to do the test-sieving? I tried 400M on one of the first polys posted for this composite, score 1.15e-14. Yield for 16e/33LP was in the low 3's per Q for Q ~ 50m. The test was on a laptop that is now dead, so I'll redo the test on my desktop with a wider range of Q to get sec/yield data.

That dead laptop was my CUDA install, so I cannot run poly search at this time.