Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
 

I just submitted the following two factors via the manual testing form:

[code][Fri Nov 26 10:38:45 2010]
P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=515000.
UID: daran/cuica, M42785489 has a factor: 340930634243704316351, AID: 4B29AFF5F9D1EB7A3C61A9B9118851B9
[Thu Dec 16 08:06:37 2010]
P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=465000.
UID: daran/cuica, M39394703 has a factor: 51759351545613783550417, AID: 460389DCB57262419281C8E7E4C6AD36[/code]

Here's the response in full:

[code]No factor lines found: 0
Mfaktc no factor lines found: 0
Factors found: 2
Processing result: M42785489 has a factor: 340930634243704316351, AID: 4B29AFF5F9D1EB7A3C61A9B9118851B9
Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using P-1 with B1 = 800000.
CPU credit is 2.0139 GHz-days.
Processing result: M39394703 has a factor: 51759351545613783550417, AID: 460389DCB57262419281C8E7E4C6AD36
Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using P-1 with B1 = 800000.
CPU credit is 1.5273 GHz-days.
P-1 lines found: 0
LL lines found: 0
Mlucas lines found: 0
Glucas (G29) lines found: 0
Glucas lines found: 0
MacLucasFFTW lines found: 0
CUDALucas lines found: 0
ECM lines found: 0[/code]

I'm grateful for the generous credit, but I don't see why it couldn't give me the correct amount.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;242165]I just submitted the following two factors via the manual testing form:

[code][Fri Nov 26 10:38:45 2010]
P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=515000.
UID: daran/cuica, M42785489 has a factor: 340930634243704316351, AID: 4B29AFF5F9D1EB7A3C61A9B9118851B9
[Thu Dec 16 08:06:37 2010]
P-1 found a factor in stage #1, B1=465000.
UID: daran/cuica, M39394703 has a factor: 51759351545613783550417, AID: 460389DCB57262419281C8E7E4C6AD36[/code][/QUOTE]So, you copied text from results.txt into the manual report form, right?

[quote]Here's the response in full:

[code]No factor lines found: 0
Mfaktc no factor lines found: 0
Factors found: 2
Processing result: M42785489 has a factor: 340930634243704316351, AID: 4B29AFF5F9D1EB7A3C61A9B9118851B9
Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using P-1 with B1 = 800000.
CPU credit is 2.0139 GHz-days.
Processing result: M39394703 has a factor: 51759351545613783550417, AID: 460389DCB57262419281C8E7E4C6AD36
Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using P-1 with B1 = 800000.
CPU credit is 1.5273 GHz-days.
P-1 lines found: 0
LL lines found: 0
Mlucas lines found: 0
Glucas (G29) lines found: 0
Glucas lines found: 0
MacLucasFFTW lines found: 0
CUDALucas lines found: 0
ECM lines found: 0[/code]I'm grateful for the generous credit, but I don't see why it couldn't give me the correct amount.[/quote]Theory:

IIRC (it's been a while since I did this, and I can't find a saved example) the automatic report text to PrimeNet does not include the actual B1/B2 when reporting a factor. So, PrimeNet can't calculate credit on that basis, but it generates a B1 based on some formula.

Your manual report included B1(/B2), but PrimeNet is ignoring that and performing the credit calculation without actual B1/B2, but generating a B1 based on that same formula, just as it does for the automatic reports.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;242240]IIRC (it's been a while since I did this, and I can't find a saved example) the automatic report text to PrimeNet does not include the actual B1/B2 when reporting a factor. So, PrimeNet can't calculate credit on that basis, but it generates a B1 based on some formula.

Your manual report included B1(/B2), but PrimeNet is ignoring that and performing the credit calculation without actual B1/B2, but generating a B1 based on that same formula, just as it does for the automatic reports.[/QUOTE]

You've got it backwards. Automatic report includes B1/B2 and primenet calculates accurate credit. Results.txt does not contain B1/B2. So primenet uses some default calculations. Note that the "B1=" text is not in the same line as the result and so the manual credit page is not able to associate one with the other.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;242240]So, you copied text from results.txt into the manual report form, right?[/QUOTE]

Yes.


[QUOTE]Theory:

IIRC (it's been a while since I did this, and I can't find a saved example) the automatic report text to PrimeNet does not include the actual B1/B2 when reporting a factor. So, PrimeNet can't calculate credit on that basis, but it generates a B1 based on some formula.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. Here are some of my results reported automatically:

[code]cuica 39046153 NF-PM1 2010-08-08 17:19 93.7 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39008107 NF-PM1 2010-08-08 17:19 28.8 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39008779 F-PM1 2010-08-08 17:19 28.8 6397283804036361597329 2.0970
cuica 39968749 NF-PM1 2010-08-08 17:19 0.0 B1=480000, B2=12360000 2.8377
cuica 39973847 NF-PM1 2010-08-05 07:41 90.3 B1=480000, B2=12360000 2.8377
cuica 39973279 F-PM1 2010-08-04 23:14 90.0 4632811025542760339833 1.2083
cuica 39007921 NF-PM1 2010-08-04 07:11 24.3 B1=465000, B2=11857500 2.0728
cuica 39969173 NF-PM1 2010-08-03 15:10 88.6 B1=480000, B2=12360000 2.8377
cuica 39965917 NF-PM1 2010-08-01 11:53 86.5 B1=480000, B2=12360000 2.8377


cuica 39015863 NF-PM1 2010-07-12 08:26 66.3 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39012313 NF-PM1 2010-07-11 14:26 65.6 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39010459 F-PM1 2010-07-10 18:58 64.8 1097229813650567416577 2.2539
cuica 39010901 NF-PM1 2010-07-09 22:18 63.9 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39011341 NF-PM1 2010-07-08 23:50 63.0 B1=465000, B2=11857500 2.0728
cuica 39010603 NF-PM1 2010-07-08 06:23 62.2 B1=465000, B2=11857500 2.0728
cuica 39740093 F-PM1 2010-07-07 12:33 21.1 218423414608878788302287871 2.8081
cuica 39737561 NF-PM1 2010-07-06 12:02 20.1 B1=475000, B2=12231250 2.8081
cuica 39009119 NF-PM1 2010-07-05 12:13 19.1 B1=465000, B2=11857500 2.0728
cuica 39691237 NF-PM1 2010-07-04 18:12 18.3 B1=475000, B2=12231250 2.8081
cuica 39682717 F-PM1 2010-07-03 18:32 17.3 624302998170670921801 1.1957
cuica 40420057 NF-PM1 2010-07-03 16:18 56.6 B1=455000, B2=10806250 2.5651
cuica 39007183 NF-PM1 2010-07-02 16:28 16.2 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39005611 NF-PM1 2010-07-01 20:12 15.4 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 38988233 NF-PM1 2010-07-01 00:43 14.6 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970
cuica 39007219 NF-PM1 2010-06-30 05:15 13.8 B1=465000, B2=12090000 2.0970[/code]

Note that in two cases, a stage 2 factor received identical credit to that for comparable unsuccessful attempts. And this, in general, is what I'm used to seeing. Stage 1 factors get a little under half the credit, again consistent with my observation that the program spends a little under its time in stage 1.

The one anomaly is the 7/10 factor, whose credit is not matched or even close to any other result, successful or not, in the past year. The most likely explanation is that this exponent was assigned with a much lower TF level, and consequently was P-1ed. to higher bounds.

In the case of my manual reports, the server did compute its own bound, one that it considerably at odds with the [url=http://mersenne.org/report_factoring_effort/?exp_lo=39390000&exp_hi=40000000&bits_lo=0&bits_hi=999&B1=Get+Data]bounds typically used for exponents of this size[/url]:

[QUOTE=axn;242245]You've got it backwards. Automatic report includes B1/B2 and primenet calculates accurate credit. Results.txt does not contain B1/B2. So primenet uses some default calculations. Note that the "B1=" text is not in the same line as the result and so the manual credit page is not able to associate one with the other.[/QUOTE]

Clearly results.txt does contain B1/B2, but not on the same line, as you say, so that may be the reason.

It's not unreasonable for Primenet to ignore the bounds in manual reports, regardless of where they appear, on the grounds that they're easily forged. That said, the current system is open to abuse: I could submit all my stage 1 factors manually to gain extra credit, while allowing my stage 2 factors to be reported in the normal way.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;242251]Clearly results.txt does contain B1/B2, but not on the same line, as you say, so that may be the reason.

It's not unreasonable for Primenet to ignore the bounds in manual reports, regardless of where they appear, on the grounds that they're easily forged. That said, the current system is open to abuse: I could submit all my stage 1 factors manually to gain extra credit, while allowing my stage 2 factors to be reported in the normal way.[/QUOTE]

considering how few factors are found by p-1 stage 1, good luck with that! :smile:

[QUOTE=axn;242257]considering how few factors are found by p-1 stage 1, good luck with that! :smile:[/QUOTE]

Assuming everything works just like the one test I just did (with 400 MB allowed; and I'm sure it doesn't work perfectly the same, but probably close enough for these purposes), and Prime95's "Chance of finding a factor..." is accurate, and the difference between (expected factors in stage 1)/(expected factors total) is not significantly different from (chance of factor in stage 1)/(chance of factor total) about [B]47%[/B] of P-1 factors in two-stage tests are found by stage 1. But still, P-1 factors are rare enough, and the difference in credit small enough, that if you abused this to the maximum potential, you'd probably only get about 1.2% more credit on average than you deserve.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;242347]... you'd probably only get about 1.2% more credit on average than you deserve.[/QUOTE]

I usually get way less credit than really spent when manually reporting:

[QUOTE]
[SIZE=2]Manual testing[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 53470633[/SIZE][SIZE=2] NF-PM1[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 2010-11-29 08:55[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 4.7[/SIZE][SIZE=2] B1=635000, B2=18097500[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 4.8753[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Manual testing[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 53470619 [/SIZE][SIZE=2]F-PM1[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 2010-11-29 08:55[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 4.7[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 1919565392651028059642113943994258791[/SIZE][SIZE=2] 2.4586[/SIZE]
[/QUOTE]This means when a factor is found, only half the credit of [SIZE=2]NF-PM1[/SIZE] is granted. The amount of work was the same as the GCD of stage2 found it.

And this is even worse when finding a factor in ECM:
[QUOTE=results.txt]
[Fri Dec 17 20:01:14 2010]
ECM found a factor in curve #85, stage #2
Sigma=4045519484526505, B1=50000, B2=5000000.
M5392193 has a factor: 9125624223117137685847, AID: A0B3D8BDD38BE54BB3F5E0A96196011F
[/QUOTE]

results in
[QUOTE=response]
Factors found: 1
Processing result: M5392193 has a factor: 9125624223117137685847, AID: A0B3D8BDD38BE54BB3F5E0A96196011F
Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using ECM with B1 = 50000.
CPU credit is 0.2695 GHz-days.
[/QUOTE]

The first 84 curves with no factor are ignored ... This test took almost a month (on a rather slow machine, still it should have been somewhere near 20 GHz-days).

Maybe it's time to improve the manual reporting to not ignore the lines before the "has a factor" one? The information for accurate accounting is there ...

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;242347] But still, P-1 factors are rare enough, and the difference in credit small enough, that if you abused this to the maximum potential, you'd probably only get about 1.2% more credit on average than you deserve.[/QUOTE]

Sounds about right.

[QUOTE=Bdot;242366]Maybe it's time to improve the manual reporting to not ignore the lines before the "has a factor" one? The information for accurate accounting is there ...[/QUOTE]

Unless that line itself is checksum protected to prevent/detect tampering, I can hand edit the values to something ridiculously big*. Now _that_ would be open to abuse.

*Find the largest factor of p-1. Set my B1 = that factor - 1. Then set B2 = 10000 * that factor.
For eg:- 9125624223117137685847-1 = 2*3*13*109*5392193*199056357361
Set B1 = 199056357360 and B2 = 1990563573600000. Watch the credits roll in :smile:

[QUOTE=axn;242245]You've got it backwards. Automatic report includes B1/B2 and primenet calculates accurate credit.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the correction. [i]Now[/i] I can recall the time when I (automatically) sent multiple closely-spaced-B1 reports for an exponent, and as a result got way, way more credit than deserved because each credit assumed I had started at zero.