[QUOTE=chalsall;295199]OK, it's taken some time, but this has now been implemented for Trial Factoring in both meta ranges (DC and LL), based on the weighted linear regression across our entire data set. The P-1 analysis is still to be implemented.

This information is currently shown on the Individual Stats page. I'll place it on the "Workers' Overall Progress" page once I have the P-1 implemented (needed for the default aggregate display).

Note that the statistics will be constantly adjusted as additional candidates are processed and the WLR gets additional data to fit to.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=James Heinrich;290960]I'm sure that's a tidbit of interesting for many people -- could you put that on the user stats page (expected vs found factors; by bit range and overall)?

Of course, if you do that there's bound to be somebody complaining that they're missing some factors because they're below average.[/QUOTE]
You really weren't kidding.
[code] Expected Found
DC TF 4.294 1
LL TF 21.919 14[/code] The DC TF is probably low sample size, but 14/22? That's crazy. And chalsall, based on what you're saying, this is after taking into account that 72 bits takes more work and has lower chance?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;295214]The DC TF is probably low sample size, but 14/22? That's crazy. And chalsall, based on what you're saying, this is after taking into account that 72 bits takes more work and has lower chance?[/QUOTE]

Yes. Sorry to say, but you've really been unlucky.

To be clear, the Expected value is calculated as a sum of each bit level attempted mapped to a probability derived from our own empricial stats driven through a weighted linear regression for each range and bit level.

The prediction should be quite accurate.

[QUOTE=chalsall;295215]
The prediction should be quite accurate.[/QUOTE]

Famous last words :smile:




(Edit: It occurs to me that since I have a slower GPU, I had just been grabbing all the loose expos below 50M. Does the WLR account for range of work as well?)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;295217]Famous last words :smile:[/QUOTE]

Trust me -- I did sanity checks before I made the data public. It's accurate.

For example, across all workers, the prediction is for 1,125.371 DCTF successes, and 1,613.667 LLTF. Actual: 1,145 DCTF; 1,618 LLTF.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;295217](Edit: It occurs to me that since I have a slower GPU, I had just been grabbing all the loose expos below 50M. Does the WLR account for range of work as well?)[/QUOTE]

Yup. Let me give you the SQL for the LL range:

[CODE]select User,
sum(if(FactFrom<'68' and FactTo>='68',0.0043212509769495 + Exponent * 1.7068847160983e-10,0)) +
sum(if(FactFrom<'69' and FactTo>='69',0.00917633594975476 + Exponent * 3.73910451142651e-11,0)) +
sum(if(FactFrom<'70' and FactTo>='70',0.0127505265073034 + Exponent * -4.80405319857885e-11,0)) +
sum(if(FactFrom<'71' and FactTo>='71',-0.00785194516204015 + Exponent * 3.71547581675963e-10,0)) +
sum(if(FactFrom<'72' and FactTo>='72',-0.00502015659011862 + Exponent * 2.89752696241295e-10,0)) +
sum(if(FactFrom<'73' and FactTo>='73',0.0134851694734411 + Exponent * -4.32266525103148e-11,0)) +
sum(if(FactFrom<'74' and FactTo>='74',0 + Exponent * 0,0))
as Expected
from Assigned
where Status=1 and WorkType=200
group by User[/CODE]

Note that the numbers in the middle of the "if(,,)" statements are the intercept and slope from the WLR. WorkType of 200 is LLTF. The 0's for the 74 bit level is because we haven't found any factors there.

And, as an aside, with a quarter of a million records in the Assigned table, this query takes 0.65 seconds. Gotta love MySQL!!! :smile:

[QUOTE=chalsall;295220]Trust me -- I did sanity checks before I made the data public. It's accurate.

For example, across all workers, the prediction is for 1,125.371 DCTF successes, and 1,613.667 LLTF. Actual: 1,145 DCTF; 1,618 LLTF.
[/QUOTE]
'Twas a joke, good sir ;)

[CODE]
Expected Found
DC 1.408 2
LL 205.506 207[/CODE]

I am very average :)

[QUOTE=kladner;295203]Another Wow! This is really cool.
It confirms an impression that my brief period of DCTF yielded a remarkable number of factors. I'm barely under the expected for LLTF.[/QUOTE]

They don't line up in this view, but the categories are:
Work Type Rank Of Candidates Factors GHz Days Assigned Completed Expected Found


[CODE]DC TF 15 44 710 7.634 16 1,617.285
LL TF 12 59 70 1,385 35.373 34 19,678.934[/CODE]

When you do implement P-1, can you also show individual average bit size vs. overall average bit size? While what I've lacked in TF factors I make up for in P-1 factors, all of them have been under 91 bits, and only 1 factor >90 bits.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;295214]You really weren't kidding.
[code] Expected Found
DC TF 4.294 1
LL TF 21.919 14[/code] The DC TF is probably low sample size, but 14/22? That's crazy. And chalsall, based on what you're saying, this is after taking into account that 72 bits takes more work and has lower chance?[/QUOTE]
I got some of your factors :smile:
[code]
Expected Found
DC TF 3.904 4
LL TF 61.722 67[/code]

Another nice feature this is ...

[QUOTE=Dubslow;295239]When you do implement P-1, can you also show individual average bit size vs. overall average bit size? While what I've lacked in TF factors I make up for in P-1 factors, all of them have been under 91 bits, and only 1 factor >90 bits.[/QUOTE]
Don't know if this is useful to you, but some time ago James posted
a table to show the number of factors found at each bit level.
I summarized this by observing that the P-1 factors went as 2^(-bits/8).

The aim of this research was to judge how much an extra bit
of TF overlapped a P-1.

(I wouldn't be surprized if I have not explained this as clearly as I might have done:smile:)

David

As a matter of fact, chalsall has a table of the 100 largest factors for GPU272, which means the data is limited to our specific exponent range. I rank very low on the list, despite a sizeable number of total factors.