[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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

I'll get on it as well.

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

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