[QUOTE=sashamkrt;371951][CODE]
611156:i7547

n: 1233834109316954251065406210584382514482486785123839242711421920174697279622119210044011032460138316615713715099127735270405764948375711542820719611655437
# norm 8.191801e-015 alpha -7.444448 e 3.477e-012 rroots 5
skew: 1837012.21
c0: 9524788629911251806899820614452358175
c1: 19825309048338991034711681062715
c2: -12548193435218537869063512
c3: -16897387341480048942
c4: 5214672777134
c5: 1375980
Y0: -245770001251625498938715399762
Y1: 43639219601327273

[/CODE][/QUOTE]Thank you for that! A local CPU-only search got this score after 100+ hours:[code]# norm 6.673765e-015 alpha -7.751098 e 3.299e-012 rroots 5
skew: 34808196.94[/code]

Greetings,

I've got a c161 from 96^127-1. (ecm pre-tested to t55)

[CODE]29402026346876404520391138812753203396665114819180002640111042211241267771985958243562132692098504888206091141479100367473237624904438034507578300300706369793341[/CODE]


Any help would be much appreciated. :smile:

I'll have a go. It'll probably take about 2 days to produce a poly.

Chris

Thanks Chris,

I've started 6 CPU cores on the old pol51 binaries for something to compare with. They should be done in a couple of days.

My best score was 1.388e-12, It appeared 3 times in msieve.dat.p, all for the same poly.

My best 3 ignoring duplicates are:
[code]
# norm 1.667441e-15 alpha -7.002235 e 1.388e-12 rroots 5
skew: 67950163.58
c0: -92018656678781734318812584786978993173168
c1: 17606278543589316445642626684590972
c2: -184245044024739887319988260
c3: -9925624700183687723
c4: 23633660818
c5: 660
Y0: -33866214470571755539145261052495
Y1: 119692786004264443

# norm 1.664533e-15 alpha -7.463580 e 1.375e-12 rroots 5
skew: 13851961.80
c0: -3980366090430387084049780075594783704630
c1: 1150963403949097102401214675385591
c2: 240601330168742354186263763
c3: -35973749870761629187
c4: -1525113916932
c5: 21672
Y0: -16845956005729258547405590420453
Y1: 22299707395951193

# norm 1.620840e-15 alpha -6.981357 e 1.359e-12 rroots 5
skew: 76448553.94
c0: 98489208632605476746240133473937531314816
c1: 26848738563981520237901585677130936
c2: 16059473682133602087809922
c3: -10261934626721014715
c4: 1907497018
c5: 660
Y0: -33866215258591475056417014729393
Y1: 119692786004264443
[/code]
I'll be interested if pol51 gets anywhere near as good a score. In my experience msieve generates better polys on a CPU. And my GPU should have searched a much larger range than a CPU could in that time.

Chris

pol51 holds its own
 

Top 3 Candidates:

[CODE]skew: 1195653.98
# norm 5.84e+22
c5: 22302000
c4: -464777566858860
c3: -99436795485673648928
c2: 578297457968152336612278175
c1: 48812371410286624110411117747644
c0: -91385745414121004257569049157219000311
# alpha -7.75
Y1: 1082295975254504197
Y0: -4207335607185413648657384925588
# Murphy_E 1.18e-12
# M 20751775683164952457242854624160015284564131656598338624140314606734216907514433651924011151071370571710908193183434894211011777674434219738391337425965679674713

skew: 603563.67
# norm 2.79e+21
c5: 17088660
c4: 55736335067836
c3: -24337375383614088601
c2: -22783222883034211139137917
c1: 3762710284495542565468049664129
c0: -83444455839241142352217880538651963
# alpha -4.90
Y1: 584188293422681497
Y0: -4437453482190738444802154305568
# Murphy_E 1.12e-12
# M 14893812980472872748426252973158126516305595988165839050371884840345042253354616381401043147671151873314700192158970186409363237060108595396222768522630896644523


skew: 961948.16
# norm 1.75e+22
c5: 53091120
c4: -60160923641566
c3: -99495731552476470845
c2: 54975499562688884099764359
c1: -32588660991353723457107645266731
c0: 2287737267985726330614672965275562463
# alpha -6.28
Y1: 4036339538754394157
Y0: -3537294243672844580035463385550
# Murphy_E 1.10e-12
# M 25747597891659421512785722580208176486812627500621563442893503693548474750169867971141097140926018640467241525952556349336043133438320153062186410883050302658875
[/CODE]


I must say that I was expecting a larger gap between the pol51 top poly and the msieve GPU top poly. Something like an order of magnitude.

For a single sample area only, SpecialQ range of 100000, I'm getting a 14.2% increase in yield.

Cheers

I should probably make the script search for larger HLQs. It's not really tuned for C161s (it just searches HLQs from 1 to 100000). But I don't know how to choose a range for a given size of number.

Chris

I doubt anyone would be able to get a 10x difference in sieving performance by choosing a better polynomial; for RSA512, the largest difference in sieving performance between totally unoptimized polynomials and the output of Kleinjung's algorithm, that anyone has been able to find, is something like a factor of four.

For a C161 I'd start looking at coefficients above 1000000.

Thanks Jason for straightening out my muddled thinking there.:davieddy:

(FWIW, I probably heard the order of magnitude ref in regards to how much time the GPU version takes for an equivalent MurphyE which could be totally correct. Of course, boosting the MurphyE score takes a non-proportional increase in effort.)

Requesting GNFS polys for both of these xyyxf composites. SNFS yields for both are just plain terrible.

[code]
C168_130_71 = 293577856524534308556608110931494014404182621098756377812259533965962071178386204940945650625875365752664844816196696488552291293374296950182835664858833152967071700503

C168_134_94 = 451591044633621500700127843125932943919387601290262860485200418433795934760393784972054631775554879954085888690144804817796633480540639229986141076270921955279078568333
[/code]

Thanks for any help!

[QUOTE=sashamkrt;371951][CODE]
611156:i7547

n: 1233834109316954251065406210584382514482486785123839242711421920174697279622119210044011032460138316615713715099127735270405764948375711542820719611655437
# norm 8.191801e-015 alpha -7.444448 e 3.477e-012 rroots 5
skew: 1837012.21
c0: 9524788629911251806899820614452358175
c1: 19825309048338991034711681062715
c2: -12548193435218537869063512
c3: -16897387341480048942
c4: 5214672777134
c5: 1375980
Y0: -245770001251625498938715399762
Y1: 43639219601327273

[/CODE][/QUOTE]18 days later:[code]prp62 factor: 15397886342298096881993126507804932212098047954161942939890657
prp92 factor: 80130095903332114576197636633232711661580076072271741043519900823811963455142901912702330541[/code]Thanks again!