Better metrics than Murphy_E ?
 

Hello all.

I've just done a moderately big GPU polynomial select for a C165, and, having trial-sieved rather more polynomials than I usually do, reached the slightly unexpected position where the 17th-best polynomial by Murphy_E was overwhelmingly the best by actual sieving yield.

I get the impression that Murphy_E is systematically larger for small leading coefficients; has anyone done empirical work on that scaling? Would it be worth trial-sieving a thousand polynomials on my next big GNFS job (this would be an effort about the size of the GNFS job) and seeing if I can quantify the effect?

How did your list of polynomials sort by the 'size' score? This is an integral by Bernstein that is independent of translation and skew, a higher score is better.

C165_134_120 poly request
 

Can someone have a go with a GNFS poly for this number?

[code]
459438041044149873293447911775750189334188171266352133449167595646830565714968065622756071729107336241581305604971832140291528446199347566513765523766901738465034561
[/code]

Thanks in advance.

Are the new CADO poly select tools available? Does anyone have them running yet? The paper they put out suggests their new tools find E-scores about 5% better than msieve.

I don't have a linux environment with a GPU, and I believe CADO is linux-only; am I mistaken?

I'll run a little bit overnight and see if anything good comes up.

[CODE]expecting poly E from 6.54e-013 to > 7.52e-013
polynomial selection complete
R0: -72282121430503005558365347862554
R1: 30143549754266929
A0: 10866930325383798521006629494754432253955
A1: 4586200568910877479742643013046673
A2: 1246880392864919530859391791
A3: -43030078174711951269
A4: -15521930381334
A5: 232848
skew 12300099.06, size 3.978e-016, alpha -7.237, combined = 6.508e-013 rroots = 3[/CODE]

Best from an overnight run.

Although the skew is a bit high, this poly sieves 5%-10% better.

[CODE]# norm 5.312242e-16 alpha -7.130420 e 6.877599e-13 rroots 5
skew: 43719798.98
c0: 11733960296493447965970979138987511920000
c1: 44340805857506327391452974614472304
c2: -4104856773330359330123402924
c3: 7221946156103196292
c4: 1875581206735
c5: 10800
Y0: -133585893493588108010583707471589
Y1: 350799735559930687
[/CODE]

Many thanks to both of you.

Can someone have a go with a GNFS poly for this number?

[code]
46862651776313668832684618638310007043245135907468247470585960688008180534742005269578548831878148535158738789789506710579367525183636389872513135592162572724499935530721
[/code]

Thanks in advance.

[QUOTE=piguy227;388648]Can someone have a go with a GNFS poly for this number?

[code]
46862651776313668832684618638310007043245135907468247470585960688008180534742005269578548831878148535158738789789506710579367525183636389872513135592162572724499935530721
[/code]

Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]Why?

That is, why should we find a polynomial for you for an apparently uninteresting number. Make it interesting for us and we may do something.

Could I get someone with reasonably heavy resources to have a go at the C184

(125!+1)/(359*1003874788568233) ?