[QUOTE=richs;411875]Anyone like to have a go at finding a poly for this C154 from Aliquot sequence 829332:3589?[/QUOTE]

I should have something later tonight.

I went to 5M and the best is:
[CODE]N: 4537787384062167229294057374468826821223279315636792016447006047185936215587115121338899234285565806951562459365575674996087301727915180317496191381025877
# expecting poly E from 3.05e-12 to > 3.50e-12
R0: -399979656975273365701998369366
R1: 1067710737833939
A0: 519125690666296999062877195771789597
A1: 2025984829776720254430274320937
A2: -1154519980571878704863718
A3: -3142397915330686792
A4: 883463054330
A5: 443256
# skew 1379910.48, size 6.239e-15, alpha -5.942, combined = 3.375e-12 rroots = 5[/CODE]

Thanks, Rich!

Rich

I have a C166 that will be my first personal 15e factorization, and my first foray into the CADO tools for CPU poly select. Could someone give it some GPU time, so I might compare the effectiveness of msieve vs CADO for poly select?
Please list the GPU-hours you spent, so I can compare effort as well as results to my own CADO run.
[CODE]
N: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889
[/CODE]
The number is the remaining cofactor of 13*2^924-1.

Stage 1: 22,3h GPU (GeForce GTX 650 Ti) + ~3,2h for one CPU thread.
Sizeopt and rootsieve: ~4h for one CPU thread.

Best poly:
[CODE]
n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889
# norm 4.663644e-16 alpha -7.071486 e 6.464067e-13 rroots 5
skew: 29930803.76
c0: -179409669872419787875791142567559019315525
c1: 28507155776738138662132445463560139
c2: 142812890347046919926946189
c3: -97138933140798385355
c4: -790917891528
c5: 25200
Y0: -201367272691407156150843550143488
Y1: 805187391468667987
[/CODE]Note that I modified msieve: HIGH_COEFF_MULTIPLIER 420. The deadline per coefficient and the randomization are disabled.

[QUOTE=VBCurtis;417843]I have a C166 that will be my first personal 15e factorization, and my first foray into the CADO tools for CPU poly select. Could someone give it some GPU time, so I might compare the effectiveness of msieve vs CADO for poly select?
Please list the GPU-hours you spent, so I can compare effort as well as results to my own CADO run.
[CODE]
N: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889
[/CODE]
The number is the remaining cofactor of 13*2^924-1.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Gimarel;418008]Stage 1: 22,3h GPU (GeForce GTX 650 Ti) + ~3,2h for one CPU thread.
Sizeopt and rootsieve: ~4h for one CPU thread.

Best poly:
[CODE]
n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889
# norm 4.663644e-16 alpha -7.071486 e 6.464067e-13 rroots 5
skew: 29930803.76
c0: -179409669872419787875791142567559019315525
c1: 28507155776738138662132445463560139
c2: 142812890347046919926946189
c3: -97138933140798385355
c4: -790917891528
c5: 25200
Y0: -201367272691407156150843550143488
Y1: 805187391468667987
[/CODE]Note that I modified msieve: HIGH_COEFF_MULTIPLIER 420. The deadline per coefficient and the randomization are disabled.[/QUOTE]

For a number of this size, it's probably worth posting the top 3-5 polys by either CADO or msieve for a better comparison. (Unless by "best" you mean you trial sieved rather than relying upon the Murphy score.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;418010]For a number of this size, it's probably worth posting the top 3-5 polys by either CADO or msieve for a better comparison. (Unless by "best" you mean you trial sieved rather than relying upon the Murphy score.)[/QUOTE]

I did trialsieve. The poly has the best score and sieved best.

[QUOTE=Gimarel;418011]I did trialsieve. The poly has the best score and sieved best.[/QUOTE]

Sweet :smile: Just checking.

More thorough trialsieving showed that the poly with the second best score sieves a little bit better.

[CODE]
n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889
# norm 4.504602e-16 alpha -7.446747 e 6.383632e-13 rroots 3
skew: 36418581.30
c0: -6206292264781510140235453638003213286408
c1: 53762734012950656320733897775170588
c2: -966037993270550888998755014
c3: -105304721455866115403
c4: -333326337528
c5: 25200
Y0: -201367269767225015489302863783315
Y1: 805187391468667987
[/CODE]And a poly with a lower score sieves almost as good as the highscore.

[CODE]
n: 8343435760616643489063187244256443424394562560772513554600760230830772046038334603336773710814168017089799741524226536908218074130479225552429408073640301885602291889
# norm 4.072475e-16 alpha -7.147561 e 5.982085e-13 rroots 3
skew: 36320379.21
c0: -10900050903348427457786768699738222025160
c1: 53136490784077126637321358609712604
c2: -1063694405957759563314685958
c3: -105692114573027200331
c4: -294449793528
c5: 25200
Y0: -201367269518789276975994168402387
Y1: 805187391468667987
[/CODE]I have 17 more polys with a score higher than 5.98e-13 that sieve worse.

I don't see a way to get a second-best poly out of CADO; it appears pretty dogmatic that the highest-scoring poly is the choice, period. So, I'm splitting my runs into ~12hr chunks in hopes of getting a few polys to compare; So far after 36 hr x 2 instances (3 core-days) I have just two polys competitive, with the other 4 runs producing nothing meaningful.

The E-score generated by CADO is not remotely comparable to msieve; I have multiple polys with score better than 2e-11 by CADO reckoning that test-sieve worse than an msieve 6e-13 poly I have from the current GNFS165 job.

I'm giving CADO 5 core-days total to search, and will post the best poly it produces for anyone interested to compare to Gimarel's (or another GPU searcher?) msieve poly.

Gimarel- thank you for the work, and for test-sieving, and for the detailed tracking of time-on-silicon.

The msieve poly with score 6.38e-13 sieves about 15% faster than my best CADO poly. I'll give CADO another ~40 core-hours, but 15% is pretty hard to overcome.

I was pleased with a 6.67e-13 poly for my current G165 project- these two (6.38 and 6.46) are nice finds for this G166!