2 more C207 polys
 

A slightly better CADO poly:
[code]
Y0: -6563265022568774266354892868611644711400
Y1: 14737700014198380373
c0: -195885654413301742021926350959343936846901860317941
c1: 225759882978210651012918348758579232741188
c2: 23787287493217528319014779999797510
c3: -86292463186759936420108
c4: -70345879932722289
c5: 15085800
skew: 587128506.45611
# lognorm 67.05, E 59.17, alpha -7.88 (proj -1.63), 5 real roots
# MurphyE=1.45014533e-15
[/code]confirmed by Msieve:
[code]
# norm 2.357623e-020 alpha -7.882749 e 1.451e-015 rroots 5
skew: 590194466.72
c0: -155816516757130071851347426182023045751672788361920
c1: 1954676842875294690924920084664967178519488
c2: 23218698382896016535491833976337972
c3: -10192710744975184308713704
c4: -67582426053083289
c5: 15085800
Y0: 6563265022568234328740961989776894720257
Y1: -14737700014198380373
[/code]

For an imput this large, wouldn't a poly of degree 6 work better?

[QUOTE=firejuggler;455714]For an imput this large, wouldn't a poly of degree 6 work better?[/QUOTE]

Based on a post from earlier in the thread (post 742 or so?), probably not. But I'm not opposed to trying the best scoring degree 6 polynomials just in case.

C207 is near the deg-6 cutoff. Msieve struggles with root-opt on deg 6, and Frmky found that even at C215 deg 5 and deg 6 were comparable. CADO's default parameters for c205 are deg 5, while c210 is deg 6; I haven't tried a deg 6 CADO search yet.

Here are the best finds from a CADO search from 10M to 11.1M:
[code]n: 183724913753361567376492453926230323715345031792001208551707422272237266349933302881515963689094609592709968359761386456940894165548045328984901031969851838708505435691913321760214712695688550560374318369687
skew: 838496424.417
c0: 46940669866055547823109313162012850262763741523200
c1: 3236905767184422265163991871076044888757900
c2: -800578443717778675552745489973381
c3: -17574786098948226617271999
c4: 8665969938351911
c5: 10155780
Y0: -7103803724224543650738252214965600685669
Y1: 3627703029879009973753[/code]
[code]n: 183724913753361567376492453926230323715345031792001208551707422272237266349933302881515963689094609592709968359761386456940894165548045328984901031969851838708505435691913321760214712695688550560374318369687
skew: 320908967.954
c0: 50608218075941554941592343353365754461981759507263
c1: 1381441172185986964849824511200946637939843
c2: -1233655127349780859186011448195019
c3: -50450709273026749596417827
c4: 77575300139332788
c5: 133553160
Y0: -7087473485773569538658762369110485778080
Y1: 3494915370090810326597[/code]
[code]n: 183724913753361567376492453926230323715345031792001208551707422272237266349933302881515963689094609592709968359761386456940894165548045328984901031969851838708505435691913321760214712695688550560374318369687
skew: 366230198.92
c0: 813773569588275365261968461425817298866674784690768
c1: 3861383057198851187427587436368696332048911
c2: -61631780767810719575743108271687814
c3: -91573071945657692896492335
c4: 671457495195380950
c5: 154701960
Y0: -6984897769444385728403767460772654452734
Y1: 3258137590889412483491[/code]
I don't have scores for these; I was messing with settings in the params file, and my E-scores came out meaningless (like e-12 range).
I'd appreciate it if someone could post scores for these polys, so I can compare CADO performance to msieve on this number.
The first two are from 10-11M run, while the third is from 11-11.1. I can't even compare the E-scores from the third to the first two, but I expect the first one to be the best (best from a run 10x longer than third, while 2nd had a score 6% lower than first).

3 polys from VBCurtis with E score
 

[code]
c0: 46940669866055547823109313162012850262763741523200
c1: 3236905767184422265163991871076044888757900
c2: -800578443717778675552745489973381
c3: -17574786098948226617271999
c4: 8665969938351911
c5: 10155780
Y0: -7103803724224543650738252214965600685669
Y1: 3627703029879009973753
skew: 705844749.41479
E: 1.35647549e-15
[/code][code]
c0: 50608218075941554941592343353365754461981759507263
c1: 1381441172185986964849824511200946637939843
c2: -1233655127349780859186011448195019
c3: -50450709273026749596417827
c4: 77575300139332788
c5: 133553160
Y0: -7087473485773569538658762369110485778080
Y1: 3494915370090810326597
skew: 292023526.43429
E: 1.23478058e-15
[/code][code]
c0: 813773569588275365261968461425817298866674784690768
c1: 3861383057198851187427587436368696332048911
c2: -61631780767810719575743108271687814
c3: -91573071945657692896492335
c4: 671457495195380950
c5: 154701960
Y0: -6984897769444385728403767460772654452734
Y1: 3258137590889412483491
skew: 353529344.18221
E: 9.05441400e-16
[/code]

Thanks, Max.
So, 7 thread-days of CADO produces a best poly roughly in the ballpark of 2 GPU-days of msieve (my best from msieve so far is 1.38e-15). Seems, at least for this size of project, that CADO can profitably be run for poly select, particularly for those not GPU-endowed.

Or, for those of us who prefer our familiar tools, msieve hasn't been usurped yet! My CADO install was a fresh git-clone as of Monday.

Can someone do the root optimistion step of this line on CADO? The stage 2 score is very good but the stage1 score was left at default at the time, so the resulting e-score isn't good.
[code]
15371820 199603181376851496 -464061867426405603721855 -536423470663592338542591101952400 3139561114446069455952657370671068118688 190076853681281304214128837345996420962798447979 72539914394644909709 -6538656944145978618245663846995823201854 -2.17 5.814211e+026
[/code]For my est score, see a few post earlier, 1.425 e-15, and it has a second stage value of 3.975482e+027 compared to the 5.8xxxxxe+026 above.

root optimization in CADO
 

@firejuggler
Is your E score for this poly also 4.81160629e-16? (skew: 61396319.59660 or so?)
If so, CADO will not do the magic optimizing it to > 1.425 e-15. Too big of a stretch.

root optimization in CADO
 

@firejuggler
Oops! Ignore my previous post. I guess you are asking to optimize
[code]
R0: -6538656944147030901974729281399477396702
R1: 72539914394644909709
A0: -41444190994060695382448148406658444357662062124275
A1: 754844027559316401567668757262830610578795
A2: -264679992220691908321444752075053
A3: -12013706814805249129944703
A4: 198488242366576296
A5: 15371820
skew 282712296.24, size 1.468e-020, alpha -7.436, combined = 1.186e-015 rroots = 3
[/code]The jump from 1.186e-15 to > 1.425e-15 (or a CADO optimized 1.451e-15 -- see my March 28th post) seems not very likely.
For the fun of it though, I'll try and let you know.

Just as an update, I've taken the polynomials provided thus far and re-run them with my best found one. A number of the provided ones were better, and the best (shown below) decreased the expected run time by ~1/3.

[CODE]Y0: -6563265022568774266354892868611644711400
Y1: 14737700014198380373
c0: -195885654413301742021926350959343936846901860317941
c1: 225759882978210651012918348758579232741188
c2: 23787287493217528319014779999797510
c3: -86292463186759936420108
c4: -70345879932722289
c5: 15085800
skew: 587128506.45611
type: gnfs[/CODE]

thank you Max.