[QUOTE=VBCurtis;445576]I have no experience with quartics, so I gave no opinion. I've no reason to doubt the "add 15 digits as an estimate" (for what size is this correct? It can't be a fixed penalty for any size), though doing so makes GNFS appear only a little faster.
Perhaps a bit of test-sieving is in order?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but either way I don't think it's appropriate for NFS@Home. At worst, this is a GNFS-155. Some test sieving might discover that it's even easier by SNFS (though I doubt that), but it's already below the NFS@Home threshold, as I understand it.

Or put another way, go ahead and test-sieve it, but on your own time.:smile:

14e
 

Here are a couple more candidates for 14e. All have completed ECM to t55 (thank you yoyo).


C188_148_62 (best sieved on -a side)
C189_136_130


[code]
n: 11333598659373182215836395607941474549392620113358736359583123191918455581461712797437170519659837506465581862333823990542145235009991150009400618534649298733005040598155495562707333784133
# 148^62+62^148, difficulty: 230.93, anorm: 2.29e+039, rnorm: 9.51e+043
# scaled difficulty: 230.93, suggest sieving [b]algebraic side[/b]
# size = 4.539e-012, alpha = 0.000, combined = 3.755e-013, rroots = 0
type: snfs
size: 230
skew: 10.4678
c6: 1
c0: 1315609
Y1: -4808584372417849
Y0: 307724679838901733341397023980285932016
rlim: 134000000
alim: 134000000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.7
alambda: 2.7
[/code]


[code]
n: 352129661023131208925796543082478223515270115055752719680628966116192561533649985446338911820982049620025818150018406379124352151856365743956455711604674912885482640463898973564675529956001
# 136^130+130^136, difficulty: 247.76, anorm: 6.45e+031, rnorm: -1.01e+055
# scaled difficulty: 251.63, suggest sieving rational side
# size = 5.884e-017, alpha = 0.000, combined = 1.565e-013, rroots = 1
type: snfs
size: 247
skew: 1.3236
c5: 16
c0: 65
Y1: -8885065410379260901802741051591932773590087890625
Y0: 110451530721771496716815273458972247201369030656
rlim: 268000000
alim: 268000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.8
alambda: 2.8
[/code]

Queued those two.

C171 from 933436:i12560:

[CODE]n: 158872748758348674076441654471955425126741011756333900130123084368233785433918674483441892902912135159596231054755102937046639142885835659695720466966048166004564762642979
# norm 1.256183e-16 alpha -8.845959 e 2.863e-13 rroots 5
skew: 32808431.43
c0: 22579869169070225331400868378582172487171317
c1: 3455048372116402681010932230871245488
c2: -26480797421351417181034167521
c3: -9346638834952404864448
c4: 71960835082044
c5: 2264400
Y0: -587786019495037732461307188808270
Y1: 111898430512726627
rlim: 61200000
alim: 61200000
lpbr: 31
lpba: 31
mfbr: 62
mfba: 62
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
lss: 0[/CODE]

[b]fivemack[/b]: queued

Have these ever been queued? :) [QUOTE=swellman;442801]The following xyyx numbers have come out of yoyo after surviving t55. All are ready for sieving on the rational side. Polys attached.

C241_121_116
C224_122_99
C238_124_89
C231_124_91
C231_127_88
C243_130_83

All are of SNFS difficulty 245-250, all 31-bit jobs. I had figured them for the 14e queue, but subsequent review and retest sieving indicates all are likely better suited for 15e. The yields for all on 14e are <1.0 rel/Q.

Or perhaps run them on 14e as 32-bit jobs? Is that a practical approach?

I have used Yafu, snfspoly and hand calculations, as well as extensive test sieving, to determine and check these polynomials. My eye however is not what it should be, so I may have missed something obvious to others. A couple of these are quintics - I could not find sextics that were even close in performance. Some ugly number here...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=XYYXF;446323]Have these ever been queued? :)[/QUOTE]

Please see status below.

C241_121_116 - sieved, awaiting post-processing
C224_122_99 - done, [URL]http://pastebin.com/6RUA4XbM[/URL]
C238_124_89 - done, [URL]http://pastebin.com/5b52PmqG[/URL]
C231_124_91 - done, [URL]http://pastebin.com/w3zrBwWq[/URL]
C231_127_88 - sieved. I've started running right now filtering stage.
C243_130_83 - done, [URL]http://pastebin.com/qRF71imQ[/URL]

Thanks a lot. Surprisingly, neither [url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching.php[/url] nor [url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching_e.php[/url] mentions them.

Poly for C186 coming from 842592:i8053

[CODE]# norm 3.159502e-18 alpha -7.425454 e 3.067e-14 rroots 3
n: 367710278466543069675019928380424648174956642683907342223831772225542822221313723641894358807619521576022245959931263880485167611093830905679643237839148973821755006216118711702590538243
skew: 70023871.65
c0: -327862000198861810843466337684831796907646356
c1: -81942738582629329566163826905921784226
c2: -1275780703654570647355930965554
c3: -2217395587420452153447
c4: 1072989867083620
c5: 1537008
Y0: -751217896321601238537551413199638215
Y1: 33884063774013367187
rlim: 100000000
alim: 100000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
lss: 0[/CODE]Here is another one with better E-score but yafu prefer the first poly. [CODE]
# norm 3.407330e-18 alpha -6.554278 e 3.227e-14 rroots 5
n: 367710278466543069675019928380424648174956642683907342223831772225542822221313723641894358807619521576022245959931263880485167611093830905679643237839148973821755006216118711702590538243
skew: 31819270.98
c0: 37529882308335387885073590861785069685562815
c1: 2371966015191487358012115623940561891
c2: -885629013453745677216629907983
c3: -32915162139666611244247
c4: 1016538475873780
c5: 1537008
Y0: -751217896570500728961283257489176342
Y1: 33884063774013367187
rlim: 100000000
alim: 100000000
lpbr: 32
lpba: 32
mfbr: 64
mfba: 64
rlambda: 2.6
alambda: 2.6
lss: 0[/CODE]

[QUOTE=XYYXF;446338]Thanks a lot. Surprisingly, neither [URL]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching.php[/URL] nor [URL]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching_e.php[/URL] mentions them.[/QUOTE]

They are written in different form, f.e. C238_124_89 as 124^89+89^124 cofactor (#147 on [url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching_e.php[/url]).

[QUOTE=XYYXF;446338]Thanks a lot. Surprisingly, neither [url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching.php[/url] nor [url]https://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs/crunching_e.php[/url] mentions them.[/QUOTE]

They do mention them, but by description rather than by codename; for example

[code]
145 122^99+99^122 cofactor XYYXF SNFS(250.17) 32 Carlos Pinho: p56 * p169
[/code]

Searching for X^Y rather than X_Y in the page works.

Please delete entry 129^101+101^129 cofactor (15e queue) since it has already been factored.

[CODE]https://factordb.com/index.php?query=23669233030522009602759473767382859437009058956586003659834986589968340538638383756749743588547877916198019240492163965790009454449283232164414327359854155717591574664456500284691629703321096682036528664873019150185813040784490405386483846229[/CODE]