mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Cunningham Tables

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-05-21, 12:58   #45
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3×937 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
What is done to "spin" a polynomial? Is it something I can learn and/or implement with my archaic machinery and limited knowledge?
It’s a technique developed by Max. It uses CADO with some tricks to bump a found poly to a higher e-score. I am not familiar with the actual mechanics but Max did send me his recipe in a series of PMs some times ago. I will ask him if these can be published.

Max has also stated that he has found a way to lower the skew while keeping the e-score constant for a given poly. Sounded promising but I have no details.

Keep in mind that not every poly can be spun, and even when it can the spin doesn’t always improve the e-score all that much. But it is a very cool innovation which is definitely a +1 to the art of poly searching.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-21, 14:01   #46
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

62428 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
It’s a technique developed by Max. It uses CADO with some tricks to bump a found poly to a higher e-score. I am not familiar with the actual mechanics but Max did send me his recipe in a series of PMs some times ago. I will ask him if these can be published.

Max has also stated that he has found a way to lower the skew while keeping the e-score constant for a given poly. Sounded promising but I have no details.

Keep in mind that not every poly can be spun, and even when it can the spin doesn’t always improve the e-score all that much. But it is a very cool innovation which is definitely a +1 to the art of poly searching.
Thanks. If he'd rather not publish it openly, but would allow me the info, i wouldn't mind PMs from him. I might lack the knowledge to implement it though. I would try to create some scripts.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-27, 11:19   #47
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

53738 Posts
Default

My best so far in the 60-70M range is only 2.23e-15. But I am still plugging away.

Still collecting data on my various CADO runs on a separate machine. One thing that pops out is that P=8M consistently produces higher scoring polynomials than P=14M for reasons unknown to me. Maybe CADO hits an internal deadline before fully exploring all candidates with the higher P? I’ll post some data by the weekend but it will take another month fo fully fill the test matrix.
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-27, 14:05   #48
EdH
 
EdH's Avatar
 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns

2·3·72·11 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swellman View Post
My best so far in the 60-70M range is only 2.23e-15. But I am still plugging away.

Still collecting data on my various CADO runs on a separate machine. One thing that pops out is that P=8M consistently produces higher scoring polynomials than P=14M for reasons unknown to me. Maybe CADO hits an internal deadline before fully exploring all candidates with the higher P? I’ll post some data by the weekend but it will take another month fo fully fill the test matrix.
I wonder if a different, specific parameter needs to be matched with P=14M or higher. My P=16M is similarly lower than my P=2M runs for the same search spaces.
EdH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-27, 18:17   #49
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

281110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
I wonder if a different, specific parameter needs to be matched with P=14M or higher. My P=16M is similarly lower than my P=2M runs for the same search spaces.
Maybe sopteffort? I’ve intentionally kept it to the default value of 0 just to limit my test space, but it seems likely to be involved (size optimization time is proportional to sopteffort+1). I believe Ed varied it and got differing results, e.g. the place of the final winning polynomial at the end of size optimization varied wildly with higher values of sopteffort while this “n-place” metric was single digits for default values of sopteffort.

Should sopteffort = k * ropteffort, say with k near 1? 0.5?
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-28, 18:07   #50
VBCurtis
 
VBCurtis's Avatar
 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

4,219 Posts
Default

size-opt effort and root-opt effort should be unrelated in principle.
I haven't found a use yet for sopteffort, nor does the CADO default poly select params. However, ropteffort is invoked on every CADO default params file, and is usually rather high (10 as early as c130, from what I recall- I don't have the stock params handy).
playing with sopteffort = 1 may be fruitful, but I wouldn't relate it to ropteffort at all.
VBCurtis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-05-28, 20:21   #51
swellman
 
swellman's Avatar
 
Jun 2012

3·937 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VBCurtis View Post
size-opt effort and root-opt effort should be unrelated in principle.
I haven't found a use yet for sopteffort, nor does the CADO default poly select params. However, ropteffort is invoked on every CADO default params file, and is usually rather high (10 as early as c130, from what I recall- I don't have the stock params handy).
playing with sopteffort = 1 may be fruitful, but I wouldn't relate it to ropteffort at all.
I have some as yet unposted data showing a value of 8M for P produces consistently higher scoring polynomials than P of 14M with all else equal. P=4M produces the lowest scores. We were just speculating on the interaction of P and sopteffort, that’s all. Testing will show the way!
swellman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-08, 05:03   #52
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

683 Posts
Default C204 poly

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625577486179222154434651598903112919949771321416511589029559325246084363632977829645558547714072241
skew: 61173787.626
c0: -84551986041964239497940179882870301230255594832
c1: -1390964012076111490370063297140812459596
c2: 522002006121443981512032398747760
c3: 1762901709293407365122057
c4: -15943093281758022
c5: -318686760
Y0: -1380919702784425269323122024964712327251
Y1: 237213586863942644893691
# MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 4.390e-09
# f(x) = -318686760*x^5-15943093281758022*x^4+1762901709293407365122057*x^3+522002006121443981512032398747760*x^2-1390964012076111490370063297140812459596*x-84551986041964239497940179882870301230255594832
# g(x) = 237213586863942644893691*x-1380919702784425269323122024964712327251
cownoise says:
Code:
71610307.84090 2.60680364e-15
After msieve rerun, just for future CADO spin
Code:
Y0: -1380919701727219820649855819252436663945
Y1: 237213586863942644893691
c0: 80233576744915037044865695237775462973210633888
c1: -3360691848973590722240522959473879950752
c2: -543390370730403386816602011237354
c3: -1415383168580686569709049
c4: 23044654864848822
c5: 318686760
skew: 71702279.00367
# size 4.734e-20, alpha -7.634, combined = 2.607e-15 rroots = 3
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2020-06-08, 05:24   #53
Max0526
 
"Max"
Jun 2016
Toronto

683 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdH View Post
Here's the 2.3 poly:
Code:
n: 533439167600904850230361756102700151678687933392166847323827307497363839257031077774321424872955045754669625577486179222154434651598903112919949771321416511589029559325246084363632977829645558547714072241
skew: 10042040.26
c0: -627354527254627652475332655176329358596636356
c1: 213018845490759638721666401827674851417
c2: 95937374251117784023748647685013
c3: -5623556931527657096482154
c4: -479102663461196184
c5: -2511784800
Y0: -1385041351159270154396558379928364326380
Y1: 262954605447105862796669
# MurphyE (Bf=8.590e+09,Bg=4.295e+09,area=2.684e+16) = 4.040e-09
# f(x) = -2511784800*x^5-479102663461196184*x^4-5623556931527657096482154*x^3+95937374251117784023748647685013*x^2+213018845490759638721666401827674851417*x-627354527254627652475332655176329358596636356
# g(x) = 262954605447105862796669*x-1385041351159270154396558379928364326380
cownoise says:
Code:
16158683.33848 2.31283325e-15
Msieve adds a bit
Code:
R0: -1385041351659143177987030365622752942014
R1: 262954605447105862796669
A0: 653169167883331137294520872848350376000509290
A1: 199697587868029354778396563237441296355
A2: -117792697822385272998589389784161
A3: 2071256675570232894540458
A4: 455228324762132184
A5: 2511784800
skew: 16424161.34054
# size 3.958e-20, alpha -6.662, combined = 2.315e-15 rroots = 5
Max0526 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using 16e on smaller numbers fivemack Factoring 3 2017-09-19 08:52
NFS on smaller numbers? skan YAFU 6 2013-02-26 13:57
Bernoulli(200) c204 akruppa Factoring 114 2012-08-20 14:01
checking smaller number fortega Data 2 2005-06-16 22:48
Factoring Smaller Numbers marc Factoring 6 2004-10-09 14:17

All times are UTC. The time now is 06:03.

Wed Jul 15 06:03:44 UTC 2020 up 112 days, 3:36, 0 users, load averages: 1.26, 1.25, 1.26

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.