mersenneforum.org Parameter explorations for CADO 165-170 digits
 User Name Remember Me? Password
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2021-06-10, 12:33   #45
charybdis

Apr 2020

23×3×13 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bur I entered the poly parameters into myfactor, but it came up with a different skew (3.3e6 instead of 2.6e6) than the one I used for the factorization and the scores were on the order of 10^-12 instead of 10^7. I found this surprising, is the score calculated that differently or were the myfactor skews so bad? How can I calculate scores by using msieve?
The Murphy-E score reported by CADO is not the same as that reported by msieve and cownoise.com. Technically the CADO one is closer to Murphy's definition of E, but it depends on the I value, qmin and the lpb bounds, so it shouldn't be used for comparing polynomials for two different numbers unless they used the same parameters. Msieve's E-score does not depend on the parameters and so can be used to compare polynomials for different numbers, as long as they have the same degree.

 2021-06-16, 12:51 #46 bur   Aug 2020 111110112 Posts This is the score of the c163 I did earlier, calculated with msieve: Code: skew 8385289.96, size 8.965e-16, alpha -7.745, combined = 1.077e-12 rroots = 5 And this is the score of the c159 calculated with msieve: Code: skew 2613329.11, size 1.949e-15, alpha -7.801, combined = 1.703e-12 rroots = 5 I ran tests for the minimal number of relations for the c159: 160M Code: found 47576500 duplicates and 112589785 unique relations (70.3%) [...] matrix is 5597069 x 5597293 (2017.8 MB) with weight 529305051 (94.56/col) sparse part has weight 472974971 (84.50/col) [...] linear algebra completed 56142 of 5597293 dimensions (1.0%, ETA 6h19m) 155M Code: found 44436078 duplicates and 110560392 unique relations (71.3%) [...] matrix is 5850133 x 5850358 (2110.1 MB) with weight 553183174 (94.56/col) sparse part has weight 494635444 (84.55/col) [...] linear algebra completed 58683 of 5850358 dimensions (1.0%, ETA 6h59m) 150M Code: found 41393391 duplicates and 108603079 unique relations (72.4%) [...] matrix is 6136751 x 6136976 (2215.4 MB) with weight 580409331 (94.58/col) sparse part has weight 519375147 (84.63/col) [...] linear algebra completed 119868 of 6136976 dimensions (2.0%, ETA 7h52m) 145M Code: found 38915690 duplicates and 106080857 unique relations (73.2%) [...] matrix is 6621872 x 6622097 (2394.0 MB) with weight 626672267 (94.63/col) sparse part has weight 561353788 (84.77/col) [...] linear algebra completed 66224 of 6622097 dimensions (1.0%, ETA 9h17m) 140M Code: found 36920951 duplicates and 103075743 unique relations (73.6%) [...] keeping 27769539 ideals with weight <= 200, target excess is 147096 commencing in-memory singleton removal begin with 27594853 relations and 27769539 unique ideals reduce to 27476994 relations and 27651624 ideals in 23 passes max relations containing the same ideal: 200 filtering wants 1000000 more relations Anything else that should be tested?
 2021-06-16, 13:10 #47 bur   Aug 2020 251 Posts edit: An unexpected P41 factor turned up, but I'll look for some other c160 to factor, so if you have new parameters, please let me know. I'll start work on a c160, part of AL86610. Do you have a new set of parameters or should I go with the old one, with rels_wanted reduced to 145M? Last fiddled with by bur on 2021-06-16 at 13:14
 2021-06-16, 16:28 #48 VBCurtis     "Curtis" Feb 2005 Riverside, CA 33×179 Posts 73% unique is unusually high; I would expect most ~C160 jobs to need a few rounds of filtering if we set target relations to 145M. I suppose your sieving machine needs more than 80 minutes to sieve from 145M rels to 150M rels? Then again, with required_excess set as it is, there is almost-no chance of ending up with a matrix so big that more sieving is desired; I'm still working on figuring out the "right" setting for that one. So, try reducing tasks.filter.required_excess by 0.01 when you change rels_wanted to 145M. Thanks for the data!
 2021-06-16, 19:39 #49 bur   Aug 2020 3738 Posts It took 125 hours for the 160M relations. That's 2800 s / 1M rels or roughly 45 minutes. So yes, nearly 4 hours for 5 M rels. I'm currently looking for a useful c160, if you want one, then suddenly ECM finds factors all the time... So I'd use the same params but with rels_wanted=145M and required_excess reduced by 0.01?
2021-06-16, 22:11   #50
VBCurtis

"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA

33·179 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bur So I'd use the same params but with rels_wanted=145M and required_excess reduced by 0.01?
Yes, exactly. There's no harm in CADO doing multiple filtering runs, so you could use 144M or 143M too if you're curious about how far it can be pushed. The "required_excess" setting is supposed to avoid the case where a matrix *barely* builds and is far too big- that is, just 1-2% more relations builds a much nicer matrix. In the context of this size of job, "barely" would be a matrix 9-10M in size. Your data on that C159 show that a ~7M matrix is "good enough", in that more sieving takes more time than would be saved by the smaller matrix.

We're looking for a required-excess setting that *always* avoids those too-big matrices. If you reduce it by 0.02 to be more aggressive, set rels_wanted to 140M and let us know how many relations it actually takes to build a matrix (it should be more than 140!)

 2021-06-17, 08:11 #51 bur   Aug 2020 251 Posts Ok, I found another C159 from an aliquot sequence. I'm finishing ECM on it and then go with the 0.02 and 140M. Btw, is there anything else to be done on the c159 or c164, such as target_density? Otherwise I'd clear the space for that next job.
2021-06-17, 12:11   #52
charybdis

Apr 2020

1001110002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by bur Ok, I found another C159 from an aliquot sequence. I'm finishing ECM on it and then go with the 0.02 and 140M. Btw, is there anything else to be done on the c159 or c164, such as target_density? Otherwise I'd clear the space for that next job.
I'd hold off on this c159 - given this, I strongly suspect it's one that I've already factored. In which case I might as well provide the relevant data...

Code:
tasks.I = 14
tasks.qmin = 7000000
tasks.lim0 = 25000000
tasks.lim1 = 45000000
tasks.lpb0 = 31
tasks.lpb1 = 31
tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58
tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 61
tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 2.07
tasks.sieve.lambda1 = 2.17
tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 19
tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 24
tasks.sieve.qrange = 10000
tasks.sieve.adjust_strategy = 2
4.77M CPU-seconds for sieving from Q=7M-43.2M.
Filtering with TD=90:

Code:
factoring 8162413651...0362934861 (159 digits)

skew 1612609.51, size 2.057e-15, alpha -5.963, combined = 1.761e-12 rroots = 5

found 47335431 hash collisions in 168523663 relations

found 57680004 duplicates and 110843659 unique relations

begin with 110843659 relations and 118457131 unique ideals

begin with 33364618 relations and 32436212 unique ideals
reduce to 33230023 relations and 32301540 ideals in 15 passes

matrix is 6559845 x 6560066 (2367.4 MB) with weight 618605783 (94.30/col)
163M relations (108M unique) were not enough to build a matrix.

 2021-06-18, 07:17 #53 bur   Aug 2020 251 Posts That was the c159... The number of unique relations required for it isn't that much lower than for my c159 with 106,080,857 uniques, but as vbcurtis already mentioned, the ratio of unique/total was much higher: 73.2% vs 65.8%. I found a c158 from AL32796, I'm curious what ratio I'll end up with. The params I use now are slightly different from charybdis': Code: tasks.lim0 = 30000000 tasks.lim1 = 47000000 tasks.lpb0 = 31 tasks.lpb1 = 31 tasks.sieve.mfb0 = 58 tasks.sieve.mfb1 = 61 tasks.sieve.lambda0 = 1.84 tasks.sieve.ncurves0 = 19 tasks.sieve.ncurves1 = 24 tasks.I = 14 tasks.qmin = 8000000 tasks.sieve.qrange = 10000 tasks.sieve.rels_wanted = 140000000 Last fiddled with by bur on 2021-06-18 at 07:51

 Thread Tools

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post EdH CADO-NFS 127 2020-10-07 01:47 storm5510 Information & Answers 4 2019-11-30 21:32 ksteczk PrimeNet 6 2018-03-26 15:11 R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 14 2010-09-29 19:56 R.D. Silverman Cunningham Tables 11 2006-03-06 18:46

All times are UTC. The time now is 19:18.

Sat Jun 19 19:18:07 UTC 2021 up 22 days, 17:05, 0 users, load averages: 1.46, 2.26, 2.69

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.