Dubslow, not too sure; the choice of smaller leading rational coefficients is a code issue for Msieve, as these are always made as large as possible due to estimate by Thorsten Kleinjung in his 2006 Math. Comp. paper. By the time we get to RSA1024 I'm convinced we'll need a version of stage 1 that controls the size of the top 4 algebraic coefficients, not just the top 3, since with large skew it will become too rare to find a polynomial that is good at random.

Paul has also asked me to pass on his thanks for everyone's compute cycles, even though we didn't beat their best polynomial. Both CADO and Msieve have needed bug fixes to work correctly for problems this large, and that wouldn't have happened if you had not helped out.

[QUOTE=jasonp;329958]Dubslow, not too sure; the choice of smaller leading rational coefficients is a code issue for Msieve, as these are always made as large as possible due to estimate by Thorsten Kleinjung in his 2006 Math. Comp. paper. By the time we get to RSA1024 I'm convinced we'll need [B]a version of stage 1 that controls the size of the top 4 algebraic coefficients[/B], not just the top 3, since with large skew it will become too rare to find a polynomial that is good at random.

Paul has also asked me to pass on his thanks for everyone's compute cycles, even though we didn't beat their best polynomial. Both CADO and Msieve have needed bug fixes to work correctly for problems this large, and that wouldn't have happened if you had not helped out.[/QUOTE]
I had forgotten about the bold part when I posted in [URL="http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=351642#post351642"]the other thread[/URL]. Would a version that controls the top four be tricky to make?

We don't know how to do that at all, so it's not just a matter of code.