20200517, 15:40  #12 
"Dylan"
Mar 2017
2^{2}·7·19 Posts 
A lower exp_E is (generally) better. So it pushes out polys with a higher exp_E (or in earlier commits, the lognorm, which seems related but I’m not sure).

20200517, 16:16  #13 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
D84_{16} Posts 

20200518, 21:40  #14 
Jun 2012
2^{4}·181 Posts 
What is the current thinking on the ropteffort parameter? There is a wide range of values used throughout the Improved params files for CADO thread, including some files which are missing it entirely.
Last fiddled with by swellman on 20200518 at 21:43 
20200519, 00:07  #15 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
11·409 Posts 
At really low sizes, say under 115 digits, setting ropteffort higher doesn't have any effect seems there isn't anything left to expend effort on. Also, trials are fast, so anyone can test themselves on e.g. 0.8 vs 1 vs 1.5 etc.
At high sizes, the time spent in rootopt is so small relative to the time spent on sizeopt that I've been setting this quite high like 30+. Again, at some point a higher setting doesn't produce any more effort, so I don't think it matters whether one sets this to 35 or 60. It's the 115ish to 150ish area where I don't have a good answer; I played with it years ago, and ran into trials where higher settings cost more time but didn't produce any changes in polys. An open question? 
20200519, 01:59  #16  
Jun 2012
B50_{16} Posts 
Quote:


20200521, 14:10  #17 
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
110110000100_{2} Posts 
I have been trying to study the randomness of "good" polynomials across a search region. I've even graphed exp_E values for a given region/parmeters. I'm sure someone's already explored this. Is there any documentation that I might be capable of understanding available on this?
Is there a way to backtrack a polynomial to any of its search criteria? Edit: Extra question: How large is too large for admax? Last fiddled with by EdH on 20200521 at 15:52 
20200521, 16:59  #18 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
110111001100_{2} Posts 
The limit on admax is 1/(poly_degree+1) the size of the number to be factored. That's the extreme upper limit; Kleinjung's 2006 paper gives more sensible bounds on admax based on the largest and smallest skew that you can tolerate. The optimal skew goes down as a_d increases, taking the search space for the root optimization with it.

20200524, 14:35  #19  
"Ed Hall"
Dec 2009
Adirondack Mtns
2^{2}×5×173 Posts 
Quote:
Here are some graphs of exp_E for a CADONFS run with the following parameters: Code:
adminadmax: 130000000131756940 incr: 210 P: 16000000 adrange: 1680 sopteffort: 1 All of the below points represent the smallest raw exp_E score for a given search value. The first graph is of the entire set. The second is of the lowest value. The third is of the fifth lowest value, since CADONFS said the 4th poly (starting at 0) after size optimization was chosen. Edit: Rerunning the final third of the range (132M133M) at P=16M netted only a MurphyE of 2.078 per cownoise. The new range is not reflected in the graphs. Last fiddled with by EdH on 20200524 at 22:41 Reason: Added the 132M133M run info. 

20200528, 16:06  #20 
Jun 2012
2^{4}·181 Posts 
Here is some data I have gathered, really started as a personal education on the effects of certain parameters on CADO performance. Nothing new here, but it does provide some actual results with respect to speed and the polys produced.
Code:
P (M) admin (M) admax (M) adrange (M) incr nq nrkeep ropteffort Sizeopt time (wall clock minutes) Rootopt time (wall clock minutes) Total Time (wall clock minutes) Best poly score (cownoise) Best poly in nth place after size opt 4 60 61 60060 30030 15625 50 35 110 175 285 1.44E15 4 4 60 61 60060 30030 15625 200 35 110 675 785 1.45E15 4 4 60 61 60060 30030 15625 50 10 110 90 200 1.44E15 4 4 60 61 60060 30030 15625 200 10 110 330 440 1.44E15 4 8 60 61 60060 30030 15625 50 35 215 180 395 1.88E15 0 8 60 61 60060 30030 15625 200 35 215 620 835 1.88E15 0 8 60 61 60060 30030 15625 50 10 220 100 320 1.88E15 0 8 60 61 60060 30030 15625 200 10 220 335 555 1.88E15 0 14 60 61 60060 30030 15625 50 35 370 175 545 1.72E15 0 14 60 61 60060 30030 15625 200 35 365 670 1.72E15 0 14 60 61 60060 30030 15625 50 10 485 85 570 1.66E15 0 14 60 61 60060 30030 15625 200 10 365 330 695 1.66E15 0 sopteffort was default (zero) in all cases. I chose these parameters for speed of testing, not optimizing a poly search. adrange and incr are too large for a 6061M search. But the timings should be good. Got another run grinding away on the same machine with incr = 9240 and nq = 4620. Much slower but the parameters are more realistic. Last fiddled with by swellman on 20200528 at 16:09 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Polynomial selection  Max0526  NFS@Home  9  20170520 08:57 
Improved NFS polynomial selection  jasonp  Operation Kibibit  5  20140907 11:02 
SNFS Polynomial selection help?  mhill12  Factoring  59  20130909 22:40 
2^8771 polynomial selection  fivemack  Factoring  47  20090616 00:24 
Polynomial selection  CRGreathouse  Factoring  2  20090525 07:55 