20120305, 19:12  #1 
May 2009
Dedham Massachusetts USA
843_{10} Posts 
Number of relations from ggnfs
I was examining the number of relations needed by choosing random ggnfs runs with a low min_rels (default 0.2). This is with the current ggnfs and msieve (1.49). (Note I used aliqueit to call msieve/ggnfs automatically)
My thought was to try to improve on the value of MIN_RELS. One interesting thing is the jump in relations needed between 97 and 98. This is when the LPBA/R values switches. To explain this graph, the Min value is the value where we didn't have enough relations, and the Max value is the value where we did have enough. It is more than one run combined, so the Min can be higher than the Max when one run didn't have enough for a higher value than another one did. http://i322.photobucket.com/albums/n...fs_Min_Max.jpg What I think the jump means is that the value for LPBA/R switches too soon. Below are the values from defpar.txt used for ggnfs, and the key value is the 25,25 at 95 (the second entry) becoming 26,26 at 100. However, I am not positive on this. What do you think? Could we lessen the number of relations in the 98101? range by lowering the 26 to 25 for the 100 entry (try the 103)? I am unsure what would happen if the LPBA/R which this is based on was too small. Will it break things or will the number of relations needed just get big? My intuition is the latter so that if we picked the values perfectly there would be no jumps. Any thoughts? Note that from the graph, I don't yet know if there is a problem between 110 and 112 when we go to 27. I will hopefully have more values past 112 as I am increasing the size of tests (doing smaller first). This code is from the defpar.txt for ggnfs Code:
gnfs,90,4,58,2000,2.5e4,0.30,220,15,10000,600,700000,700000,25,25,44,44,2.4,2.4,40000,2000000,200 gnfs,95,4,60,2000,1.0e4,0.30,220,15,10000,600,1200000,1200000,25,25,45,45,2.4,2.4,60000,2000000,200 gnfs,100,5,58,1500,3.0e3,0.4,220,15,10000,2000,1800000,1800000,26,26,48,48,2.5,2.5,100000,4000000,300 gnfs,103,5,59,2000,9.0e4,0.35,200,15,15000,2000,2300000,2300000,26,26,49,49,2.6,2.6,100000,4000000,300 gnfs,106,5,59,2000,6.0e4,0.25,200,15,15000,2000,2500000,2500000,26,26,49,49,2.6,2.6,150000,4000000,300 gnfs,110,5,61,2000,1.5e4,0.3,250,15,50000,2400,3200000,3200000,27,27,50,50,2.6,2.6,100000,4000000,300 gnfs,112,5,61,2000,1.6e4,0.25,250,15,50000,2800,3500000,3500000,27,27,50,50,2.6,2.6,100000,4000000,300 gnfs,118,5,63,2000,2.6e5,0.28,250,20,50000,3600,4500000,4500000,27,27,50,50,2.4,2.4,60000,4000000,300 
20120305, 19:48  #2 
May 2009
Dedham Massachusetts USA
3·281 Posts 
I can also post the values when I am done if anyone is interested.
Given the number of digits, I am figuring out the smallest value such that there was enough relations and the largest value such that it wasn't enough relations. I am hoping with 1.49 I won't get the broken case where the number of relations is too small so the linear algebra fails and so ggnfs fails. Last fiddled with by Greebley on 20120305 at 19:48 
20120305, 21:56  #3  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville
8,369 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Basic Number Theory 8: equiv. relations and Fermat's little theorem  Nick  Number Theory Discussion Group  0  20161110 23:10 
So, HOW many more relations does it want?  Andi47  Msieve  6  20081211 12:39 
More relations mean many more relations wanted  fivemack  Factoring  7  20070804 17:32 
help with GGNFS: no valid relations  wpolly  Factoring  11  20070716 20:59 
is GGNFS checking for SNFS number?  Washuu  Factoring  10  20050811 05:09 