20050406, 14:43  #1 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
KnuthSchroeppel analysis
Hi,
I've been wondering about how the technique of estimating root properties for NFS or KnuthSchroeppel factors for MPQS actually works. According to various sources (i.e. TAOCP 4.5.4) they compare the average log contribution of small primes to the factorization of the numbers that are tested for smoothness with the average log contribution in uniformly, randomly chosen integers. Let f(p,S) be the average exponent of the prime p in values chosen uniformly at random from the set S. For S the natural numbers, we have f(p,\N) = 1/(p1). If S is the set of values we test for smoothness, and s \in S chosen at random, then the log of the residual after dividing out primes p<k can be expected to be log(s)\sum_{p \in \Primes, p<k} f(p,S)*log(p) Comparing the size of the residual to that for S=\N, we find that the residual should be smaller by \alpha = \sum_{p \in \Primes, p<k} (f(p,S)  1/(p1))*log(p) Now, apparantly, they argue that because of this the probability that an s \in S is smooth is about the same as that a random integer of size s/exp(\alpha) is smooth (to the same bound k). Is this about right? Has anything been proven about this estimate? Especially the last step seems like a leap of faith to me... numerical evidence supports the idea, as shown in several papers (I remember something in Lenstra/Bernstein's NFS paper), but I was wondering if there's more theoretical fundation to it. Any comments or pointers to sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Alex 
20050406, 15:06  #2  
Nov 2003
2^{2}×5×373 Posts 
Quote:
Yes, it is about right. Yes, it is an assumption; but "leap of faith" is too strong. There is substantial supporting numerical evidence. I characterise something as "leap of faith" when there is no supporting evidence. There are also some probability arguments to suggest that the assumption is correct (or at most off by a constant factor). These arguments [for at least quadratic extension fields] are discussed in the "CohenLenstra" heuristics. 

20050412, 15:21  #3 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
4643_{8} Posts 
I looked at Cohen and Lensta's paper and some followup papers (i.e. Williams and te Riele), but I'm afraid they require much more algebra than I know. I'm clueless about character groups, Dedekind domains and whatnot.
I think a vague argument that the analysis is about right could be made supposing that the rho(alpha) function is "linear enough" for small variation of alpha that a weighted sum can be pulled inside the argument. I'll look at this idea more closely sometime later. Thanks for your reply, Alex Last fiddled with by akruppa on 20050412 at 15:21 
20091219, 21:14  #4 
Nov 2005
101 Posts 
I think the question akruppa raised is valid.
I analyzed the smooth values and found out that the probability of a factor p being part of the smooth value is much higher then for a random number (which should be clear). For the SIQS (without large primes) I estimated a value of: 2.2 / (p  1)^.72 for the expected length of a factor (of the factor base, different from 2) in a smooth decomposition. So I used this approximation for determining the multiplier. If it differs it always causes a better runtime then the approximation log (p)/p or log (p)/(p1). Here are some examples: N = 25249581771989830594180551024377089571(38) my multiplier: 59 time : 0.24417041800000003 knuthschroeppel: 3 time : 0.520334009 N = 24339015700034049398642312663507799431(38) my multiplier: 11 time: 0.283217839 knuthschroeppel: 7 time: 0.45216473 N = 15028821219978351294914980921150425953(38) my multiplier: 2 time: 0.241755027 knuthschroeppel: 1 time: 0.6213507580000001 From my point of view the p1 approximation is better then the p since the following facts: A random number is dividable by a factor p with probability 1/p. With probability 1/p^2 it is dividable by p^2. So the resulting length of the exponent of a factor p is log (p)/p + 2*log (p)/p^2 + 3*log (p)/p^3 + ... = log (p)/p * (1 + 1/p + 1/p^2 + ..) = log (p)/p * (1/(11/p)) = log (p) * (1/(pp/p)) = log (p) /(p1) I will try running the sieve with different multipliers lets say k_1, k_2, k_3 with polynomials including the factors k_2*k_3, k_1*k_3, k_1*k_2. So the conguences are all mod k_1*k_2*k_3. Will this work? 
20091219, 21:54  #5 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
2×29×61 Posts 
Do you mean 2.2*log(p)?
Msieve picks the same multipliers your code does, and I thought it uses the KnuthSchroeppel algorithm. A factor of p contributes 2*log(p)/(p1) if it is not part of the multiplier, and 1*log(p)/(p1) if it is. 
20091219, 23:11  #6 
Nov 2005
65_{16} Posts 
No I really mean something O(p^c) where c is something around .72. instead of 2 * log (p) / (p1).
You can see it as increasing the knuthschrÃ¶ppel factors 2*log (p) / (p1) by a factor (p1) ^ 0.37 / log (p). I alway used 2 * log (p)/ (p1). I did not see why a factor of 1 should work better if p divides a. This is an simple approximation of the values I observed, and it worked for my sieve. 
20091220, 00:38  #7 
Tribal Bullet
Oct 2004
2·29·61 Posts 
Using 1 instead of 2 when p divides the multiplier is a trick to account for the factor base containing only one sieve root for p in that case, instead of the usual two roots. I think Contini's thesis first documents the idea.

20091220, 10:05  #8 
Nov 2005
101 Posts 
Ahh this is true. I added this correction to the approximation. But since this is only the case for some small factors this does not influence the overall result much.
Since the higher factors were weighted much higher with my formula we should not stop at some factor with the summing them up, as we can do with the KnuthSchroeppel fromula. 
20100108, 17:01  #9 
Nov 2005
145_{8} Posts 
I found the reason why I was getting greater and better multipliers.
I took for the factor k a term  log (k), but since q(x) = (sqrt(n) + x)^2  kn grows with O(sqrt(k*n)*x), a factor  log(k)/2 is more suitable. So even that my approximation on the resulting hit rate (or the resulting length) of the factors in the factorbase is better then in other approximations, the resulting multipliers are mostly the same then in the other approximations like the implementation of alpertron :( 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Knuth's GCD Lemma  Dougy  Math  5  20140408 20:50 
CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT (101) analysis  TObject  Software  4  20130205 23:53 
Dimensional analysis  davieddy  Puzzles  9  20110802 09:59 
Write to Donald Knuth!  cheesehead  Lounge  20  20090817 03:19 
mersenne analysis  troels munkner  Miscellaneous Math  2  20060717 03:18 