mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Factoring Projects > Operation Kibibit

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-11-30, 12:53   #23
poily
 
Nov 2010

2·52 Posts
Default

Stage 2 finished, the best 10 polynomials murphy_e ranges in 2.348e-19 - 2.129e-19. Not very impressing.

Last fiddled with by poily on 2012-11-30 at 12:55
poily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-30, 16:42   #24
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3·1,163 Posts
Default

I ran stage 2 on 250k hits computed by RichD and myself, the best e-value was 2.0e-19, so not that great. Shi Bai ran the CADO stage 2 on the same dataset and has gotten better high scores (I think the best so far was 3.2e-19)
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-30, 19:44   #25
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·2,399 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonp View Post
I ran stage 2 on 250k hits computed by RichD and myself, the best e-value was 2.0e-19, so not that great. Shi Bai ran the CADO stage 2 on the same dataset and has gotten better high scores (I think the best so far was 3.2e-19)
As I recall from past comparisons (B200?), msieve typically has a ~10% lower score due to your more sophisticated integrator. How much of that better score is due to the differences in integration?
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-01, 13:07   #26
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3·1,163 Posts
Default

I was going to write that most of the time the e-values calculated by the two suites differ by less than 1%, and larger differences were actually because of bugs in Msieve that miscalculated the alpha value. But then to make sure I ran the best CADO polynomial through Msieve, and the difference in e-values was 4.78e-19 vs 3.493e-19!

For the record, the best polynomial I could find in the batch of 260k hits was
Code:
R0: -5876926706329267758590334567904669751467577
R1: 869332622169838859059
A0: 15018543190390770338953421520339801353757924940775872204660800
A1: 909208080136930262159142936022283921496280008021988680
A2: -13303473065609161166913597414184875440269406556
A3: -138145188131827120402436868843139274434
A4: 763752915545626483996372079531
A5: 4312543659621449260154
A6: 10000466830200
skew 133010468.05, size 3.823e-020, alpha -12.788, combined = 2.080e-019 rroots = 4

Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2012-12-01 at 13:22
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-01, 14:25   #27
poily
 
Nov 2010

2×52 Posts
Default

Here's my slightly better (according to msieve) polynomial
Code:
SKEW 28338177.70                                                                                                    
R0 -3626941552197564826492128852700460060642852                                                                     
R1 48957407582916194761589                                                                                          
A0 -26101732745933806144485280988037796254029367990700826499285                                                     
A1 -2408464141902741608017790242140644715688145388490381                                                            
A2 -174314770228113076791419006080421369720970639                                                                   
A3 28697722660097589508721192118263624637                                                                           
A4 1036456362256909021188219944324                                                                                  
A5 -21292410351587764080336                                                                                         
A6 181000001476800 
skew 28338177.70, size 4.381e-20, alpha -12.189, combined = 2.348e-19 rroots = 2
jasonp, what score does CADO show for your or my polynomial?

Last fiddled with by poily on 2012-12-01 at 14:27
poily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-04, 09:59   #28
poily
 
Nov 2010

2×52 Posts
Default

I got it by myself: CADO's E.sage gives 1.84701205471987e-19 for your and 2.08696883313422e-19 for my polynomial.
poily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-04, 12:19   #29
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3×1,163 Posts
Default

The difference is that the CADO tools compute the size score by integrating in radial coordinates, whereas Msieve starts in radial coordinates and switches to computing the integral in rectangular coordinates. They don't compute the same numbers in general.

Msieve uses the rectangular integral because pol51opt did, and the GGNFS scripts had a table of precomputed 'good' scores to shoot for. Nonetheless, the radial score is more robust for some reason, i.e. it finds a better minimum a lot of the time.
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-05, 07:05   #30
frmky
 
frmky's Avatar
 
Jul 2003
So Cal

32×227 Posts
Default

Here are approx. 1.3 million stage 1 hits:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/spssx3ze8i...896_1.dat.m.gz

Edit: I restarted the stage 1 search at different values. I'm now running the size optimization on this file now, and I will run the root sieve on those with the smallest score.

Last fiddled with by frmky on 2012-12-05 at 07:16
frmky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-05, 09:43   #31
poily
 
Nov 2010

2×52 Posts
Default

So, the best murphy_e we have so far is about 2.5e-16, I wonder how CADO guys got murphy_e 2x larger than ours? Either their polynomial is quite extraordinary or they use different optimization algorihtms.
poily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-05, 17:49   #32
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

573210 Posts
Default

Is it possible we should run msieve stage 2 on their stage 1 results or their stage 2 on our stage 1 results?
henryzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-12-06, 03:00   #33
jasonp
Tribal Bullet
 
jasonp's Avatar
 
Oct 2004

3·1,163 Posts
Default

I don't have access to the CADO stage 1 hits. We've collected 2.7M hits of our own, and they will all have stage 2 performed by both packages.

Keep 'em coming!

Ilya, I suspect a lot of the difference boils down to the more effective root sieve developed by Shi Bai for the CADO stage 2. From what I've seen it consistently produces better alpha scores without sacrificing as much polynomial size as Msieve needs.

Last fiddled with by jasonp on 2012-12-06 at 03:03
jasonp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Volunteers needed axn GPU Computing 28 2012-05-28 12:05
call for volunteers: RSA768 polynomial selection jasonp Operation Kibibit 200 2011-11-05 21:31
Call for help Wacky NFSNET Discussion 13 2005-07-14 00:25
Volunteers needed! Xyzzy Hardware 23 2003-04-18 23:27
We need two volunteers... Xyzzy PrimeNet 8 2003-02-27 02:26

All times are UTC. The time now is 01:18.

Tue Oct 27 01:18:21 UTC 2020 up 46 days, 22:29, 0 users, load averages: 2.04, 1.88, 1.72

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.