20210824, 00:43  #3059  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
13CD_{16} Posts 
Quote:
I imagine something like 2.83.0G raw relations to yield 2.0G uniques for this job? I was adding 15% to the previous job's numbers, forgetting just how bad the unique ratio was. We don't have much data on deg 6 poly score scaling pretty much just the CADO group's polys for RSA220/230/240/250. It hasn't crossed my mind to fit a curve to those scores and test for scaling... Good idea! Last fiddled with by VBCurtis on 20210824 at 00:43 

20210824, 01:13  #3060  
Apr 2020
2×3×7×13 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
So if you want to compare the scores of the RSA polynomials, you'll need to use CADO's "polyselect3" with some appropriate parameters. This is left as an exercise for the reader :) 

20210824, 06:06  #3061 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
419 Posts 
My mistake was I underestimated how quickly coretime racks up. Even my two small searches came to nearly 3 coremonths already.

20210824, 06:24  #3062  
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
37·137 Posts 
Quote:
It's just that we found a poly scoring almost exactly what we hoped for. As you and Charybdis point out, finding one good one doesn't rule out finding an evenbetter one; I support a continued search, and finding additional 3.8's would support the idea that a 3.9 or higher is "out there" to be found. I'm taking a break from the search, but if we become convinced the 3.8 is not a massive outlier I'll return to this in a week or three. 

20210824, 12:32  #3063 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
419 Posts 
By mistake I meant that I'd have guessed we maybe did 34 coremonths in total.
So I'll continue the poly search at 6e67e6, it might at least give some idea how rare 3.5+ polys are. 
20210824, 17:05  #3064 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
419 Posts 
If it's not sure whether larger or smaller P is better and some polynomials will never be found with a specific P, wouldn't it make sense to search the small value ranges again with different P?
If small leading coefficients tend to produce better polys, then going through these ranges with several different P could be worthwhile. 
20210824, 17:30  #3065 
Apr 2020
2·3·7·13 Posts 
I'm not sure we've got to large enough coefficients that "small leading coefficients tend to produce better polys" is having much of an effect. For degree 5 jobs it would definitely be noticeable at this point, but so far the best 3 CADO polys have come from (presizeopt) leading coeffs around 19e6, 21e6 and 23e6. In addition, basically every polynomial is getting its leading coefficient multiplied up in the optimization process, so there can't be too much harm in having a larger coefficient. In contrast, with large degree 5 searches there are usually a few polys in the top 10 that keep their original leading coefficient.

20210824, 19:04  #3066 
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
1A3_{16} Posts 
The searches of low value ranges are faster though, right? It might still make sense to go over them again with a different P. On the other hand, P=10e6 and P=12e6 still have a lot of overlap so the time could very well better be spend on a different range.
BTW, there is no random element to the search or is there? 
20210824, 21:30  #3067 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
37·137 Posts 
No random element.
I believe altering P can be useful, but I wouldn't repeat coefficient ranges. Smaller coeff's usually take a little longer to search; that is, 3031M should run slightly faster than 23M. Smaller P values do run faster. 
20210825, 05:46  #3068  
Aug 2020
79*6581e4;3*2539e3
419 Posts 
Quote:
Quote:


20210825, 08:07  #3069 
"Curtis"
Feb 2005
Riverside, CA
37·137 Posts 
Changing P leads to some duplication of search, better to try an entirely new range. You'd need a P value half or double the previous one, and we have reason to think either of those options is suboptimal (though that's a judgement of "per unit time", not a prediction that you wouldn't find a better poly). We don't know what the "Best" P is for a given size of input, but hopefully we're close enough to "best" that halving or doubling P would be less efficient than running a new range with P altered by a little (say, something in a range of 8 to 20M). All the default CADO params files from C195 to C230 use P = 10e6, while only C180/185/190 use 5e6 and C240 uses 20e6. To me, that indicates that not much testing was done on the big sampleparams files for "best" P, and we should experiment a little.
As for the second question, my comment was intended to be "for constant param choices", i.e. same incr such as Charybdis searching ~20M while you and I searched at 2 or 3M. 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Reserved for MF  Sequence 3366  RichD  Aliquot Sequences  530  20211201 20:45 
Reserved for MF  Sequence 276  kar_bon  Aliquot Sequences  136  20211021 16:17 
Reserved for MF  Sequence 3408  RichD  Aliquot Sequences  476  20211004 20:47 
Assignments are reserved but not showing up  prism019  GPU to 72  6  20200921 22:11 
80M to 64 bits ... but not really reserved  petrw1  Lone Mersenne Hunters  82  20100111 01:57 