I used MS Access to get some results regarding the bad results file on the 
status page.  These results use the versions of "BAD" and "LUCAS_V.TXT" 
from 8/24/02.  I deemed any bad results with the same exponent, user id, 
and residue to be duplicates and removed them.  Oh, and my overall error 
rate was 2.21% ( pretty much the same as Colin's ).

Error rate for a clean run in v19 or later: 2.18% out of 114079 results

Error rates of all Woltman versions for all numbers and any value in the 
error field:
( columns are: version, error rate, total # of results )

v13     1.49%   25928
v14     2.40%   50116
v15     3.62%   18014
v16     3.59%   40954
v17     1.87%   37618
v18     3.05%   65273
v19     3.12%   36428
v20     2.57%   46842
v21     1.84%   30174
v22     0.36%   2800

Some older versions where I don't know what the actual version name is:

W?      45.00%  20
W1      2.15%   2323
W2      1.09%   14795
W3      0.97%   9758
W4      0.06%   11090

W5      0.09%   8466
W6      0.01%   8067

W7      0.00%   1843
W8      1.04%   1059

W9      0.00%   961
WA      0.00%   1324

WB      0.65%   3561
WC      0.69%   16155
WL      0.72%   971

Some interesting stats regarding reported errors ( the last 4 digits of the 
error field ):

Error field = 0000: 2.02% error rate out of 213369 results
Error field > 0000: 22.24% error rate out of 5765 results

For bad results with an error field:
77.11% had error field = 0000
22.89% had error field > 0000

I find this interesting because one time I had a machine that had some 
overheating problems, but it never got any errors during its double check 
LL test, so I figured the result would be fine.  It turned out the result 
was incorrect.  This stat agrees with this because it indicates that if you 
are going to return a bad result at some point, it is most likely to occur 
even when the program gives no errors.  This is no reason to doubt your 
results in general; just doubt them if your computer has problems that 
might cause bad results even if the program did not record any errors.

For good results with an error field:
97.90% had error field = 0000
2.10% had error field > 0000

The above stats apply to all exponents, but below are some stats that apply 
to only exponents from 1,345,000 to 5,255,000.  This leaves some of the 
lower exponents out which weren't necessarily using George's program and 
also are so small that errors are extremely unlikely.  It also leaves out 
exponents above the current limit of what has been fully verified since a 
disproportionate amount of these exponents will be good results.  This is 
because it requires only 2 LL tests to produce two good results, while it 
takes 3 or more on the same number to produce bad results ( basically, a 
disproportionate amount of the bad results have not been uncovered yet ).

Total error rate for this range: 2.60% out of 213112 results

Error field = 0000: 2.19% out of 99045 results
Error field > 0000: 25.52% out of 1834 results

Does anyone want anything else out of this data?  I've gotten to the point 
where I can get most calculations out of it fairly quickly.

At 00:02 24/08/02 -0400, George Woltman wrote:
>What is the error rate if prime95 reported a clean run (version WVn or later
>and the last 4 digits of the error field are zero)?

Nick Glover
Computer Science, Clemson University

"It's good to be open-minded, but not so open that your brains fall out." - 
Jacob Needleman

Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ      -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers

Reply via email to