(Short Paper) Parameter Trade-Offs for NFS and ECM
This paper analyzes two factoring algorithms, NFS (Number Field Sieve) and ECM (Elliptic Curve Method). The previous results only minimize their running times, however, we may need to minimize the storage size or running time with smaller success probability. We provide these trade-offs, L[s] (\(s\le 1/3\)) memory requires \(L[1-2s]\) running time for NFS, for example. This can be interpreted that NFS requires much more running time when reducing memory complexity.
KeywordsNumber Field Sieve NFS Elliptic Curve Method ECM Time complexity Memory complexity Success probability
- 1.Shor, P.W.: Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factoring. In: 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1994), pp. 124–134. IEEE Computer Society (1994)Google Scholar
- 6.Papadopoulos, J.: A self-tuning filtering implementation for the number field sieve, CADO workshop on integer factorization. http://cado.gforge.inria.fr/workshop/
- 8.Abramowitz, M., Stegun, I.A.: Handbook of Mathematical Functions With Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Applied Mathematics Ser. vol. 55. National Bureau of Standards (1964). Tenth Printing, December 1972, with correctionsGoogle Scholar