I read Kubra Nari, Enver Ozdemir and Neslihan Aysen Ozkirisci: Strong pseudoprimes to base 2, in The Ramanujan Journal, 2022-04-26 (paywalled¹). Compared to a free earlier version at arXiv, the text is improved², and there are some algorithmic changes³.
The proposed tests are the classical strong pseudoprime test to base 2 followed by either one of two variants of an Elliptic Curve primality test. They conjecture the tests are true prime tests, and claim having "checked all integers less than $10^{22}$" against the simplest variant (that was $10^{21}$ in the arXiv v1 version).
Q1: Does their Elliptic Curve primality test bear any relation to the Lucas Pseudoprime test, which could explain it's claimed effectiveness? Recall that it remains unknown if A217120 intersects A001262.
Q2: How is the claimed check to $10^{22}$ feasible? Except if I miss some shortcut, that requires enumerating the strong pseudoprimes to base 2 A001262 up to $10^{22}>2^{73}$, and AFAIK the largest effort in that direction stopped at $2^{64}$ (Jan Feitsma: Pseudoprimes, 2013-03; compiled by William Galway, Tables of pseudoprimes and related data, 2013-04).
Q3: Anyone understands how exactly at step 4 of the Primality Test Algorithm (correspondingly step 12 of Algorithm 2) we are supposed to choose $P$? If that's as $P=\big(\ell^2,\ell(\ell^2-a)\big)$ [fixing the formula given] with $\ell\not\equiv a\pmod n$, how do we choose $\ell$ (and as an aside change it should it turns out to be unsuitable)?
Q4: In the proof of theorem 3.2 (2.2 in arXiv v1), I fail to see why $b(n−1)P=\infty \mod q$ regardless of the choice of $P$. Any clue?
¹ But there's a subscription plan with free introductory offer. This is not to be construed as a recommendation for anything.
² The abstract and text now mention that the paper is about a probabilistic primality test. The text justifies that by the iterative nature of the choice of $a$ given the state of the art (I only see this as making the analysis of the run time heuristic).
³ I have spotted these algorithmic differences in the journal version:
- In the Primality Test Algorithm (section 2.1 arXiv v1):
- At step 2, the search for $a$ starts at $a=3$ and is for $\left(\frac a n\right)=-1$.
- Step 4 now is:
Find a point $P\mod n$ such that $2bP$ is not the identity mod $n$, where $b$ is the least common multiple of the numbers from $1$ to $20$. Note that for any $\ell\in\mathbb Z_n$, $((\ell^2,\ell(\ell-a))$ is a point on $E\mod n$.
- At step 5, parameter $b$ is as in step 4 [that is $232792560$ I believe].
- In the simplified algorithm 2 (which looks like the Primality Test Algorithm except with $b=1$)
- Step 2 reads: $a=3$
- Step 5 reads: $\ \text{if}\ \left(\frac a n\right)=-1\ \text{then}$
Best Answer
The second author kindly and promptly answered my email, and a subsequent one. This clarifies:
Q2: The test used a pre-existing list of strong pseudo primes less than $10^{22}$.
Q3: $\ell$ is selected at random, and the point $P$ computed from that with $\ell^2$ the $x$ coordinate.
This potentially makes the algorithm probabilistic in the nature of the result it produces.
Q4: I had missed a condition part of the theorem statement, and it's impact on the proof.
In further analysis of the paper, I spotted these (correctable) issues