Approximate counting with a floating-point counter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Memory becomes a limiting factor in contemporary applications, such as analyses of the Webgraph and molecular sequences, when many objects need to be counted simultaneously. Robert Morris [Communications of the ACM, 21:840--842, 1978] proposed a probabilistic technique for approximate counting that is extremely space-efficient. The basic idea is to increment a counter containing the value $X$ with probability $2^{-X}$. As a result, the counter contains an approximation of $\lg n$ after $n$ probabilistic updates stored in $\lg\lg n$ bits. Here we revisit the original idea of Morris, and introduce a binary floating-point counter that uses a $d$-bit significand in conjunction with a binary exponent. The counter yields a simple formula for an unbiased estimation of $n$ with a standard deviation of about $0.6\cdot n2^{-d/2}$, and uses $d+\lg\lg n$ bits. We analyze the floating-point counter's performance in a general framework that applies to any probabilistic counter, and derive practical formulas to assess its accuracy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".