A secondary issue that most real-world Huffman implementations must deal with is tree depth limitation.

Huffman construction doesn't limit the depth. If it would, it would no longer be "optimal". Granted, the maximum depth of an Huffman tree is bounded by the Fibonacci serie, but that leave ample room for larger depth than wanted.

Why limit Huffman tree depth ? Fast huffman decoders use lookup tables. It's possible to use multiple table levels to mitigate the memory cost, but a very fast decoder such as Huff0 goes for a single table, both for simplicity and speed. In which case the table size is a direct product of the tree depth.

For the benefit of speed and memory management, a limit had to be selected : it's 8 KB for the decoding table, which nicely fits into Intel's L1 cache, and leave some room to combine it with other tables if need be. Since latest decoding table uses 2 bytes per cell, it translates into 4K cells, hence a maximum tree depth of 12 bits.

12 bits for compressing literals is generally too little, at least according to optimal Huffman construction. Creating a depth-limited tree is therefore a practical issue to solve. The question is : how to achieve this objective with minimum impact on compression ratio, and how to do it fast ?

Depth-limited huffman trees have been studied since the 1960's, so there is ample literature available. What's more surprising is how complex the proposed solutions can be, and how many decades were

necessary to converge towards an optimal solution.

necessary to converge towards an optimal solution.

*Edit*: in below paragraph,

**n**is the alphabet size, and

**D**is the maximum tree Depth.

It started with Karp, in 1961 (

*Minimum-redundancy coding for the discrete noiseless channel*), proposing a solution in exponential time. Then Gilbert, in 1971 (

*Codes based on inaccurate source probabilities*), still in exponential time. Hu and Tan, in 1972 (

*Path length of binary search trees*), with a solution in O(n.D.2^D). Finally, a solution in polynomial time was proposed by Garey in 1974 (

*Optimal binary search trees with restricted maximal depth*), but still O(n^2.D) time and using O(n^2.D) space. In 1987, Larmore proposed an improved solution using O(n^3/2.D.log1/2.n) time and space (

*Height restricted optimal binary trees*). The breakthrough happened in 1990 (

*A fast algorithm for optimal length-limited Huffman codes*), when Larmore and Hirschberg propose the

**Package_Merge**algoritm, a completely different kind of solution using

*only*O(n.D) time and O(n) space. It became a classic, and was refined a few times over the next decades, with the notable contribution of Mordecai Golin in 2008 (

*A Dynamic Programming Approach To Length-Limited Huffman Coding*).

Most of these papers are plain difficult to read, and it's usually harder than necessary to develop a working solution just by reading them (at least, I couldn't. Honorable mention for Mordecai Golin, which proposes a graph-traversal formulation relatively straightforward. Alas, it was still too much CPU workload for my taste).

In practice, most fast Huffman implementations don't bother with them. Sure, when

*optimal compression*is required, the PackageMerge algorithm is preferred, but in most circumstances, being optimal is not really the point. After all, Huffman is already a trade-off between optimal and speed. By following this logic, we don't want to sacrifice everything for an optimal solution, we just need a good enough one, fast and light.
That's why you'll find some cheap heuristics in many huffman codes. A simple one : start with a classic Huffman tree, flatten all leaves beyond maximum depth, then flatten enough higher leaves to maxBits to get back the total length to one. It's fast, it's certainly not optimal, but in practice, the difference is small and barely noticeable. Only when the tree depth is very constrained does it make a visible difference (see great comments from Charles Bloom on its blog).

Nonetheless, for huff0, I was willing to find a solution a bit better than cheap heuristic, closer to optimal. 12 bits is not exactly "very constrained", so the pressure is not high, but it's still constrained enough that the depth-limited algorithm is going to be necessary in most circumstances. So better have a good one.

I started by realizing some simple observations : after completing an huffman tree, all symbols are sorted in decreasing count order. That means that the number of bits required to represent each symbol must follow a strict increasing order. That means the only thing I need to track is the border decision (from 5 to 6 bits, from 6 to 7 bits, etc.).

So now, the algorithm will concentrate on moving the arrows.

The first part is the same as the cheap heuristic : flatten everything that needs more than

*maxBits*. This will create a "debt" : a symbol requiring*maxBits+1*bits creates a debt of 1/2=0.5 when pushed to*maxBits*. A symbol requiring*maxBits+2*creates a debt of 3/4=0.75, and so on. What may not be totally obvious is that the sum of these fractional debts is necessarily an integer number. This is a consequence of starting from a solved huffman tree, and can be proven by simple recurrence : if the huffman tree natural length is*maxBits+1*, then the number of elements at*maxBits+1*is necessarily even, otherwise the sum of probabilities can't be equal to one. The debt's sum is therefore necessarily a multiple of 2 * 0.5 = 1, hence an integer number. Rince and repeat for*maxBits+2*and further depth.
So now we have a

*debt*to repay. Each time you demote a symbol from*maxBits-1*to*maxBits*, you repay 1 debt. Since the symbols are already sorted in decreasing frequency, it's easy to just grab the latest*maxBits-1*ones and demote them to*maxBits*up to repaying the debt. This is in essence what the cheap heuristic does.
But one must note that demoting a symbol from

*maxBits-2*to*maxBits-1*repay not 1 but 2 debts. Demoting from*maxbits-3*to*maxBits-2*repay 4 debts. And so on. So now the question becomes : is it preferable to demote a single*maxBits-2*symbol or 2*maxBits-1*symbols ?
The answer to this question is trivial since we deal with integer number of bits : just compare the sum of occurences of the 2

*maxBits-1*symbols with the occurence of the*maxBits-2*one. Whichever is smallest costs less bits to demote. Proceed.
This approach can be scaled. Need to repay 16 debts ? A single symbol at

*maxBits-5*might be enough, or 2 at*maxBits-4*. By recurrence, each*maxBits-4*symbol might be better replaced by 2*maxBits-3*ones, and so on. The best solution will show up by a simple recurrence algorithm.
Sometimes, it might be better to overshoot : if you have to repay a debt of 7, which formula is better ? 4+2+1, or 8-1 ? (the

*-1*can be achieved by promoting the best*maxBits*symbol to*maxBits-1*). In theory, you would have to compare both and select the better one. Doing so leads to an*optimal*algorithm. In practice though, the positive debt repay (4+2+1) is most likely the better one, since some rare twisted distribution is required for the overshoot solution to win.
The algorithm becomes a bit more complex when some bits ranks are missing. For example, you need to repay a debt of 2, but there is no symbol left at

*maxBits-2*. In such case, you can still default to*maxBits-1*, but maybe there is no more symbol left there either. In which case, you are forced to overshoot (*maxBits-3*) and promote enough elements to get the debt back to zero.
On average, the fast variant of this algorithm remains very fast. Its CPU cost is unnoticeable, compared to the decoding cost itself, and the final compression ratio is barely affected (<0.1%) compared to unconstrained tree depth. So that's mission accomplished.

The fast variant of the algorithm is available in open source and can be grabbed at github, under the function name

`HUF_setMaxHeight()`

.
You said that the final compression ratio is unaffected compared to the unconstrained-depth version, but how does it compare to the naive heuristic? Does the finer-grained heuristic actually make a difference?

ReplyDeleteThat's a really good question. Unfortunately, I did made such measurement : it would have required to create a dummy "trivial heuristic" algorithm just to be compared to.

DeleteI therefore approached the problem from another angle :

the proposed method above can only provide a better final compression than "naive flattening", although in most circumstances, the gain is going to be very small. So what matters is that the above technique should cost very little CPU time.

I therefore compared the timing of creating a length-limited tree with just creating an "unbound" tree, i.e. without the function HUF_setMaxHeight(). I could measure that the cost of HUF_setMaxHeight() was approximately 5% of the total cost of HUF_buildCTable(). Consider that HUF_buildCTable() contribution to the total compression cost is approximately 3% when associated with block sizes of 32 KB. It makes the total contribution of HUF_setMaxHeight() about 0.15%, hence insignificant.

This was enough for my liking.

Note that even a "trivial heuristic" would have a cost > 0, so in a comparison exercise, the difference would be even smaller.