Uniquely Decodable Huffman Codes: What to Know

  • Thread starter Thread starter hhhmortal
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the concept of uniquely decodable Huffman codes, emphasizing that a code is uniquely decodable if no code word is a prefix of another. The example provided illustrates how the bit string "010100001111010101000101110100100101001010101001" can be decoded using the unique prefixes assigned to symbols a, b, c, and d. The key takeaway is that as long as different characters have distinct prefixes, the encoding remains uniquely decodable. The discussion also clarifies that while Huffman's algorithm can create unique codes, it does not guarantee unique encodability in all cases.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Huffman coding principles
  • Familiarity with prefix codes
  • Basic knowledge of binary representation
  • Ability to decode bit strings
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of prefix codes in detail
  • Learn about Huffman coding algorithm implementation in Python
  • Explore the concept of variable-length coding
  • Investigate the limitations of Huffman coding regarding unique encodability
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in computer science, particularly those focusing on data compression, algorithm design, and information theory.

hhhmortal
Messages
175
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm quite stuck in understanding a certain feature of the huffman code. Basically how do I know that the code is uniquely decodable?

For example if I'm given symbols with different code words for each symbol, which would be uniquely decodable?


Thanks.
 
Technology news on Phys.org
hhhmortal said:
Hi, I'm quite stuck in understanding a certain feature of the huffman code. Basically how do I know that the code is uniquely decodable?
This just means that a bit pattern doesn't represent more than one possible coding of data, that two or more different codes would produce the same bit pattern and therefore not be unique. One test would be to decode all bit combinantions of the longest code sequence plus a few bits. Normally the leading bit pattern, usually all 0 or or all 1 bits, determines the length of current code word.
 
The way it works is by having unique prefixes. What does that mean?

Let's say you have the following:
a :: 1
b :: 00
c :: 011
d :: 010

Now I give you a string of bits,

010100001111010101000101110100100101001010101001

How is this uniquely decodable? Well, we start reading from the left, and keep going to the right. We stop when the accumulated bits in the current string matches one of the entries in the table.

So here we go...
0
01
010 => becomes 'd'
1 => becomes 'a'
0
00 => becomes b
etc.

Basically, it's uniquely decodable because of the way the algorithm works, left to right, with prefix strings.

If you're asking whether or not things are uniquely encodable using Huffman's algorithm... they're not!
 
AUMathTutor said:
The way it works is by having unique prefixes. What does that mean?

Let's say you have the following:
a :: 1
b :: 00
c :: 011
d :: 010

Now I give you a string of bits,

010100001111010101000101110100100101001010101001

How is this uniquely decodable? Well, we start reading from the left, and keep going to the right. We stop when the accumulated bits in the current string matches one of the entries in the table.

So here we go...
0
01
010 => becomes 'd'
1 => becomes 'a'
0
00 => becomes b
etc.

Basically, it's uniquely decodable because of the way the algorithm works, left to right, with prefix strings.

If you're asking whether or not things are uniquely encodable using Huffman's algorithm... they're not!

Oh right this makes perfect sense. Is there an easier way to determine if that alphabet you just mentioned is uniquely decodable or not? ..I've been trying to do it this way:

By adding a 1 or 0 at the end of the bit string of every symbol and seeing if they would match the others..If it does it wouldn't be unique?
 
As long as different characters have different prefixes, it will *always* be uniquely decodable. For instance, the following wouldn't work:

a :: 1
b :: 10
c :: 01
d :: 011

Why not? Because "a" is a prefix for "b". You wouldn't know whether to go with "a" when you reach it or keep going. Same for "c" and "d".

Under any scheme, if you start from the right and go left, for instance, you will get a different result than if you go left to right. In that sense, no scheme is uniquely decodable.

But making sure that no string is a prefix for another, and matching from left to right, it always works. Because you never have to ask, because once you can tell, it couldn't end up being something else.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
2K