Five Cents on Arithmetic Encoding

While employing the classical arithmetic compression implementation [1], I found it possible to make some optimizations that significantly increase compression speed, especially on 32+-bit platforms. These optimizations do not alter the original algorithm, are absolutely compatible, and I have not found them mentioned so far. Considerations and changes proposed below are based on the original implementation [1] and hence some acquaintance with it is assumed.

It can be seen that, while looping inside encode_symbol() and decode_symbol(), as soon as the conditions high<Half and low>=Half are not met, they won't be met again. Moreover, a "bits plus follow" call is needed only once at the beginning; then "output bit" is enough. Here is the encode method structure changed:

do
{
   if (high<Half)
   {
      bit plus follow 0;
   }
   else if (low>=Half)
   {
      bit plus follow 1;

      low  -= Half;
      high -= Half;
   }
   else 
      break;

   for (;;)
   {
      low  = 2*low;
      high = 2*high+1;

      if (high<Half)
      {
         output bit 0;
      }
      else if (low>=Half)
      {
         output bit 1;

         low  -= Half;
         high -= Half;
      }
      else
         break;
   }
}
while (false);

while (low>=First_qtr && high<Third_qtr)
{
   bits_to_follow++;
   low  = 2 * (low - First_qtr);    // Subtract offset to middle
   high = 2 * (high - First_qtr) + 1;
}

Because only 16 bits of low and high variables are used, these variables are substituted by the combined low_high one.

low_high = low + ((~high) << 16);

Variable high binary negation makes the next optimizations possible: As soon as ~X is equal to -X - 1, ~((~X) << 1) stands for 2 * X + 1. Then,

low  = 2*low;
high = 2*high+1;

can be substituted by just:

low_high <<= 1;

The cycle with checking

while (low>=First_qtr && high<Third_qtr)

can be reduced to (taking into account that conditions high<Half and low>=Half are met):

//while (low>=First_qtr && high<Third_qtr)
unsigned long buf = ~low_high;
if (!(buf & 0x40004000))
{
   do
   {
      bits_to_follow++;
      //low = 2 * (low - First_qtr);    // Subtract offset to
                                        // middle
      //high = 2 * (high - First_qtr) + 1;
      buf = (buf << 1) + 1 + (First_qtr << 1) -
            (First_qtr << 17);
   }
   while (!(buf & 0x40004000));
   low_high = ~buf;
}

Flushing bits to follow can be optimized as well. The flush_bits_to_follow helper is introduced; it simply puts the required amount of one or zero bits to the output:

void bit_plus_follow_0()
{
   output_bit_0();    /* Output the bit.          */
   while (bits_to_follow>0) {
      buffer >>= 1; buffer |= 0x80;
                      /* Put bit in top of buffer.*/
      if (--bits_to_go==0) {
                       /* Output buffer if it is   */
         flush_bits_to_follow(255);
         return;
      }
      bits_to_follow--;
                      /* opposite bits. Set       */
   }                  /* bits_to_follow to zero.  */
}

void output_bit_0()
{
   buffer >>= 1;    //if (bit) buffer |= 0x80;
      /* Put bit in top of buffer.*/
   if (--bits_to_go==0) {
      /* Output buffer if it is   */
      PutByte_(buffer);
      /* now full.                */
      bits_to_go = 8;
   }
}

void flush_bits_to_follow(int buffer_)
{
   for (;;)
   {
      PutByte_(buffer);    /* now full.                */
      buffer = buffer_;
      if (bits_to_follow <= 8)
         break;
      bits_to_follow -= 8;
   }
   bits_to_go = 9 - bits_to_follow;
   bits_to_follow = 0;
}

However, there is a drawback concerned with code value buffer capacity limitation. It can be fixed by changing the way conditions are checked. For maximal code value buffer size (32 bits for IA32 in this example), the algorithm encoding loop body fragment,

for (;;)
{
   if (high < Half)
   {
      bit plus follow 0;
   }
   else if (low >= Half)
   {
      bit plus follow 1;

      low  -= Half;
      high -= Half;
   }
   else
      break;

   low  = 2*low;
   high = 2*high+1;
}

with introduction of the special flags,

long half_flags = ~(low | not_high);

can be changed to:

int shift = num_clear_bits(half_flags);
if (shift != 0)
{
   bit_plus_follow(low & Half);
   // This loop can be definitely optimized
   unsigned long flag = Half;
   for (int i = shift; --i > 0;)
   {
      flag >>= 1;
      output_bit(low & flag);
   }
   low <<= shift;
   not_high <<= shift;
}

where num_clear_bits uses an algorithm similar to one of calculating an integer's logarithm [2]:

const char Table256[] = {
   8, 7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4,
   3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3,
   2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
   2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,
   1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
   1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
   1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
   1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
   0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
};

inline int num_clear_bits(unsigned long v)
{
   unsigned int t, tt;    // temporaries

   if (tt = v >> 16)
   {
      return (t = v >> 24) ? Table256[t] : 8 + Table256[tt];
   }
   else
   {
      return (t = v >> 8) ? 16 + Table256[t] : 24 + Table256[v];
   }
}

The decoding routine can be modified in a similar way. Optimizing multiple bits input/output can further accelerate it.

The complete modified sources can be downloaded as parts of the encoder/decoder code samples. They are implemented as template classes to ease their use with various data providers and consumers.

Update: as it has been rightly mentioned by Andrew Polar, the original arithmetic encoder is rather slow. An attempt to see the picture was made based on the FastAC benchmark by Andrew Polar [3] after a couple of improvements. Among other algorithm improvement details, Binary Indexed Trees [4] are worthy mentioning. As it can be seen by results, the original arithmetic encoder ("arithmetic_demo") is quite slow indeed though it provides marginally better compression ratio.

the original arithmetic encoder (

References

[1] Witten, I. H., Neal, R. M., and Cleary, J. G. (1987) "Arithmetic coding for data compression", Communications of the ACM, vol. 30, no. 6 (June).

[2] Bit Twiddling Hacks - Find the log base 2 of an integer with a lookup table

[3] ANATOMY OF RANGE ENCODER Copywrite (c) Andrew Polar

[4] Binary Indexed Trees



Related Articles

Downloads

Comments

  • Witten's code is dead

    Posted by apolar on 03/07/2007 06:24pm

    Witten's code is a history. It is 10 times slower the best known algorithms. Try to compare it to http://www.ezcodesample.com/reanatomy.html Regards, Andrew Polar

    Reply
  • its good

    Posted by ramavathy on 09/14/2004 12:52am

    it is very helpful for project can u please send me adaptive arithmetic coding codeings it should have good compression ratio
    and efficient

    Reply
Leave a Comment
  • Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.

Top White Papers and Webcasts

  • IT is in a continual battle to simplify and "do more with the same, or less," but the continued growth of data has drastically increased the complexity and cost of deploying, managing, and processing data using traditional IT infrastructure components. One key component — enterprise storage and the underlying software that controls the storage — is fortunately evolving nearly as fast as the data is growing. This ESG Lab Review documents the results of hands-on testing of the WekaIO Matrix …

  • In today's world of connecting mainframes ("Big Iron") to "Big Data" for advanced business analytics, mainframes are connected to mobile and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, clouds, and other open systems, and therefore subject to external attacks just like distributed systems. At the same time, mainframes are also subject to internal attacks such as employee's malicious intents or negligence. Read this eBook to learn how machine learning can help to secure mainframe systems and improve operational …

Most Popular Programming Stories

More for Developers

RSS Feeds

Thanks for your registration, follow us on our social networks to keep up-to-date