Kraft's inequality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In coding theory, Kraft's inequality gives a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a uniquely decodable code for a given set of codeword lengths. Its applications to prefix codes and trees often find use in computer science and information theory.

More specifically, Kraft's inequality limits the lengths of codewords in a prefix code: if one takes an exponential function of each length, the resulting values must look like a probability mass function. Kraft's inequality can be thought of in terms of a constrained budget to be spent on codewords, with shorter codewords being more expensive.

If Kraft's inequality holds with strict inequality, the code has some redundancy.
If Kraft's inequality holds with strict equality, the code in question is a complete code.
If Kraft's inequality does not hold, the code is not uniquely decodable.

Kraft's inequality was published by Kraft (1949). However, Kraft's paper discusses only prefix codes, and attributes the analysis leading to the inequality to Raymond M. Redheffer. The inequality is sometimes also called the Kraft–McMillan theorem after the independent discovery of the result by McMillan (1956); McMillan proves the result for the general case of uniquely decodable codes, and attributes the version for prefix codes to a spoken observation in 1955 by Joseph Leo Doob.

1 Examples
- 1.1 Binary trees
- 1.2 Chaitin's constant
2 Formal statement
3 Proof for prefix codes
4 Proof of the general case
5 References
6 External links

[edit] Examples

[edit] Binary trees

9, 14, 19, 67 and 76 are leaf nodes at depths of 3, 3, 3, 3 and 2, respectively.

Any binary tree can be viewed as defining a prefix code for the leaves of the tree. Kraft's inequality states that

$\sum_{\ell \in \mathrm{leaves}} 2^{-\mathrm{depth}(\ell)} \leq 1$

Here the sum is taken over the leaves of the tree, i.e. the nodes without any children. The depth is the distance to the root node. In the tree to the right, this sum is

$\frac{1}{4} + 4 \left( \frac{1}{8} \right) = \frac{3}{4} \leq 1.$

[edit] Chaitin's constant

In algorithmic information theory, Chaitin's constant is defined as

$\Omega = \sum_{p \in P} 2^{-|p|}.$

This is an infinite sum which has one summand for every syntactically correct program which halts. |p| stands for the length of the bit string of p. The programs are required to be prefix-free in the sense that no summand has a prefix representing a syntactically valid program that halts. Hence the bit strings are prefix codes, and Kraft's inequality gives that $\Omega \leq 1$ .

[edit] Formal statement

Let each source symbol from the alphabet

$S=\{\,s_1,s_2,\ldots,s_n\,\}\,$

be encoded into a uniquely decodable code over an alphabet of size $r$ with codeword lengths

$\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,\ell_n\,$

Then

$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \frac{1}{r} \right)^{\ell_i} \leq 1.$

Conversely, for a given set of natural numbers $\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,\ell_n\,$ satisfying the above inequality, there exists a uniquely decodable code over an alphabet of size $r$ with those codeword lengths.

A commonly occurring special case of a uniquely decodable code is a prefix code. Kraft's inequality therefore also holds for any prefix code.

[edit] Proof for prefix codes

Any given prefix code can be represented by an $r$ -ary tree of depth $\ell_n$ where the branches from each node correspond to one of $r$ code alphabets and each codeword is represented by path to a leaf at depth $\ell_i$ . This guarantees that no codeword is a prefix of another. For each leaf in such a code tree, consider the set of descendents $A i$ that each would have at depth $\ell_n$ in a full $r$ -ary tree. Then,

$A_i \bigcap A_j = \varnothing,\quad i\neq j$

and

$|A_i| = r^{\ell_n-\ell_i}.$

Thus, given that the total number of nodes at depth $\ell_n$ is $r^{\ell_n}$ ,

$|\bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i| = \sum_{i=1}^n r^{\ell_n-\ell_i} \leq r^{\ell_n}$

from which the result follows.

Conversely, given any ordered sequence of $n$ natural numbers,

$\ell_1 \leq \ell_2 \leq \dots \leq \ell_n$

satisfying the Kraft's inequality, one can construct a prefix code with codeword lengths equal to $\ell_i$ by pruning subtrees from a full $r$ -ary tree of depth $\ell_n$ . First choose any node from the full tree at depth $\ell_1$ and remove all of its descendents. This removes $r^{-\ell_1}$ fraction of the nodes from the full tree from being considered for the rest of the remaining codewords. Next iteration removes $r^{-\ell_2}$ fraction of the full tree for total of $r^{-\ell_1}+r^{-\ell_2}$ . After $m$ iterations,

$\sum_{i=1}^m r^{-\ell_i}$

fraction of the full tree nodes are removed from consideration for any remaining codewords. But, by the assumption, this sum is less than 1 for all $m < n$ , thus prefix code with lengths $\ell_i$ can be constructed for all $n$ source symbols.

[edit] Proof of the general case

Consider the generating function in inverse of $x$ for the code $S$

$F(x) = \sum_{i=1}^n x^{-|s_i|} = \sum_{\ell=min}^{max} p_\ell \, x^{-\ell}$

in which $p_\ell$ —the coefficient in front of $x^{-\ell}$ —is the number of distinct codewords of length $\ell$ . Here $m i n$ is the length of the shortest codeword in $S$ , and $m a x$ is the length of the longest codeword in $S$ .

For any positive integer $m$ consider the $m$ -fold product $S m$ , which consists of all the words of the form $s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_m}$ , where $i_1, i_2, \dots, i_m$ are indices between $1$ and $m$ . Note that, since $S$ was assumed to uniquely decodable, if $s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\dots s_{i_m}=s_{j_1}s_{j_2}\dots s_{j_m}$ , then $i_1=j_1, i_2=j_2, \dots, i_m=j_m$ . In other words, every word in $S m$ comes from a unique sequence of codewords in $S$ . Because of this property, one can compute the generating function $G (x)$ for $S m$ from the generating function $F (x)$ as

$G(x) = \left( F(x) \right)^m = \left( \sum_{i=1}^n x^{-|s_i|} \right)^m = \sum_{i_1=1}^n \sum_{i_2=1}^n \cdots \sum_{i_m=1}^n x^{-|s_{i_1} + s_{i_2}\cdots + s_{i_m}|} = \sum_{\ell=m \cdot min}^{m \cdot max} q_\ell \, x^{-\ell} \; .$

Here, similarly as before, $q_\ell$ —the coefficient in front of $x^{-\ell}$ in $G (x)$ —is the number of words of length $\ell$ in $S m$ . Clearly, $q_\ell$ can not exceed $r^\ell$ . Hence for any positive $x$

$\left( F(x) \right)^m \le \sum_{\ell=m \cdot min}^{m \cdot max} r^\ell \, x^{-\ell} \; .$

Substituting the value $x = r$ we have

$\left( F(r) \right)^m \le m \cdot (max-min)+1$

for any positive integer $m$ . Left side of the inequality grows exponentially in $m$ and right side only linearly. The only possibility for the inequality to be valid for all $m$ is that $F(r) \le 1$ . Looking back on the definition of $F (x)$ we finally get the inequality.