I have been studying LZW compression and there is one thing that I can't satisfy myself with which is that while building up the dictionary in LZW mostly its maximum limit is set to 4096 entries. Why is that ?. Also if dictionary gets full then the dictionary is reset but what if the next few characters about to read were present in the dictionary before resetting the dictionary. Is this a limitation ? or my understanding is not correct?
The dictionary size is limited to the output symbol size. 12 bits can encode 4096 distinct values. It is a common choice for lecture notes and simple/assignment implementations.
However, ANY symbol bits more than the source bits can be used: a 16 bit symbol would allow 65k dictionary entries. The more bits, the more entries in the current dictionary can exist which can increase the “maximum” compression. Conversely, as each output symbol is larger it may decrease compression rates, especially for smaller inputs (insufficient time to generate a dictionary) and data that is more random (reduced ability to re-use the symbols in the dictionary). In practice, 19-20 bits seems to be about the useful limit2, while 16 bit symbols naturally align to bytes.
It is also possible to have an adaptive symbol size based on log2 of the CURRENT number of mapped symbols1- but this benefit disappears as data size increases, as the dictionary quickly fills. It is also largely superseded by Huffman coding.
When the dictionary is "reset", it is effectively the same as compressing multiple chunks of data and appending the compressed output: the dictionaries are separate. However, the data can be “split” dynamically based on when it fills the dictionary as opposed to, say, every X bytes of input. Since the symbol size is fixed, it is more efficient to ensure the dictionary is filled up before making the decision.
The primary purpose to reset a dictionary is to avoid “fixating” the symbols to data characteristics in one part of the input that might not be true for later data. A compressor can use a single non-resetting dictionary, reset the dictionary as soon as it is full, reset the dictionary when it’s full and a drop in compression is encountered, etc.: the goal is to achieve the highest compression within the domain/parameters.
Many LZ77/LZ78/LZW variations (and optimizations they utilize) are briefly discussed in "On parsing optimality for dictionary-based text compression—the Zip case" by AlessioLangiu; these excerpts contain lots of juicy details to further additional research.
1"Improving LZW' by R. Nigel Horspool goes into some details on adaptive symbol sizes. Nigel's "The Effect of Non-Greedy Parsing
in Ziv-Lempel Compression Methods" paper also includes a summary on compress's handling of dictionary resets.
2"The Relative Efficiency of Data Compression by LZW and LZSS" by Yair Wiseman includes a sample graph of symbols sizes vs. compression efficiency. The graph is highly dependent on the data.
Related
Problem space: We have a ton of data to digest that can range 6 orders of magnitude in size. Looking for a way to be more efficient, and thus use less disk space to store all of these digests.
So I was thinking about lossy audio encoding, such as MP3. There are two basic approaches - constant bitrate and constant quality (aka variable bitrate). Since my primary interest is quality, I usually go for VBR. Thus, to achieve the same level of quality, a pure sin tone would require significantly lower bitrate than a something like a complex classical piece.
Using the same idea, two very small data chunks should require significantly less total digest bits than two very large data chunks to ensure roughly the same statistical improbability (what I am calling quality in this context) of their digests colliding. This is an assumption that seems intuitively correct to me, but then again, I am not a crypto mathematician. Also note that this is all about identification, not security. It's okay if a small data chunk has a small digest, and thus computationally feasible to reproduce.
I tried searching around the inter-tubes for anything like this. The closest thing I found was a posting somewhere that talked about using a fixed size digest hash, like SHA256, as a initialization vector for AES/CTR acting as a psuedo-random generator. Then taking the first x number of bit off that.
That seems like a totally do-able thing. The only problem with this approach is that I have no idea how to calculate the appropriate value of x as a function of the data chunk size. I think my target quality would be statistical improbability of SHA256 collision between two 1GB data chunks. Does anyone have thoughts on this calculation?
Are there any existing digest hashing algorithms that already do this? Or are there any other approaches that will yield this same result?
Update: Looks like there is the SHA3 Keccak "sponge" that can output an arbitrary number of bits. But I still need to know how many bits I need as a function of input size for a constant quality. It sounded like this algorithm produces an infinite stream of bits, and you just truncate at however many you want. However testing in Ruby, I would have expected the first half of a SHA3-512 to be exactly equal to a SHA3-256, but it was not...
Your logic from the comment is fairly sound. Quality hash functions will not generate a duplicate/previously generated output until the input length is nearly (or has exceeded) the hash digest length.
But, the key factor in collision risk is the size of the input set to the size of the hash digest. When using a quality hash function, the chance of a collision for two 1 TB files not significantly different than the chance of collision for two 1KB files, or even one 1TB and one 1KB file. This is because hash function strive for uniformity; good functions achieve it to a high degree.
Due to the birthday problem, the collision risk for a hash function is is less than the bitwidth of its output. That wiki article for the pigeonhole principle, which is the basis for the birthday problem, says:
The [pigeonhole] principle can be used to prove that any lossless compression algorithm, provided it makes some inputs smaller (as the name compression suggests), will also make some other inputs larger. Otherwise, the set of all input sequences up to a given length L could be mapped to the (much) smaller set of all sequences of length less than L, and do so without collisions (because the compression is lossless), which possibility the pigeonhole principle excludes.
So going to a 'VBR' hash digest is not guaranteed to save you space. The birthday problem provides the math for calculating the chance that two random things will share the same property (a hash code is a property, in a broad sense), but this article gives a better summary, including the following table.
Source: preshing.com
The top row of the table says that in order to have a 50% chance of a collision with a 32-bit hash function, you only need to hash 77k items. For a 64-bit hash function, that number rises to 5.04 billion for the same 50% collision risk. For a 160-bit hash function, you need 1.42 * 1024 inputs before there is a 50% chance that a new input will have the same hash as a previous input.
Note that 1.42 * 1024 160 bit numbers would themselves take up an unreasonably large amount of space; millions of Terabytes, if I'm doing the math right. And that's without counting for the 1024 item values they represent.
The bottom end of that table should convince you that a 160-bit hash function has a sufficiently low risk of collisions. In particular, you would have to have 1021 hash inputs before there is even a 1 in a million chance of a hash collision. That's why your searching turned up so little: it's not worth dealing with the complexity.
No matter what hash strategy you decide upon however, there is a non-zero risk of collision. Any type of ID system that relies on a hash needs to have a fallback comparison. An easy additional check for files is to compare their sizes (works well for any variable length data where the length is known, such as strings). Wikipedia covers several different collision mitigation and detection strategies for hash tables, most of which can be extended to a filesystem with a little imagination. If you require perfect fidelity, then after you've run out of fast checks, you need to fallback to the most basic comparator: the expensive bit-for-bit check of the two inputs.
If I understand the question correctly, you have a number of data items of different lengths, and for each item you are computing a hash (i.e. a digest) so the items can be identified.
Suppose you have already hashed N items (without collisions), and you are using a 64bit hash code.
The next item you hash will take one of 2^64 values and so you will have a N / 2^64 probability of a hash collision when you add the next item.
Note that this probability does NOT depend on the original size of the data item. It does depend on the total number of items you have to hash, so you should choose the number of bits according to the probability you are willing to tolerate of a hash collision.
However, if you have partitioned your data set in some way such that there are different numbers of items in each partition, then you may be able to save a small amount of space by using variable sized hashes.
For example, suppose you use 1TB disk drives to store items, and all items >1GB are on one drive, while items <1KB are on another, and a third is used for intermediate sizes. There will be at most 1000 items on the first drive so you could use a smaller hash, while there could be a billion items on the drive with small files so a larger hash would be appropriate for the same collision probability.
In this case the hash size does depend on file size, but only in an indirect way based on the size of the partitions.
I have 2 large text files (csv, to be precise). Both have the exact same content except that the rows in one file are in one order and the rows in the other file are in a different order.
When I compress these 2 files (programmatically, using DotNetZip) I notice that always one of the files is considerably bigger -for example, one file is ~7 MB bigger compared to the other.-
My questions are:
How does the order of data in a text file affect compression and what measures can one take in order to guarantee the best compression ratio? - I presume that having similar rows grouped together (at least in the case of ZIP files, which is what I am using) would help compression but I am not familiar with the internals of the different compression algorithms and I'd appreciate a quick explanation on this subject.
Which algorithm handles this sort of scenario better in the sense that would achieve the best average compression regardless of the order of the data?
"How" has already been answered. To answer your "which" question:
The larger the window for matching, the less sensitive the algorithm will be to the order. However all compression algorithms will be sensitive to some degree.
gzip has a 32K window, bzip2 a 900K window, and xz an 8MB window. xz can go up to a 64MB window. So xz would be the least sensitive to the order. Matches that are further away will take more bits to code, so you will always get better compression with, for example, sorted records, regardless of the window size. Short windows simply preclude distant matches.
In some sense, it is the measure of the entropy of the file defines how well it will compress. So, yes, the order definitely matters. As a simple example, consider a file filled with values abcdefgh...zabcd...z repeating over and over. It would compress very well with most algorithms because it is very ordered. However, if you completely randomize the order (but leave the same count of each letter), then it has the exact same data (although a different "meaning"). It is the same data in a different order, and it will not compress as well.
In fact, because I was curious, I just tried that. I filled an array with 100,000 characters a-z repeating, wrote that to a file, then shuffled that array "randomly" and wrote it again. The first file compressed down to 394 bytes (less than 1% of the original size). The second file compressed to 63,582 bytes (over 63% of the original size).
A typical compression algorithm works as follows. Look at a chunk of data. If it's identical to some other recently seen chunk, don't output the current chunk literally, output a reference to that earlier chunk instead.
It surely helps when similar chunks are close together. The algorithm will only keep a limited amount of look-back data to keep compression speed reasonable. So even if a chunk of data is identical to some other chunk, if that old chunk is too old, it could already be flushed away.
Sure it does. If the input pattern is fixed, there is a 100% chance to predict the character at each position. Given that two parties know this about their data stream (which essentially amounts to saying that they know the fixed pattern), virtually nothing needs to be communicated: total compression is possible (to communicate finite-length strings, rather than unlimited streams, you'd still need to encode the length, but that's sort of beside the point). If the other party doesn't know the pattern, all you'd need to do is to encode it. Total compression is possible because you can encode an unlimited stream with a finite amount of data.
At the other extreme, if you have totally random data - so the stream can be anything, and the next character can always be any valid character - no compression is possible. The stream must be transmitted completely intact for the other party to be able to reconstruct the correct stream.
Finite strings are a little trickier. Since finite strings necessarily contain a fixed number of instances of each character, the probabilities must change once you begin reading off initial tokens. One can read some sort of order into any finite string.
Not sure if this answers your question, but it addresses things a bit more theoretically.
Question about Byte-Pairing for data compression. If byte pairing converts two byte values to a single byte value, splitting the file in half, then taking a gig file and recusing it 16 times shrinks it to 62,500,000. My question is, is byte-pairing really efficient? Is the creation of a 5,000,000 iteration loop, to be conservative, efficient? I would like some feed back on and some incisive opinions please.
Dave, what I read was:
"The US patent office no longer grants patents on perpetual motion machines, but has recently granted at least two patents on a mathematically impossible process: compression of truly random data."
I was not inferring the Patent Office was actually considering what I am inquiring about. I was merely commenting on the notion of a "mathematically impossible process." If someone has, in some way created a method of having a "single" data byte as a placeholder of 8 individual bytes of data, that would be a consideration for a patent. Now, about the mathematically impossibility of an 8 to 1 compression method, it is not so much a mathematically impossibility, but a series of rules and conditions that can be created. As long as there is the rule of 8 or 16 bit representation of storing data on a medium, there are ways to manipulate data that mirrors current methods, or creation by a new way of thinking.
In general, "recursive compression" as you have described it is a mirage: compression doesn't actually work that way.
First, you should realize that all compression algorithms have the potential to expand the input file instead of compressing it. You can demonstrate this by a simple counting argument: note that the compressed version of any file must be different from the compressed version of any other file (or you will not be able to decompress that file properly). Also, for any file size N, there is a fixed number of possible files of size <=N. If any files of size > N are compressible to size <= N, then an equal number of files of size <= N must expand to size >N when "compressed".
Second, "truly random" files are uncompressible. Compression works because the compression algorithm expects to receive files with certain kinds of predictable regularities. However, "truly random" files are by definition unpredictable: every random file is as likely as every other random file of the same length, so they don't compress.
Effectively, you have a model which treats some files as more likely than others; to compress such files, you want to choose shorter output files for the input files which are more likely. Information theory tells us the most efficient way to compress files is to assign each input file of probability P an output file of length ~ log2(1/P) bits. This means that, ideally, every output file of a given length has roughly equal probability, just like "truly random" files.
Among completely random files of a given length, each has probability (0.5)^(#original bits). The optimal length from above is ~ log2(1/ 0.5^(#original bits) ) = (#original bits) -- which is to say, the original length is the best you can do.
Because the output of a good compression algorithm is nearly random, re-compressing the compressed file will get you little to no gain. Any further improvements are effectively "leakage" due to suboptimal modeling and encoding; also, compression algorithms tend to scramble any regularity they don't take advantage of, making further compression of such "leakage" more difficult.
For a much longer exposition on this topic, with many examples of failed propositions of this type, see the comp.compression FAQ. Claims of "recursive compression" feature prominently.
Long Ascii String Text may or may not be crushed and compressed into hash kind of ascii "checksum" by using sophisticated mathematical formula/algorithm. Just like air which can be compressed.
To compress megabytes of ascii text into a 128 or so bytes, by shuffling, then mixing new "patterns" of single "bytes" turn by turn from the first to the last. When we are decompressing it, the last character is extracted first, then we just go on decompression using the formula and the sequential keys from the last to the first. The sequential keys and the last and the first bytes must be exactly known, including the fully updated final compiled string, and the total number of bytes which were compressed.
This is the terra compression I was thinking about. Is this possible? Can you explain examples. I am working on this theory and it is my own thought.
In general? Absolutely not.
For some specific cases? Yup. A megabyte of ASCII text consisting only of spaces is likely to compress extremely well. Real text will generally compress pretty well... but not in the order of several megabytes into 128 bytes.
Think about just how many strings - even just strings of valid English words - can fit into several megabytes. Far more than 256^128. They can't all compress down to 128 bytes, by the pigeon-hole principle...
If you have n possible input strings and m possible compressed strings and m is less than n then two strings must map to the same compressed string. This is called the pigeonhole principle and is the fundemental reason why there is a limit on how much you can compress data.
What you are describing is more like a hash function. Many hash functions are designed so that given a hash of a string it is extremely unlikely that you can find another string that gives the same hash. But there is no way that given a hash you can discover the original string. Even if you are able to reverse the hashing operation to produce a valid input that gives that hash, there are infinitely many other inputs that would give the same hash. You wouldn't know which of them is the "correct" one.
Information theory is the scientific field which addresses questions of this kind. It also provides you the possibility to calculate the minimum amount of bits needed to store a compressed message (with lossless compression). This lower bound is known as the Entropy of the message.
Calculation of the Entropy of a piece of text is possible using a Markov model. Such a model uses information how likely a certain sequence of characters of the alphabet is.
The air analogy is very wrong.
When you compress air you make the molecules come closer to each other, each molecule is given less space.
When you compress data you can not make the bit smaller (unless you put your harddrive in a hydraulic press). The closest you can get of actually making bits smaller is increasing the bandwidth of a network, but that is not compression.
Compression is about finding a reversible formula for calculating data. The "rules" about data compression are like
The algorithm (including any standard start dictionaries) is shared before hand and not included in the compressed data.
All startup parameters must be included in the compressed data, including:
Choice of algorithmic variant
Choice of dictionaries
All compressed data
The algorithm must be able to compress/decompress all possible messages in your domain (like plain text, digits or binary data).
To get a feeling of how compression works you may study some examples, like Run length encoding and Lempel Ziv Welch.
You may be thinking of fractal compression which effectively works by storing a formula and start values. The formula is iterated a certain number of times and the result is an approximation of the original input.
This allows for high compression but is lossy (output is close to input but not exactly the same) and compression can be very slow. Even so, ratios of 170:1 are about the highest achieved at the moment.
This is a bit off topic, but I'm reminded of the Broloid compression joke thread that appeared on USENET ... back in the days when USENET was still interesting.
Seriously, anyone who claims to have a magical compression algorithm that reduces any text megabyte file to a few hundred bytes is either:
a scammer or click-baiter,
someone who doesn't understand basic information theory, or
both.
You can compress test to a certain degree because it doesn't use all the available bits (i.e. a-z and A-Z make up 52 out of 256 values). Repeating patterns allow some intelligent storage (zip).
There is no way to store arbitrary large chunks of text in any fixed length number of bytes.
You can compress air, but you won't remove it's molecules! It's mass keeps the same.
I've done an example using bitarrays from a newbie manual. I want to know what they can be used for and what some common data structures for them (assuming that "array" is fairly loose terminology.)
Thanks.
There are several listed in the Applications section of the Bit array Wikipedia article:
Because of their compactness, bit arrays have a number of applications in areas where space or efficiency is at a premium. Most commonly, they are used to represent a simple group of boolean flags or an ordered sequence of boolean values.
We mentioned above that bit arrays are used for priority queues, where the bit at index k is set if and only if k is in the queue; this data structure is used, for example, by the Linux kernel, and benefits strongly from a find-first-zero operation in hardware.
Bit arrays can be used for the allocation of memory pages, inodes, disk sectors, etc. In such cases, the term bitmap may be used. However, this term is frequently used to refer to raster images, which may use multiple bits per pixel.
Another application of bit arrays is the Bloom filter, a probabilistic set data structure that can store large sets in a small space in exchange for a small probability of error. It is also possible to build probabilistic hash tables based on bit arrays that accept either false positives or false negatives.
Bit arrays and the operations on them are also important for constructing succinct data structures, which use close to the minimum possible space. In this context, operations like finding the nth 1 bit or counting the number of 1 bits up to a certain position become important.
Bit arrays are also a useful abstraction for examining streams of compressed data, which often contain elements that occupy portions of bytes or are not byte-aligned. For example, the compressed Huffman coding representation of a single 8-bit character can be anywhere from 1 to 255 bits long.
In information retrieval, bit arrays are a good representation for the posting lists of very frequent terms. If we compute the gaps between adjacent values in a list of strictly increasing integers and encode them using unary coding, the result is a bit array with a 1 bit in the nth position if and only if n is in the list. The implied probability of a gap of n is 1/2n. This is also the special case of Golomb coding where the parameter M is 1; this parameter is only normally selected when -log(2-p)/log(1-p) ≤ 1, or roughly the term occurs in at least 38% of documents.