IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO.
6, SEPTEMBER 2001
RE = diag(3 ; 1 ; 2 ). Hence, the sum of these three matrices is
a scalar multiple of the identity matrix. The same is the case for the
autocorrelation matrices corresponding to E6 , E7 , and E8 . Thus, the
whiteness of the quantization error over the fundamental unit of a WP
partition may be viewed as a consequence of the whiteness over each
dodecahedron, and over each of the two sets of three 14-hedra, namely,
fS3 ; S4 ; S5 g and fS6 ; S7 ; S8 g.
By Theorem 2, the whiteness of the quantization error E implies that
the effective NMI of any WP partition cannot be improved by means
of invertible linear transforms. Thus, in conclusion, any image of a WP
partition under an invertible linear transform has larger effective NMI
than that of the truncated octahedron.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their gratitude to T. Hales for sparking
their interest in the Weaire–Phelan partition, and to D. Hui for pointing
out that it is instructive to reformulate (9) as (12).
REFERENCES
[1] A. Gersho and R. M. Gray, Vector Quantization and Signal Compres-
sion. Boston, MA: Kluwer, 1992.
[2] P. L. Zador, “Development and evaluation of procedures for quantizing
multivariate distributions,” Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univ., Stanford,
CA, 1963.
[3] J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups,
3rd ed. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1998.
[4] A. Gersho, “Asymptotically optimal block quantization,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. IT-25, pp. 373–380, July 1979.
[5] D. Weaire, Ed., The Kelvin Problem. London, U.K.: Taylor & Francis,
1996.
[6] D. Weaire and R. Phelan, “A counter-example to Kelvin’s conjecture on
minimal surfaces,” Phil. Mag. Lett., vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 107–110, 1994.
[7] R. Zamir and M. Feder, “On lattice quantization noise,” IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 42, pp. 1152–1159, July 1996.
[8] R. Kusner and J. M. Sullivan, “Comparing the Weaire–Phelan equal-
volume foam to Kelvin’s foam,” in The Kelvin Problem, D. Weaire,
Ed. London, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, 1996, pp. 71–80.
[9] G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya, Inequalities, 2nd
ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1952.
[10] R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1985.
0018–9448/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Jaypee Institute of Technology. Downloaded on September 25, 2009 at 11:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2543
Modified Symmetrical Reversible Variable-Length Code
and Its Theoretical Bounds
Chien-Wu Tsai and Ja-Ling Wu, Senior Member, IEEE,
+
Abstract—Reversible variable length codes (RVLCs) have been adopted
in emerging video coding standards—H.263 and MPEG-4—to enhance
their error-resilience capabilities (which are important and essential) in
error-prone environments. This study proposes an efficient algorithm to
construct a symmetrical RVLC from a given Huffman code. In addition,
theoretical bounds on the maximum codeword length for fixed-length
Huffman codes, and on the optimal average codeword lengths for sources
with exponential distribution are provided.
Index Terms—Error resilience, Huffman Codes, MPEG-4., reversible
variable length codes (RVLCs).
I. INTRODUCTION
Almost all image coding standards, such as the JPEG still image
coding standard [1], the ITU series of H.261 and H.263 video coding
standards [2], [3], the ISO series of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards
[4], [5], adopt variable-length codes (VLCs) as their entropy coding
stage. Due to the variable code length nature of VLCs, they are very
sensitive to errors occurring in noisy environments. Even a single bit
error is extremely likely to induce propagation errors such that the data
received after the bit error position becomes useless and results in a
serious problem.
Reducing the effect of this problem has led to the development of
reversible variable length codes (RVLCs), which can be decoded in
both the forward and backward directions. RVLCs have received exten-
sive attention only recently, especially during the development of the
new video standards H.263+ and MPEG-4 [6], which require enhanced
error resilient capabilities. Fraenkel and Klein [8] presented necessary
conditions for the existence of RVLCs along with an algorithm to con-
struct a complete RVLC for a given set of codeword lengths. Mean-
while, Takishima, Wada, and Murakami [7] published the first work
specifying algorithms for constructing symmetrical and asymmetrical
RVLCs from a given Huffman code. Finally, Wen and Villasenor [9],
[10] proposed a new class of asymmetrical RVLCs with the same code-
length distribution as the Golomb–Rice codes and exp-Golomb codes,
and applied them to the H.263+ and the MPEG-4 standards.
This study proposes a novel symmetrical codeword selection mech-
anism that can make the symmetrical RVLC construction algorithm,
originally proposed by Takishima et al., generate more efficient codes,
and also overcome a problem in variations of the bit alignment patterns.
In addition, theoretical results of maximum codeword lengths and op-
timal average codeword lengths of the constructed symmetrical RVLCs
under specific conditions and source distributions are derived.
II. BACKGROUNDS OF SYMMETRICAL RVLCS
Since the proposed algorithm is based on Takishima’s algorithm, this
section first explains some specific terms relevant to the construction
Manuscript received March 5, 2000; revised March 19, 2001. The material in
this correspondence was presented in part at the IS&T/SPIE 13th International
Symposium on Electronic Imaging 2000, San Jose CA, January 23–28, 2000.
The authors are with the Department of Computer Science and Information
Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, 106, Taiwan, ROC (e-mail:
cwtsai@cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw; wjl@cmlab.csie.ntu.edu.tw).
Communicated by P. A. Chou, Associate Editor for Source Coding.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9448(01)06219-8.
2544
of symmetrical RVLCs, and then briefly introduces Takishima’s algo-
rithm.
The number of symmetrical codewords at level L on a full binary
tree m0 (L) is calculated as follows:
m0 (L) = 2
b(L+1)=2c (1)
where bxc denotes the largest integer less than or equal to x. The prefix
condition for allowing instantaneous decoding of the target symmet-
rical RVLC prohibits all of the symmetrical codewords in m0 (L) from
serving as candidates; that is, a maximum of one symmetrical code-
word can be retained in the path from the root to the leaf node at level
L. Consequently, all of the symmetrical codewords at level L that vio-
late the prefix condition must be eliminated from m0 (L). Let u(i; L)
denote the number of symmetrical codewords at level L that violate
the prefix condition when a symmetrical codeword at the ith level is
selected as a target codeword. Three different cases then exist:
i) u(i; L) = m0 (L 0 2 ), when 
i i L=2 ; is generated for a given probability distribution of symbols, and
ii) u(i; L) = 1, when , and the (2i 0 L)-bit suffix is
L=2 < i < L
symmetrical for the target codeword;
iii) u(i; L) = 0 in all other cases.
Hence, the number of symmetrical codewords at level L in an instan-
taneously decodable VLC m(L) is as follows:
bL=2c L01
m(L) = m0 (L) 0 u(i; L) 1 n(i) 0 x(i; L)
i=1 i=bL=2c+1
where n(i) are components of the bit length vector of the original VLC
denoting the number of codewords at level i, and x(i; L) represents
the number of codewords at level i whose (2i 0 L)-bit suffixes are
symmetrical. In (2), the second and third terms are used to calculate
the total number of symmetrical codewords caused by the violation of
the prefix condition in cases i) and ii), respectively.
From (2), the first and second terms are clearly determined only by
the code length L and bit length vector n(i), while the last term is influ-
enced by the bit alignment pattern of each codeword. This finding im-
plies that different symmetrical RVLCs with different bit length vectors
can be constructed based on different VLCs with identical bit length
vectors, referred to herein as the variation problem. Furthermore, if the
final term in (2) can be reduced, the number of available symmetrical
codewords represented by m(i) will increase, producing a more effi-
cient symmetrical RVLC.
The procedure used by Takishima’s algorithm to construct the sym-
metrical RVLC can be summarized as follows.
Step 1) Initialize the bit length vector of the target symmetrical
RVLC, nrev (i), by the bit length vector n(i) of the starting
VLC (a Huffman code, for example).
Step 2) If nrev (i)  m(i), nrev (i) is preserved unchanged be-
cause more symmetrical codewords than needed are cur-
rently available. Otherwise, one bit is added to some code-
words such that
nrev (i + 1) = nrev (i + 1) + nrev (i)
nrev (i) = m(i):
Step 3) Repeat Step 2) until every codeword has been assigned a
symmetrical RVLC codeword.
III. TAKISHIMA’S ALGORITHM WITH AN EFFICIENT CODEWORD
SELECTION MECHANISM
An efficient codeword selection mechanism is now presented,
helping Takishima’s algorithm to overcome the variation problem
and develop a more efficient symmetrical RVLC. A Huffman code
Authorized licensed use limited to: Jaypee Institute of Technology. Downloaded on September 25, 2009 at 11:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER 2001
TABLE I
THE SYMMETRICAL CODEWORDS AT LEVELS 4; 5; AND 6 ORDERED BY
THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SYMMETRICAL BIT SUFFIXES OF EACH
CODEWORD NOT INCLUDING THE FIRST BIT
the bit-length vector of this Huffman code is then taken as the only
input required by the novel scheme. Consequently, the constructed
symmetrical RVLC is unrelated to the bit alignment patterns of the
starting Huffman code.
Let p(i) denote the total number of symmetrical codewords located
at level i which violate the prefix condition owing to some symmetrical
codewords positioned in the path from the root to level i that have been
(2) selected as target symmetrical codewords. That is,
bi=2c i01
p(i) = u(k; i) 1 nrev (k ) + x(k; i): (3)
k=1 k=bi=2c+1
Thus, the number of available symmetrical codewords, m0 (i), at level
i is
m
0 (i) = m0 (i) 0 p(i): (4)
To make m0 (i) as large as possible for each level i, p(i) must be
minimized, which can be achieved in two ways. One method is to set
nrev (k ), the first term of (3), at as small a value as possible. This signi-
fies that some candidate codewords in the first half of the levels (from
level 1 to level i=2) have to be marked as unavailable to maximize the
number of available candidates at level i. However, this may negatively
impact the average codeword length, causing it to increase. The other
way to reduce p(i) is to minimize the second term, which can be ac-
complished by carefully selecting target codewords when the number
of available candidates exceeds the number of codewords needed at this
level.
To simplify the selection mechanism, the available candidates are
arranged in ascending order according to the maximum length of
their symmetrical bit suffixes, excluding the first bit of each candidate
codeword. The codeword selection order is based on this arrangement.
Table I illustrates this ordering for symmetrical codewords at levels
4; 5; and 6, respectively. If a symmetrical codeword is required at
level l, the first candidate C to be selected is the one with maximum
0 m(i) length r of the symmetrical bit suffixes and without prefix condition
violation for the selected codewords at earlier levels. The prefix
condition violation occurs earliest at level 2l 0 r due to the selection
of candidate C , and does not alter the number of candidates available
at levels between l + 1 and 2l 0 r 0 1. Consequently, if a candidate
codeword C 0 for which the maximum length t of the symmetrical
bit suffixes exceed r , a symmetrical codeword at level 2l 0 t 0 1
will no longer be a potential candidate. Hence, owing to the selection
of codeword C 0 instead of codeword C , the number of available
symmetrical codewords at level 2l 0 t 0 1 is reduced by one, while
the number of symmetrical codewords needed at the next level is
increased by one. Consequently, the average code length obtained
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER 2001 2545

from the selection of codeword C 0 will probably exceed that obtained L . Since construction of the symmetrical RVLCs begins from level L,
from the selection of codeword C . Thus, better result will be obtained the following equations are obtained:
by adopting the proposed codeword selection criterion. As an example, m(L) = m0 (L)
assume a codeword is required at level 5, and further assume that
codewords “01110” and “01010” are currently available for selection. m(L 0 ( + 1)
+ 1) = m0 (L + 1) x L; L

+ 2) = 0 ( + 2) 0 ( + 2) 0 ( 111
Since the maximum number of reversible bit suffixes for codewords
m(L m L x L; L x L + 1; L + 2)
“01110” and “01010” are one and three, respectively, then according
to the proposed selection criterion, codeword “01110” will be the m(L + ) = 0( + ) 0 (
k m L + )0 (
k x L; L k x L + 1; L + 2)
first choice in this example. The precise reason for the above choice
is that it prevents the first candidate codeword after level 5 from 0111 0 ( + 01 + ) x L k ; L k ; 0   01
k L :

being selected because it violates the prefix condition of the codeword (5)
Intuitively, k should be between 0 and L 0 1 since the upper bound of
“011101110,” which is located at level 9. The same situation applies
the maximum codeword length in this case is 2L01. Consequently, L+
for codeword “01010,” which prevents codeword “0101010” at level
k cannot exceed 2L 0 1, guaranteeing that k falls within this range. Let
7 from being selected.
The procedure used by the proposed algorithm (Takishima’s algo-
x(L+j; L+i) denote the number of symmetrical codewords selected at
rithm with efficient codeword selection mechanism) to construct the
level L + j which are also the prefix of symmetrical candidates at level
symmetrical RVLC is summarized as filliws.
L + i for i > j , as previously mentioned. Based on the symmetrical

Step 1) Initialize the bit-length vector of the target symmetrical property, if the L + 2j 0 i suffix bits of the codeword at level L + j are
RVLC, nrev (i), by the bit length vector n(i) of the starting reversible, then it will be a prefix of a symmetrical codeword at level
VLC. L + i. Hence, these unqualified codewords must be eliminated from

Step 2) Calculate m0 (i) and the maximum length b(i) of the sym- each level. Adding up the previous equations and then comparing the
metrical bit suffixes, excluding the first bit of each candidate result with N , produces the following inequality:
codeword in m0 (i), and arrange these codewords based on T = m(L) + m(L + 1) + 111 + m(L + k)  N

the increasing order of b(i).

If nrev (i)  m0 (i), nrev (i) is unchanged. Otherwise,
namely,
k k i01
the remaining nrev (i) 0 m0 (i) codewords are added to T = m0 (L + i) 0 x(L + j; L + i)  N: (6)
nrev (i + 1) and assigned a symmetrical codeword for the i=0 i=1 j =0
next stage. That is, Because a symmetrical codeword at level l1 may be the prefix of
0
nrev (i + 1) = nrev (i + 1) + nrev (i) 0 m (i)
codewords at subsequent levels, these codewords violating the prefix
condition are eliminated from the available candidates and hence not
n
0
rev (i) = m (i): selected at these following levels (for example, codewords at levels
l2 and l3 ). Consequently, these eliminated codewords should not be

Make the candidate codewords as target codewords in the
sequence.
Step 3) Repeat Step 2) until every codeword has been assigned a
symmetrical RVLC codeword.
IV. BOUNDS OF SYMMETRICAL RVLCs
In this section, we derive some theoretical results of the maximum
codeword length and optimal average codeword length for certain
sources.
A. Maximum Codeword Length for a Fixed-Length Huffman Code
counted in the result of x(l2 ; l3 ). For example, Table I, reveals that
when the codeword “0000” is selected at level 4, then codewords
“00000” at level 5 and “000000” at level 6 have to be eliminated,
and this codeword elimination process is represented by subtracting 1
from x(4; 5) and x(4; 6), respectively. However, x(5; 6) should not
have 1 subtracted due to the selection of codeword “0000.”
As mentioned above, calculating x(l2 ; l3 ) requires exact knowledge
of all the codewords selected prior to level l2 , and no formula could be
derived to find the maximum symmetrical codeword length because of
this restriction. To simplify the calculation of function x(1 ; 1) in (6), the
dependence of codewords among several levels is ignored, only con-
sidering dependence between two levels. Consequently, a new term,
s(l2 ; l3 ), is defined, which represents the number of symmetrical code-

Assume that a source has N = 2L symbols with a uniform prob- words at level l2 that are also the prefixes of the symmetrical codewords
ability distribution, and that the entropy of this source is known to be at level l3 . Substituting s(l2 ; l3 ) for x(l2 ; l3 ) in (5), produces
a maximum [11]. It would be the worst case for the construction of
Huffman VLCs and symmetrical RVLCs for such a source. To obtain m(L + k ) = m0 (L + k ) 0 s(L; L + K) 0 s(L + 1; L + 2)
the average codeword length of a symmetrical RVLC, we must deter- 0 111 0 s(L +k 01; L + k ); 0   01
k L :
mine the maximum codeword length of the symmetrical RVLC in ad-
vance. The Huffman code produced by this situation is a fixed-length (7)
code with equal length L for each symbol. The symmetrical codewords
Since s(l2 ; l3 ) is greater than or equal to x(l2 ; l3 ), the inequality (6)
are then constructed starting from level L by the proposed algorithm,
will also change into the following form through substitution:
there are m(L) = m0 (L) codewords at level L and all of these code-
words are selected due to the fact that m(L) is equal to or less than N . k k i01
If m(L) is less than N , we proceed to the next level to seek more sym- T = m0 (L + i) 0 s(L + j; L + i)  N (8)
metrical codewords without violating the prefix condition for the re- i=0 i=1 j =0
maining VLCs. The procedure is then repeated until all Huffman VLCs
have been assigned to symmetrical codewords. where k0 represents the minimum number of levels that must be sought,
Assuming the process is repeated k + 1 times, the maximum code- such that the total number of available candidates at levels from L to
word length is then L + k . From (3), let nrev (i) be zero when 1  i < 0 0
L + k is greater than or equal to N , and k must be greater than or

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jaypee Institute of Technology. Downloaded on September 25, 2009 at 11:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2546 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER 2001

equal to k , as indicated in (5). The following lemma can be used to TABLE II

calculate s(l2 ; l3 ). THE ESTIMATED RESULT BY (13) AND THE ACTUAL RESULT BY THE PROPOSED
ALGORITHM FOR =2 N
+((l+k)mod2)
Lemma 1: s(l; l + k) = 2
Proof: This lemma is proved case by case,
i) If l = 2n and k = 2m, a symmetrical codeword
“a1 a2 1 1 1 an01 an an an01 1 1 1 a2 a1 ” at level l also has symmet-
rical final l 0 k bits, and will introduce one codeword at level
l + k with the above codeword as the prefix. Since the final
l 0 k bits are symmetrical, a maximum of (l 0 k)=2 = n 0 m
pairs exist, each containing two different variables ai and aj for
i 6= j . Each pair thus eliminates one variable from the original
n variables, resulting in n 0 (n 0 m) = m remaining variables,
and producing
s(l; l + k) = 2m = 2b(k+1)=2c :
ii) If l = 2n and k = 2m + 1, then a maximum of n 0 m 0 1 pairs
exist and n 0 (n 0 m 0 1) = m + 1 variables remain, implying However, when L = 2n + 1, the second term of (9) is
i01
s(l; l + k) = 2m+1 = 2bk=2c+1 : k
+((L+i 0j )mod2)
2
iii) If l = 2n + 1 and k = 2m, a symmetrical codeword i=1 j =0
“a1 a2 1 1 1 an an+1 an 1 1 1 a2 a1 ” at level l also has symmetrical
final l 0 k bits. When the final l 0 k bits are symmetrical, a =2 02 0 ((k0 0 1) mod 2) 1 2 0 6k0 0 20: (12)
maximum of n 0 m pairs result, and (n + 1) 0 (n 0 m) = m + 1 Combining (10)–(12) produces
variables remain, implying
s(l; l + k) = 2m+1 = 2bk=2c+1 : T =2 0 2b c 0 ((L + k0 ) mod 2)
+2

iv) If l = 2n + 1 and k = 2m + 1, a symmetrical codeword

“a1 a2 1 1 1 an an+1 an 1 1 1 a2 a1 ” at level l also has symmetrical 12 + ((L 0 1) mod 2) 1 2b c
final l 0 k bits, and a maximum of n 0 m pairs exists. Thus,
(n + 1) 0 (n 0 m) = m + 1 variables remain, implying 2 02 0 (k0 mod 2)
s(l; l + k) = 2m+1 = 2bk=2c+1 :
0 12 0 4k0 0 14; if L = 2n
(13)
The results i)–iv) can be combined to obtain the general form for
s(l; l + k) given in Lemma 1. 2 02 0 ((k0 0 1) mod 2)
Equation (8) can be rewritten as follows:
k k i01 12 0 6k0 0 20; if L = 2n + 1.
T = m0 (L + i) 0 s(L + j; L + i) Equation (13) and the known relation T  N can be used to obtain
i=0 i=1 j =0 the maximum codeword length L + k0 and the average codeword length
k k for N = 2L . As listed in Table II, the maximum codeword lengths
= 2
b(L+i+1)=2c 0 obtained from (13) and the proposed algorithm are almost identical,
i=0 i=1 except for the values obtained for N = 16 and N = 32. Additionally,
i01 even the difference between the above two exceptions is no more than
1 2
+((L+i 0j )mod2) : (9) one, further confirming the accuracy of the result.
j =0
B. Optimal Average Codeword Length for an Exponentially
The first term in (9) can be represented by Distributed Source
k
0 2b c
Assume that the source has the following family of exponential prob-
(L+i+1)=2 +2
2 =2 ability distributions:
i=0 k+1
k f (x) dx
= (1 0 e
01= )e0k= ; for k = 0; 1; . . . ; N 0 2
0 ((L + k0 ) mod 2) 1 2 p(k) =
1 f (x) dx = e0k= ; for k = N 0 1
+ ((L 0 1) mod 2) 1 2b c : (10) k
(14)
When L = 2n, the second term of (9) is where

f (x) = e0(x=) ; for x  0

1
k i01 (15)
2
+((L+i 0j )mod2) 
i=1 j =0 and N denotes the number of symbols of the source. These source
distributions allow us to investigate when the constructed RVLCs have
=2 02 0 (k0 mod 2) 1 2 0 4k0 0 14: (11) the best coding efficiency. When  = 2 in (14), a VLC code with bit

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jaypee Institute of Technology. Downloaded on September 25, 2009 at 11:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER 2001 2547

TABLE III
SYMMETRICAL RVLCs GENERATED FROM TAKISHIMA’S AND THE PROPOSED ALGORITHMS FOR ENGLISH ALPHABET

length vector (1; 1; . . . ; 1; 2) can be obtained, and the length of the

vector is equal to N 0 1 under the Huffman coding scheme. The above
outcome can be proved by the following derivations.
The probabilities of the k1 th and (k1 + 1)th symbols for a source
with N symbols, assuming  = 2 in (14), are
p(k1 ) = (1 0 e01=2 )e0k =2
; if 0  k1 N 03 (16)
and

p(k1 + 1) = (1 0 e01=2 )e0(k +1)=2

(17)
respectively. If P1 denotes the total probability for symbols from k1 +2
to N 0 1, we have
N 01
P1 = p(i) = e0(k +2)=2
: (18)
i=k +2

Meanwhile, the relationships among (16)–(18) are

Fig. 1. Comparison of coding efficiency for various sources with exponential
p(k1 )  P1  p(k1 + 1): (19) distribution.

From the relation indicated in (19), the Huffman tree will be a single-
side-growing tree, implying that the bit length vector has the form
(1; 1; . . . ; 1; 2).
Based on the general bit-length vector form (1; 1; . . . ; 1; 2),
only one symmetrical codeword is needed for each level except
the last. Fortunately, one symmetrical codeword can always be
found at each level without violating the prefix condition. All of
these symmetrical codewords have a regular pattern (except for
level one), namely “10n 1” or “01n 0,” depending on whether code-
word “0” or codeword “1” is selected at level one. The subscript
n indicates that the designated bit is repeated n times. Conse-
quently, the candidate codewords become“0,” “11,” “101,” “1001,”
and so on. Finally, the optimal average codeword length of symmet-
rical RVLCs for this kind of sources will be obtained. Fig. 1 displays
the relative coding efficiency of Huffman and the proposed algorithm
when they are applied to a source represented by (14), with  = 2
for various symbol sizes. The figure indicates that the optimal average

Authorized licensed use limited to: Jaypee Institute of Technology. Downloaded on September 25, 2009 at 11:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2548
TABLE IV
COMPARISON OF THE BIT-LENGTH VECTOR OF THE ORIGINAL VLC
AND THE PROPOSED SYMMETRICAL RVLC FOR VARIOUS VIDEO
COMPRESSION STANDARDS
codeword length can be obtained by applying the proposed approach
to an exponential distribution source with symbol size exceeding 14.
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The first significant improvement of the proposed method over Tak-
ishima’s algorithm is that the proposed codeword selection mechanism
makes the construction of symmetrical RVLCs independent of the bit
alignment patterns of the Huffman code provided. The second improve-
ment is that the novel method produces a more efficient code by orga-
nizing the candidate codewords in advance according to a predefined
order, thus reducing the possibility of violating the prefix condition
compared to Takishima’s algorithm.
Table III lists the symmetrical codewords obtained using both the
proposed method and Takishima’s technique for the English alphabet
adopted in Takishima’s work, and also lists the corresponding average
codeword lengths of these symmetrical codewords. In the table, C1 and
C4 are two traditional Huffman codes, and C4 can be obtained from C1
by employing different bit alignment pattern assignments for the code-
words at each level. Among the codes indicated in the table, C2 and
C3 are generated from C1 by Takishima’s algorithm, using the worst
possible code selection and the proposed codeword selection mecha-
nism, respectively. Meanwhile, C5 is a symmetrical RVLC produced
directly from C4 by adopting the proposed codeword selection mecha-
nism. Despite C1 and C4 having different bit alignment patterns, the
result is that the two symmetrical RVLCs C3 and C5 possess iden-
tical bit length vector. The above result confirms that the proposed
code selection mechanism is free of the inherent bit alignment pattern
problem that occurs in Takishima’s original algorithm. Average code-
word length is employed herein as an index of the coding efficiency
of these codes. The experimental results show that the average code
length of C2 is 13.0% longer than that of C1 and C 4, while the av-
erage codeword length of both C3 and C5 is 10.8% longer than that of
C1 and C4. The above results demonstrate that combining Takishima’s
algorithm with the proposed codeword selection mechanism achieves
better coding efficiency than simply applying Takishima’s original al-
gorithm.
Table IV displays the proposed symmetrical coding results for the
VLC tables of DCT coefficients used in certain video coding standards,
such as H.263, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4. Notably, the bit-length vectors
shown in Table IV do not include the sign bit, and the difference be-
tween the maximum codeword length of the original VLCs and that of
symmetrical RVLCs does not exceed two. Consequently, the proposed
algorithm can construct efficient symmetrical RVLCs for these VLC
tables.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Jaypee Institute of Technology. Downloaded on September 25, 2009 at 11:21 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY, VOL. 47, NO. 6, SEPTEMBER 2001
VI. CONCLUSION
This work has proposed an efficient symmetrical RVLC construc-
tion algorithm based on the earlier work of Takishima et al. Adding the
proposed symmetrical codeword selection mechanism to Takishima’s
algorithm improves the average codeword length and overcomes the
problem of the bit alignment pattern. From the information-theoretic
perspective, a formula has been derived here to calculate the maximum
expected codeword length for a source with uniform distribution, and
we have also proved that the optimal symmetrical codewords can be
constructed under some exponential distribution assumptions. Further-
more, from the application perspective, the proposed algorithm has
been applied to generate symmetrical codewords for the VLC tables
used in video standards H.263 and MPEG-4. The practical influence of
RVLCs on coding efficiency and the corresponding effective error-han-
dling mechanisms will be the topics of future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank the associate editor P. A. Chou and anony-
mous reviewers who provided very valuable feedback and constructive
comments on an early version of this correspondence.
REFERENCES
[1] ISO/IEC, “Digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still im-
ages,” Int. Std. 10918-1, 1991.
[2] ITU-T, “Video codec for audiovisual services at p*64 kbits/sec,” Rec-
ommendation H.261, 1993.
[3] ITU-T, “Video coding for low bit rate communication,” Recommenda-
tion H.263, 1997.
[4] ISO/IEC International Standard 11172, “Coding of moving pictures and
associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1.5 Mbits/s,”,
Dec. 1991.
[5] ISO/IEC, “Information technology-generic coding of moving pictures
and associated audio,” Draft Int. Std. 13818, Mar. 1994.
[6] ISO/IEC, “Coding of audio-visual objects: Visual,” Final Draft Int. Std.
14496-2, Oct. 1998.
[7] Y. Takishima, M. Wada, and H. Murakami, “Reversible variable length
codes,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 43, pp. 158–162, Feb./Mar./Apr.
1995.
[8] A. S. Fraenkel and S. T. Klein, “Bidirectional Huffman coding,” Comp.
J., vol. 33, no. 4, 1990.
[9] J. Wen and J. D. Villasenor, “A class of reversible variable length codes
for robust image and video coding,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Image Pro-
cessing, vol. 2, 1997, pp. 65–68.
[10] , “Reversible variable length codes for efficient and robust image
and video coding,” in Proc. Data Compression Conf., 1998, pp.
471–480.
[11] T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory. New
York: Wiley, 1991, pp. 12–49.