Huffman coding

In computer science and information theory, a Huffman code is a

particular type of optimal prefix code that is commonly used for
lossless data compression. The process of finding or using such a
code proceeds by means of Huffman coding, an algorithm
developed by David A. Huffman while he was a Sc.D. student at
MIT, and published in the 1952 paper "A Method for the
Construction of Minimum-Redundancy Codes".[1]

The output from Huffman's algorithm can be viewed as a variable- Huffman tree generated from the
length code table for encoding a source symbol (such as a character exact frequencies of the text "this is
in a file). The algorithm derives this table from the estimated an example of a huffman tree". The
probability or frequency of occurrence (weight) for each possible frequencies and codes of each
value of the source symbol. As in other entropy encoding methods, character are below. Encoding the
more common symbols are generally represented using fewer bits sentence with this code requires 135
than less common symbols. Huffman's method can be efficiently (or 147) bits, as opposed to 288 (or
implemented, finding a code in time linear to the number of input 180) bits if 36 characters of 8 (or 5)
weights if these weights are sorted.[2] However, although optimal bits were used. (This assumes that
among methods encoding symbols separately, Huffman coding is the code tree structure is known to
not always optimal among all compression methods - it is replaced the decoder and thus does not need
with arithmetic coding[3] or asymmetric numeral systems[4] if a to be counted as part of the
better compression ratio is required. transmitted information.)

Char Freq Code

Contents space 7 111
History a 4 010
Terminology e 4 000
Problem definition f 3 1101
Informal description h 2 1010
Formalized description
i 2 1000
Example
m 2 0111
Basic technique
n 2 0010
Compression
Decompression s 2 1011

Main properties t 2 0110

Optimality l 1 11001

Variations o 1 00110
n-ary Huffman coding p 1 10011
Adaptive Huffman coding
r 1 11000
Huffman template algorithm
u 1 00111
Length-limited Huffman coding/minimum variance
Huffman coding x 1 10010
Huffman coding with unequal letter costs
 Optimal alphabetic binary trees (Hu–Tucker coding)
The canonical Huffman code
Applications
References
Bibliography
External links

History
In 1951, David A. Huffman and his MIT information theory classmates were given the choice of a term
paper or a final exam. The professor, Robert M. Fano, assigned a term paper on the problem of finding the
most efficient binary code. Huffman, unable to prove any codes were the most efficient, was about to give
up and start studying for the final when he hit upon the idea of using a frequency-sorted binary tree and
quickly proved this method the most efficient.[5]

In doing so, Huffman outdid Fano, who had worked with Claude Shannon to develop a similar code.
Building the tree from the bottom up guaranteed optimality, unlike the top-down approach of Shannon–
Fano coding.

Terminology
Huffman coding uses a specific method for choosing the representation for each symbol, resulting in a
prefix code (sometimes called "prefix-free codes", that is, the bit string representing some particular symbol
is never a prefix of the bit string representing any other symbol). Huffman coding is such a widespread
method for creating prefix codes that the term "Huffman code" is widely used as a synonym for "prefix
code" even when such a code is not produced by Huffman's algorithm.

Problem definition

Informal description

Given
A set of symbols and their weights (usually proportional to probabilities).
Find
A prefix-free binary code (a set of codewords) with minimum expected codeword length
(equivalently, a tree with minimum weighted path length from the root).

Formalized description

Input.
Alphabet , which is the symbol alphabet of size .

Tuple , which is the tuple of the (positive) symbol weights (usually proportional to
probabilities), i.e. .

Output.
Code , which is the tuple of (binary) codewords, where is the codeword for
 .

Goal.
Let be the weighted path
length of code . Condition: for any
code .

Example

We give an example of the result of Huffman coding for a code

with five characters and given weights. We will not verify that it
minimizes L over all codes, but we will compute L and compare it
to the Shannon entropy H of the given set of weights; the result is
nearly optimal.

Constructing a Huffman Tree

Symbol (ai ) a b c d e Sum

Input (A, W)
Weights (w i ) 0.10 0.15 0.30 0.16 0.29 =1

Codewords (ci ) 010 011 11 00 10

Codeword length (in bits)  

(li ) 3 3 2 2 2
Output C

Contribution to weighted path length

(li w i ) 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.32 0.58 L(C) = 2.25

Probability budget

1/8 1/8 1/4 1/4 1/4 = 1.00

(2−l i)
Information content (in bits)
Optimality (−log2 w i ) ≈ 3.32 2.74 1.74 2.64 1.79  

Contribution to entropy
(-w i log2 w i ) 0.332 0.411 0.521 0.423 0.518 H(A) = 2.205

For any code that is biunique, meaning that the code is uniquely decodeable, the sum of the probability
budgets across all symbols is always less than or equal to one. In this example, the sum is strictly equal to
one; as a result, the code is termed a complete code. If this is not the case, one can always derive an
equivalent code by adding extra symbols (with associated null probabilities), to make the code complete
while keeping it biunique.

As defined by Shannon (1948), the information content h (in bits) of each symbol ai with non-null
probability is
The entropy H (in bits) is the weighted sum, across all symbols a i with non-zero probability wi, of the
information content of each symbol:

(Note: A symbol with zero probability has zero contribution to the entropy, since So

for simplicity, symbols with zero probability can be left out of the formula above.)

As a consequence of Shannon's source coding theorem, the entropy is a measure of the smallest codeword
length that is theoretically possible for the given alphabet with associated weights. In this example, the
weighted average codeword length is 2.25 bits per symbol, only slightly larger than the calculated entropy
of 2.205 bits per symbol. So not only is this code optimal in the sense that no other feasible code performs
better, but it is very close to the theoretical limit established by Shannon.

In general, a Huffman code need not be unique. Thus the set of Huffman codes for a given probability
distribution is a non-empty subset of the codes minimizing for that probability distribution.
(However, for each minimizing codeword length assignment, there exists at least one Huffman code with
those lengths.)

Basic technique

Compression

The technique works by creating a binary

tree of nodes. These can be stored in a
regular array, the size of which depends on
the number of symbols, . A node can be
either a leaf node or an internal node.
Initially, all nodes are leaf nodes, which
contain the symbol itself, the weight
(frequency of appearance) of the symbol and
optionally, a link to a parent node which
makes it easy to read the code (in reverse)
starting from a leaf node. Internal nodes
contain a weight, links to two child nodes
and an optional link to a parent node. As a
common convention, bit '0' represents
following the left child and bit '1' represents Visualisation of the use of Huffman coding to encode the
following the right child. A finished tree has message
up to leaf nodes and internal nodes. "A_DEAD_DAD_CEDED_A_BAD_BABE_A_BEADED_ABACA
A Huffman tree that omits unused symbols BED". In steps 2 to 6, the letters are sorted by increasing
produces the most optimal code lengths. frequency, and the least frequent two at each step are
combined and reinserted into the list, and a partial tree is
The process begins with the leaf nodes constructed. The final tree in step 6 is traversed to generate
containing the probabilities of the symbol the dictionary in step 7. Step 8 uses it to encode the
they represent. Then, the process takes the message.
two nodes with smallest probability, and
creates a new internal node having these two
nodes as children. The weight of the new node is set to the sum of
the weight of the children. We then apply the process again, on the
new internal node and on the remaining nodes (i.e., we exclude the
two leaf nodes), we repeat this process until only one node remains,
which is the root of the Huffman tree.

The simplest construction algorithm uses a priority queue where the A source generates 4 different
node with lowest probability is given highest priority: symbols with
probability .A
1. Create a leaf node for each symbol and add it to the binary tree is generated from left to
priority queue.
right taking the two least probable
2. While there is more than one node in the queue: symbols and putting them together to
form another equivalent symbol
1. Remove the two nodes of highest priority (lowest
probability) from the queue having a probability that equals the
sum of the two symbols. The
2. Create a new internal node with these two nodes as
process is repeated until there is just
children and with probability equal to the sum of the
one symbol. The tree can then be
two nodes' probabilities.
read backwards, from right to left,
3. Add the new node to the queue. assigning different bits to different
3. The remaining node is the root node and the tree is branches. The final Huffman code is:
complete.
Symbol Code
Since efficient priority queue data structures require O(log n) time
per insertion, and a tree with n leaves has 2n−1 nodes, this a1 0
algorithm operates in O(n log n) time, where n is the number of a2 10
symbols.
a3 110
If the symbols are sorted by probability, there is a linear-time (O(n))
a4 111
method to create a Huffman tree using two queues, the first one
containing the initial weights (along with pointers to the associated
The standard way to represent a
leaves), and combined weights (along with pointers to the trees)
signal made of 4 symbols is by using
being put in the back of the second queue. This assures that the
2 bits/symbol, but the entropy of the
lowest weight is always kept at the front of one of the two queues:
source is 1.74 bits/symbol. If this
Huffman code is used to represent
1. Start with as many leaves as there are symbols.
the signal, then the average length is
2. Enqueue all leaf nodes into the first queue (by lowered to 1.85 bits/symbol; it is still
probability in increasing order so that the least likely item far from the theoretical limit because
is in the head of the queue).
the probabilities of the symbols are
3. While there is more than one node in the queues: different from negative powers of
1. Dequeue the two nodes with the lowest weight by two.
examining the fronts of both queues.
2. Create a new internal node, with the two just-
removed nodes as children (either node can be either child) and the sum of their weights
as the new weight.
3. Enqueue the new node into the rear of the second queue.
4. The remaining node is the root node; the tree has now been generated.

Once the Huffman tree has been generated, it is traversed to generate a dictionary which maps the symbols
to binary codes as follows:

1. Start with current node set to the root.

 2. If node is not a leaf node, label the edge to the left child as 0 and the edge to the right child
as 1. Repeat the process at both the left child and the right child.

The final encoding of any symbol is then read by a concatenation of the labels on the edges along the path
from the root node to the symbol.

In many cases, time complexity is not very important in the choice of algorithm here, since n here is the
number of symbols in the alphabet, which is typically a very small number (compared to the length of the
message to be encoded); whereas complexity analysis concerns the behavior when n grows to be very
large.

It is generally beneficial to minimize the variance of codeword length. For example, a communication
buffer receiving Huffman-encoded data may need to be larger to deal with especially long symbols if the
tree is especially unbalanced. To minimize variance, simply break ties between queues by choosing the item
in the first queue. This modification will retain the mathematical optimality of the Huffman coding while
both minimizing variance and minimizing the length of the longest character code.

Decompression

Generally speaking, the process of decompression is simply a matter of translating the stream of prefix
codes to individual byte values, usually by traversing the Huffman tree node by node as each bit is read
from the input stream (reaching a leaf node necessarily terminates the search for that particular byte value).
Before this can take place, however, the Huffman tree must be somehow reconstructed. In the simplest
case, where character frequencies are fairly predictable, the tree can be preconstructed (and even
statistically adjusted on each compression cycle) and thus reused every time, at the expense of at least some
measure of compression efficiency. Otherwise, the information to reconstruct the tree must be sent a priori.
A naive approach might be to prepend the frequency count of each character to the compression stream.
Unfortunately, the overhead in such a case could amount to several kilobytes, so this method has little
practical use. If the data is compressed using canonical encoding, the compression model can be precisely
reconstructed with just bits of information (where B is the number of bits per symbol). Another
method is to simply prepend the Huffman tree, bit by bit, to the output stream. For example, assuming that
the value of 0 represents a parent node and 1 a leaf node, whenever the latter is encountered the tree
building routine simply reads the next 8 bits to determine the character value of that particular leaf. The
process continues recursively until the last leaf node is reached; at that point, the Huffman tree will thus be
faithfully reconstructed. The overhead using such a method ranges from roughly 2 to 320 bytes (assuming
an 8-bit alphabet). Many other techniques are possible as well. In any case, since the compressed data can
include unused "trailing bits" the decompressor must be able to determine when to stop producing output.
This can be accomplished by either transmitting the length of the decompressed data along with the
compression model or by defining a special code symbol to signify the end of input (the latter method can
adversely affect code length optimality, however).

Main properties
The probabilities used can be generic ones for the application domain that are based on average experience,
or they can be the actual frequencies found in the text being compressed.
This requires that a frequency
table must be stored with the compressed text. See the Decompression section above for more information
about the various techniques employed for this purpose.

Optimality
Huffman's original algorithm is optimal for a symbol-by-symbol coding with a known input probability
distribution, i.e., separately encoding unrelated symbols in such a data stream. However, it is not optimal
when the symbol-by-symbol restriction is dropped, or when the probability mass functions are unknown.
Also, if symbols are not independent and identically distributed, a single code may be insufficient for
optimality. Other methods such as arithmetic coding often have better compression capability.

Although both aforementioned methods can combine an arbitrary number of symbols for more efficient
coding and generally adapt to the actual input statistics, arithmetic coding does so without significantly
increasing its computational or algorithmic complexities (though the simplest version is slower and more
complex than Huffman coding). Such flexibility is especially useful when input probabilities are not
precisely known or vary significantly within the stream. However, Huffman coding is usually faster and
arithmetic coding was historically a subject of some concern over patent issues. Thus many technologies
have historically avoided arithmetic coding in favor of Huffman and other prefix coding techniques. As of
mid-2010, the most commonly used techniques for this alternative to Huffman coding have passed into the
public domain as the early patents have expired.

For a set of symbols with a uniform probability distribution and a number of members which is a power of
two, Huffman coding is equivalent to simple binary block encoding, e.g., ASCII coding. This reflects the
fact that compression is not possible with such an input, no matter what the compression method, i.e., doing
nothing to the data is the optimal thing to do.

Huffman coding is optimal among all methods in any case where each input symbol is a known
independent and identically distributed random variable having a probability that is dyadic. Prefix codes,
and thus Huffman coding in particular, tend to have inefficiency on small alphabets, where probabilities
often fall between these optimal (dyadic) points. The worst case for Huffman coding can happen when the
probability of the most likely symbol far exceeds 2−1 = 0.5, making the upper limit of inefficiency
unbounded.

There are two related approaches for getting around this particular inefficiency while still using Huffman
coding. Combining a fixed number of symbols together ("blocking") often increases (and never decreases)
compression. As the size of the block approaches infinity, Huffman coding theoretically approaches the
entropy limit, i.e., optimal compression.[6] However, blocking arbitrarily large groups of symbols is
impractical, as the complexity of a Huffman code is linear in the number of possibilities to be encoded, a
number that is exponential in the size of a block. This limits the amount of blocking that is done in practice.

A practical alternative, in widespread use, is run-length encoding. This technique adds one step in advance
of entropy coding, specifically counting (runs) of repeated symbols, which are then encoded. For the simple
case of Bernoulli processes, Golomb coding is optimal among prefix codes for coding run length, a fact
proved via the techniques of Huffman coding.[7] A similar approach is taken by fax machines using
modified Huffman coding. However, run-length coding is not as adaptable to as many input types as other
compression technologies.

Variations
Many variations of Huffman coding exist,[8] some of which use a Huffman-like algorithm, and others of
which find optimal prefix codes (while, for example, putting different restrictions on the output). Note that,
in the latter case, the method need not be Huffman-like, and, indeed, need not even be polynomial time.

n-ary Huffman coding

The n-ary Huffman algorithm uses the {0, 1,..., n − 1} alphabet to encode message and build an n-ary
tree. This approach was considered by Huffman in his original paper. The same algorithm applies as for
binary ( ) codes, except that the n least probable symbols are taken together, instead of just the 2 least
probable. Note that for n greater than 2, not all sets of source words can properly form an n-ary tree for
Huffman coding. In these cases, additional 0-probability place holders must be added. This is because the
tree must form an n to 1 contractor; for binary coding, this is a 2 to 1 contractor, and any sized set can form
such a contractor. If the number of source words is congruent to 1 modulo n−1, then the set of source
words will form a proper Huffman tree.

Adaptive Huffman coding

A variation called adaptive Huffman coding involves calculating the probabilities dynamically based on
recent actual frequencies in the sequence of source symbols, and changing the coding tree structure to
match the updated probability estimates. It is used rarely in practice, since the cost of updating the tree
makes it slower than optimized adaptive arithmetic coding, which is more flexible and has better
compression.

Huffman template algorithm

Most often, the weights used in implementations of Huffman coding represent numeric probabilities, but the
algorithm given above does not require this; it requires only that the weights form a totally ordered
commutative monoid, meaning a way to order weights and to add them. The Huffman template
algorithm enables one to use any kind of weights (costs, frequencies, pairs of weights, non-numerical
weights) and one of many combining methods (not just addition). Such algorithms can solve other
minimization problems, such as minimizing , a problem first applied to circuit
design.

Length-limited Huffman coding/minimum variance Huffman coding

Length-limited Huffman coding is a variant where the goal is still to achieve a minimum weighted path
length, but there is an additional restriction that the length of each codeword must be less than a given
constant. The package-merge algorithm solves this problem with a simple greedy approach very similar to
that used by Huffman's algorithm. Its time complexity is , where is the maximum length of a
codeword. No algorithm is known to solve this problem in or time, unlike the presorted
and unsorted conventional Huffman problems, respectively.

Huffman coding with unequal letter costs

In the standard Huffman coding problem, it is assumed that each symbol in the set that the code words are
constructed from has an equal cost to transmit: a code word whose length is N digits will always have a
cost of N, no matter how many of those digits are 0s, how many are 1s, etc. When working under this
assumption, minimizing the total cost of the message and minimizing the total number of digits are the same
thing.

Huffman coding with unequal letter costs is the generalization without this assumption: the letters of the
encoding alphabet may have non-uniform lengths, due to characteristics of the transmission medium. An
example is the encoding alphabet of Morse code, where a 'dash' takes longer to send than a 'dot', and
therefore the cost of a dash in transmission time is higher. The goal is still to minimize the weighted average
codeword length, but it is no longer sufficient just to minimize the number of symbols used by the message.
No algorithm is known to solve this in the same manner or with the same efficiency as conventional
Huffman coding, though it has been solved by Karp (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnum
ber=1057615&newsearch=true&queryText=Minimum-redundancy%20coding%20for%20the%20discret
e%20noiseless%20channel) whose solution has been refined for the case of integer costs by Golin (http://ie
eexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=705558&queryText=dynamic%20programming%20goli
n%20constructing%20optimal%20prefix-free&newsearch=true).

Optimal alphabetic binary trees (Hu–Tucker coding)

In the standard Huffman coding problem, it is assumed that any codeword can correspond to any input
symbol. In the alphabetic version, the alphabetic order of inputs and outputs must be identical. Thus, for
example, could not be assigned code , but instead should be
assigned either or . This is also known as the Hu–
Tucker problem, after T. C. Hu and Alan Tucker, the authors of the paper presenting the first -
[9]
time solution to this optimal binary alphabetic problem, which has some similarities to Huffman
algorithm, but is not a variation of this algorithm. A later method, the Garsia–Wachs algorithm of Adriano
Garsia and Michelle L. Wachs (1977), uses simpler logic to perform the same comparisons in the same total
time bound. These optimal alphabetic binary trees are often used as binary search trees.[10]

The canonical Huffman code

If weights corresponding to the alphabetically ordered inputs are in numerical order, the Huffman code has
the same lengths as the optimal alphabetic code, which can be found from calculating these lengths,
rendering Hu–Tucker coding unnecessary. The code resulting from numerically (re-)ordered input is
sometimes called the canonical Huffman code and is often the code used in practice, due to ease of
encoding/decoding. The technique for finding this code is sometimes called Huffman–Shannon–Fano
coding, since it is optimal like Huffman coding, but alphabetic in weight probability, like Shannon–Fano
coding. The Huffman–Shannon–Fano code corresponding to the example is ,
which, having the same codeword lengths as the original solution, is also optimal. But in canonical
Huffman code, the result is .

Applications
Arithmetic coding and Huffman coding produce equivalent results — achieving entropy — when every
symbol has a probability of the form 1/2k. In other circumstances, arithmetic coding can offer better
compression than Huffman coding because — intuitively — its "code words" can have effectively non-
integer bit lengths, whereas code words in prefix codes such as Huffman codes can only have an integer
number of bits. Therefore, a code word of length k only optimally matches a symbol of probability 1/2k and
other probabilities are not represented optimally; whereas the code word length in arithmetic coding can be
made to exactly match the true probability of the symbol. This difference is especially striking for small
alphabet sizes.

Prefix codes nevertheless remain in wide use because of their simplicity, high speed, and lack of patent
coverage. They are often used as a "back-end" to other compression methods. Deflate (PKZIP's algorithm)
and multimedia codecs such as JPEG and MP3 have a front-end model and quantization followed by the
use of prefix codes; these are often called "Huffman codes" even though most applications use pre-defined
variable-length codes rather than codes designed using Huffman's algorithm.
References
1. Huffman, D. (1952). "A Method for the Construction of Minimum-Redundancy Codes" (http://
compression.ru/download/articles/huff/huffman_1952_minimum-redundancy-codes.pdf)
(PDF). Proceedings of the IRE. 40 (9): 1098–1101. doi:10.1109/JRPROC.1952.273898 (http
s://doi.org/10.1109%2FJRPROC.1952.273898).
2. Van Leeuwen, Jan (1976). "On the construction of Huffman trees" (http://www.staff.science.u
u.nl/~leeuw112/huffman.pdf) (PDF). ICALP: 382–410. Retrieved 2014-02-20.
3. Ze-Nian Li; Mark S. Drew; Jiangchuan Liu (2014-04-09). Fundamentals of Multimedia (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=R6vBBAAAQBAJ). Springer Science & Business Media.
ISBN 978-3-319-05290-8.
4. J. Duda, K. Tahboub, N. J. Gadil, E. J. Delp, The use of asymmetric numeral systems as an
accurate replacement for Huffman coding (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnum
ber=7170048), Picture Coding Symposium, 2015.
5. Huffman, Ken (1991). "Profile: David A. Huffman: Encoding the "Neatness" of Ones and
Zeroes" (http://www.huffmancoding.com/my-uncle/scientific-american). Scientific American:
54–58.
6. Gribov, Alexander (2017-04-10). "Optimal Compression of a Polyline with Segments and
Arcs". arXiv:1604.07476 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07476) [cs.CG (https://arxiv.org/archive/c
s.CG)].
7. Gallager, R.G.; van Voorhis, D.C. (1975). "Optimal source codes for geometrically distributed
integer alphabets". IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 21 (2): 228–230.
doi:10.1109/TIT.1975.1055357 (https://doi.org/10.1109%2FTIT.1975.1055357).
8. Abrahams, J. (1997-06-11). Written at Arlington, VA, USA. Division of Mathematics,
Computer & Information Sciences, Office of Naval Research (ONR). "Code and Parse Trees
for Lossless Source Encoding". Compression and Complexity of Sequences 1997
Proceedings. Salerno: IEEE: 145–171. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.589.4726 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.589.4726). doi:10.1109/SEQUEN.1997.666911 (https://d
oi.org/10.1109%2FSEQUEN.1997.666911). ISBN 0-8186-8132-2. S2CID 124587565 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:124587565).
9. Hu, T. C.; Tucker, A. C. (1971). "Optimal Computer Search Trees and Variable-Length
Alphabetical Codes". SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 21 (4): 514.
doi:10.1137/0121057 (https://doi.org/10.1137%2F0121057). JSTOR 2099603 (https://www.j
stor.org/stable/2099603).
10. Knuth, Donald E. (1998), "Algorithm G (Garsia–Wachs algorithm for optimum binary trees)",
The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 3: Sorting and Searching (2nd ed.), Addison–
Wesley, pp. 451–453. See also History and bibliography, pp. 453–454.

Bibliography
Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein. Introduction
to Algorithms, Second Edition. MIT Press and McGraw-Hill, 2001. ISBN 0-262-03293-7.
Section 16.3, pp. 385–392.

External links
Huffman coding in various languages on Rosetta Code (http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Huffman_
coding)
Huffman codes (python implementation) (https://gist.github.com/jasonrdsouza/1c9c895f4349
7d15eb2e)
 A visualization of Huffman coding (https://demo.tinyray.com/huffman)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huffman_coding&oldid=1117474402"

This page was last edited on 21 October 2022, at 22:36 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0;

additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.