8,178 research outputs found

    Nearly Optimal Sparse Group Testing

    Full text link
    Group testing is the process of pooling arbitrary subsets from a set of nn items so as to identify, with a minimal number of tests, a "small" subset of dd defective items. In "classical" non-adaptive group testing, it is known that when dd is substantially smaller than nn, Θ(dlog⁑(n))\Theta(d\log(n)) tests are both information-theoretically necessary and sufficient to guarantee recovery with high probability. Group testing schemes in the literature meeting this bound require most items to be tested Ω(log⁑(n))\Omega(\log(n)) times, and most tests to incorporate Ω(n/d)\Omega(n/d) items. Motivated by physical considerations, we study group testing models in which the testing procedure is constrained to be "sparse". Specifically, we consider (separately) scenarios in which (a) items are finitely divisible and hence may participate in at most γ∈o(log⁑(n))\gamma \in o(\log(n)) tests; or (b) tests are size-constrained to pool no more than ρ∈o(n/d)\rho \in o(n/d)items per test. For both scenarios we provide information-theoretic lower bounds on the number of tests required to guarantee high probability recovery. In both scenarios we provide both randomized constructions (under both ϡ\epsilon-error and zero-error reconstruction guarantees) and explicit constructions of designs with computationally efficient reconstruction algorithms that require a number of tests that are optimal up to constant or small polynomial factors in some regimes of n,d,γ,n, d, \gamma, and ρ\rho. The randomized design/reconstruction algorithm in the ρ\rho-sized test scenario is universal -- independent of the value of dd, as long as ρ∈o(n/d)\rho \in o(n/d). We also investigate the effect of unreliability/noise in test outcomes. For the full abstract, please see the full text PDF

    On Detecting Some Defective Items in Group Testing

    Full text link
    Group testing is an approach aimed at identifying up to dd defective items among a total of nn elements. This is accomplished by examining subsets to determine if at least one defective item is present. In our study, we focus on the problem of identifying a subset of ℓ≀d\ell\leq d defective items. We develop upper and lower bounds on the number of tests required to detect β„“\ell defective items in both the adaptive and non-adaptive settings while considering scenarios where no prior knowledge of dd is available, and situations where an estimate of dd or at least some non-trivial upper bound on dd is available. When no prior knowledge on dd is available, we prove a lower bound of Ξ©(β„“log⁑2nlog⁑ℓ+log⁑log⁑n) \Omega(\frac{\ell \log^2n}{\log \ell +\log\log n}) tests in the randomized non-adaptive settings and an upper bound of O(β„“log⁑2n)O(\ell \log^2 n) for the same settings. Furthermore, we demonstrate that any non-adaptive deterministic algorithm must ask Θ(n)\Theta(n) tests, signifying a fundamental limitation in this scenario. For adaptive algorithms, we establish tight bounds in different scenarios. In the deterministic case, we prove a tight bound of Θ(β„“log⁑(n/β„“))\Theta(\ell\log{(n/\ell)}). Moreover, in the randomized settings, we derive a tight bound of Θ(β„“log⁑(n/d))\Theta(\ell\log{(n/d)}). When dd, or at least some non-trivial estimate of dd, is known, we prove a tight bound of Θ(dlog⁑(n/d))\Theta(d\log (n/d)) for the deterministic non-adaptive settings, and Θ(β„“log⁑(n/d))\Theta(\ell\log(n/d)) for the randomized non-adaptive settings. In the adaptive case, we present an upper bound of O(β„“log⁑(n/β„“))O(\ell \log (n/\ell)) for the deterministic settings, and a lower bound of Ξ©(β„“log⁑(n/d)+log⁑n)\Omega(\ell\log(n/d)+\log n). Additionally, we establish a tight bound of Θ(β„“log⁑(n/d))\Theta(\ell \log(n/d)) for the randomized adaptive settings

    Lower bounds for identifying subset members with subset queries

    Full text link
    An instance of a group testing problem is a set of objects \cO and an unknown subset PP of \cO. The task is to determine PP by using queries of the type ``does PP intersect QQ'', where QQ is a subset of \cO. This problem occurs in areas such as fault detection, multiaccess communications, optimal search, blood testing and chromosome mapping. Consider the two stage algorithm for solving a group testing problem. In the first stage a predetermined set of queries are asked in parallel and in the second stage, PP is determined by testing individual objects. Let n=\cardof{\cO}. Suppose that PP is generated by independently adding each x\in \cO to PP with probability p/np/n. Let q1q_1 (q2q_2) be the number of queries asked in the first (second) stage of this algorithm. We show that if q1=o(log⁑(n)log⁑(n)/log⁑log⁑(n))q_1=o(\log(n)\log(n)/\log\log(n)), then \Exp(q_2) = n^{1-o(1)}, while there exist algorithms with q1=O(log⁑(n)log⁑(n)/log⁑log⁑(n))q_1 = O(\log(n)\log(n)/\log\log(n)) and \Exp(q_2) = o(1). The proof involves a relaxation technique which can be used with arbitrary distributions. The best previously known bound is q_1+\Exp(q_2) = \Omega(p\log(n)). For general group testing algorithms, our results imply that if the average number of queries over the course of nΞ³n^\gamma (Ξ³>0\gamma>0) independent experiments is O(n1βˆ’Ο΅)O(n^{1-\epsilon}), then with high probability Ξ©(log⁑(n)log⁑(n)/log⁑log⁑(n))\Omega(\log(n)\log(n)/\log\log(n)) non-singleton subsets are queried. This settles a conjecture of Bill Bruno and David Torney and has important consequences for the use of group testing in screening DNA libraries and other applications where it is more cost effective to use non-adaptive algorithms and/or too expensive to prepare a subset QQ for its first test.Comment: 9 page

    GROTESQUE: Noisy Group Testing (Quick and Efficient)

    Full text link
    Group-testing refers to the problem of identifying (with high probability) a (small) subset of DD defectives from a (large) set of NN items via a "small" number of "pooled" tests. For ease of presentation in this work we focus on the regime when D = \cO{N^{1-\gap}} for some \gap > 0. The tests may be noiseless or noisy, and the testing procedure may be adaptive (the pool defining a test may depend on the outcome of a previous test), or non-adaptive (each test is performed independent of the outcome of other tests). A rich body of literature demonstrates that Θ(Dlog⁑(N))\Theta(D\log(N)) tests are information-theoretically necessary and sufficient for the group-testing problem, and provides algorithms that achieve this performance. However, it is only recently that reconstruction algorithms with computational complexity that is sub-linear in NN have started being investigated (recent work by \cite{GurI:04,IndN:10, NgoP:11} gave some of the first such algorithms). In the scenario with adaptive tests with noisy outcomes, we present the first scheme that is simultaneously order-optimal (up to small constant factors) in both the number of tests and the decoding complexity (\cO{D\log(N)} in both the performance metrics). The total number of stages of our adaptive algorithm is "small" (\cO{\log(D)}). Similarly, in the scenario with non-adaptive tests with noisy outcomes, we present the first scheme that is simultaneously near-optimal in both the number of tests and the decoding complexity (via an algorithm that requires \cO{D\log(D)\log(N)} tests and has a decoding complexity of {O(D(log⁑N+log⁑2D)){\cal O}(D(\log N+\log^{2}D))}. Finally, we present an adaptive algorithm that only requires 2 stages, and for which both the number of tests and the decoding complexity scale as {O(D(log⁑N+log⁑2D)){\cal O}(D(\log N+\log^{2}D))}. For all three settings the probability of error of our algorithms scales as \cO{1/(poly(D)}.Comment: 26 pages, 5 figure
    • …
    corecore