283,691 research outputs found

    Constraining the Number of Positive Responses in Adaptive, Non-Adaptive, and Two-Stage Group Testing

    Full text link
    Group testing is a well known search problem that consists in detecting the defective members of a set of objects O by performing tests on properly chosen subsets (pools) of the given set O. In classical group testing the goal is to find all defectives by using as few tests as possible. We consider a variant of classical group testing in which one is concerned not only with minimizing the total number of tests but aims also at reducing the number of tests involving defective elements. The rationale behind this search model is that in many practical applications the devices used for the tests are subject to deterioration due to exposure to or interaction with the defective elements. In this paper we consider adaptive, non-adaptive and two-stage group testing. For all three considered scenarios, we derive upper and lower bounds on the number of "yes" responses that must be admitted by any strategy performing at most a certain number t of tests. In particular, for the adaptive case we provide an algorithm that uses a number of "yes" responses that exceeds the given lower bound by a small constant. Interestingly, this bound can be asymptotically attained also by our two-stage algorithm, which is a phenomenon analogous to the one occurring in classical group testing. For the non-adaptive scenario we give almost matching upper and lower bounds on the number of "yes" responses. In particular, we give two constructions both achieving the same asymptotic bound. An interesting feature of one of these constructions is that it is an explicit construction. The bounds for the non-adaptive and the two-stage cases follow from the bounds on the optimal sizes of new variants of d-cover free families and (p,d)-cover free families introduced in this paper, which we believe may be of interest also in other contexts

    Non-adaptive probabilistic group testing with noisy measurements: Near-optimal bounds with efficient algorithms

    Full text link
    We consider the problem of detecting a small subset of defective items from a large set via non-adaptive "random pooling" group tests. We consider both the case when the measurements are noiseless, and the case when the measurements are noisy (the outcome of each group test may be independently faulty with probability q). Order-optimal results for these scenarios are known in the literature. We give information-theoretic lower bounds on the query complexity of these problems, and provide corresponding computationally efficient algorithms that match the lower bounds up to a constant factor. To the best of our knowledge this work is the first to explicitly estimate such a constant that characterizes the gap between the upper and lower bounds for these problems

    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(logN+log2D)){\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(logN+log2D)){\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