Paper detail

Graph-Constrained Group Testing

Non-adaptive group testing involves grouping arbitrary subsets of $n$ items into different pools. Each pool is then tested and defective items are identified. A fundamental question involves minimizing the number of pools required to identify at most $d$ defective items. Motivated by applications in network tomography, sensor networks and infection propagation, a variation of group testing problems on graphs is formulated. Unlike conventional group testing problems, each group here must conform to the constraints imposed by a graph. For instance, items can be associated with vertices and each pool is any set of nodes that must be path connected. In this paper, a test is associated with a random walk. In this context, conventional group testing corresponds to the special case of a complete graph on $n$ vertices. For interesting classes of graphs a rather surprising result is obtained, namely, that the number of tests required to identify $d$ defective items is substantially similar to what is required in conventional group testing problems, where no such constraints on pooling is imposed. Specifically, if T(n) corresponds to the mixing time of the graph $G$, it is shown that with $m=O(d^2T^2(n)\log(n/d))$ non-adaptive tests, one can identify the defective items. Consequently, for the Erdos-Renyi random graph $G(n,p)$, as well as expander graphs with constant spectral gap, it follows that $m=O(d^2\log^3n)$ non-adaptive tests are sufficient to identify $d$ defective items. Next, a specific scenario is considered that arises in network tomography, for which it is shown that $m=O(d^3\log^3n)$ non-adaptive tests are sufficient to identify $d$ defective items. Noisy counterparts of the graph constrained group testing problem are considered, for which parallel results are developed. We also briefly discuss extensions to compressive sensing on graphs.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.