Paper detail

Secure Group Testing

The principal goal of Group Testing (GT) is to identify a small subset of &#34;defective&#34; items from a large population, by grouping items into as few test pools as possible. The test outcome of a pool is positive if it contains at least one defective item, and is negative otherwise. GT algorithms are utilized in numerous applications, and in many of them maintaining the privacy of the tested items, namely, keeping secret whether they are defective or not, is critical. In this paper, we consider a scenario where there is an eavesdropper (Eve) who is able to observe a subset of the GT outcomes (pools). We propose a new non-adaptive Secure Group Testing (SGT) scheme based on information-theoretic principles. The new proposed test design keeps the eavesdropper ignorant regarding the items&#39; status. Specifically, when the fraction of tests observed by Eve is $0 \leq δ<1$, we prove that with the naive Maximum Likelihood (ML) decoding algorithm the number of tests required for both correct reconstruction at the legitimate user (with high probability) and negligible information leakage to Eve is $\frac{1}{1-δ}$ times the number of tests required with no secrecy constraint for the fixed $K$ regime. By a matching converse, we completely characterize the Secure GT capacity. Moreover, we consider the Definitely Non-Defective (DND) computationally efficient decoding algorithm, proposed in the literature for non-secure GT. We prove that with the new secure test design, for $δ< 1/2$, the number of tests required, without any constraint on $K$, is at most $\frac{1}{1/2-δ}$ times the number of tests required with no secrecy constraint.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.