Sublinear Decoding Schemes for Non-adaptive Group Testing with Inhibitors

  • Thach V. BuiEmail author
  • Minoru Kuribayashi
  • Tetsuya Kojima
  • Isao Echizen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11436)


Identification of up to d defective items and up to h inhibitors in a set of n items is the main task of non-adaptive group testing with inhibitors. To reduce the cost of this Herculean task, a subset of the n items is formed and then tested. This is called group testing. A test outcome on a subset of items is positive if the subset contains at least one defective item and no inhibitors, and negative otherwise. We present two decoding schemes for efficiently identifying the defective items and the inhibitors in the presence of e erroneous outcomes in time \(\mathsf {poly}(d, h, e, \log _2{n})\), which is sublinear to the number of items. This decoding complexity significantly improves the state-of-the-art schemes in which the decoding time is linear to the number of items, i.e., \(\mathsf {poly}(d, h, e, n)\). Moreover, each column of the measurement matrices associated with the proposed schemes can be nonrandomly generated in polynomial order of the number of rows. As a result, one can save space for storing them. Simulation results confirm our theoretical analysis. When the number of items is sufficiently large, the decoding time in our proposed scheme is smallest in comparison with existing work. In addition, when some erroneous outcomes are allowed, the number of tests in the proposed scheme is often smaller than the number of tests in existing work.


Non-adaptive group testing Sublinear algorithm Sparse recovery 


  1. 1.
    Dorfman, R.: The detection of defective members of large populations. Ann. Math. Stat. 14(4), 436–440 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Du, D., Hwang, F.K., Hwang, F.: Combinatorial Group Testing and Its Applications, vol. 12. World Scientific (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’yachkov, A.G., Rykov, V.V.: Bounds on the length of disjunctive codes. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 18(3), 7–13 (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ngo, H.Q., Du, D.-Z.: A survey on combinatorial group testing algorithms with applications to DNA library screening. Discret. Math. Probl. Med. Appl. 55, 171–182 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’yachkov, A., Polyanskii, N., Shchukin, V., Vorobyev, I.: Separable codes for the symmetric multiple-access channel. In: IEEE ISIT, pp. 291–295. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cormode, G., Muthukrishnan, S.: What’s hot and what’s not: tracking most frequent items dynamically. ACM TODS 30(1), 249–278 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bui, T.V., Kuribayashi, M., Cheraghchi, M., Echizen, I.: A framework for generalized group testing with inhibitors and its potential application in neuroscience. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.01086 (2018)
  8. 8.
    Farach, M., Kannan, S., Knill, E., Muthukrishnan, S.: Group testing problems with sequences in experimental molecular biology. In: Compression and Complexity of Sequences 1997, Proceedings, pp. 357–367. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Bonis, A., Vaccaro, U.: Improved algorithms for group testing with inhibitors. Inf. Process. Lett. 67(2), 57–64 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Bonis, A., Gasieniec, L., Vaccaro, U.: Optimal two-stage algorithms for group testing problems. SIAM J. Comput. 34(5), 1253–1270 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hwang, F.K., Liu, Y.: Error-tolerant pooling designs with inhibitors. J. Comput. Biol. 10(2), 231–236 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang, H., Chen, H.-B., Fu, H.-L.: Identification and classification problems on pooling designs for inhibitor models. J. Comput. Biol. 17(7), 927–941 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ganesan, A., Jaggi, S., Saligrama, V.: Non-adaptive group testing with inhibitors. In: ITW, pp. 1–5. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bui, T.V., Kojima, T., Kuribayashi, M., Haghvirdinezhad, R., Echizen, I.: Efficient (nonrandom) construction and decoding for non-adaptive group testing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03819. J. Inf. Process. (to appear)
  15. 15.
    Bui, T.V., Kuribayashil, M., Cheraghchi, M., Echizen, I.: Efficiently decodable non-adaptive threshold group testing. In: ISIT, pp. 2584–2588. IEEE (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reed, I.S., Solomon, G.: Polynomial codes over certain finite fields. JSIAM 8(2), 300–304 (1960)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kautz, W., Singleton, R.: Nonrandom binary superimposed codes. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 10(4), 363–377 (1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D’yachkov, A., Vilenkin, P., Torney, D., Macula, A.: Families of finite sets in which no intersection of \(\ell \) sets is covered by the union of \(s\) others. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 99(2), 195–218 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stinson, D.R., Wei, R.: Generalized cover-free families. Discret. Math. 279(1–3), 463–477 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen, H.-B., Fu, H.-L., Hwang, F.K.: An upper bound of the number of tests in pooling designs for the error-tolerant complex model. Optim. Lett. 2(3), 425–431 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheraghchi, M.: Improved constructions for non-adaptive threshold group testing. Algorithmica 67(3), 384–417 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoorfar, A., Hassani, M.: Inequalities on the lambert w function and hyperpower function. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math 9(2), 5–9 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thach V. Bui
    • 1
    Email author
  • Minoru Kuribayashi
    • 3
  • Tetsuya Kojima
    • 4
  • Isao Echizen
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.SOKENDAI (The Graduate University for Advanced Studies)HayamaJapan
  2. 2.National Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Okayama UniversityOkayamaJapan
  4. 4.National Institute of TechnologyTokyo CollegeHachiojiJapan

Personalised recommendations