1

Optimal Nested Test Plan for
Combinatorial Quantitative Group Testing

arXiv:1407.2283v5 [cs.IT] 23 Oct 2017

Chao Wang, Qing Zhao, Chen-Nee Chuah

Abstract— We consider the quantitative group testing problem
where the objective is to identify defective items in a given
population based on results of tests performed on subsets of the
population. Under the quantitative group testing model, the result
of each test reveals the number of defective items in the tested
group. The minimum number of tests achievable by nested test
plans was established by Aigner and Schughart in 1985 within
a minimax framework. The optimal nested test plan offering
this performance, however, was not obtained. In this work, we
establish the optimal nested test plan in closed form. This optimal
nested test plan is also order optimal among all test plans
as the population size approaches infinity. Using heavy-hitter
detection as a case study, we show via simulation examples orders
of magnitude improvement of the group testing approach over
two prevailing sampling-based approaches in detection accuracy
and counter consumption. Other applications include anomaly
detection and wideband spectrum sensing in cognitive radio
systems.

Index Terms— Group testing, adaptive test plan, heavy hitter detection, anomaly detection, traffic measurements, spectrum sensing.
I. I NTRODUCTION
A. Classic Group Testing
The group testing problem is concerned with identifying
defective items in a given population by performing tests over
subsets of the population. The objective is a test plan with a
minimal number of tests identifies all defective items.
Under the classic model, each test gives a binary result,
indicating whether the tested group contains any defective
items. The problem was first motivated by the practice of
screening draftees with syphilis during World War II, and the
idea of testing pooled blood samples from a group of people
(rather than testing each person one by one) was initiated by
Robert Dorfman [1].
There are two formulations of the group testing problem,
known as probabilistic group testing (PGT) and combinatorial
group testing (CGT). The former is a Bayesian formulation
that assumes a probabilistic model on the defective items and
aims to minimize the expected number of tests for identifying
all defective items [2]. The latter is a minimax formulation
that assumes a deterministic value d for the total number of
Chao Wang and Qing Zhao are with the School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Cornell University. Emails: {cw733, qz16}@cornell.edu.
Chen-Nee Chuah is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of California, Davis. Email: chuah@ucdavis.edu.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants
CNS-1321115 and CCF-1320065 and by the U.S. Army Research Office
under Grant W911NF-17-1-0464. This paper was presented in part at the
2015 Information Theory and Applications Workshop.

defective items and aims to minimize the number of tests in
the worst case (among all compositions of the defective set of
size d) [3]–[5].
Under both formulations, the test plans can be adaptive
or non-adaptive. Adaptive test plans are sequential in nature:
which group to test next depends on the outcome of the
previous tests. The studies in [2]–[4] mentioned above all
focus on adaptive test plans. Non-adaptive group testing is
a one-stage problem in which all actions are determined
before any test is performed. Non-adaptive test plans are often
represented by matrices [6], [7].
The classic group testing problem has seen a wide range of
applications, including mutiaccess communications [8]–[10],
idle channel detection in the radio spectrum [11], compressed
sensing [12], network tomography [13], and anomaly detection [14], [15]. In particular, non-adaptive group testing has
been widely applied to DNA sequencing and DNA library
screening [6], [16].

B. Quantitative Group Testing
In a quantitative group testing problem, a test reveals the
number of defective items in the tested group, a finer observation model than the binary model assumed in the classic group
testing [5]. It is also known as the coin weighing problem with
a spring scale first introduced by Shapiro in 1960 [17]. The
problem is to identify d counterfeit coins in a collection of n
coins. The weights of the authentic and counterfeit coins are
known. Thus each weighing gives the number of counterfeit
coins in the tested group.
Most studies on quantitative group testing focus on nonadaptive test plans, see, for example, [18]–[20] on the case of
unknown d and [21], [22] on the case of known d. Adaptive
test plans have been studied mostly for the special case of
d = 2 (see [23]–[25]). Only a couple of results are available
on adaptive test plans for the general case of 0 < d < n. In
particular, Aigner and Schughart considered a class of adaptive
test plans with a nested structure [26]. Specifically, in a nested
test plan, once a test reveals a group containing defective
items, the next test must be a proper subset of this group. They
established the performance (i.e., the number of required tests)
of the optimal nested test plan. The optimal nested test plan
itself, however, was not obtained. In [27], Bshouty developed
a semi-adaptive test plan that integrates a bisecting search with
a non-adaptive test plan. It was shown that this semi-adaptive
test plan can be constructed in polynomial time and has a
performance no worse than twice of the information-theoretic

2

lower bound. However, the algorithm may fail to construct a
valid test plan in certain cases1 .
The applications of quantitative group testing include the
uniquely decodable codes for the noiseless n-user adder channel problem [28], and the construction of unknown graphs
from additive queries [22], [23]. Several variations of the
problem can be found in [29]–[31].

examples, we examine the performance of the group testing
approach in terms of detection delay, detection accuracy,
and counter consumption. Significant improvement over two
prevailing sampling-based approach is observed.
Other potential applications include detecting idle channels
in the radio spectrum when the signal strength is relatively
even across busy channels and much higher than the noise
level in idle channels (the high SNR regime).

C. Main Results and Applications
In this paper, we consider the quantitative group testing
problem under the CGT formulation with adaptive test plan
for both known and unknown d. As mentioned above, this
problem with known d was first studied by Aigner and
Schughart in [26] in which they established the number of
tests required by the optimal nested test plan for identifying
d defective items in a population of size n. To our best
knowledge, the optimal nested test plan remains open. In this
paper, we obtain the optimal nested test plan in closed form.
The optimal number of tests N(n, d) was given in [26] in
the form of inequalities. From these inequalities, we obtain
a closed-form expression of N(n, d). We also show that the
sequence of N(n, d) in n for fixed d has a clean pattern which
can be illustrated in a frame-segment structure. However, since
N(n, d) is a nonlinear integer-valued function involving multiple layered ceiling functions, directly obtaining the optimal
test plan from N(n, d) by solving an integer optimization
problem is intractable. Our approach is to first establish three
key properties of N(n, d) and of the optimal test plan. Based
on these properties, we obtain the optimal test plan in closed
form using induction, which also has a clean frame-segment
structure corresponding to the pattern of N(n, d). We point out
that establishing these properties of N(n, d) itself is nontrivial
due to the complex nonlinearity of N(n, d) in both n and d.
We then focus on the application of heavy hitter detection
for traffic monitoring and anomaly detection in the Internet
and other communication networks. For Internet traffic, it is a
common observation that a small percentage of high-volume
flows (referred to as heavy hitters) account for most of the total
traffic [32]. In particular, it was shown in [33] that the top (in
terms of volume) 9% of flows make up 90.7% of the total
traffic over the Internet. Quickly identifying the heavy hitters
is thus crucial to network stability and security. However, the
large number of Internet flows makes individual monitoring
extremely inefficient if not impossible. A quantitative group
testing approach to heavy hitter detection offers an efficient
solution under which the number of required measurements
for reliable detection grows logarithmically rather than linearly
with the number of flows. Indeed, recent advances in software
defined networking (SDN) allow programmable routers to
count aggregated flows that match a given IP prefix [34].
The quantitative group testing model stems from the fact
that the difference between the average traffic rates of heavy
hitters and normal flows is large, which allows for accurate
estimation of the number of heavy hitters from random measurements of the aggregated traffic load. Through simulation
1 One such example is when n = 200 and d = 52, the algorithm fails to
construct the corresponding (3,3,4,5,6,7,8, 8, 9, 9)-Detection Matrix.

D. Discussion of Related Work
Much of the related work has been discussed in the
preceding subsections. Here we provide additional related
work, focusing on the comparison between adaptive and nonadaptive group testing approaches and the connection between
quantitative group testing and compressed sensing.
1) Adaptive vs. Non-Adaptive Group Testing: Most work
on group testing focuses on non-adaptive test plans. A nonadaptive test plan can be represented by a binary measurement
matrix with columns corresponding to items, rows corresponding to tests, and the (i, j)th element indicating whether item j
is included in the ith group test. Constructing the measurement
matrix can be cast as a source coding problem, and the superimposed code and the uniquely decipherable code have been
used in developing non-adaptive test plans (see, for example,
[35]–[39]). It is this connection to source coding that brings
mathematical tractability to non-adaptive group testing, a treat
seldom enjoyed by adaptive group testing. Allowing parallel
implementation with all tests run simultaneously also makes
non-adaptive test plans attractive in applications that involve
a lengthy delay in obtaining test results. The disadvantages
of non-adpative test plans lie in the computational complexity
of the coding/decoding processes, high storage requirement,
and difficulty to adjust to cases with unknown or time-varying
population compositions {n, d}.
Adaptive test plans, in contrast, are more suitable for online
applications where the values of n and/or d are not prefixed.
Furthermore, the optimal nested test plan developed in this
work is given in closed form and has a clean frame-segment
structure; little offline or online computation is needed. The
inherent tree structure of the nested test plan also leads to
low memory requirement. It is thus particularly attractive for
online applications such as real-time heavy hitter detection
where n and d are not prefixed and computational, memory,
and counter resources are stringent.
2) Connection with Compressed Sensing: The quantitative
group testing problem shares similarity with the compressed
sensing problem. In compressed sensing, the objective is to
recover a sparse signal from linear measurements. Specifically,
given an n-dimensional sparse signal with a support size d,
the goal is to identify the support set (non-zero elements of
the signal) with a minimum number of projections. The differences between compressed sensing and quantitative group
testing are in the signal model and constraints on the measurement/projection matrix. Most work on compressed sensing
assumes real-valued signals and allow real-valued measurement matrices. Quantitative group testing, when viewed as
compressed sensing, deals with binary signals that are not

3

necessarily sparse and require the measurement matrix to be
binary valued. There are a number of non-adaptive compressed
sensing algorithms in the literature that result in binary-valued
measurement matrices (see, for example, [40]–[45]). However,
in addition to the sparsity requirement, these non-adaptive
strategies suffer the same difficulties as non-adaptive group
testing algorithms in online applications as discussed above.
Several adaptive compressed sensing algorithms exist in
the literature [46]–[49]. They were shown to outperform nonadaptive algorithms in sample complexity and detection performance. Most of the adaptive compressed sensing algorithms,
however, are not directly applicable to quantitative group
testing due to the real-valued measurement matrices. The only
exceptions are [46], [47], in which two similar bisecting search
approaches were introduced. While the problems formulated
in [46], [47] were to estimate a real-valued sparse signal under
certain constraints, the bisecting search approach proposed
there can be applied to the quantitative group testing problem
and constitutes a suboptimal nested test plan. In this work,
we develop the optimal nested test plan for combinatorial
quantitative group testing.
II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
Consider a population of n items. It is known that among
these n items, d are defective (the issue of unknown d is addressed in Section III-C). Let (n, d) denote the corresponding
quantitative CGT problem. We assume that 1 ≤ d ≤ n − 1 to
avoid the trivial scenarios of d = 0 and d = n.
For a given (n, d), an adaptive test plan π is a sequence of
decision rules {π1 , π2 , . . .} where πt maps from the outcomes
of the previous t − 1 tests to the subset of items to be tested
in the tth test. With a slight abuse of notation, πt is also used
to denote the subset of items tested in the tth test under test
plan π . Let Nπ (n, d; D) denote the number of tests required for
identifying all d defective items under π when the d defective
items are specified by the set D. Note that n and d are known
while D is unknown and is what the test plan needs to identify.
Under the combinatorial formulation, the performance of a
test plan is determined by the worst instance of D among
all subsets with size d. The performance of π , denoted by
Nπ (n, d), is thus given by
Nπ (n, d) =

max

D ⊂[n],|D |=d

Nπ (n, d; D),

(1)

where [n] denotes the set of all n items.
In this work, we focus on a family of test plans that exhibit
a tree structure. This family is referred to as the nested test
plan as defined below.
Definition 1: An adaptive test plan π = {π1 , π2 , . . .} is a
nested test plan if for all t ≥ 1 and k ≥ 1, the tested groups
πt and πt+k at the tth and the (t + k)th tests satisfy either
/
πt ∩ πt+k = πt+k or πt ∩ πt+k = 0.
Based on the above definition, it is not difficult to show that
for every instance of (n, d; D), the Nπ (n, d; D) tested groups
{π1 , π2 , . . . , πNπ (n,d;D ) } form a tree. Specifically, consider a
graph with Nπ (n, d; D) nodes representing each of the tested
groups and a root node representing the set [n] of the entire

population. An edge exists between two nodes if and only
if one of them is the smallest superset of the other. It can
be shown such a graph resulting from a nested test plan is
acyclic.
Our objective is an optimal nested test plan π ∗ given by

π ∗ = argmin Nπ (n, d),
π ∈Π

(2)

where Π denotes the family of all nested test plans. To simplify
the notation, the performance of the optimal nested test plan
π ∗ is denoted by N(n, d) (rather than Nπ ∗ (n, d)).
For a given CGT (n, d), due to the symmetry among
items, the worst-case performance Nπ (n, d) of any test plan
π depends on the first test only through the size of the tested
group but not the specific composition of the group. Suppose
that the first test consists of m items and the outcome reveals
that d1 items among these m are defective. For a nested test
plan, this first test decomposes the original CGT problem of
(n, d) into two independent CGT problems of (m, d1 ) and
(n − m, d − d1 ). Obviously, d1 cannot exceeds m or d. At the
same time, d1 cannot be smaller than 0 or d − (n − m) (the
latter is due to the fact that the n − m untested items consist of
at most (n − m) defective items). Combined with the minimax
nature of the CGT formulation, this leads to the following
recursive equation for N(n, d):

N(n, d) = 1 + min max N(m, d1 ) + N(n − m, d − d1 ) , (3)
m

d1

where the maximization over d1 is among integers in the range
of max{0, d + m − n} to min{m, d}
 and the minimization over
m can be set to integers 1, 2, . . . , n2 (since testing a group of
size m is equivalent to testing a group of size n − m).
Due to this decomposition of the problem into two independent problems of smaller sizes, a nested test plan is fully
specified once the first test is determined for all possible
population sizes n and all possible numbers d of defective
items. Furthermore, since the composition of the tested group
is inconsequential, specifying the size m of the first group test
for all n and d suffices. Let M(n, d) denote the value of m that
achieves N(n, d) in (3), i.e.,

M(n, d) = min max N(m, d1 ) + N(n − m, d − d1 ) . (4)
m

d1

The values of M(n, d) for all n ≥ 1 and 0 ≤ d ≤ n specify
the optimal nested test plan for all CGT problems. We point
out that when there are multiple values of the group size m
that achieve the minimum in (4), M(n, d) is set to the smallest
such value. A smaller group size is often preferred in practical
applications.
The focus on nested test plan is motivated by its analytical
tractability, its simple implementation, and its order optimality.
Without imposing any structure, the optimal test plan is
analytically intractable in general. Obtaining the optimal test
plan numerically through exhaustive search is computationally
prohibitive due to the combinatorial nature of the problem.
The nested structure, however, leads to the clean recursive
formulas in (3, 4), offering the possibility of explicit analytical
characterizations. Nested test plans also enjoy simpler implementation due to the tree-structured splitting of previously

4

tested groups. This tree structure results in lower memory
requirement for storing all past test outcomes. It also allows
maintaining a certain contiguous property in each tested group,
which is often desirable in practice. For example, for the
application of heavy hitter detection, the contiguous property
is in terms of all flows in the tested group sharing a common
IP prefix, which simplifies the router configuration for packet
count of the aggregated flow. For the application of spectrum
sensing, the contiguous property is in terms of adjacency in
the spectrum, which eases filter implementation. Lastly, the
optimal nested test plan is order optimal among all test plans
as shown in Section III-D.

TABLE I
T HE F RAME -S EGMENT S TRUCTURE OF N(n,d)

..
.

III. T HE O PTIMAL N ESTED T EST P LAN
In this section, we establish the optimal nested test plan
in closed-form. This result hinges on a compact closedform expression of N(n, d) and its geometric block-constant
structure as established in Lemma 1 below.

TABLE II
T HE F RAME -S EGMENT S TRUCTURE OF M(n,d)

A. N(n, d) and Its Geometric Block-Constant Structure
In QGT, a test outcome reveals the number of defective
items, thus also the number of non-defective items. This
symmetry between defective and non-defective items readily
leads to
 N(n, d) = N(n, n − d). It thus suffices to assume
d ≤ n2 unless otherwise noted.
The performance of the optimal nested tested plan is given
in the following lemma.
Lemma 1: For a CGT problem (n, d) with d ≤ n2 , we have
N(n, d) = (l + 1)d + k − 1,

(5)

l = ⌈log2 (n/d)⌉ − 1,
k = ⌈n/2l ⌉ − d.

(6)
(7)

..
.

where

Proof: The proof is based on the characterization of
N(n, d) given in [26] in the form of the following three
inequalities.
N(2d, d) ≥ 2d − 1,
N((d + i)2t−1 , d) ≤ td + i − 1,

(8)
(9)

N((d + i)2t−1 + 1, d) ≥ td + i,

(10)

where t ≥ 2, d ≥ 1, 0 ≤ i ≤ d − 1. Detailed of the proof are
given in Appendix A.
Lemma 1 reveals an interleaved block-constant structure
with geometrically growing block length of rate 2. As illustrated in Table I, the sequence of N(n, d) in terms of n
for a fixed d consists of frames, with each frame containing
d segments. The two positive integers l and k given in (6)
and (7) are, respectively, the frame index and the segment
index. Specifically, each sequence N(n, d) starts at n = 2d
withN(2d,
 d) = 2d − 1 (recall that it is sufficient to consider
d ≤ n2 ). Following this initial value, the rest of the sequence
is partitioned into frames with the frame length doubled from
one frame to the next. Each frame consists of d segments of
equal length with a segment length of 2l in the lth frame

(l = 1, 2, . . .). The value of N(n, d) is the same within a
segment and increases by 1 from one segment to the next.
We point out that while N(n, d) was determined in [26], it
was specified through the three inequalities given in (8-10).
The expression given in Lemma 1 is not only more compact
but also reveals the frame-segment structure of N(n, d). As
shown in Section IV, this frame-segment structure of N(n, d)
is the key to establishing the optimal nested test plan.
B. The Optimal Nested Test Plan
The theorem below characterizes the optimal nested test
plan M(n, d) in closed form for all n and d.
Theorem 1: For a CGT problem (n, d) with d ≤ 2n , we have
M(n, d) = n − 2l (d + k − 1),

(11)

where l and k are the frame and segment indexes as given in
(6) and (7). For d > 2n , we have
M(n, d) = M(n, n − d).

(12)

The theorem above fully specifies the optimal nested test
plan. A pseudo code implementation with a recursively called
subroutine is given below.

5

Algorithm 1 Optimal Nested Test Plan
Input: [n]: a group of n items;
d: number of defectives in the group.
Output: D: the set of defective items.
1: procedure T EST ([x])
2:
return The number of defective items in set [x].
3: end procedure
4: procedure N ESTED ([n], d)
5:
Initialize: D = 0/
6:
if d = 0 then
7:
return D = 0/
8:
else if d = n then
9:
return D = [n]
10:
else
11:
[M(n, d)] = a subset of [n] with size M(n, d)
12:
d1 = T EST([M(n, d)])
13:
D = D ∪ N ESTED([M(n, d)], d1)
14:
D = D ∪ N ESTED([n] \ [M(n, d)], d − d1 )
15:
return D
16:
end if
17: end procedure

M(n, d) as a sequence of n for a fixed d has the same framesegment structure as N(n, d). Specifically, each sequence starts
at n = 2d with M(2d, d) = 1. The values of M(n, d) in each
segment of the lth frame are consecutive integers from 1 to 2l .
We postpone the proof of Theorem 1 to Section IV where
we establish several key properties of N(n, d) that will be used
in the proof.

C. The Optimal Nested Test Plan for CGT with Unknown d
We have so far focused on the standard CGT formulation
which assumes a prior knowledge on the total number of
defective items in the given population. For applications where
this prior knowledge is unavailable, the question is how to
start the first test: for any population size n, should the first
test be carried over the entire population or a proper subset of
the population with the size potentially depending on n? The
answer is given in the following theorem.
Theorem 2: For a CGT problem with a population size n
and an unknown number of defective items, the optimal nested
test plan first tests the entire population.
Proof: Let d denote the number of defective items in the
population of n. Suppose that the first test is not carried over
the entire population, but rather on a subset of n1 items. Due
to the nested structure, any nested test plan π will break the
problem with an unknown d into a sequence of CGT problems
(nk , dk ) (k = 1, 2, . . . , K) for some integers K > 0, {nk }Kk=1 with
∑k nk = n, and {dk }Kk=1 with ∑k dk = d. Specifically, the test
plan first tests a group of size n1 , and with one test revealing
the number d1 of defective items in this group, the test plan
then resolves the CGT problem (n1 , d1 ). Subsequently, the test
plan determines the size n2 of the next group of unidentified
items to test, where the choice of n2 may depend on the

outcomes of past tests. The procedure continues until all items
are identified. We thus have
K

Nπ (n) = K + ∑ Nπ (nk , dk ).
k=1

Now consider the CGT problem (n, d). A slight modification
of π that omits the group test of the last set of nK unidentified
items (since the number of defective items in this last set can
be deduced from past tests when d is known) gives a valid
nested test plan for the CGT problem (n, d). We thus have
Nπ (n) ≥ N(n, d) + 1.
We then arrive at Theorem 2 by noticing that the lower bound
of N(n, d) + 1 can be achieved by first testing the entire
population and that π is an arbitrary nested test plan.
With the first test revealing the total number d of defective
items, the problem is then reduced to a CGT of (n, d).
D. Order Optimality and the Approximation Ratio of the
Optimal Nested Test Plan
The logarithmic order of N(n, d) in terms of n can be readily
seen from the closed-form expression. Specifically, we can
write N(n, d) in (5) as
l
lnm
nm
N(n, d) = log2
· d + l − d − 1,
(13)
d
2
l m
where 2nl − d − 1 is bounded between 0 and d − 1. We
compare below the order of N(n, d) with that of N ∗ (n, d), the
minimum number of tests achievable among all test plans.
Likening the group testing problem (n, d) to a source coding

problem with the entropy of the source given by logd dn and
each test outcome representing one letter in the corresponding

codeword, we can easily obtain a lower bound of logd dn (the
minimum expected codeword length) on N ∗ (n, d). Thus, for
all fixed d, the optimal nested test plan has a constant (i.e.,
independent of n) approximation ratio that is asymptotically
bounded by
N(n, d)
lim ∗
≤ log2 d.
(14)
n→∞ N (n, d)
In other words, for all fixed d, the optimal nested test plan is
order optimal among all test plans.
Note that
 whether the information-theoretic lower bound
of logd dn is achievable is still an open question, since not
every coding scheme can be mapped to a valid test plan. In
particular, while a source code has no constraint in choosing
each letter of a codeword, the sequence of test outcomes are
bound by the specific configuration of the given population.
For example, a test outcome cannot take a value greater than
the size of the tested group, and the test outcome of a subset
of a previously tested group must be consistent with the test
outcome of that group. In fact, a negative answer has been
established when we restrict to non-adaptive test plans. Thus,
the asymptotic bound on the approximation ratio given in (14)
may be a pessimistic one. A more detailed discussion on
achievable performance and a comparison between quantitative and Boolean group testing are given in Section V.

6

IV. P ROPERTIES OF N(n, d) AND P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
A. Properties of N(n, d)
We first establish three properties of N(n, d), which will be
used in proving the closed form of M(n, d) in Theorem 1.
Properties:
⌊n/2⌋
[P1] {N(n, d)}d=0 is a strictly increasing sequence in d, i.e.,
jnk
.
N(n, d) > N(n, d − 1), ∀1 ≤ d ≤
2
[P2] {N(n, d)}nd=0 is a concave sequence in d, i.e., for all 1 ≤
d ≤ n − 1, we have
N(n, d + 1) − N(n, d) ≤ N(n, d) − N(n, d − 1).
 
 
[P3] For all d ≤ 2n and m ≤ 2n , if
then for all d1 = 1, 2, . . . , min{m, d},
N(m, 0) + N(n − m, d) ≥ N(m, d1 ) + N(n − m, d − d1).
The strict increasing property [P1] is proved via induction
in n and is the key property used to prove [P2]. [P3] is proved
based on [P2] and is the main tool for proving Theorem 1. It
is used to show that, when m = M(n, d), the worst case occurs
at d1 = 0, i.e., the maximization over d1 in (4) is achieved
at d1 = 0. The proof of these three properties can be found in
Appendix B.
B. Proof of Theorem 1
We now provide a proof of Theorem 1. It suffices to
consider d ≤ n2 . The proof hinges on [P3] shows that when
m = M(n, d) the worst case occurs at d1 = 0. Therefore, N(n, d)
equals 1 + N(n − M(n, d), d), which is the number of tests in
the previous segment plus 1 according to the frame-segment
structure of N(n, d). The detailed proof follows below.
We first establish the initial value M(2d, d) = 1 of every
sequence d. From Lemma 1, we have N(2d, d) = 2d −1, which
can be achieved by testing all but the last item one by one,
i.e., M(2d, d) = 1.
For n > 2d, recall the frame-segment of N(n, d) as illustrated
in TABLE II. Consider the x-th (x = 1, . . . , 2l ) element in the
k-th segment of the l-th frame, i.e.,
n = 2l (d + k − 1) + x.
Then (11) is equivalent to
(15)

For notational simplicity, when the test plan selects the
subset with size m to test, let φ (m; n, d) denote the worst case
number of tests for the subsequent testing under the optimal
nested test plan, i.e.,

φ (m; n, d) = max {N(m, d1 ) + N(n − m, d − d1 )} .
d1

1 + φ (m; 2l (d + k − 1) + x, d)
(a)

≥ 1 + N(m, 0) + N(2l (d + k − 1) + x − m, d)

(b)

> N(2l (d + k − 1) + x, d),

where (a) holds by setting d1 = 0 in (16) and (b) follows from
the fact that N(2l (d + k − 1) + x − m, d) = N(2l (d + k − 1) +
x, d) since they are in the same segment.
When m = x, based on Lemma 1, we have
N(x, 0) + N(2l (d + k − 1), d) − N(2l (d + k − 1), d − 1) − N(x, 1)
= (l + 1)d + k − 2 − (l + 1)(d − 1) − k + 1 − N(x, 1)
= l − N(x, 1) ≥ 0,

N(m, 0) + N(n − m, d) ≥ N(m, 1) + N(n − m, d − 1),

M(2l (d + k − 1) + x, d) = x.

When m < x, we have

(16)

Recall that M(n, d) is chosen as the minimum value of the
group size m that achieves the optimal performance N(n, d).
To show (15), it suffices to show that
(
> N(n, d) when m < x,
1 + φ (m; n, d)
(17)
= N(n, d) when m = x.

i.e.,
N(x, 0)+N(2l (d +k−1), d) ≥ N(x, 1)+N(2l (d +k−1), d −1).
(18)
With (18), based on [P3], we thus have
1 + φ (x; 2l (d + k − 1) + x, d)
= 1 + max{N(x, d1 ) + N(2l (d + k − 1), d − d1)}
d1

= 1 + N(x, 0) + N(2l (d + k − 1), d)
= (l + 1)d + k − 1
= N(2l (d + k − 1) + x, d),
i.e., m = x achieves the optimal performance N(2l (d + k − 1) +
x, d). We then conclude that M(2l (d + k − 1) + x, d) = x.
V. C OMPARISON

Q UANTITATIVE AND B OOLEAN
G ROUP T ESTING

BETWEEN

It is informative to summarize and compare the best known
results for quantitative and Boolean CGT. In particular, it is of
interest to examine the potential gain offered by quantitative
test outcomes over Boolean test outcomes.
A. Comparison for Cases with Known d
We first consider the case when the total number d of
defective items is known. We summarize in TABLE III the
best known lower bounds and upper bounds for Boolean CGT
and quantitative CGT.
For Boolean CGT, when restricted to non-adaptive test
plans, the tightest lower bound on the number of required
d 2 log n
tests was established in [5] to be 24 log2 d , which is strictly
2

greater than the information-theoretic lower bound of log2 dn .
In other words, the information-theoretic lower bound cannot
be achieved by non-adaptive test plans. The best known
non-adaptive test plan appears to be the one developed in
[50] based on disjunct code. However, there remains a gap
between the performance of this best known test plan and the
tightest lower bound (see Table III). This gap has also been
studied in [52] from the perspective of the asymptotic rate
of the Bollean group testing algorithms. When considering
adaptive test plans, the information-theoretic lower bound can
be asymptotically achieved by the adaptive Generalized Binary
Splitting (GBS) algorithm developed in [5] for all fixed d.

7

TABLE III
COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF BOOLEAN AND QUANTITATIVE GROUP TESTING RESULTS .

Boolean CGT

d 2 log2 n
24 log2 d

Quantitative CGT

n
d

2d logd



Non-adaptive Test Plans
Upper Bound
4d 2 log22 n
log22 (d log2 n)

[5]

[19], [21]

4d logd

n
d



[51] (Non-constructive)

For quantitative CGT, the tightest lower bound of the
non-adaptive
 test plan on the number of required tests is
2d logd dn [19], [21], which is about
twice the information
theoretic lower bound of logd dn for large n. Grebinski and
Kucherov [51] established the existence of a non-adaptive test
plan with a performance of 4d logd dn . However, this upper
bound result is non-constructive, and no non-adaptive test plan
is known to achieve this upper bound. For the adaptive test
plans, the optimal nested test plan established in this work
appears to be the first for the general quantitative CGT problem
and achieves order optimality for all fixed d.
The comparison in TABLE III shows that results on quantitative CGT are much less complete than Boolean CGT. In
particular, it remains to be an open question whether the
information-theoretic lower bound can be achieved by an
adaptive test plan for quantitative CGT. Consequently, whether
a gain of log2 d indicated by the information-theoretic lower
bound for quantitative CGT over Booelan CGT can be realized
remains elusive. Nonetheless, it can be shown that the worstcase performance of the optimal nested test plan
 is strictly
better than the Boolean CGT lower bound log2 dn . In Fig. 1,
we compare the average performance of the optimal nested
test plan with quantitative test outcomes with that of GBS, the
best known adaptive test plan for Boolean CGT. The objective
is to illustrate the potential gain offered by quantitative test
outcomes over Boolean test outcomes. As shown in Fig. 1,
for a CGT with n = 500, the gain increases with d and can be
up to 25%.

Adaptive Test Plans
Upper Bound

log2 dn + d [5]
l m


log2 dn · d + 2nl − d − 1 [this work]

Lower Bound

log2 dn

logd dn

[50]

500
GBS
Nested

400

Number of tests

Lower Bound

300

200

100

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

d
Fig. 1. Comparison of the optimal nested test plan to the generalized binary
splitting (GBS) test plan with known d (n = 500, 1000 Monte Carlo runs).

800
Binary Splitting
Nested

700
600

Number of tests

A

500
400
300
200
100

B. Comparison for Cases with Unknown d
We now consider the case with unknown d. For quantitative
CGT, a single test of the entire population reveals d and
reduces the problem to a CGT (n, d) with a known d. For
Boolean CGT, however, most existing test plans rely on the
knowledge of d and do not easily extend to the case with
unknown d. For example, the afore-mentioned best known
non-adaptive test plan and the best adaptive test plan GBS
both require the knowledge of d. How to estimate d based on
Boolean test outcomes is highly nontrivial.
One approach to Boolean CGT with unknown d is binary
splitting, which is also asymptotically optimal. In Fig. 2, we
compare the average performance of the nested test plan with
quantitative test outcomes with that of a bisection search for
Boolean CGT. Fig. 2 shows that when d is unknown, the
gain offerred by quantitative test outcomes over Boolean test
outcomes increases, with up to 50% gain for the same CGT
problem tested in Fig. 1.

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

d
Fig. 2. Comparison of the optimal nested test plan to the binary splitting test
plan with unknown d (n = 500, 1000 Monte Carlo runs).

VI. A PPLICATION

TO

H EAVY H ITTER D ETECTION

In this section, we study the application of quantitative
group testing to the heavy hitter detection problem.
Consider a network consisting of n flows, each modeled as
a random process with a certain packet arrival rate. Assume
that among the n flows, nx are heavy hitters with rate λx , and
n − nx are normal flows with rate λy . Define

ρ=

nx
,
n

(19)

η=

nx λx
nx λx + (n − nx)λy

(20)

8

as the fraction of heavy hitters in terms of the number of flows
and the total traffic volume, respectively. For Internet traffic,
we typically have ρ around 10% to 20% and η around 80%
to 90%.
The problem is to identify the nx heavy hitters quickly
and reliably. The performance metrics of interest are detection
delay, detection accuracy, and counter consumption. Detection
delay is defined as the average time taken to identify all heavy
hitters. Detection accuracy is measured by the false positive
rate α and false negative rate β defined as
Number of falsely identified heavy hitters
, (21)
α=
n − nx
Number of missed heavy hitters
β=
.
(22)
nx
Counter consumption is given by the number of flow counters
required by a heavy hitter detector. In the group testing
algorithm, each test requires a counter, and the counter can
be reused. Since flow counters rely on the high-speed TCAM
(ternary content-addressable memory) entries which are scarce
resources in routers, detectors with low counter consumption
are desired.
Without loss of generality, the arrival rate λy of normal flows
in all simulation examples is normalized to 1. The time unit is
thus determined by the expected inter-arrival time of a normal
flow, which is in the millisecond scale or smaller in typical
Internet traffic.
A. Quantitative Group Testing for Heavy Hitter Detection
In the quantitative group testing formulation, it is assumed
that the test result reveals the number of defective items
without any error. A test plan can thus correctly identify all
defective items. In the application of heavy hitter detection, the
number of heavy hitters needs to be estimated from random
observations of packet arrivals in an aggregated flow. The
estimation errors lead to false positives and false negatives
in the final detection result. We show below via simulation
examples that the large gap in the arrival rates of normal flows
and heavy hitters allow accurate estimation of the number of
heavy hitters from random packet arrivals. Consequently, the
optimal nested test plan given in Theorem 1 offers attractive
performance in detection accuracy.
In the first example, we assume that each flow is an independent Possion process. We employ the maximum likelihood
estimator (MLE) in estimating the number of heavy hitters in
each group test. Consider, without loss of generality, the first
group test that aggregates all n flows. Let z denote the number
of packet arrivals observed in T time units in the aggregated
flow. It is easy to see that the likelihood function is given by
L(nx |z) = z log[(nλy + nx (λx − λy ))T ]
− (nλy + nx (λx − λy ))T − log(z!).
The ML estimate of nx is given by
n̂x = arg

max

nx =0,1,...,n

L(nx |z).

(23)

The above integer optimization can be simplified to the following
n̂x = arg max L(nx |z),
(24)
nx =i0 ,i0 +1

j
k
(z/T )−nλy
where i0 =
. The above simplification results from
λx −λy
the fact that L(nx |z), when viewed as a function of a realvalued argument nx , is unimodal with the maximum value
(z/T )−nλ
achieved at λx −λy y .
From Fig. 3 we observe that for all typical values of ρ and
η , the group testing approach offers good detection reliability
using only T = 2 time units for each group test. Furthermore,
the detection performance improves when η increases and/or
ρ decreases, since both result in a larger gap between λx and
λy , thus better estimates of the number of heavy hitters from
random packet arrivals.
The observation that a larger gap between the rates of heavy
hitters and normal flows leads to better detection accuracy may
also be deduced from the Cramér-Rao lower bound on the
mean-squared error (MSE) of estimating nx . Treating nx as a
real-valued argument, we obtain the lower bound as
Var(n̂x ) ≥

nλy + (λx − λy )nx
,
T (λx − λy )2

(25)

showing smaller estimation error when (λx − λy ) increases
for a fixed λy . Since the likelihood function is unimodal, we
may expect that the MSE in estimating a real-valued proxy
of nx preserves the general property of the original integer
estimation problem.
The MLE requires the knowledge of the flow distribution
and can be computationally expensive for general distributions.
An alternative is a simple sample mean estimator (SME) given
by


z/T − nλy
,
(26)
n̂x =
λx − λy
where [·] denotes the operation of taking the nearest integer.
The detection performance of the optimal nested test plan
with SME for log-normal distributed flows is shown in Fig. 4.
By increasing the observation time to T = 5 for each group
test, SME leads to similar detection accuracy for heavy-tailed
flows.
B. Comparisons with Prevailing Heavy Hitter Detectors
In this section, we compare the proposed group testing
approach with two prevailing sampling-based algorithms for
heavy hitter detection. The first is the Sampled NetFlow
algorithm introduced and implemented by Cisco [53]. Under
this algorithm, one out of every r packets is sampled. If the
sampled packet is from a flow that has a counter established,
the counter of this flow increases by one. Otherwise, a new
counter is created for this flow until all available counters
have been used. The sampling rate r can be chosen, often
heuristically, based on the router configuration. The second
algorithm is the Sample and Hold scheme introduced in [54].
Under this algorithm, the flow ID of every packet is checked.
If the packet is from a flow that has a counter established,
the counter of this flow increases by one. Otherwise, with
probability p a new counter is created for this flow until all
available counters have been used. For both algorithms, at the
end of the detection window, the nx flows with the top packet
counts are declared as heavy hitters, and the rest as normal
flows.

9

−3

6

−3

x 10

ρ=20%
ρ=15%
ρ=10%

x 10

ρ=20%
ρ=15%
ρ=10%

12

False Negative Rate

5

False Positive Rate

14

4
3
2

10
8
6

1

4

0
0.8

0.82

0.84

η

0.86

0.88

2
0.8

0.9

0.82

0.84

η

0.86

0.88

0.9

Fig. 3. Detection accuracy of the optimal nested test plan with MLE for Poisson distributed flows (n = 1000, T = 2, λy = 1).

−3

8

−3

x 10

14

ρ=20%
ρ=15%
ρ=10%

7

False Negative Rate

False Positive Rate

ρ=20%
ρ=15%
ρ=10%

12

6
5
4
3
2

10
8
6
4

1
0
0.8

x 10

0.82

0.84

η

0.86

0.88

2
0.8

0.9

0.82

0.84

η

0.86

0.88

0.9

Fig. 4. Detection accuracy of the optimal nested test plan with SME for log-normal distributed flows (n = 1000, T = 5, λy = 1, σx2 = σy2 = 10).

−1

0

10

False Negative Rate

False Positive Rate

10

−2

10

−3

10

−4

10

10

Sampled NetFlow
Sample & Hold
Group Testing

20

30

−1

10

−2

40

Detection Window

50

60

10

10

Sampled NetFlow
Sample & Hold
Group Testing

20

30

40

50

Detection Window

Fig. 5. Performance comparison: detection accuracy versus detection delay (n = 100 Poisson flows, nx = 3, λx = 20, λy = 1, c = 3).

60

10

0.0040

0.016

Group Testing

Group Testing
Sample and Hold

Sample and Hold

Sampled NetFlow

Sampled NetFlow

0.014

False Negative Rate

False Positive Rate

0.0035

0.0030

0.0025

0.0020

0.0015

0.012

0.010

0.008

0.006

0.0010

0.004

0.0005

0.002

0

2

4

6

8

10

300

350

400

0

450

2

4

6

8

10

300

350

400

450

Number of Counters

Number of Counters

Fig. 6. Performance comparison: detection accuracy versus counter budget (n = 1000 Poisson flows, nx = 200, λx = 36, λy = 1, τ = 568).

In the first example, we compare the detection accuracy
as a function of the detection window of all three algorithms
under a stringent counter budget. Specifically, the total number
c of available counters is set to 3. For the group testing
approach, c determines the maximum number of group tests
that can be performed simultaneously since each group test
requires counting the number of packet arrivals within an
observation window of length T . The observation window
T varies from 1 to 5, resulting in a detection delay (i.e.,
detection window) of 11 to 55 (see the x-axis of Fig. 5).
All three algorithms are implemented over the same detection
window with the same realizations of the flow processes. The
parameters r and p for the two sampling-based approaches
are set to their optimal values using a brute force numerical
search. From Fig. 5 we observe that the group testing approach
offers orders of magnitude improvement in detection accuracy
under the same counter budget. Furthermore, the reliability of
the group testing approach improves significantly when the
detection window increases, while the reliability of the two
sampling-based approaches remain roughly the same. This is
due to the fact that a longer detection window allows a longer
observation window T for each group test, thus smaller error
in estimating the number of heavy hitters in each test. For
the sampling-based approaches, however, detection accuracy
is mainly limited by the counter budget.
In the second example, we compare the counter consumption of the three algorithms by plotting the false positive and
false negative rates as functions of the number of counters as
shown in Fig. 6. The detection window τ is fixed to 568 time
units for all algorithms. Again, the parameters r and p for
the two sampling-based approaches are chosen optimally for
each setting. For the group testing approach, the observation
window T is chosen based on the counter budget so that
all tests can be finished within the detection window. More
specifically, with more counters, more tests can be performed
simultaneously, and each test can use more observations,
resulting in better detection accuracy. In particular, with a
single counter, we need to set T = 1 in order to finish the test

plan within the detection window. From Fig. 6 we observe that
the group testing approach reduces counter consumption from
hundreds to only a handful for the same level of detection
accuracy.
VII. C ONCLUSION
We studied the quantitative group testing problem within the
combinatorial group testing framework. The optimal nested
test plan was established in closed form. Its application in
heavy hitter detection was studied and its performance compared with prevailing sampling-based approaches.
Besides Boolean and quantitative group testing, there are
several other group testing models, including the semiquantitative group testing(SQGT) [38] and the threshold group
testing(TGT) [55], that have been considered in the literature.
Establishing the optimal nested test plan under these group
testing models are interesting future directions. Since SQGT
and TGT can be considered as noisy group testing with specific
noise models, a recent result in [56] on a tree-structured
adaptive strategy for general noisy group testing may be
applicable, even though the special noise models in SQGT
and TGT may be exploited for better performance.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF L EMMA 1
Consider first the initial value of each sequence with n = 2d.
This corresponds to l = 0, k = d. Setting t = 2, i = 0 in (9),
we have
N(2d, d) ≤ 2d − 1.
Together with (8), we arrive at
N(2d, d) = (l + 1)d + k − 1 = 2d − 1.
When n > 2d, based on the definition of l and k, we write n
as
n = (d + k − 1)2l + (n − (d + k − 1)2l ).

(27)

11

Let x = n − (d + k − 1)2l . It is easy to see that l ≥ 1, 1 ≤ k ≤ d,
and 1 ≤ x ≤ 2l . Based on (27), (5) is equivalent to
N((d + k − 1)2l + x, d) = (l + 1)d + k − 1.

(28)

Setting t = l + 1, i = k − 1 in (10), we have
l

N((d + k − 1)2 + 1, d) ≥ (l + 1)d + k − 1.

φ (m; n0 , d)
(29)

Setting t = l + 1, i = k for 1 ≤ k ≤ d − 1 and t = l + 2, i = 0
for k = d in (9), we have,
l

l

N((d + k − 1)2 + 2 , d) ≤ (l + 1)d + k − 1.

(30)

From (29) and (30) we have, for all x = 1, 2, . . . , 2t−1 ,
l

(l + 1)d + k − 1 ≤ N((d + k − 1)2 + 1, d)
≤ N((d + k − 1)2l + x, d)
≤ N((d + k − 1)2l + 2l , d)
≤ (l + 1)d + k − 1,
which leads to (28). Here we have used the monotonicity
property of N(n, d), i.e., N(n, d) ≤ N(n + 1, d), ∀n ≥ 2d.

P ROOF

OF

It is easy to see that (33) and (34) cover all possible values of
d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) since the upper limit in (33)
 is greater
 than
the lower limit in (34) given that m ≤ n20 and d ≤ n20 .
When (33) is true, we have

A PPENDIX B
P ROPERTIES OF N(n, d)

In this appendix, we provide the proof of the three properties
[P1]-[P3] introduced in Section IV.
A. Proof of [P1]
The proof is based on induction in n using the recursive
formulas in (3) and (4).
Let d1∗ (m; n, d) denote the maximizer that achieves
φ (m; n, d) as defined in (16), i.e.,

φ (m; n, d) = N(m, d1∗ (m; n, d)) + N(n − m, d − d1∗ (m; n, d)).
(31)
Note that since d and m are restricted to no greater than 2n ,
we have 0 ≤ d1∗ (m; n0 , d) ≤ min{m, d}.
The initial condition of the induction is easy to check:
N(2, 1) = 1 > N(2, 0) = 0. Now assume that there exists an
⌊n/2⌋
n0 > 2 such that for every n < n0 , {N(n, d)}d=0 is a strictly
increasing sequence in d. Based on this induction assumption,
⌊n0 /2⌋
we prove next that {N(n0 , d)}d=0
is strictly increasing in d.
It is straightforward that N(n0 , 0) < N(n0 , 1). When d > 2,
we prove the statement by considering separately the cases
when n0 is odd and when n0 is even.
Case 1: n0 is odd.
The basic
idea of the proof is to show that for all m =

1, . . . , n2 ,
φ (m; n0 , d − 1) < φ (m; n0 , d).
(32)
Then from (3), we arrive at [P1].
Next, we show (32) by considering the following two cases
in terms of the value of d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1):
nj m k o
,d ,
(33)
0 ≤ d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) < min
2


n0 − m
d −1−
< d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) ≤ min{m, d − 1}. (34)
2

(a)

≥ N(m, d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) + 1)
+ N(n0 − m, d − d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) − 1)

(b)

> N(m, d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1))
+ N(n0 − m, d − d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) − 1)
(c)

= φ (m; n0 , d − 1),

where (a) holds since d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) + 1 is in the range
{0, . . . , min{m, d}} of the maximizer for φ (m; n0 , d); (b)
follows from the induction
hypothesis and the fact that

d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) < m2 given in (33), and (c) follows from
(31). We thus arrive at (32).
When (34) is true, by noticing that d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) is within
the range {0, . . . , min{m, d}} of the maximizer for φ (m; n0 , d),
we have

φ (m; n0 , d)
≥N(m, d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1))
+ N(n0 − m, d − d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1))
>N(m, d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1))
+ N(n0 − m, d − d1∗ (m; n0 , d − 1) − 1)
=φ (m; n0 , d − 1).
This concludes the proof for Case 1.
Case 2: n0 is even.
For d < n20 , the proof follows the same line of argument as
in Case 1. Now consider d = n20 . We need to prove N(n0 , n20 −
1) < N(n0 , n20 ). Base on Lemma 1, we have N(n0 , n20 ) = n0 − 1.
Then it is equivalent to prove N(n0 , n20 − 1) < n0 − 1.
When m is even, d1∗ (m; n0 , n20 − 1) is covered by (33) and
(34). The same line of arguments as in Case 1 leads to
n0
n0
(35)
φ (m; n0 , − 1) < φ (m; n0 , ).
2
2
Based on the unimodal property of {N(n, d)}nd=0 given in [P3],
we further have
m
n0
(36)
d1∗ (m; n0 , ) = ,
2
2
i.e.,
m
n0 − m
n0
)
(37)
φ (m; n0 , ) = N(m, ) + N(n0 − m,
2
2
2
= n0 − 2,
(38)
where (38) is based on Lemma 1. Therefore, we have, for all
even m,
n0
φ (m; n0 , − 1) < n0 − 2.
(39)
2
When m is odd, based on [P3] and Lemma 1, we have

φ (m; n0 ,

m−1
n0 − m − 1
n0
− 1) = N(m,
) + N(n0 − m,
)
2
2
2
= n0 − 2.
(40)

12

With (39) and (40), we have
n0
n0
N(n0 , − 1) = 1 + min φ (m; n0 , − 1) < n0 − 1,
m
2
2
i.e.,

n0
n0
N(n0 , − 1) < N(n0 , ).
2
2

Based on this definition, we have

(41)

(43)

f (x − (k∗ − 1)) − f (x − k∗) ≤ ck∗ − ck∗ −1 .

(44)

Based on (43) and (44), due to the monotonicity and the
concavity of f (x) and {ck }nk=1 , we can easily prove

B. Proof of [P2]

f (x − (k∗ + 1))− f (x − (k∗ + 2))
≥ f (x − k∗ ) − f (x − (k∗ + 1))
≥ ck∗ +1 − ck∗

We first establish the following lemma.
Lemma 2: Let f (x) be a real-valued function defined on a
finite set of consecutive integers, i.e., x ∈ {u, u + 1, . . ., v} for
some u and v. Suppose that f (x) is monotonically increasing
and concave. For every positive integer s, let {ck }sk=0 be an
arbitrary increasing and concave sequence. Define, for x =
u, u + 1, . . ., v + s,

where τ = min{x − u, s}. Then F(x) is increasing and concave.
This lemma is rather intuitive given that F(x) is the maximum of shifted versions of f (x) which is increasing and
concave. An numerical example with s = 3 is given in Fig. 7.

(45)

≥ ck∗ +2 − ck∗ +1
f (x − (k∗ − 2))− f (x − (k∗ − 1))
≤ f (x − (k∗ − 1)) − f (x − k∗)
≤ ck∗ − ck∗ −1

F(x) := max{ f (x) + c0 , f (x − 1) + c1, . . . , f (x − τ ) + cτ },

(46)

≤ ck∗ −1 − ck∗ −2
From (45) and (46), respectively, we have
f (x − (k∗ + 1)) + ck∗+1 ≥ f (x − (k∗ + 2)) + ck∗+2 ,

(47)

f (x − (k∗ − 2)) + ck∗−2 ≤ f (x − (k∗ − 1)) + ck∗−1 .

(48)

Remark: Based on the same arguments introduced above,
it is not difficult to prove that f (x − k) + ck is monotonically
increasing in k when k ≤ k∗ and monotonically decreasing in
k when k ≥ k∗ .
Next, based on the definition of k∗ and the above remark,
we will prove that

12
10
8

y

f (x − k∗ ) − f (x − (k∗ + 1)) ≥ ck∗ +1 − ck∗ ,

6

F(x−1) = max { f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ −1 , f (x − k∗ − 1) + ck∗ } , (49)
f(x)+c

F(x+1) = max { f (x − k∗ + 1) + ck∗ , f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ +1 } . (50)

0

4

f(x−1)+c

1

f(x−2)+c

Notice that, here we assume f (x − k − 1) and ck+1 have
definitions on k = k∗ . If either of them does not exist, without
loss of generality, we can simply discard the corresponding
item in the maximum equation in (49) and (50).
Based on (45), we have

2

2

f(x−3)+c

3

F(x)

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

x
Fig. 7. Illustration of Lemma 2 with s = 3.

Next we provide a detailed proof of this lemma. Our
objective is to show
0 ≤ F(x + 1) − F(x) ≤ F(x) − F(x − 1).
Based on the definition of F(x), we have
F(x − 1) =
F(x) =
F(x + 1) =

max

k=0,1,...,min{x−u−1,s}

max

k=0,1,...,min{x−u,s}

max
k=0,1,...,min{x−u+1,s}

{ f (x − k + 1) + ck} .

Define k∗ as
k∗ = arg

max
k=0,1,...,min{x−u,s}

{ f (x − k) + ck } ,

i.e.,
∗

F(x) = f (x − k ) + ck∗ .

(51)

f (x − (k∗ + 1)) − ck∗ ≥ f (x − (k∗ + 2)) + ck∗+1 .

(52)

i.e.,

(42)

Based on (46), we have

{ f (x − k − 1) + ck} ,

{ f (x − k) + ck } ,

f (x − (k∗ + 1)) − f (x − (k∗ + 2)) ≥ ck∗ +1 − ck∗ ,

f (x − (k∗ − 1)) − f (x − k∗) ≤ ck∗ −1 − ck∗ −2 ,

(53)

f (x − (k∗ − 1)) + ck∗−2 ≤ f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ −1 .

(54)

i.e.,
Due to (52), (54) and the previous remark, we can shown
that f (x − k − 1) + ck is monotonically increasing with k when
k ≤ k∗ − 1 and monotonically decreasing with k when k ≥ k∗ .
(49) is thus proved.
Similarly, based on (45) and (46), we can show that
f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ +1 ≥ f (x − (k∗ + 1)) + ck∗+2 ,
f (x − (k∗ − 2)) + ck∗−1 ≤ f (x − (k∗ − 1)) + ck∗ ,

(55)

13

which shows that f (x − k + 1) + ck is monotonically increasing
with k when k ≤ k∗ and monotonically decreasing with k when
k ≥ k∗ + 1 based on the above remark. (50) is thus proved.
In conclusion, now we have
F(x − 1) = max { f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ −1 , f (x − k∗ − 1) + ck∗ } ,
F(x) = f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ ,
F(x + 1) = max { f (x − k∗ + 1) + ck∗ , f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ +1 } .
If F(x − 1) = f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ −1 and F(x + 1) = f (x − k∗ ) +
ck∗ +1 , based on the monotonicity and the concavity of ck , the
objective equation (42) is true.
If F(x − 1) = f (x − k∗ − 1) + ck∗ and F(x + 1) = f (x − k∗ +
1) + ck∗ , based on the monotonicity and the concavity of f (x),
the objective equation (42) is true.
If F(x − 1) = f (x − k∗ ) + ck∗ −1 and F(x + 1) = f (x − k∗ +
1) + ck∗ , we have
F(x) − F(x − 1) = ck∗ − ck∗ −1 ≥ 0,
F(x + 1) − F(x) = f (x − k∗ + 1) − f (x − k∗) ≥ 0.

(56)

Then, based on (44), the objective equation (42) is proved.
If F(x − 1) = f (x − k∗ − 1) + ck∗ and F(x + 1) = f (x − k∗ ) +
ck∗ +1 , we have
F(x) − F(x − 1) = f (x − k∗ ) − f (x − k∗ − 1) ≥ 0,
F(x + 1) − F(x) = ck∗ +1 − ck∗ ≥ 0.

(57)

Then, based on (43), we arrive at (42), which completes the
proof of Lemma 2.
We now prove [P2] based on Lemma 2. Based on the
symmetry property
of N(n, d), it is sufficient to consider
 
d = 0, 1, . . . , n2 . The proof is based on induction in n using
the recursive formulas in (3, 4). The initial condition of the
induction is easy to check: N(2, d) is a concave function of d
for 0 ≤ d ≤ 1. Now assume that there exists an n0 > 2 such
⌊n/2⌋
that for every n < n0 , {N(n, d)}d=0 is a concave sequence in
d.
Based on this induction assumption, we prove next that
⌊n0 /2⌋
{N(n0 , d)}d=0
is a concave sequence in d.
In the following proof, for given n and m, φ (m; n, d) in (16)
is viewed as a function of d. The maximizer of (16) defined
as
d1∗ (m; n, d) := arg max{N(m, d1 ) + N(n − m, d − d1 )}
d1

is also viewed as a function of d.
We show next that for given
  n0 and
 m,
 φ (m; n0 , d) is
concave in d. Since m ≤ n20 , d ≤ n20 , based on the
symmetric property N(n, d) = N(n, n − d) and the increasing
property [P1], d1∗ (m; n0 , d) must satisfy


jmk
n0 − m
≤ d1∗ (m; n0 , d) ≤
.
(58)
d−
2
2
Also since 0 ≤ d1∗ (m; n0 , d) ≤ d, we can tighten the range of
d1∗ (m; n0 , d) to
d1 ≤ d1∗ (m; n0 , d) ≤ d1 ,


  

, d1 = min d, m2 .
where d1 = max 0, d − n0 −m
2

Thus φ (m; n0 , d) can be written as

φ (m; n0 , d) =

max {N(m, d1 ) + N(n0 − m, d − d1 )}. (59)

d1 =d1 ,...d1

Note that N(n0 − m, d − d1 ) is an increasing (based on [P1])
and concave (based on the induction hypothesis) function of
d. For the same reasons, {N(m, d1 )}dd11 =d1 is an increasing and
concave sequence in d1 . Then Lemma 2 immediately shows
that φ (m; n0 , d) is increasing and concave in d, i.e.,
2φ (m; n0 , d) ≥ φ (m; n0 , d − 1) + φ (m; n0 , d + 1).
We thus have
min{2φ (m; n0 , d)}
m

≥ min{φ (m; n0 , d − 1) + φ (m; n0 , d + 1)}
m

(60)

≥ min{φ (m; n0 , d − 1)} + min{φ (m; n0 , d + 1)}.
m

m

Adding 2 to both sides of the inequality, we complete the
induction and arrive at [P2].
C. Proof of [P3]
[P3] can be easily deduced from [P2] as follows.
The condition in [P3] is equivalent to
N(m, 1) − N(m, 0) ≤ N(n − m, d) − N(n − m, d − 1).
Applying the concavity property in [P2] to both sides of this
equality leads to
N(m, 2) − N(m, 1) ≤ N(n − m, d − 1) − N(n − m, d − 2),
which is equivalent to the statement in [P3] for d1 = 2.
Following the same line of argument, we arrive at [P3]
for d1 = 1, 2, . . . , min{m, d}.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Dorfman, “The detection of defective members of large populations,”
The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 436–440, 1943.
[2] M. Sobel and P. A. Groll, “Group testing to eliminate efficiently all
defectives in a binomial sample,” Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 38,
no. 5, pp. 1179–1252, 1959.
[3] C. H. Li, “A sequential method for screening experimental variables,”
Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 57, no. 298,
pp. 455–477, 1962.
[4] G. O. Katona, “Combinatorial search problems,” A survey of combinatorial theory, pp. 285–308, 1973.
[5] D. Du and F. Hwang, Combinatorial group testing and its applications.
World Scientific, 2nd ed., 2000.
[6] H. Q. Ngo and D.-Z. Du, “A survey on combinatorial group testing
algorithms with applications to DNA library screening,” Discrete mathematical problems with medical applications, vol. 55, pp. 171–182, 2000.
[7] D. Du and F. Hwang, Pooling Design and Nonadaptive Group Testing:
Important Tools for DNA Sequencing. World Scientific, 2006.
[8] J. Wolf, “Born again group testing: Multiaccess communications,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 31, pp. 185–191, Mar 1985.
[9] J. K. Wolf, “Principles of group testing and an application to the design
and analysis of multi-access protocols,” in The Impact of Processing
Techniques on Communications, pp. 237–257, Springer, 1985.
[10] T. Berger, N. Mehravari, D. Towsley, and J. Wolf, “Random multipleaccess communication and group testing,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 32, pp. 769–779, Jul 1984.
[11] A. Sharma and C. Murthy, “Group testing based spectrum hole search for
cognitive radios,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. PP,
no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2014.
[12] M. Cheraghchi, A. Hormati, A. Karbasi, and M. Vetterli, “Group
testing with probabilistic tests: Theory, design and application,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, pp. 7057–7067, Oct 2011.

14

[13] M. Cheraghchi, A. Karbasi, S. Mohajer, and V. Saligrama, “Graphconstrained group testing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 58, pp. 248–262, Jan 2012.
[14] M. T. Thai, Y. Xuan, I. Shin, and T. Znati, “On detection of malicious
users using group testing techniques,” in The 28th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, pp. 206–213, 2008.
[15] S. Khattab, S. Gobriel, R. Melhem, and D. Mosse, “Live baiting for
service-level DoS attackers,” in The 27th IEEE Conference on Computer
Communications, April 2008.
[16] D. Balding, W. Bruno, D. Torney, and E. Knill, “A comparative survey of non-adaptive pooling designs,” in Genetic mapping and DNA
sequencing, pp. 133–154, Springer, 1996.
[17] H. S. Shapiro, “Problem E 1399,” Amer. Math. Monthly, vol. 67, no. 82,
pp. 697–697, 1960.
[18] N. Fine, “Solution of problem E 1399,” American Mathematical
Monthly, vol. 67, no. 7, pp. 697–698, 1960.
[19] B. Lindström et al., “Determining subsets by unramified experiments,”
1975.
[20] P. Erdös and A. Rényi, “On two problems of information theory,” 1963.
[21] A. Djackov, “On a search model of false coins,” in Topics in Information
Theory (Colloquia Mathematica Societatis Janos Bolyai 16, Keszthely,
Hungary). Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Acad. Sci, p. 163170, 1975.
[22] S.-S. Choi and J. H. Kim, “Optimal query complexity bounds for finding
graphs,” in Proceedings of the 40th annual ACM symposium on Theory
of computing, pp. 749–758, ACM, 2008.
[23] M. Aigner, “Search problems on graphs,” Discrete Applied Mathematics,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 215–230, 1986.
[24] F. H. Hao, “The optimal procedures for quantitative group testing,”
Discrete Applied Mathematics, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1990.
[25] L. Gargano, V. Montouri, G. Setaro, and U. Vaccaro, “An improved
algorithm for quantitative group testing,” Discrete applied mathematics,
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 299–306, 1992.
[26] M. Aigner and M. Schughart, “Determining defectives in a linear order,”
Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, vol. 12, pp. 359–368,
1985.
[27] N. H. Bshouty, “Optimal algorithms for the coin weighing problem with
a spring scale.,” in COLT, 2009.
[28] S.-C. Chang and E. Weldon, “Coding for T-user multiple-access channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 684–
691, 1979.
[29] N. H. Bshouty and H. Mazzawi, “Toward a deterministic polynomial
time algorithm with optimal additive query complexity,” in Mathematical
Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 221–232, Springer, 2010.
[30] V. Grebinski and G. Kucherov, “Optimal reconstruction of graphs under
the additive model,” in Algorithms-ESA’97, pp. 246–258, Springer, 1997.
[31] W. Han, P. I. Frazier, and B. M. Jedynak, “Probabilistic group testing
under sum observations: A parallelizable 2-approximation for entropy
loss,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.4446, 2015.
[32] K. Thompson, G. Miller, and R. Wilder, “Wide-area internet traffic
patterns and characteristics,” IEEE Network, vol. 11, pp. 10–23, Nov
1997.
[33] W. Fang and L. Peterson, “Inter-AS traffic patterns and their implications,” in Global Telecommunications Conference, vol. 3, pp. 1859–
1868, 1999.
[34] M. Yu, L. Jose, and R. Miao, “Software defined traffic measurement
with OpenSketch.,” in NSDI, vol. 13, pp. 29–42, 2013.
[35] W. Kautz and R. Singleton, “Nonrandom binary superimposed codes,”
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 363–377,
1964.
[36] T. Berger and V. I. Levenshtein, “Asymptotic efficiency of two-stage
disjunctive testing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 48,
no. 7, pp. 1741–1749, 2002.
[37] A. C. Gilbert, M. A. Iwen, and M. J. Strauss, “Group testing and sparse
signal recovery,” in 42nd Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and
Computers, pp. 1059–1063, 2008.
[38] A. Emad and O. Milenkovic, “Semiquantitative group testing,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 4614–4636,
2014.
[39] P. Erdös, P. Frankl, and Z. Füredi, “Families of finite sets in which no
set is covered by the union of others,” Israel Journal of Mathematics,
vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 79–89, 1985.
[40] W. Xu and B. Hassibi, “Efficient compressive sensing with deterministic guarantees using expander graphs,” in IEEE Information Theory
Workshop, pp. 414–419, 2007.
[41] W. Xu and B. Hassibi, “Further results on performance analysis for compressive sensing using expander graphs,” in 41st Asilomar Conference
on Signals, Systems and Computers, pp. 621–625, 2007.

[42] P. Indyk and M. Ruzic, “Near-optimal sparse recovery in the l1 norm,”
in 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science,
pp. 199–207, 2008.
[43] S. Jafarpour, W. Xu, B. Hassibi, and R. Calderbank, “Efficient and
robust compressed sensing using optimized expander graphs,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 4299–4308,
2009.
[44] R. Berinde, A. C. Gilbert, P. Indyk, H. Karloff, and M. J. Strauss,
“Combining geometry and combinatorics: A unified approach to sparse
signal recovery,” in 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication,
Control, and Computing, pp. 798–805, 2008.
[45] M. Cheraghchi, “Derandomization and group testing,” in 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing,
pp. 991–997, 2010.
[46] M. L. Malloy and R. D. Nowak, “Near-optimal adaptive compressed
sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 7,
pp. 4001–4012, 2014.
[47] M. A. Iwen and A. H. Tewfik, “Adaptive strategies for target detection
and localization in noisy environments,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2344–2353, 2012.
[48] J. Haupt, R. Baraniuk, R. Castro, and R. Nowak, “Sequentially designed
compressed sensing,” in IEEE Statistical Signal Processing Workshop
(SSP), pp. 401–404, 2012.
[49] S. Ji, Y. Xue, and L. Carin, “Bayesian compressive sensing,” IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 2346–2356, 2008.
[50] W. Kautz and R. Singleton, “Nonrandom binary superimposed codes,”
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 363–377,
1964.
[51] V. Grebinski and G. Kucherov, “Optimal reconstruction of graphs under
the additive model,” Algorithmica, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 104–124, 2000.
[52] M. Aldridge, L. Baldassini, and O. Johnson, “Group testing algorithms:
Bounds and simulations,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory,
vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 3671–3687, 2014.
[53] Cisco, “Sampled NetFlow.” http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12 0s/feature/guid
[54] C. Estan and G. Varghese, New directions in traffic measurement and
accounting, vol. 32. ACM, 2002.
[55] P. Damaschke, “Threshold group testing,” in General theory of information transfer and combinatorics, pp. 707–718, Springer, 2006.
[56] C. Wang, K. Cohen, and Q. Zhao, “Active hypothesis testing on
a tree: Anomaly detection under hierarchical observations,” in IEEE
International Symposium onInformation Theory (ISIT), pp. 993–997,
2017.

