Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 cited by

An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Threshold Group Testing

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Threshold group testing requires c k log(n/k) non-adaptive tests where c depends on defect prevalence and threshold value.

desk verdict The paper gives an explicit c_inf^TGT for threshold group testing and shows it matches CGT at low prevalence but is strictly harder at positive defective fraction; the claimed sharp threshold still rests on an unverified assumption for t>2. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.11353 v1 pith:CMUPMM6F submitted 2026-06-09 cs.IT math.ITmath.PR

Remco van der Hofstad , Noela Müller , Connor Riddlesden This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.ITmath.PR
keywords thresholdgrouptestinginformation-theoreticboundsphasetransitionnon-adaptiveconstant-columndesigndefectiveprevalencesparserecovery
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper derives a sharp information-theoretic phase transition for the minimal number of tests in non-adaptive threshold group testing under the constant-column design. It shows this transition occurs at c_inf^TGT k log(n/k) tests, with the constant expressed in terms of the fraction of defectives and the threshold. The value of the constant matches classical group testing when defectives are rare but is smaller at higher prevalence, indicating fewer tests are needed. Evidence is given that threshold group testing becomes strictly harder than classical group testing when defectives form a positive fraction of all items. The upper bound rests on an analytic assumption verified only for threshold equal to 2.

What carries the argument

The threshold constant c_inf^TGT that sets the location of the sharp phase transition for the number of tests required in threshold group testing.

What would settle it

A calculation of the mutual information for threshold value 3 that yields a different leading constant from the predicted c_inf^TGT, or a numerical check showing the transition point deviates from c k log(n/k).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the constant-column design for non-adaptive noiseless threshold group testing, there is a sharp information-theoretic transition at c_inf^TGT k log(n/k) tests, with c_inf^TGT a function of the defective prevalence and the threshold value. The upper bound holds under an analytic assumption verified for threshold 2. For small prevalence this matches classical group testing, while higher prevalence yields a reduction in tests due to the threshold. When the proportion of defectives is bounded below by a positive constant, threshold group testing requires strictly more tests than classical group testing.

Load-bearing premise

The upper bound on the number of tests assumes an analytic condition whose validity is only checked explicitly for a threshold value of 2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the low-prevalence regime threshold group testing and classical group testing require the same order of tests.
  • At moderate prevalence the threshold produces a strict reduction in the number of tests needed.
  • When the fraction of defectives is bounded away from zero, threshold group testing demands more tests than the classical case.
  • The phase transition result is specific to the constant-column test design.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The analytic assumption used for the upper bound may be provable for thresholds larger than 2.
  • The same constant-column analysis could be extended to the noisy observation model.
  • Applications such as pooled testing with variable infection rates could benefit from choosing thresholds to operate in the reduced-test regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes non-adaptive noiseless threshold group testing (TGT) in the constant-column design. It derives a sharp information-theoretic phase transition at c_inf^TGT k log(n/k) tests, with c_inf^TGT a function of defective prevalence and threshold t. The lower bound holds generally; the matching upper bound is obtained under an analytic assumption verified only for t=2. TGT matches classical group testing (CGT) at low prevalence, requires fewer tests at higher prevalences, and is strictly harder than CGT when the defective proportion is positive.

Significance. If the upper bound construction extends to general t, the result supplies a precise, design-specific characterization of TGT sample complexity and identifies regimes in which raising the threshold reduces the number of tests relative to CGT. The explicit dependence of the constant on prevalence and t, together with the comparison to the t=1 case, would be a useful addition to the group-testing literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract / main contribution: the claim of a sharp phase transition at c_inf^TGT k log(n/k) for general thresholds requires matching upper and lower bounds. The upper bound is derived under an analytic assumption that the manuscript states is verified only for threshold value 2; no verification or counter-example is supplied for t>2. This directly affects the central claim that the constant is tight for arbitrary t.
  2. [Abstract] The statement that TGT 'has the same information-theoretic behaviour as CGT in the low-prevalence regime' and 'a significant reduction in the number of tests' at higher prevalences rests on the same upper-bound construction. Because the construction is conditional on the unverified assumption for t>2, the comparative claims are not yet established for general thresholds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the scope of the upper-bound result. We address the two major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract / main contribution: the claim of a sharp phase transition at c_inf^TGT k log(n/k) for general thresholds requires matching upper and lower bounds. The upper bound is derived under an analytic assumption that the manuscript states is verified only for threshold value 2; no verification or counter-example is supplied for t>2. This directly affects the central claim that the constant is tight for arbitrary t.

    Authors: We agree that the upper bound holds only under the stated analytic assumption, which the manuscript verifies solely for t=2. The information-theoretic lower bound is unconditional. Because no general verification or counter-example is currently available for t>2, the claim of a sharp (matching) phase transition is conditional for thresholds other than 2. We will revise the abstract and the statement of the main theorem to make this limitation explicit and will add a short discussion of the assumption's plausibility for small t>2 based on the explicit expressions already computed. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The statement that TGT 'has the same information-theoretic behaviour as CGT in the low-prevalence regime' and 'a significant reduction in the number of tests' at higher prevalences rests on the same upper-bound construction. Because the construction is conditional on the unverified assumption for t>2, the comparative claims are not yet established for general thresholds.

    Authors: The low-prevalence equivalence follows directly from the fact that c_inf^TGT approaches the CGT constant as prevalence tends to zero; this limit does not rely on the analytic assumption. The claimed reduction at higher prevalences, however, does depend on the value of c_inf^TGT obtained from the upper-bound construction and is therefore conditional for t>2. We will revise the abstract and the relevant discussion paragraph to separate the unconditional low-prevalence statement from the conditional higher-prevalence comparison. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Verification (or counter-example) of the analytic assumption for the upper-bound construction when the threshold t exceeds 2

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: phase-transition constant derived from independent mutual-information analysis

full rationale

The claimed sharp threshold at c_inf^TGT k log(n/k) is obtained by direct computation of the information-theoretic quantities (mutual information or entropy rates) for the constant-column design as a function of prevalence and threshold t. No equation reduces the final constant to a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or a definition that presupposes the result. The analytic assumption required only for the upper-bound construction is stated separately and does not enter the expression for c_inf^TGT itself; verification for t=2 is an external check rather than a definitional step. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against the paper's own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The upper-bound derivation invokes an unspecified analytic assumption whose verification is only given for threshold 2; the information-theoretic lower bound presumably relies on standard entropy calculations for the constant-column design.

assumptions (1)
  • ad hoc to paper Analytic assumption required for the upper bound on the number of tests
    Explicitly stated in abstract as the basis for the matching upper bound; only verified for threshold 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Threshold Group Testing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMUPMM6F

@misc{pith2026260611353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Information-Theoretic Analysis of Threshold Group Testing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMUPMM6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.11353}
}
abstract

We study the Threshold Group Testing (TGT) problem in the noiseless and non-adaptive setting, where the objective is to exactly recover a sparse binary vector from pooled tests, using as few tests as possible. In TGT, each test applied to a subset of items returns a positive outcome if the number of 1's (defective items) in that subset meets or exceeds a specified threshold, and has a negative outcome otherwise. We investigate how the complexity of TGT compares to that of Classical Group Testing (CGT), corresponding to the special case of the threshold equal to one, and analyse the impact of increasing the threshold on the required number of tests. Our main contribution is the derivation of a sharp information-theoretic phase transition at $c_{\mathrm{inf}}^{\mathrm{TGT}}k\log(n/k)$ (non-adaptive) tests for TGT within the constant-column test design. The threshold constant $c_{\mathrm{inf}}^{\mathrm{TGT}}$ is expressed as a function of the prevalence of defectives and the threshold value. Our upper bound is derived under an analytic assumption, and we verify that this assumption is satisfied for a threshold value of 2. The value of $c_{\mathrm{inf}}^{\mathrm{TGT}}$ reveals that TGT on the constant-column design has the same information-theoretic behaviour as CGT in the low-prevalence regime. Yet, strikingly, at higher prevalences, the threshold leads to a significant reduction in the number of tests. On the other hand, we provide evidence that when the asymptotic proportion of defective items is positive, TGT actually becomes strictly harder than CGT (excluding trivial reductions).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.11353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graphical representation of a pooling scheme for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: The difference between the information-theoretically optimal constant for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the behaviour of the function and its first five derivatives, high￾lighting why an analytical argument is not straightforward. 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 [1, 2] 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 h( ) r = 2.0 r = 2.2 r = 2.4 r = 2.6 r = 2.8 r = 3.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 [1, 2] 2 0 2 4 6 h 0( ) r = 2.0 r = 2.2 r = 2.4 r = 2.6 r = 2.8 r = 3.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 [1, 2] 20 10 0 10 20 h 00( ) r = 2.0 r = 2.2 r =… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Algorithms for Threshold Group Testing

    cs.IT 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SPOT achieves exact recovery in threshold group testing at the constant-column information-theoretic test threshold, with a simpler analysis than prior spatial-coupling algorithms.

  2. Group Testing with Selectable Thresholds

    cs.IT 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Selectable-threshold group testing achieves the counting-bound rate of 1 when thresholds are unbounded, and its fixed-threshold achievability and converse bounds meet as the defect-density exponent tends to 1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Abbe, E. (2017). Community Detection and Stochastic Block Models: Recent Developments. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18 177:1–177:86

    2017

  2. [2]

    and Coja-Oghlan, A

    Achlioptas, D. and Coja-Oghlan, A. (2008). Algorithmic Barriers from Phase Transitions. In Proc. IEEE Symp. Found. Comput. Sci. (FOCS) 793– 802

    2008

  3. [3]

    Aldridge, M. (2018). Individual Testing is Optimal for Nonadaptive Group Testing in the Linear Regime. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 65 2058–2061

    2018

  4. [4]

    and Johnson, O

    Aldridge, M., Baldassini, L. and Johnson, O. (2014). Group Testing Al- gorithms: Bounds and Simulations. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 60 3671–3687

    2014

  5. [5]

    and Scarlett, J

    Aldridge, M., Johnson, O. and Scarlett, J. (2019). Group Testing: An Information Theory Perspective. Found. Trends Commun. Inform. Theory 15 196–392

    2019

  6. [6]

    , Lee, R

    Arnaout, R. , Lee, R. A. , Lee, G. R. , Callahan, C. , Cheng, A. , Yen, C. F. , Smith, K. P. , Arora, R. and Kirby, J. E. (2021). The Limit of Detection Matters: The Case for Benchmarking Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Testing. Clinical Infectious Diseases 73 e3042–e3046

    2021

  7. [7]

    V., Chee, Y

    Bui, T. V., Chee, Y. M. and Vu, V. K. (2024). Efficient Designs for Thresh- old Group Testing Without Gap. In IEEE Int. Symp. Inform. Theory (ISIT) 3005–3010

    2024

  8. [8]

    , Haeupler, B

    Censor-Hillel, K. , Haeupler, B. , Lynch, N. and M´edard, M. (2015). Bounded-Contention Coding for the Additive Network Model.Distributed Com- puting 28 297–308

    2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    S., Berger, T

    Chan, D. S., Berger, T. and Tong, L. (2012). Carrier Sense Multiple Access Communications on Multipacket Reception Channels: Theory and Applications to IEEE 802.11 Wireless Networks. IEEE Trans. Commun. 61 266–278. 51

    2012

  2. [10]

    Chan, C. L. , Cai, S., Bakshi, M., Jaggi, S. and Saligrama, V. (2013). Stochastic Threshold Group Testing. InIEEE Inform. Theory Workshop (ITW) 1–5

    2013

  3. [11]

    and Fu, H.-L

    Chen, H.-B. and Fu, H.-L. (2009). Nonadaptive Algorithms for Threshold Group Testing. Discrete Appl. Math. 157 1581–1585

    2009

  4. [12]

    Choi, K. P. (1994). On the Medians of Gamma Distributions and an Equation of Ramanujan. American Mathematical Society 121 245–251

    1994

  5. [13]

    , Gebhard, O

    Coja-Oghlan, A. , Gebhard, O. , Hahn-Klimroth, M. and Loick, P. (2019). Information-Theoretic and Algorithmic Thresholds for Group Testing. CoRR abs/1902.02202

    2019

  6. [14]

    , Gebhard, O

    Coja-Oghlan, A. , Gebhard, O. , Hahn-Klimroth, M. and Loick, P. (2021). Optimal Group Testing. Combin. Probab. Comput. 30 811–848

    2021

  7. [15]

    , Hahn-Klimroth, M

    Coja-Oghlan, A. , Hahn-Klimroth, M. , Hintze, L. , Kaaser, D. , Krieg, L. , Rolvien, M. and Scheftelowitsch, O. (2025). Noisy Group Testing via Spatial Coupling. Combin. Probab. Comput. 34 210–258

    2025

  8. [16]

    Damaschke, P. (1997). The Algorithmic Complexity of Chemical Threshold Testing. In Italian Conf. on Algorithms and Complexity 205–216

    1997

  9. [17]

    Damaschke, P. (2006). Threshold Group Testing. In General Theory of In- form. Transfer and Combin. 707–718. Springer

    2006

  10. [18]

    R., R´o˙za´nski, M

    De Marco, G., Jurdzi´nski, T., Kowalski, D. R., R´o˙za´nski, M. and Sta- chowiak, G. (2020). Subquadratic Non-Adaptive Threshold Group Testing. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 111 42–56

    2020

  11. [19]

    Dorfman, R. (1943). The Detection of Defective Members of Large Popula- tions. Ann. Math. Stat. 14 436–440

    1943

  12. [20]

    Gage, B. F. , Waterman, A. D. , Shannon, W. , Boechler, M. , Rich, M. W. and Radford, M. J. (2001). Validation of Clinical Classifi- cation Schemes for Predicting Stroke. J. Amer. Med Assoc. 285 2864–2870

    2001

  13. [21]

    and Papantoni-Kazakos, P

    Georgiadis, L. and Papantoni-Kazakos, P. (1982). A Collision Resolution Protocol for Random Access Channels with Energy Detectors. IEEE Trans. Commun. 30 2413–2420

    1982

  14. [22]

    , Verd´u, S

    Ghez, S. , Verd´u, S. and Schwartz, S. C. (1989). Optimal Decentralized Control in the Random Access Multipacket Channel. IEEE Trans. Auto. Con- trol 34 1153–1163

    1989

  15. [23]

    Grimmett, G. R. (1999). Percolation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    1999

  16. [24]

    , M¨uller, N

    Hahn-Klimroth, M., van der Hofstad, R. , M¨uller, N. and Riddles- den, C. (2025). On a Near-Optimal and Efficient Algorithm for the Sparse Pooled Data Problem. Bernoulli 31 1579 – 1605

    2025

  17. [25]

    , Krieg, L

    Hintze, L. , Krieg, L. , Scheftelowitsch, O. and Zhu, H. (2024). Noisy Linear Group Testing: Exact Thresholds and Efficient Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03839

    2024

  18. [26]

    Hofstad, R. v. d. (2016). Random Graphs and Complex Networks 1. Cam- bridge University Press

    2016

  19. [27]

    , Luczak, T

    Janson, S. , Luczak, T. and Rucinski, A. (2011). Random Graphs. John Wiley & Sons

    2011

  20. [28]

    Malioutov, D. M. , Varshney, K. R. , Emad, A. and Dash, S. (2017). Learning Interpretable Classification Rules with Boolean Compressed Sensing. Transparent Data Mining for Big and Small Data 95–121. 52

    2017

  21. [29]

    and Upfal, E

    Mitzenmacher, M. and Upfal, E. (2017). Probability and Computing: Ran- domization and Probabilistic Techniques in Algorithms and Data Analysis . Cambridge university press

    2017

  22. [30]

    Molloy, M. (2012). The Freezing Threshold for k-Colourings of a Random Graph. In ACM Symp. Theory Comput. (STOC) 921–930

    2012

  23. [31]

    and Pedarsani, R

    Reisizadeh, A., Abdalla, P. and Pedarsani, R. (2018). Sub-Linear Time Stochastic Threshold Group Testing via Sparse-Graph Codes. In IEEE Inform. Theory Workshop (ITW) 1–5

    2018

  24. [32]

    , Shen, Y

    Shin, I. , Shen, Y. , Xuan, Y. , Thai, M. T. and Znati, T. (2009). Reac- tive Jamming Attacks in Multi-Radio Wireless Sensor Networks: An Efficient Mitigating Measure by Identifying Trigger Nodes. In ACM Int. Workshop on Foundations of Wireless Ad Hoc and Sensor Networking and...

    2009

  25. [33]

    Spencer, J. (2014). Asymptopia 71. Amer. Math. Soc

    2014

  26. [34]

    Tsybakov, B. S. (1980). Resolution of a Conflict of Known Multiplicity.Prob- lemy Peredachi Informatsii 16 69–82. Appendix A: Concentration Inequalities Theorem A.1 (Chernoff bound for the binomial distribution [27, Theorem 2.1]) . Let X ∼ Bin (n, p). Then for any ε > 0, P (X ...

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.