Group testing
A procedure that breaks up the task of identifying certain objects into tests on groups of items.
In statistics and combinatorial mathematics, group testing is any procedure that breaks up the task of identifying objects into tests on groups of items, rather than testing each item individually. First studied by Robert Dorfman in 1943, group testing is a relatively new field of mathematics that can be applied to a wide range of practical applications and is an active area of research today.
A familiar example of group testing involves a string of light bulbs connected in series, where exactly one of the bulbs is known to be broken. The objective is to find the broken bulb using the smallest number of tests (where a test is when some of the bulbs are connected to a power supply). A simple approach is to test each bulb individually. However, when there are a large number of bulbs it would be much more efficient to pool the bulbs into groups. For example, by connecting the first half of the bulbs at once, it can be determined which half the broken bulb is in, ruling out half of the bulbs in just one test.
Schemes for carrying out group testing can be simple or complex and the tests involved at each stage may be different. Schemes in which the tests for the next stage depend on the results of the previous stages are called adaptive procedures, while schemes designed so that all the tests are known beforehand are called non-adaptive procedures. The structure of the scheme of the tests involved in a non-adaptive procedure is known as a pooling design.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Group testing” as a procedure that breaks up the task of identifying certain objects into tests on groups of items. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as a procedure that breaks up the task of identifying certain objects into tests on groups of items. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5611272. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1943.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Group testing”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Group testing primary sources, Group testing archive and Group research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Group testing”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Group testing” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.