Efficient Conditional Expectation Algorithms for Constructing Hash Families

  • Charles J. Colbourn
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7056)


Greedy methods for solving set cover problems provide a guarantee on how close the solution is to optimal. Consequently they have been widely explored to solve set cover problems arising in the construction of various combinatorial arrays, such as covering arrays and hash families. In these applications, however, a naive set cover formulation lists a number of candidate sets that is exponential in the size of the array to be produced. Worse yet, even if candidate sets are not listed, finding the ‘best’ candidate set is NP-hard. In this paper, it is observed that one does not need a best candidate set to obtain the guarantee — an average candidate set will do. Finding an average candidate set can be accomplished using a technique employing the method of conditional expectations for a wide range of set cover problems arising in the construction of hash families. This yields a technique for constructing hash families, with a wide variety of properties, in time polynomial in the size of the array produced.


Greedy Algorithm Conditional Expectation Average Algorithm Greedy Method Hash Family 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alon, N.: Explicit construction of exponential sized families of k-independent sets. Discrete Math. 58, 191–193 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackburn, S.R., Etzion, T., Stinson, D.R., Zaverucha, G.M.: A bound on the size of separating hash families. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 115(7), 1246–1256 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryce, R.C., Colbourn, C.J.: The density algorithm for pairwise interaction testing. Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability 17, 159–182 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryce, R.C., Colbourn, C.J.: A density-based greedy algorithm for higher strength covering arrays. Software Testing, Verification, and Reliability 19, 37–53 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chvátal, V.: A greedy heuristic for the set-covering problem. Math. Oper. Res. 4(3), 233–235 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen, D.M., Dalal, S.R., Fredman, M.L., Patton, G.C.: The AETG system: An approach to testing based on combinatorial design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23, 437–444 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, G., Litsyn, S., Zémor, G.: On greedy algorithms in coding theory. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 42, 2053–2057 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colbourn, C.J.: Constructing perfect hash families using a greedy algorithm. In: Li, Y., Zhang, S., Ling, S., Wang, H., Xing, C., Niederreiter, H. (eds.) Coding and Cryptology. World Scientific, Singapore (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Colbourn, C.J.: Covering arrays and hash families. In: Information Security and Related Combinatorics. NATO Peace and Information Security, pp. 99–136. IOS Press (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Colbourn, C.J., Torres-Jiménez, J.: Heterogeneous hash families and covering arrays. Contemporary Mathematics 523, 3–15 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Colbourn, C.J., Zhou, J.: Improving two recursive constructions for covering arrays. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Czech, Z.J., Havas, G., Majewski, B.S.: Perfect hashing. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 182, 1–143 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erdős, P., Selfridge, J.L.: On a combinatorial game. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A 14, 298–301 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson, D.S.: Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems. J. Comput. System Sci. 9, 256–278 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karp, R.M.: Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: Complexity of Computer Computations, pp. 85–103. Plenum, New York (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lovász, L.: On the ratio of optimal integral and fractional covers. Discrete Math. 13(4), 383–390 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mehlhorn, K.: Data Structures and Algorithms 1: Sorting and Searching. Springer, Berlin (1984)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motwani, R., Raghavan, P.: Randomized algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Brien, D.J.: Exploring hash families and their applications to broadcast encryption. Master’s thesis, Arizona State University (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stein, S.K.: Two combinatorial covering theorems. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A 16, 391–397 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stinson, D.R., Tran Van Trung, Wei, R.: Secure frameproof codes, key distribution patterns, group testing algorithms and related structures. J. Statist. Plann. Infer. 86, 595–617 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stinson, D.R., Wei, R., Chen, K.: On generalized separating hash families. J. Combinat. Theory (A) 115, 105–120 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles J. Colbourn
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations