Abstract
We address a combinatorialprobl em which arises in computationalph ylogenetics. In this problem we are given a set of unrooted (not necessarily binary) trees each leaf-labelled by the same set S, and we wish to remove a minimum number of leaves so that the resultant trees share a common refinement (i.e. they are “compatible”. If we assume the input trees are all binary, then this is simply the Maximum Agreement Subtree problem (MAST), for which much is already known. However, if the input trees need not be binary, then the problem is much more computationally intensive: it is NP-hard for just two trees, and solvable in polynomial time for any number k of trees when all trees have bounded degree. In this paper we present an O(k 2 n 2) 4-approximation algorithm and an O(k 2 n 3) 3-approximation algorithm for the general case of this problem.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A. Amir and D. Keselman. Maximum agreement subtrees in a set of evolutionary evolutionary trees: Metrics and efficient algorithms. SIAM Journal of Computing, 26(6):1656–1669, 1997. A preliminary version of this paper appeared in FOCS’ 94.
P. Buneman. The recovery of trees from measures of dissimilarity. Mathematics in the Archaelogical and historical Sciences, pages 387–395, 1971.
M. F. Colton, T.M. Przytycka, and M. Thorup. On the agreement of many trees. Information Processing Letters, 55:297–301, 1995.
M. F. Colton and M. Thorup. Fast comparison of evolutionary trees. In Proc. of the 5th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 481–488, 1994.
C.R. Finden and A.D. Gordon. Obtaining common pruned trees. Journal of Classification, 2:255–276, 1985.
D. Gusfield. Efficient algorithms for inferring evolutionary trees. Networks, 21:19–28, 1991.
A. Hamel and M. A. Steel. Finding a maximum compatible tree is NP-hard for sequences and trees. Applied Mathematics Letters, 9(2):55–60, 1996.
J. Hein, T. Jiang, L. Wang, and K. Zhang. On the complexity of comparing evolutionary trees. Discrete and Applied Mathematics, 71:153–169, 1996.
M. Steeland T. Warnow. Kaikoura tree theorems: computing the maximum agreement subtree. Information Processing Letters, 48:77–82, 1993.
D. Swofford. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (and other methods), version 4.0. 1996.
D. L. Swofford, G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. Phylogenetic inference. In D. M. Hillis, B. K. Mable, and C. Moritz, editors, Molecular Systematics, pages 407–514. Sinauer Assoc., 1996.
T. Warnow. Tree compatibility and inferring evolutionary history. Journal of Algorithms, 16:388–407, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ganapathy, G., Warnow, T. (2002). Approximating the Complement of the Maximum Compatible Subset of Leaves of k Trees. In: Jansen, K., Leonardi, S., Vazirani, V. (eds) Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization. APPROX 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2462. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45753-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45753-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44186-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45753-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive