Skip to main content

Finding smallest supertrees

  • Session 3B
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithms and Computations (ISAAC 1995)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1004))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 175 Accesses

Abstract

We consider the problem of constructing the smallest supertree of two trees, where a supertree is a tree in which each of the two input trees can be embedded. Due to the use of trees in a wide variety of application areas, supertrees are also applicable in many different ways. When each of the two trees contains partial information about a data set, such as the evolution of a set of species, the supertree corresponds to a structuring of the data in a manner consistent with both original trees. The size of a supertree of two trees can also be used to measure the similarity between two arrangements of data, whether images, documents, or RNA secondary structures.

When the embedding relation is subgraph isomorphism, the problem reduces to that of finding the largest common subtree. The case of topological embedding, however, requires new techniques and algorithms. We show how the problem can be solved both sequentially and in parallel, for both ordered and unordered trees. In particular, the topological embedding problem can be solved in time O(n 2) sequentially and in parallel time O(log3 n) for ordered trees, and in time O(n 2.5 log n) sequentially and in randomized parallel time O(log3 n) for unordered trees.

Research supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Advanced Systems Institute.

Research supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Information Technology Research Centre.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R. Brent, The parallel evaluation of general arithmetic expressions, Journal of the ACM 21, 2 (1974), pp. 201–206.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. J. Chung, O(n 2.5) time algorithms for the subgraph homeomorphism problem on trees, Journal of Algorithms 8, (1987), pp. 106–112.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Dubiner, Z. Galil, and E. Magen, Faster tree pattern matching, Proceedings of the 31st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 145–150, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Farach and M. Thorup, Fast comparison of evolutionary trees, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual ACM-S1AM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 481–488, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. M. Farach and M. Thorup, Optimal evolutionary tree comparison by sparse dynamic programming, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 770–779, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. C.R. Finden and A.D. Gordon, Obtaining common pruned trees, Journal of Classification 2, (1985), pp. 255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  7. H. Gabow and R. Tarjan, Faster scaling algorithms for network problems, SIAM Journal on Computing 18, 5 (1989), pp. 1013–1036.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Gazit and G. L. Miller, An improved parallel algorithm that computes the BFS numbering of a directed graph, Information Processing Letters 28, (1988), pp. 61–65.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P. Gibbons, R. Karp, G. Miller, and D. Soroker, Subtree isomorphism is in random NC, Discrete Applied Mathematics 29 (1990), pp. 35–62.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Gupta and N. Nishimura, Finding largest common embeddable subtrees, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, pp. 397–408, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Gupta and N. Nishimura, Finding largest subtrees and smallest supertrees, Technical Report CS-95-30, Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, July 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Gupta and N. Nishimura, The parallel complexity of tree embedding problems, Journal of Algorithms 18, 1 (1995), pp. 176–200.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A. Gupta and N. Nishimura, Sequential and parallel algorithms for embedding problems on classes of partial k-trees, Proceedings of the Fourth Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, pp. 172–182, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. T. Jiang, L. Wang, and K. Zhang, Alignment of trees — an alternative to tree edit, Combinatorial Pattern Matching, pp. 75–86, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  15. D. Keselman and A. Amir, Maximum Agreement Subtree in a Set of Evolutionary Trees — Metrics and Efficient Algorithms, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 758–769, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  16. P. Kilpeläinen and H. Mannila, Ordered and unordered tree inclusion, to appear in SIAM Journal on Computing, preliminary version appeared as The Tree Inclusion Problem, TAPSOFT'91, Proceedings of the International Joint Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming (CAAP 91), pp. 202–214, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  17. S. R. Kosaraju, Efficient tree pattern matching, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 178–183, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. Kubicka, G. Kubicki, and F.R. McMorris, On agreement subtrees of 2 binary trees, Congressus-Numerantium 88 (1992), pp. 217–224.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Lingas and M. Karpinski, Subtree isomorphism is NC reducible to bipartite perfect matching, Information Processing Letters 30 (1989), pp. 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  20. D. Matula, Subtree isomorphism in O(n 5/2), Annals of Discrete Mathematics 2 (1978), pp. 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  21. K. Mulmuley, U. Vazirani, and V. Vazirani, Matching is as easy as matrix inversion, Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 345–354, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  22. S. W. Reyner, An analysis of a good algorithm for the subtree problem, SIAM Journal on Computing 6, 4, (1977), pp. 730–732.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Steel and T. Warnow, Kaikoura tree theorems: Computing the maximum agreement subtrees. Submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. M. Verma and S. W. Reyner, An analysis of a good algorithm for the subtree problem, corrected, SIAM Journal on Computing 18, 5 (1989), pp. 906–908.

    Google Scholar 

  25. T. Warnow, Tree compatibility and inferring evolutionary history, Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 382–391, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  26. K. Zhang and D. Shasha, Simple fast algorithms for the editing distance between trees and related problems, SIAM Journal on Computing 18, 6 (1989), pp. 1245–1262.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

John Staples Peter Eades Naoki Katoh Alistair Moffat

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gupta, A., Nishimura, N. (1995). Finding smallest supertrees. In: Staples, J., Eades, P., Katoh, N., Moffat, A. (eds) Algorithms and Computations. ISAAC 1995. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1004. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0015414

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0015414

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-60573-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47766-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics