Abstract
Background
The RobinsonFoulds (RF) distance is a wellestablished measure between phylogenetic trees. Despite a lack of biological justification, it has the advantages of being a proper metric and being computable in linear time. For phylogenetic applications involving genes, however, a crucial aspect of the trees ignored by the RF metric is the type of the branching event (e.g. speciation, duplication, transfer, etc).
Results
We extend RF to trees with labeled internal nodes by including a node flip operation, alongside edge contractions and extensions. We explore properties of this extended RF distance in the case of a binary labeling. In particular, we show that contrary to the unlabeled case, an optimal edit path may require contracting “good” edges, i.e. edges shared between the two trees.
Conclusions
We provide a 2approximation algorithm which is shown to perform well empirically. Looking ahead, computing distances between labeled trees opens up a variety of new algorithmic directions.Implementation and simulations available at https://github.com/DessimozLab/pylabeledrf.
Background
Phylogenic trees represent the evolutionary relationship between sets of genetic elements or taxa, where the elements of a set are in onetoone relationship with the leaves of the corresponding tree [1]. Different phylogenetic inference methods may lead to different trees, and each method, typically exploring a large space of trees, can also result in multiple equally likely solutions for the same dataset. It follows that comparing trees is an essential task for finding out how inferred trees are far from one another, or how an inferred tree is far from a simulated tree or from a gold standard tree for the same datasets.
Designing appropriate tree metrics is a widely explored branch of research. A variety of measures have been designed for different types of trees, rooted or unrooted, some restricted to comparing tree shapes [2], others considering multilabeled trees, i.e. trees with repeated leaf labels [3] and yet others considering information on edge length [4]. In particular, a large number of pairwise measures of similarity or dissimilarity have been developed for comparing two topologies on the same leafset. Among them are the methods based on counting the structural differences between the two trees in terms of path length, bipartitions or quartets for unrooted trees, clades or triplets for rooted trees [5–7], or those based on minimizing a number of rearrangements that disconnect and reconnect subpieces of a tree, such as nearest neighbour interchange (NNI), subtreepruningregrafting (SPR) or TreeBisectionReconnection (TBR) moves [8–10]. While the latter methods are NPhard [11], the former are typically computable in polynomial time. In particular, the RobinsonFoulds (RF) distance, defined in terms of bipartition dissimilarity for unrooted trees, and clade dissimilarity for rooted trees [12], can be computed in linear [13], and even sublinear time [14].
Despite several drawbacks such as lack of robustness (a small change in a tree may cause a disproportional change in the distance), skewed distribution [15–17], and a lack of biological rationale, RF remains the most widely used measure, not only in phylogenetics, but also in other fields such as in linguistics. To increase robustness, improved versions of the RF distance have also been developed [11, 18].
In addition of being efficiently computable, RF has the merit of being a true metric. It was originally defined on unrooted trees, in terms of edit operations on the tree edges: the minimum number of edge contraction and extension needed to transform one tree into the other [19]. Interestingly, the same metric, expressed in terms of node deletion and insertion, has been widely used in the context of data featuring hierarchical dependencies, modeled as trees with labeled nodes. In this case, the standard Tree Edit Distance (TED) is defined in terms of a minimum cost path of node deletion, node insertion and node relabeling (label substitution) transforming one tree to the other, for two trees sharing the same set of node labels (i.e. each label is present exactly once in each tree). While the less constrained version of the problem on unordered labeled trees is NPcomplete [20], most variants are solvable in polynomial time [21–23].
Even though this kind of hierarchical node labeling has limited applicability for phylogenetic trees, other types of labeling can be used in the context of genetic data comparison. In the case of gene trees, it is important to identify the evolutionary event (duplication, speciation, transfer, etc) that has led to a given bifurcation. For example, information on duplication and speciation node labeling is provided for the trees of the Ensembl Compara database [24] (reconciled with TreeBest [25]). Therefore, being able to compare labeled phylogenies is important in the context of gene tree reconstruction and analysis.
This paper is the first effort towards extending the RF distance to labeled trees involving, in addition to edge contraction and extension (operations that can alternatively be defined as node insertion and deletion), a node substitution or “relabeling” operation. Importantly, our extended RF remains a metric in the mathematical sense.
While the formulation of the RF distance in terms of edit operations is known, the bipartition and clade formulations are often those that are used in the literature. Though similar, the three formulations present some differences depending on whether the trees are rooted or unrooted. We begin by making these differences explicit. We then explore some properties of the extended RF distance in the case of two labels (e.g. speciation and duplication). In particular, we show that, in contrast to the RF distance for unlabeled trees, an optimal edit path for labeled trees may involve contracting good edges, i.e. edges representing common bipartitions of the two compared trees, which makes the extended RF much harder to compute than the basic RF. We then explore various avenues for computing the extended RF. We give an exact algorithm for contracting “mixed subtrees”, i.e. subtrees with alternating labels, and a bounded heuristic for general trees that achieves a factor 2 approximation. In the following section, the heuristic is shown, on simulated datasets, to be efficient, by plotting the number of tree edits against the computed RF distance. Finally, we explore some avenues for improvement. All proofs are given in the Appendix.
Methods
We first start with notations and concepts, and then describe the Robinson Foulds distance and the extension to labeled trees.
Let T be a tree with a node set V(T) and an edge set E(T). Given a node x of T, the degree of x is the number of edges incident to x. We denote by L(T)⊆V(T) the set of leaves of T, i.e. the set of nodes of T of degree one. A node of V(T)∖L(T) is called an internal node. A tree with a single internal node is called a star tree. An edge connecting two internal nodes is called an internal edge; otherwise, it is a terminal edge. Moreover, a rooted tree admits a single internal node r(T) considered as the root.
Let x and y be two nodes of a rooted tree T; y is an ancestor of x if y is on the path from x to the root (possibly y itself); y is a descendant of x if y is on the path from x to a leaf (possibly y itself) of T. For a rooted tree, we may write (x,y) for an edge between x and y where x is closer to the root. We say that y is a child of x. If T is unrooted, we call the set {y:{x,y}∈E(T)} the set of children of x (this is an unusual definition, but defining a notion of children for both rooted and unrooted trees will be useful later). For a rooted or an unrooted tree T, we denote by Ch(x) the set of children of an internal node x of T.
A tree T representing the evolution of a set \({\mathcal {L}}\/\) of entities (usually taxa or genes) is a tree with a onetoone mapping between L(T) and \({\mathcal {L}}\/\). We simply write \({\mathcal {L}}\/ = L(T)\) and say that T is a tree for \({\mathcal {L}}\). An internal node represents an ancestral event (classically a speciation or a duplication) leading from one to many different entities. Moreover rooting a tree amounts to determining the common ancestor of all entities, i.e. determining the direction of evolution. Accordingly, internal nodes of an evolutionary tree (which are the trees considered in this paper) should be of degree at least 3, except the root which is of degree at least 2. An internal node x≠r(T) of a tree T is binary if and only if x is of degree 3 and r(T) is binary if and only if r(T) is of degree 2. A tree T is said binary if and only if all its internal nodes are binary.
A subtreeS of T is a tree such that V(S)⊆V(T),E(S)⊆E(T) and any edge of E(S) connects two nodes of V(S). A chain of T is a subtree C with a node set V(C)={x_{1},⋯,x_{k}} and an edge set E(C)={e_{1},⋯,e_{k−1}} such that for each 1≤i≤k,e_{i} is incident to x_{i} and x_{i+1}.
If T is an unrooted tree, an unrooted version of T can just be T ignoring the root status of r(T). To avoid having nodes of degree two, we rather define the unrooted tree T’ corresponding to T as the unrooted tree obtained from T by adding a dummy leaf R and an edge e=(r(T),R).
For a rooted tree T, we denote by T_{x} the subtree of T rooted at x∈V(T), i.e. the subtree of T containing all the descendants of x. We call L(T_{x}) the clade of x. A clade is nontrivial if it corresponds to an internal node of T. We denote by \({\mathcal {C}}(T)\) the set of nontrivial clades of T. It can be seen as a subset of the power set of \({\mathcal {L}}\).
The bipartition of an unrooted tree T corresponding to an internal edge e={x,y} is the unordered pair of clades L(T_{x}) and L(T_{y}) where T_{x} and T_{y} are the two subtrees rooted respectively at x and y obtained by removing e from T. A bipartition is nontrivial if it corresponds to an internal edge of T, and trivial otherwise. We denote by \({\mathcal {B}}(T)\) the set of nontrivial bipartitions of T. Note that bipartitions are sometimes called splits in the literature.
The RobinsonFoulds distance
Definition 1
(edit operations) Two edit operations on the edges of a tree T (rooted or unrooted) are defined as follows:

Let e={x,y} be an internal edge of E(T). An edge contraction Cont(T,e) is an operation transforming the tree T into the tree T^{′} obtained from T by removing the edge e of T and identifying x and y; in other words, T^{′} is obtained by adding the edge {x,z} for each z∈Ch(y)∖{x}, and then removing y and its incident edges (including {x,y}).

Let x be a nonbinary internal node of V(T) and \(X = \left \{y_{1}, \cdots, y_{t}\right \} \subsetneq Ch(x)\) be a subset of Ch(x) such that X≥2. A node extension Ext(T,x,X) is an operation transforming the tree T into the tree T^{′} obtained from T by removing the edges {x,y_{i}}, for 1≤i≤t, creating a node y and a new edge e={x,y} adjacent to x, and creating new edges {y,y_{i}}, for 1≤i≤t.
The function δ(T_{1},T_{2}) assigning to each pair of rooted or each pair of unrooted trees the length of a minimum sequence of edit operations transforming T_{1} into T_{2} has been shown to be a metric, called the Edit distance or RobinsonFoulds distance between T_{1} and T_{2} [19].
For unrooted trees T_{1} and T_{2}, this distance corresponds to the symmetric difference between the bipartitions of the two trees. More precisely, \(\delta \left (T_{1},T_{2}\right) = {\mathcal {B}}\left (T_{1}\right) \setminus {\mathcal {B}}(T_{2}) + {\mathcal {B}}(T_{2}) \setminus {\mathcal {B}}(T_{1})\). In fact, to transform T_{1} into T_{2}, edit operations are needed on bad edges representing bipartitions which are not shared by the two trees, i.e. edges of T_{1} (respec. T_{2}) defining bipartitions in T_{1} (respec. T_{2}) which are not in \({\mathcal {B}}(T_{2})\) (respec. in \({\mathcal {B}}(T_{1})\)). An edge which is not bad is said to be good. Terminal edges are always good.
In the case of rooted trees T_{1} and T_{2}, the RobinsonFoulds distance, that we denote in this case δ_{R}(T_{1},T_{2}), is usually defined in the literature as the symmetric difference between the clades of the two trees. More precisely, for two rooted trees T_{1} and \(T_{2}, \delta _{R}(T_{1},T_{2}) = {\mathcal {C}}(T_{1}) \setminus {\mathcal {C}}(T_{2}) + {\mathcal {C}}(T_{2}) \setminus {\mathcal {C}}(T_{1})\).
The link between the distance defined in terms of clades (that we write δ_{R}) and the edit distance (that we write δ) has been established through the defined relation between the bipartition system (or split system) and the clade system (or cluster system) [26].
Although our extended distance is more likely useful for rooted trees, algorithmic analyses are simpler for unrooted trees, as in this case all internal nodes can be treated in the same way. Here, we make the link between the rooted and unrooted case, and then focus, for the rest of the paper, on unrooted trees.
Let T^{r} be a rooted version of an unrooted tree T, with a binary root. Denote by e_{1},e_{2} the two edges adjacent to r(T^{r}). As e_{1} and e_{2} define the same bipartition of \({\mathcal {B}}(T)\), these edges are either both good or both bad. These notations are used in the following lemma.
Lemma 1
(Link between rooted and unrooted trees) Let T_{1},T_{2} be two rooted trees, and T1′, T2′ be the corresponding unrooted trees. Then
The edit distance between two trees (rooted or unrooted) can be computed in linear time with the algorithm proposed by Day [13] in 1984. Our goal is to extend this distance to labeled trees.
Labeled trees
Given a finite set of labels Λ, T is labeled if and only if each internal node x of T has a unique label λ(x)∈Λ.
Contraction and extension operations are generalized to labeled trees as follows: The node y created from an edge extension Ext(T,x,X) is such that λ(y)=λ(x); an edge contraction is only defined on edges {x,y} for which λ(x)=λ(y). It follows that a third edit operation should be introduced for labeled trees. Let x be a node of a labeled tree T with label λ=λ(x). A node flip Flip(x,λ^{′}) is an operation assigning a new label λ^{′} to x, i.e. a label λ^{′}∈Λ such that λ^{′}≠λ. Those operations are depicted in Fig. 1.
A node flip is required before contracting a mixed edge, i.e. an edge with its two extremities being differently labeled. A tree is said to be a mixed tree if all its edges are mixed edges.
Let \({\mathcal {T}}\) be the set of trees on \({\mathcal {L}}\), all trees being of the same type, i.e. all rooted or unrooted, all labeled or unlabeled. The following lemma (holding for all these cases) shows that introducing the flip operation does not prevent δ from being a distance.
Lemma 2
(Edit distance) The function δ(T_{1},T_{2}) assigning to each pair \(\left (T_{1}, T_{2}\right) \in {\mathcal {T}}^{2}\) the minimum length of a sequence of edit operations transforming T_{1} into T_{2} defines a distance on \({\mathcal {T}}\).
In this paper, Λ is restricted to two labels. They are illustrated by a circle and a square in Fig. 2. The two labels can, for example, represent speciation and duplication events. Notice however that labeling is not constrained to be consistent with a species tree [27, 28]. In other words, the intermediate trees in an optimal path transforming a tree to another are not required to be feasible according the speciation/duplication labeling. Algorithmic analyses are made independently of the nature of the two node labels. However, for notation purpose, we write Λ={Spe,Dup}.
Results
Consider \({\mathcal {T}}\) as the set of unrooted and labeled trees on \({\mathcal L}\). The goal is to compute the edit distance δ(T,T^{′}) for any pair T,T^{′} of trees of \({\mathcal {T}}\), that is the number of operations in an optimal sequence, i.e a sequence of edit operations of minimum length transforming T into T^{′}.
Note that although we focus on unrooted trees, our results can then be easily extrapolated to rooted trees using Lemma ??,
Reduction to maximal bad subtrees
Let S be a subtree of T. Let {e_{i}={x_{i},y_{i}}, for 1≤i≤k} be the set of terminal edges of S, with each y_{i} being a leaf of S, and {X_{i},Y_{i}} being the bipartition corresponding to e_{i}. Each leaf y_{i} of S is said to be mapped to Y_{i}. Notice that \(\cup _{1 \leq i \leq k}Y_{i} = {\mathcal L}\).
We say that S is a bad subtree of T if and only if S contains only bad edges, except the terminal edges of S which are all good edges of T. In other words, S is maximal in the sense that no more bad internal edges can be added into it. Intuitively, S can be obtained by taking a subtree with only bad edges, and adding edges adjacent to bad edges of S iteratively until the process stops. As a result, every terminal edge e_{i} of S will be good, i.e. there is an edge \(e^{\prime }_{i} = \left \{x'_{i}, y'_{i}\right \}\) in T^{′} corresponding to e_{i}={x_{i},y_{i}}, that determine the same bipartition {X_{i},Y_{i}}. Note that a maximal bad subtree may contain no bad edge at all (i.e. it is a star tree centered on good edges).
Lemma 3
(Pairs of maximal bad subtrees) Let S be a maximal bad subtree of T with the set {e_{i}}_{1≤i≤k} of terminal edges, and let {ei′}_{1≤i≤k} be the corresponding set of edges in T^{′}. Then the subtree S^{′} of T^{′}, containing all \(e^{\prime }_{i}\) edges as terminal edges, is unique. Moreover, it is a maximal bad subtree of T^{′}.
Let {S_{1},S_{2},⋯,S_{k}} be the set of maximal bad subtrees of T and {S1′,S2′,⋯,Sk′} be the corresponding subtrees of T^{′} (see Fig. 2 for an example). For 1≤i≤m, let \({\mathcal {P}}_{i}\) be an optimal sequence transforming S_{i} into \(S^{\prime }_{i}\). Then the sequence \({\mathcal {P}}\) obtained by performing consecutively \({\mathcal {P}}_{1}, {\mathcal {P}}_{2}, \cdots, {\mathcal {P}}_{m}\) transforms T into T^{′}.
Although the traditional RF distance can be deduced from the above observation, in our case such a sequence is not necessarily optimal. In fact, in contrast with unlabeled trees, optimal sequences for labeled trees may involve contracting good edges, as illustrated in Fig. 3.
Reduction to mixed bad subtrees
In the next section, we will describe an exact algorithm for optimally contracting a mixed tree. Before reaching this step, the question is how to obtain such a tree. The next lemma shows that nonmixed bad edges can be contracted first. The idea of the proof is that any optimal solution must eventually contract a nonmixed bad edge {x,y}. We can thus contract {x,y} first into a single node z, and “reproduce” all the events of the optimal solution by treating z as either x or y.
Lemma 4
(Contract nonmixed bad edges) Let e be any nonmixed bad edge of T, and let T_{c} be the tree obtained from T by contracting e. Then δ(T_{c},T^{′})=δ(T,T^{′})−1.
According to this lemma, we can safely start by contracting all nonmixed bad edges of T and T^{′} first, since there is always an optimal sequence of edit operations that also does this. The resulting trees T_{c} and \(T^{\prime }_{c}\) can then be subdivided into pairs of maximal bad subtrees, all such bad subtrees being mixed subtrees.
Algorithms
We first consider a general framework which entails performing all required edge contractions first, and then all node extensions.
This general framework leads to the following upper bound for δ(T,T^{′}).
Lemma 5
(Upper bound δ) Let T and T^{′} be two unrooted and labeled trees with n internal nodes each and let e (resp. e^{′}) be the number of internal bad edges of T (resp. T^{′}). Then δ(T,T^{′})≤e+e^{′}+n.
Notice that if both T and T^{′} are binary, then e=e^{′}. Moreover, in this case 2e+n is a tight bound as it can be reached in some cases (see an example in Fig. 4).
The first step of Methodology 1 leads to a star tree T_{∗}. Instead of then extending nodes to reach T^{′}, a symmetric way would be to transform T^{′} into a star tree \(T^{\prime }_{*}\). The difference between T_{∗} and \(T^{\prime }_{*}\) may be in the label of the single node of each of these trees, which would then need an additional flip operation to reconstruct a corresponding path from T to T^{′}. This second methodology is given below, where ContractTree (T,T_{∗}) takes as input a tree T and returns a sequence of operations contracting a tree T, i.e. transforming T into a star tree, and the star tree T_{∗} resulting from this optimal contraction.
Methodology 2 is clearly simpler to handle and will be explored in the next section. The next lemma shows that it may overestimate an optimal sequence returned by Methodology 1 by at most one operation for each pair of maximal bad subtrees.
Lemma 6
(Compare Meth.1 and Meth.2) Let S and S^{′} be a pair of maximal bad subtrees of T_{c} and \(T^{\prime }_{c}\), obtained similarly by Methodology 1 and Methodology 2. Let M_{1}(S,S^{′}) (respec. M_{2}(S,S^{′})) be the number of operations performed by the for loop of Methodology 1 (respec. Methodology 2). Moreover, let S_{∗} (respec. \(S^{\prime }_{*}\)) be the star tree returned by ContractTree on S (respec. on S^{′}).

1
If S_{∗}=S∗′ (same node label), then M_{2}(S,S^{′})=M_{1}(S,S^{′});

2
Otherwise, M_{1}(S,S^{′})≤M_{2}(S,S^{′})≤M_{1}(S,S^{′})+1
An optimal algorithm for contracting a tree
The remaining problem is the one of finding an optimal sequence of contraction and flip operations contracting a mixed tree T. For any such sequence, the number of contraction operations is just the number of internal edges of T. Therefore, the problem reduces to finding the minimum number of flip operations ϕ(T) in such an optimal sequence. Notice that the problem does not reduce to performing the minimum number of flips leading to the same label for all nodes, which would just be min{nb_{spe},nb_{dup}} with nb_{spe} (respec. nb_{dup}) being the number of Spe (respec. Dup) nodes of T. For example, for the tree T of Fig. 3, min{nb_{spe},nb_{dup}}=9. However, proceeding by an alternating sequence of flip and contraction operations (the top node flipped to Dup, then the three top edges contracted, then the next top node flipped to a Spe node, then the three top edges contracted, etc.) leads to a total of 6 flips rather than 9.
We will proceed iteratively by starting a sequence of contraction operations from the center of a tree T, i.e. the midpoint of the longest mixed chain of T. The diameter, denoted diam(T), of a tree T is the length of its longest chain (determined in terms of the number of edges). Note that any longest chain in a tree has two leaves at its extremities, as otherwise we could extend the chain. Assume that T has at least two terminal edges, so that diam(T)≥2. We show that ϕ(T) is equal to ⌈diam(T)/2⌉−1. For a node v, let ecc_{T}(v) denote the maximum distance from v to a leaf of T (this is known as the eccentricity of v).^{Footnote 1}
Lemma 7
(Optimal path contracting a mixed tree) The minimum number of flips in an optimal sequence of operations transforming a mixed tree T into a star tree is ⌈diam(T)/2⌉−1.
Lemma ?? immediately lead to Algorithm ContractTree. The fact that the algorithm contracts T into a star tree using ϕ(T) flips follows from the proof of Lemma ??.
Theorem 1
For T being a mixed tree, Algorithm ContractTree returns the length of an optimal sequence of operations contracting T.
One should note that if T has even diameter, then there are two possible midpoints, i.e. two nodes with minimum eccentricity. This means that it is possible to choose the label of the internal node of the resulting star tree. This guarantees that when contracting a pair of bad subtrees T and T^{′}, we can always avoid a final flip by choosing the appropriate final label if either T or T^{′} has even diameter. We cannot guarantee that this final flip is avoidable if both subtrees have odd diameter.
We now show that Methodology 2 has a guaranteed approximation ratio of 2 when using Algorithm ContractTree as a subroutine. The idea behind the approximation is to show that any optimal solution must contract all the bad edges and perform at least one flip or good edge contraction per bad subtree. Our algorithm only contracts bad edges, and we can show that the number of flips performed is at most the number of bad edges plus twice the number of bad subtrees.
Theorem 2
(Upper bound Meth.2) Let d be the number of operations performed by Methodology 2 when tree contractions are done by Algorithm ContractTree. Then d≤2δ(T,T^{′}).
Experimental results
We implemented a heuristic following Methodology 2, using the ContractTree algorithm. To test it on simulated data, we retrieved the TP53 gene family from Ensembl release 96 (542 genes), including the speciation and duplication labels, and introduced an increasing number of random edit operations, on 30 replicates. A random edit was introduced as follows: with probability 0.3, the label of one random internal node was flipped; the rest of the probability mass function was evenly distributed among all internal edges connecting nodes of the same type (which could be potentially contracted) and all nodes of degree >3 (in which a new edge could potentially be expanded).
After each edit, we computed the classical RF distance and its extension to labeled trees using our heuristic (Fig. 5). Because it accounts for labels, the latter tracked more closely the true number of edits. At the same time, the estimated distances were never higher than the actual number of edits, which suggests that the heuristic can identify a minimum edit path when the total number of edit operations is relatively low. The implementation, including the function to mutate labeled trees, is available as an open source Python library (PyPI package pylabeledrf, also available at https://github.com/DessimozLab/pylabeledrf).
Discussion
In this paper, we have considered what we thought was the simplest and most natural extension of the RobinsonFoulds distance to labeled trees. Although its theoretical complexity is unknown and remains an open problem, this extension appears to be much harder to compute than the classical RF distance for unlabeled trees.
Despite the optimality of Algorithm ContractTree for contracting a mixed tree, neither Methodology 1, nor Methodology 2 are guaranteed to lead to an optimal solution. This is due to two main reasons. The first one is that, as shown in Fig. 3, an optimal path contracting a tree T may require contracting good edges, i.e. edges common to both trees, which is not the case for unlabeled trees. The second reason is that an optimal path from a tree T to a tree T^{′} may not be one with all edge contraction events preceding all edge extension. An example, given in Fig. 6, shows that it may be better to convert a given bad edge into a good edge rather than contracting all bad edges. It can be observed from this example that going from T to T^{′} following the red path entails performing a nearestneighbour interchange (NNI) operation on the edge e of T. A future direction for improving the algorithm will be to consider such “safe” edges, i.e. edges admitting an NNI leading to a bipartition of the target tree.
Still, we have implemented a heuristic which constitutes a better baseline solution to quantifying differences between labeled tree topologies than the conventional RF measure, which is blind to labels. For instance, this implementation could be useful in the context of orthology benchmarking, to compare inferred labeled trees with reference curated ones [29].
Conclusion
Looking ahead, we envision several potential future directions. We see potential in identifying the good edges that should be contracted and characterizing classes of trees that may be resolved optimally. In particular, it would be interesting to restrict the study to the class of labeled trees consistent with a species tree (which is not the case of the trees of Fig. 3).
Another direction would be to consider an alternative extension of the RF distance. In this paper, edge contraction and edge extension, the two edit operations defining the classical RF, were redefined in the context of labeled nodes, by constraining them to occur on edges with the same labels on their extremities. Another direction would be to consider edit operations on nodes, as for the Tree Edit Distance (TED) for hierarchical trees, i.e. node deletion, insertion and relabeling. In addition to the theoretical complexity and computational efficiency, it would be important to evaluate the robustness of these two RF extensions with respect to small changes in the topology or tree labeling. Although we do not expect robustness to be much better than the classical RF, knowing which extension is better can orient the study towards future improvements. Finally another direction would be to extend the study to an arbitrary set of possible labels.
More generally, we think that computing the distance between labeled trees conceals many new problems and opens a variety of new algorithmic directions.
Appendix
Proof of Lemma ?? (Link between rooted and unrooted trees)
Let T_{1} and T_{2} be two rooted trees and \(T^{\prime }_{1}\) and \(T^{\prime }_{2}\) be the corresponding unrooted trees, i.e. V(T1′)=V(T_{1})∪{R},V(T2′)=V(T_{2})∪{R},E(T1′)=E(T)∪{(r(T_{1}),R)} and E(T2′)=E(T)∪{(r(T_{2}),R)}.
We first show that any bad bipartition of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\), i.e. any bad edge of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\), corresponds to a bad clade of T_{1} (a clade which is not present in T_{2}). Let \(e^{\prime }_{1}\) be a bad edge of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\). Then \(e^{\prime }_{1}\) should be a nonterminal edge of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\), thus different from (r(T_{1}),R)), and therefore it has a corresponding edge e_{1}=(x_{1},y_{1}) in T_{1}. Then, for one of the two nodes adjacent to \(e^{\prime }_{1}\) that we denote y1′, we have \(L(T'_{1y'_{1}}) = L(T_{1y_{1}})=C\). If e1′ is a bad edge of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\), then C should be a bad clade of T_{1} not present in T_{2}. This is because otherwise C would be a nontrivial clade of T_{2} rooted at an internal node y_{2} adjacent to an edge e_{2}=(x_{2},y_{2}) and thus also equal to \(L(T'_{2y'_{2}})\) for a given edge e2′=(x2′,y2′). This contradicts the fact that \(e^{\prime }_{1}\) is a bad edge. Therefore, each bad bipartition of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\) corresponds to a bad clade of T_{1}. Moreover, two disjoint bad bipartitions of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\) correspond to two different bad edges of \(T^{\prime }_{1}\), with the corresponding edges of T_{1} associated to two disjoint clades. Thus we have \(\mathcal {B}(T'_{1}) \leq \mathcal {C}(T_{1})\).
Conversely, a bad clade C of T_{1} corresponds to an internal node y_{1} of T_{1}. Let e_{1}=(x_{1},y_{1}) in T_{1}, where x_{1} is the parent of y_{1}. Then the corresponding edge \(e^{\prime }_{1}\) in \(T^{\prime }_{1}\) is a bad edge. Moreover, two disjoint clades of T_{1} correspond to two disjoint edges of T1′. It follows that \(\mathcal {C}(T_{1}) \leq \mathcal {B}(T'_{1})\). Combining this result with the result above, we deduce that \(\mathcal {C}(T_{1}) = \mathcal {B}(T'_{1})\). As T_{2} and \(T^{\prime }_{2}\) can be considered similarly, the result follows.
Proof of Lemma ?? (Edit distance):
The nonnegative and identity conditions are obvious. For the symmetric condition, notice that we can reverse every edit operation in an optimal sequence from T_{1} to T_{2} to obtain a sequence from T_{2} to T_{1} with the same number of events, and viceversa (extensions and contractions are inverses of each other, and any flip can be reversed by a flip). We thus have δ(T_{2},T_{1})≤δ(T_{1},T_{2}) and δ(T_{1},T_{2})≤δ(T_{2},T_{1}), and equality follows.
Finally, we prove the triangular inequality condition: for 3 trees T_{1},T_{2} and T_{3}, to transform T_{1} into T_{2}, we may take any edit sequence from T_{1} to T_{3}, followed by any edit sequence from T_{3} to T_{2}. It follows that δ(T_{1},T_{2})≤δ(T_{1},T_{3})+δ(T_{3},T_{2}).
Proof of Lemma ?? (Pairs of maximal bad subtrees):
As ∪_{i}Y_{i}=Ł, \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\{e'_{i}\}_{1 \leq i \leq k}\) are the only terminal edges of any subtree S^{′} of T^{′} containing the set \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}\{e'_{i}\}_{1 \leq i \leq k}\) as terminal edges. As T^{′} is a tree, for any 1≤i≠j≤k, there is only one possible path from \(x^{\prime }_{i}\) to \(x^{\prime }_{j}\). Uniqueness follows.
Suppose that such a subtree S^{′} is not a bad subtree. Then it contains an internal good edge e^{′}=(x^{′},y^{′}). In other words, there is a nontrivial bipartition of {Y_{i}}_{1≤i≤k} which is also a bipartition in S. This contradicts the fact that S is a bad subtree of T. Finally, as all terminal edges of S^{′} are good edges of T^{′}, it follows that S^{′} is a maximal bad subtree of T^{′}.
Proof of Lemma ?? (Contract nonmixed bad edges):
We first introduce a definition that will be of use later in the proof. For two rooted trees S_{1} and S_{2}, define the union of S_{1} and S_{2} as the tree obtained by identifying their roots, i.e. by removing the root of S_{2} and making all its children now children of the root of S_{1}.
Let e={u,v} be a nonmixed bad edge and assume, without loss of generality, that both u and v have the label Spe (recall that Λ={Spe,Dup}). Notice that any sequence of operations turning T into T^{′}, at some point, must contract the {u,v} edge, as otherwise, the (bad) bipartition corresponding to {u,v} would remain in the transformed tree and we would not obtain T^{′} (noting that extensions cannot remove bipartitions). We now prove the Lemma by induction over δ(T,T^{′}). As a base case, suppose that δ(T,T^{′})=1. Then {u,v} must be the only bad edge of T and the single operation is to contract it, proving the base case.
Now assume that for any tree \(\tilde {T}\) satisfying \(\delta (\tilde {T}, T') < \delta (T, T')\), contracting any nonmixed bad edge of \(\tilde {T}\) reduces its distance to T^{′} by 1. Let Q=(q_{1},…,q_{l}) be an optimal sequence of operations transforming T into T^{′} (here each q_{i} denotes either a contraction, extension or flip). Let q_{j} be the event that contracts {u,v}. If q_{1}=q_{j}, then we are done, so assume otherwise. We make the assumption that whenever there is a contraction involving u prior to q_{j}, the contracted node is still called u. Furthermore, we assume that if an extension prior to q_{j} splits the neighbors of u, the node v is still a neighbor of u after the operation. All the same assumptions hold for v. This just changes the names we give to nodes and does not alter the scenario, but observe that this means that {u,v} is in every tree obtained before the first j operations.
For each i∈{1,…,l}, let T_{i} be the tree obtained after applying q_{1},…,q_{i} on T, and define T_{0}=T. Furthermore, for i∈{0,1,…,j−1}, denote by \(T^{u}_{i}\) and \(T^{v}_{i}\) the two trees obtained from T_{i} by removing the edge {u,v}, where u is in \(T^{u}_{i}\) and v is in \(T^{v}_{i}\). Define \(T^u = T^{u}_{0}\) and \(T^v = T^{v}_{0}\). We will assign u and v as the respective roots of each \(T^{u}_{i}\) and \(T^{v}_{i}\). Notice that for each i∈{1,…,j−1}, q_{i} only modifies either the subtree \(T^{u}_{i1}\) or \(T^{v}_{i1}\). Therefore, if events q_{i} and q_{i+1} modify \(T^{u}_{i1}\) and \(T^{v}_{i}\), respectively, we could apply q_{i+1} before q_{i} and T_{i+1} would still be the same tree. This lets us assume that we may reorder events such that all events affecting T^{u} (prior to q_{j}) occur before those affecting T^{v}. That is, there is some h such that q_{1},…,q_{h} only affects the T^{u} subtree, q_{h+1},…,q_{j−1} only affects the T^{v} subtree, so that \(T^{u}_h = T^{u}_{h+1} = \ldots = T^{u}_{j1}\) and \(T^v = T^{v}_1 = \ldots = T^{v}_{h}\).
Suppose first that u is labeled Spe in T_{h}, and thus also in T_{j−1}. Then v is also labeled Spe in T_{j−1} (and also in T_{h} since v was untouched until q_{h+1}). Let \(\hat {T}\) be the tree obtained after contracting {u,v} in T, and let z be the resulting node. Observe that if we interpret z as u, then we may apply the events q_{1},…,q_{h} on \(\hat {T}\), since these events only affected the T^{u} subtrees. To be formal, we “reproduce” q_{1} through q_{h} on \(\hat {T}\) by applying the events Q^{′}=(q1′,…,qh′) on \(\hat {T}\), defining \(\hat {T}_{i}\) as the tree obtained after the ith event of Q^{′}, where each \(q^{\prime }_{i}\) in Q^{′} is defined as follows:

if q_{i} contracts {x,y} in T_{i−1}, then \(q^{\prime }_{i}\) contracts {x,y} in \(\hat {T}_{i1}\) if x,y≠u, otherwise if, say, x=u, then \(q^{\prime }_{i}\) contracts {z,y} (and calls the resulting node z);

if q_{i} flips x in T_{i−1}, then \(q^{\prime }_{i}\) flips x in \(\hat {T}_{i1}\) if x≠u, or flips z otherwise;

if q_{i} is an extension and splits the neighborhood of x, then \(q^{\prime }_{i}\) does the same if x≠u (replacing u by z if needed). If x=u, then let X be the set of neighbors of v in T_{i−1}, excluding u. If Ch(u) is split into A and B by q_{i}, where v∈B, then \(q^{\prime }_{i}\) splits the neighbors A∪B∪X of z into A and B∪X (and z is the neighbor of B∪X and the newly created node).
One can verify the following that the following invariant holds on each \(\hat {T_i}, i \in \{1, \ldots, h\}\): if we take T_{i} and contract the edge {u,v}, ignoring the labels and keeping the label of u, then we obtain \(\hat {T}_{i}\) (the invariant is also true for T and \(\hat {T}\)).
The resulting tree \(\hat {T}_{h}\) obtained from applying q1′,…,qh′ on \(\hat {T}\) will therefore contain z as a Spe node, and will be the union of \(T^{u}_{h}\) and \(T^{v}_{0}\). From this point, in a similar fashion, we may interpret z as v and apply q_{h+1},…,q_{j−1} on \(\hat {T}_{h}\), resulting a tree that is the union of \(T^{u}_h = T^{u}_{j1}\) and \(T^{v}_{j1}\). The corresponding events are the same as above, we omit the formal details. Since T_{j} is obtained from T_{j−1} by contracting {u,v}, this means that \(\hat {T}_{j1} = T_{j}\), which we have attained with j events but contracting {u,v} first, which proves this case.
Suppose instead that u is labeled Dup in T_{h}. Then v is a Dup node in T_{j−1}. We may further assume that v is a Spe node in T_{h+1},…,T_{j−2}, since whenever we flip v into a Dup, we may assume by induction that {u,v} gets contracted. Therefore, q_{j−1} flips v from Spe to Dup, and for the first time. We may then do the following: first apply the events q_{h+1},…,q_{j−2} on \(\hat {T}\), interpreting z as v. The resulting tree \(\hat {T}'\) contains z as a Spe node, and is the union of \(T^{v}_{j2}\) and \(T^{u}_{0}\). We may now apply q_{1},…,q_{h} on \(\hat {T}'\) by interpreting u as z, resulting in a tree \(\hat {T}^{\prime \prime }\) that contains z as a Dup node and is the union of \(T^{u}_{h} = T^{u}_{j1}\) and \(T^{v}_{j  1}\). We have thus attained T_{j}, but this time without the q_{j−1} flip on v, contradicting the optimality of Q. This concludes the proof.
Proof of Lemma ?? (Upper bound δ):
Methodology 1 performs e contractions and e^{′} extensions. As for the number of flips, we have to flip at most all the nodes belonging to the smallest label group, which means at most half the nodes in each tree, and thus at most n flips in total.
Proof of Lemma ?? (Compare Meth.1 and Meth.2):
We denote by Cont(T) the minimum length of a sequence of operations contracting T, and by l(¶) the length of a sequence ¶ of edit operations (Fig. 7).
Let ¶_{2} be an optimal sequence contracting S to S_{∗} and ¶2′ be an optimal sequence contracting S^{′} to S∗′. As each operation is reversible, ¶2′ leads to a corresponding sequence ¶2′′ of the same length between S∗′ and S^{′}. Thus, ¶_{2}, concatenated with a possible flip operation transforming S_{∗} to \(S^{\prime }_{*}\), concatenated with ¶2′′ is a sequence from S to S^{′} following Methodology 1, and thus M_{1}(S,S^{′})≤M_{2}(S,S^{′}) (R1).
Conversely, let ¶ be an optimal sequence following Methodology 1. Then this sequence can be subdivided into a sequence ¶_{1} from S to a star tree S_{1}, and ¶1′ from S_{1} to S^{′}. As each operation is reversible, ¶1′ leads to a corresponding sequence ¶1′′ of the same length between S^{′} and S_{1}. In other words, M_{1}(S,S^{′})=l(¶_{1})+l(¶1′)=l(¶_{1})+l(¶1′′)≥Cont(S)+Cont(S^{′}).

1.
If S_{∗}=S∗′, then M_{2}(S,S^{′})=Cont(S)+Cont(S^{′}) and thus M_{1}(S,S^{′})≥M_{2}(S,S^{′}), and the result follows from (R1).

2.
Otherwise, S_{∗} and S∗′ are different and M_{2}(S,S^{′})=Cont(S)+Cont(S^{′})+1. Thus M_{1}(S,S^{′})≥Cont(S)+Cont(S^{′})=M_{2}(S,S^{′})−1, and thus M_{2}(S,S^{′})≤M_{1}(S,S^{′})+1.
Proof of Lemma ?? (Optimal path contracting a mixed tree):
We first show that at least ⌈diam(T)/2⌉−1 flips are needed, by induction over the diameter of T. When diam(T)=2, T is a star tree and 0=diam(T)/2−1 flips are needed. For the induction step, we assume that any tree T^{′} with diam(T^{′})<diam(T) requires at least ⌈diam(T^{′})/2⌉−1 flips. Take any optimal sequence of events S, and observe that in S, when we flip a node v of T, by Lemma ?? we may assume that S contracts all the incident edges to v until we obtain another mixed tree. Let T_{1},T_{2},…,T_{k} be the sequence of mixed trees encountered when applying S, i.e. each T_{i} is obtained after flipping a node and contracting its incident edges. Define T_{0}=T. Let i be the smallest index such that diam(T_{i})<diam(T). Then in T_{i−1}, there was a longest chain P=(u_{1},…,u_{l}) of length diam(T). The flipandcontract operations from T_{i−1} to T_{i} can reduce the length of P by at most 2 since we flip one node and only its incident edges, of which there are at most two on P. Hence diam(T_{i})≥diam(T)−2. We deduce by induction that the number of required flips is at least 1+⌈(diam(T)−2)/2⌉−1=⌈diam(T)/2⌉−1.
We now turn to the converse bound ϕ(T)≤⌈diam(T)/2⌉−1. Fix any node v of T, and suppose that we run the following procedure: as long as T is not a star tree, flip v and contract its incident internal edges. Since each flipandcontraction iteration reduces the length from v to any leaf by 1 (except its neighbors), ecc_{T}(v) is reduced by 1 each round. We stop when ecc_{T}(v)=1, in which case only terminal edges remain, and in the end, this means that ecc_{T}(v)−1 flips are needed.
To see why this proves our bound, we show that there always exists a node with eccentricity ⌈diam(T)/2⌉. Consider a longest chain P of T with nodes w_{1},…,w_{k}. Observe that diam(T)=k−1 (recall that distances are counted in terms of edges). Consider a midpoint node w:=w_{⌈k/2⌉} on P. We claim that ecc_{T}(w)=⌈diam(T)/2⌉. It is easy to check that w has distance at most ⌈diam(T)/2⌉ and at least ⌊diam(T)/2⌋ to the leaves w_{1} and w_{k} on P. Assume for contradiction that w is at distance at least ⌈diam(T)/2⌉+1 from some leaf l of T not in P. Then either we can form a chain from w_{1} to w and then to l, or a chain from w_{k} to w and then to l. This chain has length at least ⌊diam(T)/2⌋+⌈diam(T)/2⌉+1>diam(T), a contradiction. This shows that ecc_{T}(w)=⌈diam(T)/2⌉ and concludes the proof.
Proof of Theorem ?? (Upper bound Meth.2):
Consider a given instance (T,T^{′}). Take any leaf of T and assign it as the root, and do the same for T^{′}. Although we have assumed roots of degree at least two so far, we use this rooting only for our analysis in order fix a parentchild relationship between nodes. Let Q be an optimal sequence of operations turning T into T^{′}. We may assume that Q first contracts every nonmixed edge, and our algorithm does the same. Therefore, we suppose that T and T^{′} contain no nonmixed edges. Assume for our purposes that whenever a contraction takes place in Q between a node u and a child v, the u node stays in the tree and v gets removed (here the notion of a child is in the rooted sense with respect to our rooting above). Also assume that when there is an extension splitting a node u, then the newly created node becomes a child of u and u retains the same parent. It is easily checked that this only alters the name of nodes and not the sequence itself.
Call an internal node v of T a good child if the edge between v and its parent is good. Note that v has a unique corresponding node in T^{′} which we denote v^{′} (i.e. v^{′} is the root of the same clade as the subtree rooted at v). Further, call v a badgood child if v is a good child, but either the label of v differs from that of v^{′}, or v is incident to at least one bad edge (yes, children are capable of being both bad and good). Note that every bad subtree of T is rooted at a badgood child, and observe that here we say that a badgood child v that is incident to only good edges is a particular case of a bad subtree (i.e. v just has the wrong label).
We already know that δ(T,T^{′}) is at least the number of bad edges in T and T^{′}. Let Q^{′} be the set of operations of Q that are either flips, or contraction of good edges. We argue that Q^{′} is at least the number of badgood children in T. To see this, let v be a badgood child. Assume first that v is not incident to any bad edge. If we never flip v nor remove it by contracting its parent edge, then Q cannot transform T into T^{′}, as v and its underlying clade remain present in every tree from T to T^{′}, but with the wrong label (because a contraction not removing v cannot remove the v clade, and extensions can create clades but not remove them). So we may assume that v gets flipped or that its parent edge gets contracted. A flip must be in Q^{′} and, observing that at any point the parent edge of v must be good, a contraction removing v must also be in Q^{′}. Assume instead that v is incident to at least one bad edge {v,w}, with w a child of v. If v is never flipped nor removed owing to a contraction of its parent edge, then at some point w must be flipped so that the {v,w} edge gets contracted. Otherwise, if v gets removed, then its parent edge was contracted, again implying the contraction of a good edge. Either cases imply an operation in Q^{′}. Importantly, observe that the operations in Q^{′} identified above are all distinct, since each one implies a flip or a node removal of a node in a different bad subtree of T.
Now, let T_{1},…,T_{k} be the bad subtrees of T and T^{′}, and for each i∈{1,…,k}, let t_{i} be the number of bad edges in T_{i}. Further denote \(b = \sum _{i=1}^k t_{i}\). Since bad subtrees form pairs, our arguments above imply that Q^{′} has at least k/2 operations (because Q^{′} is at least the number of bad trees in T, which is half the number of bad subtrees). The contraction of bad edges plus the operations of Q^{′} show that Q has at least \(\sum _{i = 1}^k t_i + k/2 = b + k/2\) operations. Our algorithm contracts b edges in total. To count the number of flips, take any bad subtree T_{i}. Then t_{i}≥diam(T_{i})−2 and the number of flips we perform is at most ⌈diam(T_{i})/2⌉−1=⌈(diam(T_{i})−2)/2⌉≤t_{i}/2+1. Note that this also holds when T_{i} contains no bad edge. Therefore, the number of operations that we perform is at most \(b + \sum _{i=1}^k (t_i/2 + 1) = 3b/2 + k\). Our approximation ratio is therefore \(\frac {3b/2 + k}{b + k/2} \leq \frac {2b + k}{b + k/2} = 2\).
Availability of data and materials
The software implemented during the current study is available in the pylabeledrf repository, https://github.com/DessimozLab/pylabeledrf.
Notes
The radius of T is a wellknown graph parameter and is defined as the minimum eccentricity of a node of T. In a tree, the radius turns out to be ⌈diam(T)/2⌉.
Abbreviations
 RF:

RobinsonFoulds
References
Semple C, Steel M, et al. Phylogenetics vol. 24. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand; 2003.
Colijn C, Plazzotta G. A metric on phylogenetic tree shapes. Syst Biol. 2018; 67(1):113–26.
Lafond M, ElMabrouk N, Huber KT, Moulton V. The complexity of comparing multiplylabelled trees by extending phylogenetictree metric. Theor Comput Sci. 2019; 760:15–34.
Bryant D, Scornavacca C. An O(n logN) time algorithm for computing the pathlength distance between trees. Algorithmica. 2019; 81(9):3692–706.
Cardona G, Llabrés M, Rosselló F, Valiente G. Nodal distances for rooted phylogenetic trees. J Math Biol. 2010; 61(2):253–76.
Estabrook GF, McMorris F, Meacham CA. Comparison of undirected phylogenetic trees based on subtrees of four evolutionary units. Syst Zool. 1985; 34(2):193–200.
Critchlow DE, Pearl DK, Qian C. The triples distance for rooted bifurcating phylogenetic trees. Syst Zool. 1996; 45(3):323–34.
Jiang BDXHT, Li M, Tromp J, Zhang L. On computing the nearest neighbor interchange distance. In: Discrete Mathematical Problems with Medical Applications: DIMACS Workshop Discrete Mathematical Problems with Medical Applications, December 810, 1999, DIMACS Center, vol. 55. Providence: American Mathematical Soc.: 2000. p. 125.
Hickey G, Dehne F, RauChaplin A, Blouin C. Spr distance computation for unrooted trees. Evol Bioinforma. 2008; 4:419.
Allen BL, Steel M. Subtree transfer operations and their induced metrics on evolutionary trees. Ann Comb. 2001; 5(1):1–15.
Lin Y, Rajan V, Moret BM. A metric for phylogenetic trees based on matching. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma (TCBB). 2012; 9(4):1014–22.
Mittal S, Munjal G. Tree mining and tree validation metrics: A review. IOSR: J Comput Eng. 2015; 2:31–36.
Day WH. Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. J Classif. 1985; 2(1):7–28.
Pattengale ND, Gottlieb EJ, Moret BM. Efficiently computing the robinsonfoulds metric. J Comput Biol. 2007; 14(6):724–35.
Steel MA, Penny D. Distributions of tree comparison metric–some new results. Syst Biol. 1993; 42(2):126–41.
Bryant D, Steel M. Computing the distribution of a tree metric. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma. 2009; 6(3):420–6.
Chaudhary R, Burleigh JG, FernandezBaca D. Fast local search for unrooted robinsonfoulds supertrees. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma (TCBB). 2012; 9(4):1004–13.
Moon J, Eulenstein O. Cluster matching distance for rooted phylogenetic trees. In: International Symposium on Bioinformatics Research and Applications. Springer: 2018. p. 321–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319949680_31.
Robinson DF, Foulds LR. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math Biosci. 1981; 53(12):131–47.
Zhang K, Statman R, Shasha D. On the editing distance between unordered labeled trees. Inf Process Lett. 1992; 42(3):133–9.
Zhang K. A new editing based distance between unordered labeled trees. In: Annual Symposium on Combinatorial Pattern Matching. Berlin: Springer: 1993. p. 254–65.
Zhang K. A constrained edit distance between unordered labeled trees. Algorithmica. 1996; 15(3):205–22.
Schwarz S, Pawlik M, Augsten N. A new perspective on the tree edit distance. In: International Conference on Similarity Search and Applications. Springer: 2017. p. 156–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/9783319684741_11.
Vilella AJ, Severin J, UretaVidal A, Heng L, Durbin R, Birney E. EnsemblCompara gene trees: Complete, duplicationaware phylogenetic trees in vertebrates. Genome Res. 2009; 19:327–35.
Schreiber F, Patricio M, Muffato M, Pignatelli M, Bateman A. Treefam v9: a new website, more species and orthologyonthefly. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 42(D1):D922–D925. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1055.
Dress A. Towards a theory of holistic clustering. DIMACS Ser Discrete Math Theoret Comput Sci. 1997; 37:271–89.
HernandezRosales M, Hellmuth M, Wieseke N, Huber KT, Moulton V, Stadler PF. From eventlabeled gene trees to species trees. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012; 13:6. BioMed Central.
Lafond M, ElMabrouk N. Orthology and paralogy constraints: satisfiability and consistency. BMC Genomics. 2014; 15(6):12.
Altenhoff AM, Boeckmann B, CapellaGutierrez S, Dalquen DA, DeLuca T, Forslund K, HuertaCepas J, Linard B, Pereira C, Pryszcz LP, Schreiber F, da Silva AS, Szklarczyk D, Train CM, Bork P, Lecompte O, von Mering C, Xenarios I, Sjölander K, Jensen LJ, Martin MJ, Muffato M, Quest for Orthologs consortium, Gabaldón T, Lewis SE, Thomas PD, Sonnhammer E, Dessimoz C. Standardized benchmarking in the quest for orthologs. Nature methods. 2016; 13(5):425–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3830.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Program Committee of APBC2020 for the three constructive peerreviews.
About this supplement
This article has been published as part of BMC Genomics Volume 21 Supplement 10, 2020: Selected articles from the 18th Asia Pacific Bioinformatics Conference (APBC 2020): genomics. The full contents of the supplement are available online at https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume21supplement10.
Funding
Christophe Dessimoz is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Professorship grant 183723. Nadia ElMabrouk is supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Fonds de Recherche Nature et Technologies of Quebec (FRQNT). Manuel Lafond is supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Publication costs were funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study, nor in the writing, review or approval of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SB, CD, NEM, and ML devised the proofs and algorithms and wrote the paper. CD and GL implemented the distance software introduced in the manuscript. All author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Briand, S., Dessimoz, C., ElMabrouk, N. et al. A generalized RobinsonFoulds distance for labeled trees. BMC Genomics 21 (Suppl 10), 779 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864020070110
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864020070110
Keywords
 Edit distance
 Labeled trees
 RobinsonFoulds
 Tree metric