Solving the Maximum Agreement SubTree and the Maximum Compatible Tree Problems on Many Bounded Degree Trees

  • Sylvain Guillemot
  • François Nicolas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4009)

Abstract

Given a set of leaf-labeled trees with identical leaf sets, the well-known Maximum Agreement SubTree problem (MAST) consists of finding a subtree homeomorphically included in all input trees and with the largest number of leaves. Its variant called Maximum Compatible Tree (MCT) is less stringent, as it allows the input trees to be refined. Both problems are of particular interest in computational biology, where trees encountered have often small degrees.

In this paper, this paper, we study the parameterized complexity of MAST and MCT with respect to the maximum degree, denoted D, of the input trees. While MAST is polynomial for bounded D [1,6,3], we show that MAST is W[1]-hard with respect to parameter D. Moreover, relying on recent advances in parameterized complexity we obtain a tight lower bound: while MAST can be solved in O(N\(^{O({\it D})}\)) time where N denotes the input length, we show that an O(N\(^{o({\it D})}\)) bound is not achievable, unless SNP ⊆ SE. We also show that MCT is W[1]-hard with respect to D, and that MCT cannot be solved in \(O\big(N^{o(2^{D/2})}\big)\) time, unless SNP ⊆ SE.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amir, A., Keselman, D.: Maximum agreement subtree in a set of evolutionary trees: metrics and efficient algorithm. SIAM Journal on Computing 26(6), 1656–1669 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry, V., Nicolas, F.: Maximum agreement and compatible supertrees. In: Sahinalp, S.C., Muthukrishnan, S., Dogrusoz, U. (eds.) CPM 2004. LNCS, vol. 3109, pp. 205–219. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryant, D.: Building trees, hunting for trees and comparing trees: theory and method in phylogenetic analysis. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Department of Mathemathics (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, J., Huang, X., Kanj, I.A., Xia, G.: Linear FPT reductions and computational lower bounds. In: Babai, L. (ed.) Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2004), pp. 212–221. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parameterized Complexity. Monographs in Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farach, M., Przytycka, T.M., Thorup, M.: On the agreement of many trees. Information Processing Letters 55(6), 297–301 (1995)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finden, C.R., Gordon, A.D.: Obtaining common pruned trees. Journal of Classification 2, 255–276 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ganapathysaravanabavan, G., Warnow, T.J.: Finding a maximum compatible tree for a bounded number of trees with bounded degree is solvable in polynomial time. In: Gascuel, O., Moret, B.M.E. (eds.) WABI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2149, pp. 156–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamel, A.M., Steel, M.A.: Finding a maximum compatible tree is NP-hard for sequences and trees. Applied Mathematics Letters 9(2), 55–59 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hein, J., Jiang, T., Wang, L., Zhang, K.: On the complexity of comparing evolutionary trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 71(1–3), 153–169 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Impagliazzo, R., Paturi, R., Zane, F.: Which problems have strongly exponential complexity? Journal of Computer and System Sciences 63(4), 512–530 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kao, M.-Y., Lam, T.W., Sung, W.-K., Ting, H.-F.: An even faster and more unifying algorithm for comparing trees via unbalanced bipartite matchings. Journal of Algorithms 40(2), 212–233 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 43(3), 425–440 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pietrzak, K.: On the parameterized complexity of the fixed alphabet shortest common supersequence and longest common subsequence problems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 67(4), 757–771 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvain Guillemot
    • 1
  • François Nicolas
    • 1
  1. 1.LIRMMMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations