The Complexity of Constructing Evolutionary Trees Using Experiments

  • Gerth Stølting Brodal
  • Rolf Fagerberg
  • Christian N.S. Pedersen
  • Anna Östlin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2076)


We present tight upper and lower bounds for the problem of constructing evolutionary trees in the experiment model. We describe an algorithm which constructs an evolutionary tree of n species in time O(nd logd n) using at most nd/2⌉(log2⌈d/2⌉-1 n+O(1)) experiments for d > 2, and at most n(log n+O(1)) experiments for d = 2, where d is the degree of the tree. This improves the previous best upper bound by a factor θ(log d). For d = 2 the previously best algorithm with running time O(n log n) had a bound of 4n log n on the number of experiments. By an explicit adversary argument, we show an Ω(nd logd n) lower bound, matching our upper bounds and improving the previous best lower bound by a factor θ(logd n). Central to our algorithm is the construction and maintenance of separator trees of small height, which may be of independent interest.


Common Ancestor Internal Node Evolutionary Tree Insertion Point Construction Algorithm 
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.
    A. Andersson. Improving partial rebuilding by using simple balance criteria. In Proc. 1st Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures (WADS), volume 382 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 393–402. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Andersson and T. W. Lai. Fast updating of well-balanced trees. In Proc. 2nd Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (SWAT), volume 447 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 111–121. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Borodin, L. J. Guibas, N. A. Lynch, and A. C. Yao. Efficient searching using partial ordering. Information Processing Letters, 12:71–75, 1981.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. S. Brodal, S. Chaudhuri, and J. Radhakrishnan. The randomized complexity of maintaining the minimum. Nordic Journal of Computing, Selected Papers of the 5th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (SWAT), 3(4):337–351, 1996.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. S. Brodal, R. Fagerberg, C. N. S. Pedersen, and A. Östlin. The complexity of constructing evolutionary trees using experiments. Technical Report BRICS-RS-01-1, BRICS, Department of Computer Science, University of Aarhus, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. K. Kannan, E. L. Lawler, and T. J. Warnow. Determining the evolutionary tree using experiments. Journal of Algorithms, 21:26–50, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Y. Kao, A. Lingas, and A. Östlin. Balanced randomized tree splitting with applications to evolutionary tree constructions. In Proc. 16th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), pages 184–196, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Lingas, H. Olsson, and A. Östlin. Efficient merging, construction, and maintenance of evolutionary trees. In Proc. 26th Int. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), volume 1644 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 544–553. Springer-Verlag, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. G. Sibley and J. E. Ahlquist. Phylogeny and classification of birds based on the data of DNA-DNA-hybridization. Current Ornithology, 1:245–292, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerth Stølting Brodal
    • 1
  • Rolf Fagerberg
    • 1
  • Christian N.S. Pedersen
    • 1
  • Anna Östlin
    • 2
  1. 1.BRICS, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of AarhusÅrhus CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations