A Relational Approach to Split Decomposition

  • H.-J. Bandelt
  • A. W. M. Dress
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

Given a set of objects, a split A,B (or distinctive feature) partitions the set into two complementary parts A and B. To a system of splits we associate the relation between pairs of objects that opposes a pair u, v to a pair x, y exactly when the pairs u, v and x, y are separated by at least one split from the system. Conversely, for a quaternary relation opposing pairs of objects, we consider those splits A, B for which each pair from A is opposed to each pair from B. This sets up an adjoint situation between systems of splits and relations between pairs. We characterize the closed systems and open relations. Systems of weakly compatible splits (arising in the decomposition theory of metrics) are always closed, and the corresponding relations can be characterized by a 6-point condition. Particular instances are described by 5-point conditions. A concluding example from biology illustrates this relational approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandelt, H.-J. and Dress, A. (1986), Reconstructing the shape of a tree from observed dissimilarity data, Advances Applied Mathematics, 7, 309–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandelt, H.-J. and Dress, A. (1992 a), A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set, Advances Mathematics, to appear.Google Scholar
  3. Bandelt, H.-J. and Dress, A.W.M. (1992 b), Split decomposition: a new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data, Molecular Phylogenetics Evolution, to appear.Google Scholar
  4. Berge, C. (1989), Hypergraphs, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W.M., Prager, E.M., Wang, A., and Wilson, A.C. (1982), Mitochondrial DNA sequences of primates: tempo and mode of evolution, J. Molecular Evolution, 18, 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dapazo, J., Dress, A., and Von Haeseler, A. (1990), Split decomposition: a new technique to analyse viral evolution, Preprint 90-037, Universität Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  7. Dress, A. and Von Haeseler, eds. (1990), Trees and hierarchical structures, Lecture Notes Biomathematics, 84, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Hasegawa, M. and Kishino, H. (1989), Confidence limits on the maximum likelihood estimate of the hominoid tree from mitochondrial-DNA sequences, Evolution, 43, 672–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kishino, H. and Hasegawa, M. (1989), Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea, J. Molecular Evolution, 29, 170–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li, W.-H., Wolfe, K.H., Sourdis, J., and Sharp, P.M. (1987), Reconstruction of phylogenetic trees and estimation of divergence times under nonconstant rates of evolution, Cold Spring Harbor Symposia Quantitative Biology, Vol. III, 847–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nei, M. (1987), Molecular evolutionary genetics, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ruvolo, M., Disotell, T.R., Allard, M.W., Brown, W.M., and Honeycutt, R.L. (1991), Resolution of the African hominoid trichotomy by use of a mitochondrial gene sequence, Proc. National Academy Sciences USA, 88, 1570–1574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sattath, S. and Tversky, A. (1987), On the relation between common and distinctive feature models, Psychological Review, 94, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-J. Bandelt
    • 1
  • A. W. M. Dress
    • 2
  1. 1.Mathematisches Seminar der UniversitätHamburg 13Germany
  2. 2.Fakultät für Mathematik der UniversitätBielefeld 1Germany

Personalised recommendations