Tree reconstruction from partial orders

  • Sampath Kannan
  • Tandy Warnow
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 709)


The problem of constructing trees given a matrix of interleaf distances is motivated by applications in computational evolutionary biology and linguistics. The general problem is to find an edge-weighted tree which most closely approximates (under some norm) the distance matrix. Although the construction problem is easy when the tree exactly fits the distance matrix, optimization problems under all popular criteria are either known or conjectured to be NP-complete. In this paper we consider the related problem where we are given a partial order on the pairwise distances, and wish to construct (if possible) an edge-weighted tree realizing the partial order. In particular we are interested in partial orders which arise from experiments on triples of species. We will show that the consistency problem is NP-hard in general, but that for certain special cases the construction problem can be solved in polynomial time.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. Bodlaender, M. Fellows, and T. Warnow, Two strikes against perfect phylogeny, Proceedings, ICALP, Vienna, Austria, July 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Culberson and P. Rudnicki, A fast algorithm for constructing trees from distance matrices, Information Processing Letters, 30 (1989), pp. 215–220.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.H.E. Day, Computational complexity of inferring phylogenies from dissimilarity matrices, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 461–467, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Farach, S. Kannan, and T. Warnow, A robust model for finding optimal evolutionary trees, to appear, Algorithmica, Special issue on Computational Biology, also to appear, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), San Diego, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.S. Farris, Estimating phylogenetic trees from distance matrices, Am. Nat., 106, pp. 645–668, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Felsenstein, Numerical methods for inferring evolutionary trees, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 57, No. 4, Dec. 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    W.M. Fitch and E. Margoliash, The construction of phylogenetic trees, Science 155:29–94, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Hein, An optimal algorithm to reconstruct trees from additive distance matrices, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 597–603, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Hein, A tree reconstruction method that is economical in the number of pairwise comparisons used, Mol. Biol. Evol. 6(6), pp. 669–684, 1989.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Kannan, E. Lawler, and T. Warnow, Determining the evolutionary tree, Proc. First Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, San Francisco, Jan. 1990, also, to appear, J. of Algorithms.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.-H. Li, Simple method for constructing phylogenetic trees from distance matrices, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 78:1085–89, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Saitou and M. Nei, The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees, Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:406–25, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.A. Steel, The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees, Journal of Classification, Vol. 9, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.S. Waterman, T.F. Smith, M. Singh, and W.A. Beyer, Additive evolutionary trees, J. Theor. Biol., 64, pp. 199–213, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Winkler, The complexity of metric realization, SIAM J. Discrete Math, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sampath Kannan
    • 1
  • Tandy Warnow
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucson
  2. 2.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque

Personalised recommendations