Encyclopedia of Algorithms

Living Edition
| Editors: Ming-Yang Kao

Maximum Agreement Subtree (of 3 or More Trees)

  • Teresa M. PrzytyckaEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27848-8_221-2

Years and Authors of Summarized Original Work

1995; Farach, Przytycka, Thorup

Problem Definition

The maximum agreement subtree problem for k trees (k-MAST) is a generalization of a similar problem for two trees (MAST). Consider a tuple of k rooted leaf-labeled trees (T1, T2… Tk). Let A = { a1, a2, … an} be the set of leaf labels. Any subset BA uniquely determines the so-called topological restriction T | B of the three T to B. Namely, T | B is the topological subtree of T spanned by all leaves labeled with elements from B and the lowest common ancestors of all pairs of these leaves. In particular, the ancestor relation in T | B is defined so that it agrees with the ancestor relation in T. A subset B of A such T1 | B, , Tk | B are isomorphic is called an agreement set.

Problem 1 (k-MAST).

INPUT: A tuple \(\vec{T} = (T^{1},\ldots, T^{k})\)


Tree alignment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.



This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Amir A, Keselman D (1997) Maximum agreement subtree in a set of evolutionary trees: metrics and efficient algorithms. SIAM J Comput 26(6):1656–1669CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry V, Nicolas F (2006) Improved parameterized complexity of the maximum agreement subtree and maximum compatible tree problems. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 3(3):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry V, Guillemot S, Nicolas F, Paul C (2005) On the approximation of computing evolutionary trees. In: COCOON, Kunming, pp 115–125Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bryand D (1997) Building trees, hunting for trees, and comparing trees: theory and methods in phylogenetic analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cole R, Farach-Colton M, Hariharan R, Przytycka T, Thorup M (2001) An o(nlogn) algorithm for the maximum agreement subtree problem for binary trees. SIAM J Comput 1385–1404Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farach M, Przytycka TM, Thorup M (1995) On the agreement of many trees. Inf Process Lett 55(6):297–301CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Finden CR, Gordon AD (1985) Obtaining common pruned trees. J Classif 2:255–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kao M-Y, Lam T-W, Sung W-K, Ting H-F (2001) An even faster and more unifying algorithm for comparing trees via unbalanced bipartite matchings. J Algorithms 40(2):212–233CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee C-M, Hung L-J, Chang M-S, Tang C-Y (2004) An improved algorithm for the maximum agreement subtree problem. In: BIBE, Taichung, p 533Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Przytycka TM (1998) Transforming rooted agreement into unrooted agreement. J Comput Biol 5(2):335–349CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steel MA, Warnow T (1993) Kaikoura tree theorems: computing the maximum agreement subtree. Inf Process Lett 48(2):77–82CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computational Biology Branch, NCBINIHBethesdaUSA