Encyclopedia of Algorithms

Living Edition
| Editors: Ming-Yang Kao

Maximum Compatible Tree

  • Vincent BerryEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27848-8_223-2

Years and Authors of Summarized Original Work

  • 2001; Ganapathy, Warnow

Problem Definition

This problem is a pattern matching problem on leaf-labeled trees. Each input tree is considered as a branching pattern inducing specific groups of leaves. Given a set of input trees with identical leaf sets, the goal is to find the largest subset of leaves on the branching pattern of which the input trees do not disagree. A maximum compatible tree is a tree on such a leaf set and with a branching pattern respecting that of each input tree (see below for a formal definition). The maximum compatible tree problem (MCT) is to find such a tree or, equivalently, its leaf set. The main motivation for this problem is in phylogenetics, to measure the similarity between evolutionary trees or to represent a consensus of a set of trees. The problem was introduced in [10] and [11, under the MRST acronym]. Previous related works concern the well-known maximum agreement subtree problem (MAST). Solving MASTis...

Keywords

Consensus of trees Maximum compatible tree Pattern matching on trees Phylogenetics Trees 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Berry V, Nicolas F (2006) Improved parametrized complexity of the maximum agreement subtree and maximum compatible tree problems. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinformatics 3(3):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry V, Nicolas F (2007) Maximum agreement and compatible supertrees. J Discret Algorithms 5(3):564–591MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry V, Guillemot S, Nicolas F, Paul C (2005) On the approximation of computing evolutionary trees. In: Wang L (ed) Proceedings of the 11th annual international conference on computing and combinatorics (COCOON’05), Shanghai. LNCS, vol 3595. Springer, pp 115–125Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry V, Peng ZS, Ting HF (2008) From constrained to unconstrained maximum agreement subtree in linear time. Algorithmica 50(3):369–385zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry V, Guillemot S, Nicolas F, Paul C (2009) Linear time 3-approximation for the mast problem. ACM Trans. Algorithms 5(2):23:1–23:18Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganapathy G, Warnow TJ (2001) Finding a maximum compatible tree for a bounded number of trees with bounded degree is solvable in polynomial time. In: Gascuel O, Moret BME (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on algorithms in bioinformatics (WABI’01), Aarhus, pp 156–163Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganapathy G, Warnow TJ (2002) Approximating the complement of the maximum compatible subset of leaves of k trees. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on approximation algorithms for combinatorial optimization (APPROX’02), Rome, pp 122–134Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guillemot S, Nicolas F (2006) Solving the maximum agreement subtree and the maximum compatible tree problems on many bounded degree trees. In: Lewenshtein M, Valiente G (eds) Proceedings of the 17th combinatorial pattern matching symposium (CPM’06), Barcelona. LNCS, vol 4009. Springer, pp 165–176Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gusfield D (1991) Efficient algorithms for inferring evolutionary trees. Networks 21:19–28zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamel AM, Steel MA (1996) Finding a maximum compatible tree is NP-hard for sequences and trees. Appl Math Lett 9(2):55–59zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hein J, Jiang T, Wang L, Zhang K (1996) On the complexity of comparing evolutionary trees. Discr Appl Math 71(1–3):153–169zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiang T, Wang L, Zhang K (1995) Alignment of trees – an alternative to tree edit. Theor Comput Sci 143(1):137–148zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steel MA, Warnow TJ (1993) Kaikoura tree theorems: computing the maximum agreement subtree. Inf Process Lett 48(2):77–82zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swofford D, Olsen G, Wadell P, Hillis D (1996) Phylogenetic inference. In: Hillis D, Moritz D, Mable B (eds) Molecular systematics, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 407–514Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Biologie ComputationnelleMontpellierFrance