Treewidth distance on phylogenetic trees

In this article we study the treewidth of the display graph, an auxiliary graph structure obtained from the fusion of phylogenetic (i.e., evolutionary) trees at their leaves. Earlier work has shown that the treewidth of the display graph is bounded if the trees are in some formal sense topologically similar. Here we further expand upon this relationship. We analyse a number of reduction rules, commonly used in the phylogenetics literature to obtain fixed parameter tractable algorithms. In some cases (the subtree reduction) the reduction rules behave similarly with respect to treewidth, while others (the cluster reduction) behave very differently, and the behaviour of the chain reduction is particularly intriguing because of its link with graph separators and forbidden minors. We also show that the gap between treewidth and Tree Bisection and Reconnect (TBR) distance can be infinitely large, and that unlike, for example, planar graphs the treewidth of the display graph can be as much as linear in its number of vertices. A number of other auxiliary results are given. We conclude with a discussion and list a number of open problems

Treewidth of display graphs: bounds, brambles and applications

Phylogenetic trees and networks are leaf-labelled graphs used to model evolution. Display graphs are created by identifying common leaf labels in two or more phylogenetic trees or networks. The treewidth of such graphs is bounded as a function of many common dissimilarity measures between phylogenetic trees and this has been leveraged in fixed parameter tractability results. Here we further elucidate the properties of display graphs and their interaction with treewidth. We show that it is NP-hard to recognize display graphs, but that display graphs of bounded treewidth can be recognized in linear time. Next we show that if a phylogenetic network displays (i.e. topologically embeds) a phylogenetic tree, the treewidth of their display graph is bounded by a function of the treewidth of the original network (and also by various other parameters). In fact, using a bramble argument we show that this treewidth bound is sharp up to an additive term of 1. We leverage this bound to give an FPT algorithm, parameterized by treewidth, for determining whether a network displays a tree, which is an intensively-studied problem in the field. We conclude with a discussion on the future use of display graphs and treewidth in phylogenetics

Reduction rules for the maximum parsimony distance on phylogenetic trees

In phylogenetics, distances are often used to measure the incongruence between a pair of phylogenetic trees that are reconstructed by different methods or using different regions of genome. Motivated by the maximum parsimony principle in tree inference, we recently introduced the maximum parsimony (MP) distance, which enjoys various attractive properties due to its connection with several other well-known tree distances, such as tbr and spr. Here we show that computing the MP distance between two trees, a NP-hard problem in general, is fixed parameter tractable in terms of the tbr distance between the tree pair. Our approach is based on two reduction rules – the chain reduction and the subtree reduction – that are widely used in computing tbr and spr distances. More precisely, we show that reducing chains to length 4 (but not shorter) preserves the MP distance. In addition, we describe a generalization of the subtree reduction which allows the pendant subtrees to be rooted in different places, and show that this still preserves the MP distance. On a slightly different note we also show that Monadic Second Order Logic (MSOL), posited over an auxiliary graph structure known as the display graph (obtained by merging the two trees at their leaves), can be used to obtain an alternative proof that computation of MP distance is fixed parameter tractable in terms of tbr-distance. We conclude with an extended discussion in which we focus on similarities and differences between MP distance and TBR distance and present a number of open problems. One particularly intriguing question, emerging from the MSOL formulation, is whether two trees with bounded MP distance induce display graphs of bounded treewidth

Fixed parameter algorithms for compatible and agreement supertree problems

Biologists represent evolutionary history of species through phylogenetic trees. Leaves of a phylogenetic tree represent the species and internal vertices represent the extinct ancestors. Given a collection of input phylogenetic trees, a common problem in computational biology is to build a supertree that captures the evolutionary history of all the species in the input trees, and is consistent with each of the input trees. In this document we study the tree compatibility and agreement supertree problems. Tree compatibility problem is NP-complete but has been shown to be fixed parameter tractable when parametrized by number of input trees. We characterize the compatible supertree problem in terms of triangulation of a structure called the display graph. We also give an alternative characterization in terms of cuts of the display graph. We show how these characterizations are related to characterization given in terms of triangulation of the edge label intersection graph. We then give a characterization of the agreement supertree problem. In real world data, consistent supertrees do not always exist. Inconsistencies can be dealt with by contraction of edges or removal of taxa. The agreement supertree edge contraction (AST-EC) problem asks if a collection of k rooted trees can be made to agree by contraction of at most p edges. Similarly, the agreement supertree taxon removal (AST-TR) problem asks if a collection of k rooted trees can be made to agree by removal of at most p taxa. We give fixed parameter algorithms for both cases when parametrized by k and p. We study the long standing conjecture on the perfect phylogeny problem; there exists a function f (r) such that a given collection C of r-state characters is compatible if and only if every f (r) subset of C is compatible. We will show that for r ≥ 2, f (r) ≥ lceil (r/2) rceil * lfloor(r/2)rfloor + 1

Undergraduate course catalog (Florida International University). [2019-2020]

This catalog contains a description of the various policies, undergraduate programs, degree requirements, and course offerings at Florida International University during the 2019-2020 academic year.https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/catalogs/1077/thumbnail.jp

Udergraduate course catalog (Florida International University). [2018-2019]

This catalog contains a description of the various policies, undergraduate programs, degree requirements, and course offerings at Florida International University during the 2018-2019 academic year.https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/catalogs/1075/thumbnail.jp

Complexity, Language, and Life: Mathematical Approaches

In May 1984 the Swedish Council for Scientific Research convened a small group of investigators at the scientific research station at Abisko, Sweden, for the purpose of examining various conceptual and mathematical views of the evolution of complex systems. The stated theme of the meeting was deliberately kept vague, with only the purpose of discussing alternative mathematically based approaches to the modeling of evolving processes being given as a guideline to the participants. In order to limit the scope to some degree, it was decided to emphasize living rather than nonliving processes and to invite participants from a range of disciplinary specialities spanning the spectrum from pure and applied mathematics to geography and analytic philosophy. The results of the meeting were quite extraordinary; while there was no intent to focus the papers and discussion into predefined channels, an immediate self-organizing effect took place and the deliberations quickly oriented themselves into three main streams: conceptual and formal structures for characterizing system complexity; evolutionary processes in biology and ecology; the emergence of complexity through evolution in natural languages. The chapters presented in this volume are not the proceedings of the meeting. Following the meeting, the organizers felt that the ideas and spirit of the gathering should be preserved in some written form, so the participants were each requested to produce a chapter, explicating the views they presented at Abisko, written specifically for this volume. The results of this exercise are contained in this book