Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2305.15132

Rooted Almost-binary Phylogenetic Networks for which the Maximum Covering Subtree Problem is Solvable in Linear Time

Abstract

Phylogenetic networks are a flexible model of evolution that can represent reticulate evolution and handle complex data. Tree-based networks, which are phylogenetic networks that have a spanning tree with the same root and leaf-set as the network itself, have been well studied. However, not all networks are tree-based. Francis-Semple-Steel (2018) thus introduced several indices to measure the deviation of rooted binary phylogenetic networks $N$ from being tree-based, such as the minimum number $δ^\ast(N)$ of additional leaves needed to make $N$ tree-based, and the minimum difference $η^\ast(N)$ between the number of vertices of $N$ and the number of vertices of a subtree of $N$ that shares the root and leaf set with $N$. Hayamizu (2021) has established a canonical decomposition of almost-binary phylogenetic networks of $N$, called the maximal zig-zag trail decomposition, which has many implications including a linear time algorithm for computing $δ^\ast(N)$. The Maximum Covering Subtree Problem (MCSP) is the problem of computing $η^\ast(N)$, and Davidov et al. (2022) showed that this can be solved in polynomial time (in cubic time when $N$ is binary) by an algorithm for the minimum cost flow problem. In this paper, under the assumption that $N$ is almost-binary (i.e. each internal vertex has in-degree and out-degree at most two), we show that $δ^\ast(N)\leq η^\ast (N)$ holds, which is tight, and give a characterisation of such phylogenetic networks $N$ that satisfy $δ^\ast(N)=η^\ast(N)$. Our approach uses the canonical decomposition of $N$ and focuses on how the maximal W-fences (i.e. the forbidden subgraphs of tree-based networks) are connected to maximal M-fences in the network $N$. Our results introduce a new class of phylogenetic networks for which MCSP can be solved in linear time, which can be seen as a generalisation of tree-based networks.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Takatora Suzuki, Han Guo, Momoko Hayamizu. 2023-05-24. Rooted Almost-binary Phylogenetic Networks for which the Maximum Covering Subtree Problem is Solvable in Linear Time. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15132

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Matching Complexes of Outerplanar Graphs

An outerplanar graph is a planar graph that has a planar drawing with all vertices on the unbounded face. The matching complex of a graph is the simplicial complex whose faces are subsets of disjoint edges of the graph. In this paper we prove that the matching complexes of outerplanar graphs are contractible or homotopy equivalent to a wedge of spheres. This extends known results about trees and polygonal line tilings.

math.CO

Awesome graph parameters

For a graph $G$, we denote by $α(G)$ the size of a maximum independent set and by $ω(G)$ the size of a maximum clique in $G$. Our paper lies on the edge of two lines of research, related to $α$ and $ω$, respectively. One of them studies $α$-variants of graph parameters, such as $α$-treewidth or $α$-degeneracy. The second line deals with graph classes where some parameters are bounded by a function of $ω(G)$. A famous example of this type is the family of $χ$-bounded classes, where the chromatic number $χ(G)$ is bounded by a function of $ω(G)$. A Ramsey-type argument implies that if the $α$-variant of a graph parameter $ρ$ is bounded by a constant in a hereditary class $\mathcal{G}$, then $ρ$ is bounded by a function of $ω$ in $\mathcal{G}$. If the reverse implication also holds, we say that $ρ$ is awesome. Otherwise, we say that $ρ$ is awful. In the present paper, we identify a number of awesome and awful graph parameters, derive some algorithmic applications of awesomeness, and propose a number of open problems related to these notions.

math.CO

Perfect matchings and $A_α$-spectral radius in 1-binding graphs

Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$. For $α\in[0,1)$, we use $A_α(G)$ and $ρ_α(G)$ to denote the $A_α$-matrix and the $A_α$-spectral radius of $G$, respectively. The binding number $\mbox{bind}(G)$ of $G$ is defined by $\mbox{bind}(G)=\min\left\{\frac{|N_G(X)|}{|X|}:\emptyset\neq X\subseteq V(G),N_G(X)\neq V(G)\right\}$. If $\mbox{bind}(G)\geq1$, then $G$ is called 1-binding. A perfect matching in $G$ is a set of nonadjacent edges covering every vertex of $G$. Tutte proved that a graph $G$ of even order has a perfect matching if and only if $o(G-S)\leq|S|$ holds for every $S\subseteq V(G)$ [W. Tutte, The factorization of linear graphs, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 22 (1947) 107--111]. In this paper, we use Tutte's result to prove that a connected 1-binding graph $G$ of even order $n$ with $n\geq n(α)$ has a perfect matching unless $G=K_1\vee(K_{n-5}\cup K_3\cup K_1)$ if $ρ_α(G)\geqρ_α(K_1\vee(K_{n-5}\cup K_3\cup K_1))$, where $n(α)$ is defined as follows: $n(α)=\max\{18,\frac{2+8α}{1-2α}\}$ if $α\in[0,\frac{1}{2})$, and $n(α)=18$ if $α=\frac{1}{2}$.

math.CO