arXiv++ Combinatorics

We give a counterexample to the conjecture of Martin and Thatte that two balanced rooted binary leaf-labelled trees on $n$ leaves have a maximum agreement subtree (MAST) of size at least $n^{\frac{1}{2}}$. In particular, we show that for any $c>0$, there exist two balanced rooted binary leaf-labelled trees on $n$ leaves such that any MAST for these two trees has size less than $c n^{\frac{1}{2}}$. We also improve the lower bound of the size of such a MAST to $n^{\frac{1}{6}}$.

A tree-based network $N$ on $X$ is called universal if every phylogenetic tree on $X$ is a base tree for $N$. Recently, binary universal tree-based networks have attracted great attention in the literature and their existence has been analyzed in various studies. In this note, we extend the analysis to non-binary networks and show that there exist both a rooted and an unrooted non-binary universal tree-based network with $n$ leaves for all positive integers $n$.

Measures of tree balance play an important role in the analysis of phylogenetic trees. One of the oldest and most popular indices in this regard is the Colless index for rooted bifurcating trees, introduced by Colless (1982). While many of its statistical properties under different probabilistic models for phylogenetic trees have already been established, little is known about its minimum value and the trees that achieve it. In this manuscript, we fill this gap in the literature. To begin with, we derive both recursive and closed expressions for the minimum Colless index of a tree with $n$ leaves. Surprisingly, these expressions show a connection between the minimum Colless index and the so-called Blancmange curve, a fractal curve. We then fully characterize the tree shapes that achieve this minimum value and we introduce both an algorithm to generate them and a recurrence to count them. After focusing on two extremal classes of trees with minimum Colless index (the maximally balanced trees and the greedy from the bottom trees), we conclude by showing that all trees with minimum Colless index also have minimum Sackin index, another popular balance index.

Measures of tree balance play an important role in various research areas, for example in phylogenetics. There they are for instance used to test whether an observed phylogenetic tree differs significantly from a tree generated by the Yule model of speciation. One of the most popular indices in this regard is the Colless index, which measures the degree of balance for rooted binary trees. While many statistical properties of the Colless index (e.g. asymptotic results for its mean and variance under different models of speciation) have already been discussed in different contexts, we focus on its extremal properties. While it is relatively straightforward to characterize trees with maximal Colless index, the analysis of the minimal value of the Colless index and the characterization of trees that achieve it, are much more involved. In this note, we therefore focus on the minimal value of the Colless index for any given number of leaves. We derive both a recursive formula for this minimal value, as well as an explicit expression, which shows a surprising connection between the Colless index and the so-called Blancmange curve, a fractal curve that is also known as the Takagi curve. Moreover, we characterize two classes of trees that have minimal Colless index, consisting of the set of so-called \emph{maximally balanced trees} and a class of trees that we call \emph{greedy from the bottom trees}. Furthermore, we derive an upper bound for the number of trees with minimal Colless index by relating these trees with trees with minimal Sackin index (another well-studied index of tree balance).

Phylogenetic diversity indices provide a formal way to apportion 'evolutionary heritage' across species. Two natural diversity indices are Fair Proportion (FP) and Equal Splits (ES). FP is also called 'evolutionary distinctiveness' and, for rooted trees, is identical to the Shapley Value (SV), which arises from cooperative game theory. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which FP and ES can differ, characterise tree shapes on which the indices are identical, and study the equivalence of FP and SV and its implications in more detail. We also define and investigate analogues of these indices on unrooted trees (where SV was originally defined), including an index that is closely related to the Pauplin representation of phylogenetic diversity.

Recently, so-called treebased phylogenetic networks have gained considerable interest in the literature, where a treebased network is a network that can be constructed from a phylogenetic tree, called the base tree, by adding additional edges. The main aim of this manuscript is to provide some sufficient criteria for treebasedness by reducing phylogenetic networks to related graph structures. While it is generally known that deciding whether a network is treebased is NP-complete, one of these criteria, namely edgebasedness, can be verified in linear time. Surprisingly, the class of edgebased networks is closely related to a well-known family of graphs, namely the class of generalized series parallel graphs, and we will explore this relationship in full detail. Additionally, we introduce further classes of treebased networks and analyze their relationships.

Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees allowing for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events such as hybridization. Typically, such networks have been analyzed based on their `level', i.e. based on the complexity of their 2-edge-connected components. However, recently the question of how `treelike' a phylogenetic network is has become the center of attention in various studies. This led to the introduction of \emph{tree-based networks}, i.e. networks that can be constructed from a phylogenetic tree, called the \emph{base tree}, by adding additional edges. While the concept of tree-basedness was originally introduced for rooted phylogenetic networks, it has recently also been considered for unrooted networks. In the present study, we compare and contrast findings obtained for unrooted \emph{binary} tree-based networks to unrooted \emph{non-binary} networks. In particular, while it is known that up to level 4 all unrooted binary networks are tree-based, we show that in the case of non-binary networks, this result only holds up to level 3.

The so-called binary perfect phylogeny with persistent characters has recently been thoroughly studied in computational biology as it is less restrictive than the well known binary perfect phylogeny. Here, we focus on the notion of (binary) persistent characters, i.e. characters that can be realized on a phylogenetic tree by at most one $0 \rightarrow 1$ transition followed by at most one $1 \rightarrow 0$ transition in the tree, and analyze these characters under different aspects. First, we illustrate the connection between persistent characters and Maximum Parsimony, where we characterize persistent characters in terms of the first phase of the famous Fitch algorithm. Afterwards we focus on the number of persistent characters for a given phylogenetic tree. We show that this number solely depends on the balance of the tree. To be precise, we develop a formula for counting the number of persistent characters for a given phylogenetic tree based on an index of tree balance, namely the Sackin index. Lastly, we consider the question of how many (carefully chosen) binary characters together with their persistence status are needed to uniquely determine a phylogenetic tree and provide an upper bound for the number of characters needed.

The Shapley value, a solution concept from cooperative game theory, has recently been considered for both unrooted and rooted phylogenetic trees. Here, we focus on the Shapley value of unrooted trees and first revisit the so-called split counts of a phylogenetic tree and the Shapley transformation matrix that allows for the calculation of the Shapley value from the edge lengths of a tree. We show that non-isomorphic trees may have permutation-equivalent Shapley transformation matrices and permutation-equivalent null spaces. This implies that estimating the split counts associated with a tree or the Shapley values of its leaves does not suffice to reconstruct the correct tree topology. We then turn to the use of the Shapley value as a prioritization criterion in biodiversity conservation and compare it to a greedy solution concept. Here, we show that for certain phylogenetic trees, the Shapley value may fail as a prioritization criterion, meaning that the diversity spanned by the top $k$ species (ranked by their Shapley values) cannot approximate the total diversity of all $n$ species.

One of the main aims of phylogenetics is to reconstruct the \enquote{Tree of Life}. In this respect, different methods and criteria are used to analyze DNA sequences of different species and to compare them in order to derive the evolutionary relationships of these species. Maximum Parsimony is one such criterion for tree reconstruction and, it is the one which we will use in this paper. However, it is well-known that tree reconstruction methods can lead to wrong relationship estimates. One typical problem of Maximum Parsimony is long branch attraction, which can lead to statistical inconsistency. In this work, we will consider a blockwise approach to alignment analysis, namely so-called $k$-tuple analyses. For four taxa it has already been shown that $k$-tuple-based analyses are statistically inconsistent if and only if the standard character-based (site-based) analyses are statistically inconsistent. So, in the four-taxon case, going from individual sites to $k$-tuples does not lead to any improvement. However, real biological analyses often consider more than only four taxa. Therefore, we analyze the case of five taxa for $2$- and $3$-tuple-site data and consider alphabets with two and four elements. We show that the equivalence of single-site data and $k$-tuple-site data then no longer holds. Even so, we can show that Maximum Parsimony is statistically inconsistent for $k$-tuple site data and five taxa.

In biodiversity conservation it is often necessary to prioritize the species to conserve. Existing approaches to prioritization, e.g. the Fair Proportion Index and the Shapley Value, are based on phylogenetic trees and rank species according to their contribution to overall phylogenetic diversity. However, in many cases evolution is not treelike and thus, phylogenetic networks have come to the fore as a generalization of phylogenetic trees, allowing for the representation of non-treelike evolutionary events, such as horizontal gene transfer or hybridization. Here, we extend the concepts of phylogenetic diversity and phylogenetic diversity indices from phylogenetic trees to phylogenetic networks. On the one hand, we consider the treelike content of a phylogenetic network, e.g. the (multi)set of phylogenetic trees displayed by a network and the LSA tree associated with it. On the other hand, we derive the phylogenetic diversity of subsets of taxa and biodiversity indices directly from the internal structure of the network. Furthermore, we introduce our software package NetDiversity, which was implemented in Perl and allows for the calculation of all generalized measures of phylogenetic diversity and generalized phylogenetic diversity indices established in this note that are independent of inheritance probabilities. We apply our methods to a phylogentic network representing the evolutionary relationships among swordtails and platyfishes (Xiphophorus: Poeciliidae), a group of species characterized by widespread hybridization.

The Shapley Value and the Fair Proportion Index of phylogenetic trees have been frequently discussed as prioritization tools in conservation biology. Both indices rank species according to their contribution to total phylogenetic diversity, allowing for a simple conservation criterion. While both indices have their specific advantages and drawbacks, it has recently been shown that both values are closely related. However, as different authors use different definitions of the Shapley Value, the specific degree of relatedness depends on the specific version of the Shapley Value - it ranges from a high correlation index to equality of the indices. In this note, we first give an overview of the different indices. Then we turn our attention to the mere ranking order provided by either of the indices. We compare the rankings obtained from different versions of the Shapley Value for a phylogenetic tree of European amphibians and illustrate their differences. We then undertake further analyses on simulated data and show that even though the chance of two rankings being exactly identical (when obtained from different versions of the Shapley Value) decreases with an increasing number of taxa, the distance between the two rankings converges to zero, i.e., the rankings are becoming more and more alike. Moreover, we introduce our freely available software package FairShapley, which was implemented in Perl and with which all calculations have been performed.