arXiv++ Combinatorics

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.

Tree-based networks are a class of phylogenetic networks that attempt to formally capture what is meant by "tree-like" evolution. A given non-tree-based phylogenetic network, however, might appear to be very close to being tree-based, or very far. In this paper, we formalise the notion of proximity to tree-based for unrooted phylogenetic networks, with a range of proximity measures. These measures also provide characterisations of tree-based networks. One measure in particular, related to the nearest neighbour interchange operation, allows us to define the notion of "tree-based rank". This provides a subclassification within the tree-based networks themselves, identifying those networks that are "very" tree-based. Finally, we prove results relating tree-based networks in the settings of rooted and unrooted phylogenetic networks, showing effectively that an unrooted network is tree-based if and only if it can be made a rooted tree-based network by rooting it and orienting the edges appropriately. This leads to a clarification of the contrasting decision problems for tree-based networks, which are polynomial in the rooted case but NP complete in the unrooted.

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).

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.

One of the main aims of phylogenetics is the reconstruction of the correct evolutionary tree when data concerning the underlying species set are given. These data typically come in the form of DNA, RNA or protein alignments, which consist of various characters (also often referred to as sites). Often, however, tree reconstruction methods based on criteria like maximum parsimony may fail to provide a unique tree for a given dataset, or, even worse, reconstruct the `wrong' tree (i.e. a tree that differs from the one that generated the data). On the other hand it has long been known that if the alignment consists of all the characters that correspond to edges of a particular tree, i.e. they all require exactly $k=1$ substitution to be realized on that tree, then this tree will be recovered by maximum parsimony methods. This is based on Buneman's theorem in mathematical phylogenetics. It is the goal of the present manuscript to extend this classic result as follows: We prove that if an alignment consists of all characters that require exactly $k=2$ substitutions on a particular tree, this tree will always be the unique maximum parsimony tree (and we also show that this can be generalized to characters which require at most $k=2$ substitutions). In particular, this also proves a conjecture based on a recently published observation by Goloboff et al. affirmatively for the special case of $k=2$.

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.

Tree balance plays an important role in different research areas like theoretical computer science and mathematical phylogenetics. For example, it has long been known that under the Yule model, a pure birth process, imbalanced trees are more likely than balanced ones. Also, concerning ordered search trees, more balanced ones allow for more efficient data structuring than imbalanced ones. Therefore, different methods to measure the balance of trees were introduced. The Sackin index is one of the most frequently used measures for this purpose. In many contexts, statements about the minimal and maximal values of this index have been discussed, but formal proofs have only been provided for some of them, and only in the context of ordered binary (search) trees, not for general rooted trees. Moreover, while the number of trees with maximal Sackin index as well as the number of trees with minimal Sackin index when the number of leaves is a power of 2 are relatively easy to understand, the number of trees with minimal Sackin index for all other numbers of leaves has been completely unknown. In this manuscript, we extend the findings on trees with minimal and maximal Sackin indices from the literature on ordered trees and subsequently use our results to provide formulas to explicitly calculate the numbers of such trees. We also extend previous studies by analyzing the case when the underlying trees need not be binary. Finally, we use our results to contribute both to the phylogenetic as well as the computer scientific literature by using the new findings on Sackin minimal and maximal trees in order to derive formulas to calculate the number of both minimal and maximal phylogenetic trees as well as minimal and maximal ordered trees both in the binary and non-binary settings. All our results have been implemented in the Mathematica package SackinMinimizer, which has been made publicly available.

We introduce some natural families of distributions on rooted binary ranked plane trees with a view toward unifying ideas from various fields, including macroevolution, epidemiology, computational group theory, search algorithms and other fields. In the process we introduce the notions of split-exchangeability and plane-invariance of a general Markov splitting model in order to readily obtain probabilities over various equivalence classes of trees that arise in statistics, phylogenetics, epidemiology and group theory.

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.

We examine a mathematical question concerning the reconstruction accuracy of the Fitch algorithm for reconstructing the ancestral sequence of the most recent common ancestor given a phylogenetic tree and sequence data for all taxa under consideration. In particular, for the symmetric 4-state substitution model which is also known as Jukes-Cantor model, we answer affirmatively a conjecture of Li, Steel and Zhang which states that for any ultrametric phylogenetic tree and a symmetric model, the Fitch parsimony method using all terminal taxa is more accurate, or at least as accurate, for ancestral state reconstruction than using any particular terminal taxon or any particular pair of taxa. This conjecture had so far only been answered for two-state data by Fischer and Thatte. Here, we focus on answering the biologically more relevant case with four states, which corresponds to ancestral sequence reconstruction from DNA or RNA data.

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.

One of the main aims in phylogenetics is the estimation of ancestral sequences based on present-day data like, for instance, DNA alignments. One way to estimate the data of the last common ancestor of a given set of species is to first reconstruct a phylogenetic tree with some tree inference method and then to use some method of ancestral state inference based on that tree. One of the best-known methods both for tree inference as well as for ancestral sequence inference is Maximum Parsimony (MP). In this manuscript, we focus on this method and on ancestral state inference for fully bifurcating trees. In particular, we investigate a conjecture published by Charleston and Steel in 1995 concerning the number of species which need to have a particular state, say $a$, at a particular site in order for MP to unambiguously return $a$ as an estimate for the state of the last common ancestor. We prove the conjecture for all even numbers of character states, which is the most relevant case in biology. We also show that the conjecture does not hold in general for odd numbers of character states, but also present some positive results for this case.

We solve a class of optimization problems for (phylogenetic) $X$-trees or their shapes. These problems have recently appeared in different contexts, e.g. in the context of the impact of tree shapes on the size of TBR neighborhoods, but so far these problems have not been characterized and solved in a systematic way. In this work we generalize the concept and also present several applications. Moreover, our results give rise to a nice notion of balance for trees. Unsurprisingly, so-called caterpillars are the most unbalanced tree shapes, but it turns out that balanced tree shapes cannot be described so easily as they need not even be unique.

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.

One of the goals of phylogenetic research is to find the species tree describing the evolutionary history of a set of species. But the trees derived from geneti data with the help of tree inference methods are gene trees that need not coincide with the species tree. This can for example happen when so-called deep coalescence events take place. It is also known that species trees can differ from their most likely gene trees. Therefore, as a means to find the species tree, it has been suggested to use subtrees of the gene trees, for example triples, and to puzzle them together in order to find the species tree. In this paper, we will show that this approach may lead to wrong trees regarding the minimum deep coalescence criterion (MDC). In particular, we present an example in which the optimal MDC tree is unique, but none of its triple subtrees fulfills the MDC criterion. In this sense, MDC is a non-hereditary tree reconstruction method.

Within the field of phylogenetics there is great interest in distance measures to quantify the dissimilarity of two trees. Recently, a new distance measure has been proposed: the Maximum Parsimony (MP) distance. This is based on the difference of the parsimony scores of a single character on both trees under consideration, and the goal is to find the character which maximizes this difference. Here we show that computation of MP distance on two \emph{binary} phylogenetic trees is NP-hard. This is a highly nontrivial extension of an earlier NP-hardness proof for two multifurcating phylogenetic trees, and it is particularly relevant given the prominence of binary trees in the phylogenetics literature. As a corollary to the main hardness result we show that computation of MP distance is also hard on binary trees if the number of states available is bounded. In fact, via a different reduction we show that it is hard even if only two states are available. Finally, as a first response to this hardness we give a simple Integer Linear Program (ILP) formulation which is capable of computing the MP distance exactly for small trees (and for larger trees when only a small number of character states are available) and which is used to computationally verify several auxiliary results required by the hardness proofs.

Within the field of phylogenetics there is great interest in distance measures to quantify the dissimilarity of two trees. Here, based on an idea of Bruen and Bryant, we propose and analyze a new distance measure: the Maximum Parsimony (MP) distance. This is based on the difference of the parsimony scores of a single character on both trees under consideration, and the goal is to find the character which maximizes this difference. In this article we show that this new distance is a metric and provides a lower bound to the well-known Subtree Prune and Regraft (SPR) distance. We also show that to compute the MP distance it is sufficient to consider only characters that are convex on one of the trees, and prove several additional structural properties of the distance. On the complexity side, we prove that calculating the MP distance is in general NP-hard, and identify an interesting island of tractability in which the distance can be calculated in polynomial time.

Phylogenetic networks are used to display the relationship of different species whose evolution is not treelike, which is the case, for instance, in the presence of hybridization events or horizontal gene transfers. Tree inference methods such as Maximum Parsimony need to be modified in order to be applicable to networks. In this paper, we discuss two different definitions of Maximum Parsimony on networks, "hardwired" and "softwired", and examine the complexity of computing them given a network topology and a character. By exploiting a link with the problem Multicut, we show that computing the hardwired parsimony score for 2-state characters is polynomial-time solvable, while for characters with more states this problem becomes NP-hard but is still approximable and fixed parameter tractable in the parsimony score. On the other hand we show that, for the softwired definition, obtaining even weak approximation guarantees is already difficult for binary characters and restricted network topologies, and fixed-parameter tractable algorithms in the parsimony score are unlikely. On the positive side we show that computing the softwired parsimony score is fixed-parameter tractable in the level of the network, a natural parameter describing how tangled reticulate activity is in the network. Finally, we show that both the hardwired and softwired parsimony score can be computed efficiently using Integer Linear Programming. The software has been made freely available.