arXiv++ Combinatorics

Phylogenetically decisive collections of taxon sets have the property that if trees are chosen for each of their elements, as long as these trees are compatible, the resulting supertree is unique. This means that as long as the trees describing the phylogenetic relationships of the (input) species sets are compatible, they can only be combined into a common supertree in precisely one way. This setting is sometimes also referred to as \enquote{perfect taxon sampling}. While for rooted trees, the decision if a given set of input taxon sets is phylogenetically decisive can be made in polynomial time, the decision problem to determine whether a collection of taxon sets is phylogenetically decisive concerning \emph{unrooted} trees is unfortunately coNP-complete and therefore in practice hard to solve for large instances. This shows that recognizing such sets is often difficult. In this paper, we explain phylogenetic decisiveness and introduce a class of input taxon sets, namely so-called \emph{fixing taxon traceable} sets, which are guaranteed to be phylogenetically decisive and which can be recognized in polynomial time. Using both combinatorial approaches as well as simulations, we compare properties of fixing taxon traceability and phylogenetic decisiveness, e.g., by deriving lower and upper bounds for the number of quadruple sets (i.e., sets of 4-tuples) needed in the input set for each of these properties. In particular, we correct an erroneous lower bound concerning phylogenetic decisiveness from the literature. We have implemented the algorithm to determine if a given collection of taxon sets is fixing taxon traceable in \textsf{R} and made our software package \verb+FixingTaxonTraceR+ publicly available.

The inference of new information on the relatedness of species by phylogenetic trees based on DNA data is one of the main challenges of modern biology. But despite all technological advances, DNA sequencing is still a time-consuming and costly process. Therefore, decision criteria would be desirable to decide a priori which data might contribute new information to the supertree which is not explicitly displayed by any input tree. A new concept, so-called groves, to identify taxon sets with the potential to construct such informative supertrees was suggested by Ané et al. in 2009. But the important conjecture that maximal groves can easily be identified in a database remained unproved and was published on the Isaac Newton Institute's list of open phylogenetic problems. In this paper, we show that the conjecture does not generally hold, but also introduce a new concept, namely 2-overlap groves, which overcomes this problem.

In this paper, we investigate a conjecture by von Haeseler concerning the Maximum Parsimony method for phylogenetic estimation, which was published by the Newton Institute in Cambridge on a list of open phylogenetic problems in 2007. This conjecture deals with the question whether Maximum Parsimony trees are hereditary. The conjecture suggests that a Maximum Parsimony tree for a particular (DNA) alignment necessarily has subtrees of all possible sizes which are most parsimonious for the corresponding subalignments. We answer the conjecture affirmatively for binary alignments on five taxa but also show how to construct examples for which Maximum Parsimony trees are not hereditary. Apart from showing that a most parsimonious tree cannot generally be reduced to a most parsimonious tree on fewer taxa, we also show that compatible most parsimonious quartets do not have to provide a most parsimonious supertree. Last, we show that our results can be generalized to Maximum Likelihood for certain nucleotide substitution models.