Abstract
Two natural kinds of problems about “structured collections of symbols” can be generally refered to as the Largest Common Subobject and the Smallest Common Superobject problems, which we consider here as the dual problems of interest. For the case of rooted binary trees where the symbols occur as leaf-labels and a subobject is defined by label-respecting hereditary topological containment, both of these problems are NP-complete, as are the analogous problems for sequences (the well-known Longest Common Subsequence and Shortest Common Supersequence problems). However, when the trees are restricted by allowing each symbol to occur as a leaf-label at most once (which we call a phylogenetic tree or p-tree), then the Largest Common Subobject problem, better known as the Maximum Agreement Subtree (MAST) problem, is solvable in polynomial time. We explore the complexity of the basic subobject and superobject problems for sequences and binary trees when the inputs are restricted to p-trees and p-sequences (p-sequences are sequences where each symbol occurs at most once). We prove that the sequence analog of MAST can be solved in polynomial time. The Shortest Common Supersequence problem restricted to inputs consisting of a collection of p-sequences (pSCS) remains NP-complete, as does the analogous Smallest Common Supertree problem restricted to p-trees (pSCT). We also show that both problems are hard for the parameterized complexity classes W[1] where the parameter is the number of input trees or sequences. We prove fixed-parameter tractability for pSCS and pSCT when the k input sequences (trees) are restricted to be complete: every symbol of Σ occurs exactly once in each object and the question is whether there is a common superobject of size bounded by |Σ|+r and the parameter is the pair (k, r). We show that without this restriction, both problems are harder than Directed Feedback Vertex Set, for which parameterized complexity is famously unresolved. We describe an application of the tractability result for pSCT in the study of gene duplication events, where k and r are naturally small.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
D. Bryant. “Building Trees, Hunting for Trees, and Comparing Trees — Theory and Methods in Phylogenetic Analysis,” Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Mathematics. University of Canterbury, 1997.
P. Buneman. “The Recovery of Trees from Measures of Dissimilarity,” In F. R. Hodson, D. G. Kendall, P. Tautu, editors, Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences, pp. 387–395. Edinburg University Press, Edinburgh, 1971.
R. Downey and M. Fellows. “Fixed Parameter Tractability and Completeness III: Some Structural Aspects of the W-Hierarchy,” in: K. Ambos-Spies, S. Homer and U. Schöning, editors, Complexity Theory: Current Research, Cambridge Univ. Press (1993), 166–191.
R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. “Fixed Parameter Tractability and Completeness I: Basic Theory,” SIAM Journal of Computing 24 (1995), 873–921.
R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. “Fixed Parameter Tractability and Completeness II: Completeness for W[1],” Theoretical Computer Science A 141 (1995), 109–131.
R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. “Parametrized Computational Feasibility,” in: Feasible Mathematics II, P. Clote and J. Remmel (eds.) Birkhauser, Boston (1995) 219–244.
R. G. Downey and M. R. Fellows. Parameterized Complexity, Springer-Verlag, 1998.
M. Farach, T. Przytycka, and M. Thorup. “On the agreement of many trees” Information Processing Letters 55 (1995), 297–301.
M. R. Fellows, M. T. Hallett, C. Korostensky, U. Stege. “The complexity of problems on sequences and trees.” Technical Report, ETH-Zurich, 1998.
M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. “Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness,” W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1979.
M. Goodman, J. Czelusniak, G. W. Moore, A. E. Romero-Herrera and G. Matsuda. “Fitting the Gene Lineage into its Species Lineage: A parsimony strategy illustrated by cladograms constructed from globin sequences,” Syst. Zool. (1979), 28, 132–163.
R. Guigó, I. Muchnik, and T. F. Smith. “Reconstruction of Ancient Molecular Phylogeny,” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (1996),6:2, 189–213.
B. Ma, M. Li, and L. Zhang. “On Reconstructing Species Trees from Gene Trees in Term of Duplications and Losses,” Recomb 98, to appear.
D. Maier. “The Complexity of Some Problems on Subsequences and Supersequences,” J. ACM, 25,2 (1978), 322–336.
R. D. M. Page. “Maps between trees and cladistic analysis of historical associations among genes, organisms, and areas,” Syst. Biol. 43 (1994), 58–77.
T. Przytycka. private communication, 1997.
L. Zhang. “On a Mirkin-Muchnik-Smith Conjecture for Comparing Molecular Phylogenies,” Journal of Computational Biology (1997) 4:2, 177–187.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fellows, M., Hallett, M., Korostensky, C., Stege, U. (1998). Analogs and Duals of the MAST Problem for Sequences and Trees. In: Bilardi, G., Italiano, G.F., Pietracaprina, A., Pucci, G. (eds) Algorithms — ESA’ 98. ESA 1998. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1461. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68530-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-68530-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64848-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68530-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive