Using semi-definite programming to enhance supertree resolvability

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3692 LNBI, Issue , 2005, Pages 89-103

  Moran, Shlomo ^a   Rao, Satish ^b   Snir, Sagi ^b  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; HEURISTIC METHODS; OPTIMIZATION; SET THEORY; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

OVERLAPPING SUBSETS; SEMI-DEFINITE PROGRAMMING; SUPERTREE RESOLVABILITY; TAXA SET;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING;

EID: 33646203435     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11557067_8     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. [ARV04] S. Arora, S. Rao, and U. Vazirani. Expander flows, geometric embeddings and graph partitioning. In Symposium on the Foundations of Computer Science, 2004.
2. [ASSU81] A.V. Aho, Y. Sagiv, T.G. Szymanski, and J.D. oilman. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM Journal of Computing, 10(3):405-421, 1981.
3. [Bau92] B.R. Baum. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference. Taxon, 41:3-10, 1992.
4. [BDCG+98] A. Ben-Dor, B. Chor, D. Graur, R. Ophir, and D. Pelleg. Constructing phylogenies from quarbcgoptets: Elucidation of eutherian superordinal relationships. Jour. of Comput. Biology, 5(3):377-390, 1998.
5. [BS00] D.J. Bryant and M.A. Steel. Extension operations on sets of leaf-labelled trees. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 16(4):425-453, 2000.
6. [CBEBP04] M. Cardillo, O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, E. Boakes, and A. Purvis. A species-level phylogenetic supertree of marsupials. Journal of Zoology, 264(1):11-31, 2004.
7. [CEFBS02] D. Chen, O. Eulenstein, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M. Sanderson, Supertrees by flipping. In COCOON, 2002.
8. [CT05] B. Chor and T. Tuller. Maximum likelihood of evolutionary trees is hard. In RECOMB, 2005.
9. [ECB+04] O. Eulenstein, D. Chen, J.G. Burleigh, D. Fernandez-Baca, and M.J. Sanderson. Performance of flip supertrees with a heuristic algorithm. Systematic Biology, 53(2):299-308, 2004.
10. [Fe181] J. Felsenstein. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol., 17:368-376, 1981.
11. [FG82] L.R. Foulds and R.L Graham. The steiner problem in phylogeny is NP-complete. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 3:43-49, 1982.
12. [Fit81] W. M. Fitch. A non-sequential method for constructing trees and hierarchical classifications. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 18(1):30-37, 1981.
13. [FM82] C.M. Fiduccia and R.M. Mattheyses. A linear time heuristic for improving network partitions. In Design Automation Conference, pages 175-181, 1982.
14. [GW95] M.X. Goemans and D.P. Williamson. Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 42(6): 1115-1145, November 1995.
15. [HKW9G] M. R. Henzinger, V. King, and T. Warnow. Constructing a tree from homoomorphic subtrees, with applications to computational evolutionary biology. In SODA, pages 333-340, 1996.
16. [KL70] B. W. Kernighan and S. Lin. An ecieut heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs. The Bell System Technical Journal, 29(2):291-307, 1970.
17. [MS04] S. Moran and S. Snir. Convex recoloring of strings and trees: Definitions, hardness results and algorithms, submitted, 2004.
18. [Pag02] R.D.M. Page. Modified inincut supertrees. In R. Guigo and D Gusfield (Eds): WABI 2002, LNCS 2452, 2002.
19. [PSDW] W. Piel, M. Sanderson, M. Donoghue, and M. Walsh. Treebase. http://www.treebase.org.
20. [Rag92] M.A. Ragan. Matrix representation in reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among the cukaryotes. Biosystems, 28:47-55, 1992.
21. [RF81] D.R. Robinson and L.R Foulds. Comparison of phylogerietic trees. Mathematical Biosciences, 53:131-147, 1981.
22. [SDB00] M. Steel, A. Dress, and S. Boker. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Systematic Biology, 49:363-368, 2000.
23. [SN87] N. Saitou and M. Nei. The neighbor-joining method: A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4, 1987.
24. [SS00] C. Seinple and M. Steel. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 103:147-158, 2000.
25. [Ste92] M. Steel. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtress. Journal of Classification, 9(1):91-116, 1992.