↓ Skip to main content

Phylogenetic Flexibility via Hall-Type Inequalities and Submodularity

Overview of attention for article published in Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
Title
Phylogenetic Flexibility via Hall-Type Inequalities and Submodularity
Published in
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11538-018-0419-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina T. Huber, Vincent Moulton, Mike Steel

Abstract

Given a collection [Formula: see text] of subsets of a finite set X, we say that [Formula: see text] is phylogenetically flexible if, for any collection R of rooted phylogenetic trees whose leaf sets comprise the collection [Formula: see text], R is compatible (i.e. there is a rooted phylogenetic X-tree that displays each tree in R). We show that [Formula: see text] is phylogenetically flexible if and only if it satisfies a Hall-type inequality condition of being 'slim'. Using submodularity arguments, we show that there is a polynomial-time algorithm for determining whether or not [Formula: see text] is slim. This 'slim' condition reduces to a simpler inequality in the case where all of the sets in [Formula: see text] have size 3, a property we call 'thin'. Thin sets were recently shown to be equivalent to the existence of an (unrooted) tree for which the median function provides an injective mapping to its vertex set; we show here that the unrooted tree in this representation can always be chosen to be a caterpillar tree. We also characterise when a collection [Formula: see text] of subsets of size 2 is thin (in terms of the flexibility of total orders rather than phylogenies) and show that this holds if and only if an associated bipartite graph is a forest. The significance of our results for phylogenetics is in providing precise and efficiently verifiable conditions under which supertree methods that require consistent inputs of trees can be applied to any input trees on given subsets of species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 50%
Student > Master 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Mathematics 1 50%
Computer Science 1 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#890
of 1,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,372
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
#29
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.