arXiv++ Combinatorics

Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees to leaf-labeled directed acyclic graphs that represent ancestral relationships between species whose past includes non-tree-like events such as hybridization and horizontal gene transfer. Indeed, each phylogenetic network embeds a collection of phylogenetic trees. Referring to the collection of trees that a given phylogenetic network $N$ embeds as the display set of $N$, several questions in the context of the display set of $N$ have recently been analyzed. For example, the widely studied Tree-Containment problem asks if a given phylogenetic tree is contained in the display set of a given network. The focus of this paper are two questions that naturally arise in comparing the display sets of two phylogenetic networks. First, we analyze the problem of deciding if the display sets of two phylogenetic networks have a tree in common. Surprisingly, this problem turns out to be NP-complete even for two temporal normal networks. Second, we investigate the question of whether or not the display sets of two phylogenetic networks are equal. While we recently showed that this problem is polynomial-time solvable for a normal and a tree-child network, it is computationally hard in the general case. In establishing hardness, we show that the problem is contained in the second level of the polynomial-time hierarchy. Specifically, it is $Π_2^P$-complete. Along the way, we show that two other problems are also $Π_2^P$-complete, one of which being a generalization of Tree-Containment.

Phylogenetic trees canonically arise as embeddings of phylogenetic networks. We recently showed that the problem of deciding if two phylogenetic networks embed the same sets of phylogenetic trees is computationally hard, \blue{in particular, we showed it to be $Π^P_2$-complete}. In this paper, we establish a polynomial-time algorithm for this decision problem if the initial two networks consists of a normal network and a tree-child network. The running time of the algorithm is quadratic in the size of the leaf sets.

Rooted phylogenetic networks provide an explicit representation of the evolutionary history of a set $X$ of sampled species. In contrast to phylogenetic trees which show only speciation events, networks can also accommodate reticulate processes (for example, hybrid evolution, endosymbiosis, and lateral gene transfer). A major goal in systematic biology is to infer evolutionary relationships, and while phylogenetic trees can be uniquely determined from various simple combinatorial data on $X$, for networks the reconstruction question is much more subtle. Here we ask when can a network be uniquely reconstructed from its `ancestral profile' (the number of paths from each ancestral vertex to each element in $X$). We show that reconstruction holds (even within the class of all networks) for a class of networks we call `orchard networks', and we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for reconstructing any orchard network from its ancestral profile. Our approach relies on establishing a structural theorem for orchard networks, which also provides for a fast (polynomial-time) algorithm to test if any given network is of orchard type. Since the class of orchard networks includes tree-sibling tree-consistent networks and tree-child networks, our result generalise reconstruction results from 2008 and 2009. Orchard networks allow for an unbounded number $k$ of reticulation vertices, in contrast to tree-sibling tree-consistent networks and tree-child networks for which $k$ is at most $2|X|-4$ and $|X|-1$, respectively.

Phylogenetic networks are used to represent evolutionary scenarios in biology and linguistics. To find the most probable scenario, it may be necessary to compare candidate networks, to distinguish different networks, and to see when one network is contained in another. In this paper, we introduce cherry-picking networks, a class of networks that can be reduced by a sequence of two graph operations. We show that some networks are uniquely determined by the sequences that reduce them---we call these the reconstructible cherry-picking networks, and further show that given two cherry-picking networks within the same reconstructible class, one is contained in the other if a sequence for the latter network reduces the former network. By restricting our scope to tree-child networks, we show that the converse of the above statement holds, thereby showing that {\sc Network Containment}, the problem of checking whether a network is contained in another, can be solved in linear time for tree-child networks. We implement this algorithm in Python and show that the linear-time theoretical bound on the input size is achievable in practice. Lastly, we provide a linear time algorithm for deciding whether two tree-child networks are isomorphic.

Network reconstruction lies at the heart of phylogenetic research. Two well studied classes of phylogenetic networks include tree-child networks and level-$k$ networks. In a tree-child network, every non-leaf node has a child that is a tree node or a leaf. In a level-$k$ network, the maximum number of reticulations contained in a biconnected component is $k$. Here, we show that level-$k$ tree-child networks are encoded by their reticulate-edge-deleted subnetworks, which are subnetworks obtained by deleting a single reticulation edge, if $k\geq 2$. Following this, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for uniquely reconstructing such networks from their reticulate-edge-deleted subnetworks. Moreover, we show that this can even be done when considering subnetworks obtained by deleting one reticulation edge from each biconnected component with $k$ reticulations.

In recent decades, phylogenetic networks have become a standard tool in modeling evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, basic combinatorial questions about them are still largely open. For instance, even the asymptotic counting problem for the class of phylogenetic networks and subclasses is unsolved. In this paper, we propose a method based on generating functions to count networks with few reticulation vertices for two subclasses which are important in applications: tree-child networks and normal networks. In particular, our method can be used to completely solve the asymptotic counting problem for these network classes when the number of reticulation vertices remains fixed and the network size tends to infinity.

Throughout the last decade, we have seen much progress towards characterising and computing the minimum hybridisation number for a set P of rooted phylogenetic trees. Roughly speaking, this minimum quantifies the number of hybridisation events needed to explain a set of phylogenetic trees by simultaneously embedding them into a phylogenetic network. From a mathematical viewpoint, the notion of agreement forests is the underpinning concept for almost all results that are related to calculating the minimum hybridisation number for when |P|=2. However, despite various attempts, characterising this number in terms of agreement forests for |P|>2 remains elusive. In this paper, we characterise the minimum hybridisation number for when P is of arbitrary size and consists of not necessarily binary trees. Building on our previous work on cherry-picking sequences, we first establish a new characterisation to compute the minimum hybridisation number in the space of tree-child networks. Subsequently, we show how this characterisation extends to the space of all rooted phylogenetic networks. Moreover, we establish a particular hardness result that gives new insight into some of the limitations of agreement forests.

Phylogenetic networks are a type of leaf-labelled, acyclic, directed graph used by biologists to represent the evolutionary history of species whose past includes reticulation events. A phylogenetic network is tree-child if each non-leaf vertex is the parent of a tree vertex or a leaf. Up to a certain equivalence, it has been recently shown that, under two different types of weightings, edge-weighted tree-child networks are determined by their collection of distances between each pair of taxa. However, the size of these collections can be exponential in the size of the taxa set. In this paper, we show that, if we ignore redundant edges, the same results are obtained with only a quadratic number of inter-taxa distances by using the shortest distance between each pair of taxa. The proofs are constructive and give cubic-time algorithms in the size of the taxa sets for building such weighted networks.

Network rearrangement operations like SNPR (SubNet Prune and Regraft), a recent generalisation of rSPR (rooted Subtree Prune and Regraft), induce a metric on phylogenetic networks. To search the space of these networks one important property of these metrics is the sizes of the neighbourhoods, that is, the number of networks reachable by exactly one operation from a given network. In this paper, we present exact expressions for the SNPR neighbourhood of tree-child networks, which depend on both the size and the topology of a network. We furthermore give upper and lower bounds for the minimum and maximum size of such a neighbourhood.

Phylogenetic networks generalize evolutionary trees, and are commonly used to represent evolutionary histories of species that undergo reticulate evolutionary processes such as hybridization, recombination and lateral gene transfer. Recently, there has been great interest in trying to develop methods to construct rooted phylogenetic networks from triplets, that is rooted trees on three species. However, although triplets determine or encode rooted phylogenetic trees, they do not in general encode rooted phylogenetic networks, which is a potential issue for any such method. Motivated by this fact, Huber and Moulton recently introduced trinets as a natural extension of rooted triplets to networks. In particular, they showed that level-1 phylogenetic networks are encoded by their trinets, and also conjectured that all "recoverable" rooted phylogenetic networks are encoded by their trinets. Here we prove that recoverable binary level-2 networks and binary tree-child networks are also encoded by their trinets. To do this we prove two decomposition theorems based on trinets which hold for all recoverable binary rooted phylogenetic networks. Our results provide some additional evidence in support of the conjecture that trinets encode all recoverable rooted phylogenetic networks, and could also lead to new approaches to construct phylogenetic networks from trinets.