arxiv: v1 [math.co] 17 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 On the Extrema Maximum Agreement Subtree Probem arxiv: v1 [math.o] 17 Dec 2018 Aexey Markin Department of omputer Science, Iowa State University, USA Abstract Given two phyogenetic trees with the {1,,n} eaf-set the maximum agreement subtree probem asks what is the maximum size of the subset A {1,,n} such that the two trees are equivaent when restricted to A. The ong-standing extrema version of this probem focuses on the smaest number of eaves, mast(n), on which any two (binary and unrooted) phyogenetic trees with n eaves must agree. In this work we prove that this number grows asymptoticay as Θ(og n); thus cosing the enduring gap between the ower and upper asymptotic bounds on mast(n). 1 Introduction The agorithmic aspects of the maximum agreement subtree probem have been heaviy researched for many versions of this probem (see, e.g., [1, 2, 7]). The extrema probem expored in this work was first addressed more than 25 years ago by Kubicka et. a [4], where they proved the c 1 (ogogn) 1/2 mast(n) c 2 ogn bounds for some constants c 1 and c 2. The ower bound was ater improved to Ω(ogogn) by Stee and Székey [6] and then to Ω( ogn) by Martin and Thatte [5]. The resut by Martin and Thatte originated from their proof that if at east one of the trees is either a caterpiar or a baanced tree (or an amost-baanced tree) then the maximum agreement subtree must be Ω(og n). Additionay, Martin and Thatte conjectured that two rooted baanced trees must agree on at east n eaves this conjecture remains open. In this work we cose the gap between the ower and upper asymptotic bounds and demonstrate that mast(n) Θ(ogn). More precisey, first we prove a dua (weaker) theorem stating that if any two phyogenetic trees with the {1,,n} eaf-set are arbitrariy rooted, then they either agree as rooted trees on Ω( ogn ogogn ) eaves or agree as the origina unrooted trees on Ω(ogn) eaves. Next, we extend this theorem with a more invoved anaysis and obtain the main resut. 2 Preiminaries A (phyogenetic X-)tree is a binary unrooted tree with a interna nodes of degree three and eaves bijectivey abeed by eements of set X; for convenience, we identify eaves with their abes from X. The set of eaves of a tree T is denoted by Le(T), which is used when set X is not expicity defined. Two X-trees are identica if there exists a abe-preserving graph isomorphism between them. Given a set Y X, Y-tree T Y is defined as the binary unrooted tree such that the minima connected subgraph of T which contains a eaves from Y is a subdivision of T Y. For convenience, we define the size of a tree as T := Le(T) = X. 1

2 Figure 1: Unrooted (eft) and rooted (right) exampes of caterpiar trees. A rooted (phyogenetic X-)tree T is a binary rooted tree with a designated root node of degree two, denoted ρ(t), and each interna node having a designated eft chid and a right chid. Given a set Y X a rooted Y-tree T Y is defined simiary to the unrooted case. Given a node v T, T v denotes the subtree of T rooted at v. A rooted tree T defines a partia order on its nodes: given two nodes x and y we say x y if x is a descendant of y (and x y if additionay x y). Further, we say that x and y are incomparabe if neither x y nor y x. For a set Z X the east common ancestor (ca) of Z, denoted ca T (Z), is the owest node v such that each Z is a descendant of v. For a rooted X-tree T et Ord(T) be the eft-to-right ordering of eaves induced by the pre-order traversa of nodes of T. For exampe, Ord(T) for T being the rooted tree from Figure 1 (right) is (4,3,1,2,5). We refer to Ord(T) as the eaf ordering of T. We wi often identify the eaves of T with their indices in Ord(T). aterpiar trees. An unrooted or rooted X-tree is a caterpiar if every interna node (incuding, if present, the root) is adjacent to at east one eaf. Figure 1 demonstrates the structure of caterpiars. Maximum agreement subtree. For two (unrooted or rooted) trees T and S on {1,,n} eafset a maximum agreement set is the maximum set Y {1,,n}, such that T Y = S Y up to abe-preserving graph isomorphism. The tree T Y is caed a maximum agreement subtree and the size of the maximum agreement set/subtree is denoted by mast(t, S). Let P(n) be the set of a unrooted X-trees with X = {1,,n} then mast(n) := min T,S P(n) (mast(t,s)). That is, mast(n) is the minimum number of eaves on which any two unrooted X-trees must agree. Throughout the work we use ogx to denote og 2 x. 3 Dua ower bound resut In this section we prove a dua (rooted/unrooted) ower bound resut for mast(n) and ay the foundation for our main resut. Given any two unrooted X-trees T and S with X = {1,,n} and n 4, et T and S be rooted trees obtained from T and S respectivey by rooting them at arbitrariy chosen edges e T E(T),e S E(S) (the rooting is performed by subdividing the chosen edge with a new node and designating this node as the root). For each interna node in T and S then one of the chidren is designated to be the eft chid and the other to be the right chid arbitrariy. In this section we prove the foowing theorem. 2

3 Theorem 1. Either the rooted trees T and S have a rooted (caterpiar) agreement subtree of size at east 1 ogn 4 ogogn or the origina unrooted trees T and S have a (caterpiar) agreement subtree of size at east ogn. The rest of the section is dedicated to the construction proof of Theorem 1. To begin with, the foowing naïve observation is impicity used throughout the proof. Observation 1. If A is an agreement subtree of T Q and S Q, where Q Le(T) = Le(S), then A is an agreement subtree of T and S (in both rooted and unrooted cases). Further, Observation 2 heps understanding our construction. Observation 2. A rooted X-tree is a caterpiar if and ony if there exists an ordering of eaves 1,, X = n (which is unique for any caterpiar tree) such that for each 1 i n the east common ancestor of set R := {i + 1,,n} is stricty beow the east common ancestor of set R {i} (or, equivaenty, i is incomparabe with ca(r)). Further, if such ordering is identica for two rooted X-trees T and S then these trees are equivaent caterpiars due to uniqueness. We now turn to the construction. Set up. onsider the eft-to-right eaf orderings Ord(T ) and Ord(S ) of T and S respectivey and et α then be a common subsequence of Ord(T ) and Ord(S ) (or of Ord(T ) and Ord(S )-reversed) of size at east n. Note that α is guaranteed to exist by the Erdős-Szekeres theorem (see [3]). If α is common to Ord(T ) and Ord(S )-reversed, then swap eft and right chidren for a interna nodes in S, which woud then make α common to Ord(T ) and Ord(S ). Let X (1) := {x x α} and et T (1) := T X (1) and S (1) := S X (1). Note that Ord(T (1) ) Ord(S (1) ). For convenience of anaysis, we present our construction as an iterative agorithm: on each iteration it either ocates a arge (ogn) agreement caterpiar or adds a new eaf to an agreement set M and proceeds to the next iteration with a restricted eaf-set. Next, we describe it more formay. Iteration description. Input: rooted X (i) -trees T (i) and S (i) with the same eaf orderings, a set of agreement eaves M with M X (i) = ; Outcome: Either (i) findsataxon x X (i) andasety X (i), suchthat ca T (i)(y) ca T (i)(y {x}), ca S (i)(y) ca S (i)(y {x}), and Y X(i) 2ogn, or (ii) finds an agreement caterpiar for origina trees T and S of size at east ogn. In the former case the construction proceeds to the next iteration by adding x to M and setting T (i+1) = T (i) Y,S (i+1) = S (i) Y. In the atter case the iteration stops, as an agreement subtree satisfying Theorem 1 was ocated. We ca apair (x X (i),y X (i) ) with thepropertiesfrom outcome (i) above (i.e., ca T (i)(y) ca T (i)(y {x}), ca S (i)(y) ca S (i)(y {x}), and Y X(i) 2ogn ) a good pair. Next, we demonstrate that such an iterative agorithm aways exists. onstruction proof. To begin with, without oss of generaity assume that the eft subtree of T (i) (subtree rooted at the eft chid of the root) is arger than or equa to the right subtree of T (i) in terms of the number of nodes. If that is not the case, then swap eft and right chidren of a interna nodes in both T (i) and S (i) that wi preserve the equivaence of eaf orderings of T (i) and S (i). 3

4 Q k R 1 Q 3 R m 2 Q 1 Q 2 R m 1 R m Figure 2: Schematic definition of Q 1,,Q k,r 1,,R m subtrees from trees T (i) (eft) and S (i) (right) Next, et P 1 = (u 1,,u k ) be the path in T (i) from the eft-most eaf to the root and P 2 = (w 1,,w m ) be the path in S (i) from the root to the right-most eaf. Then et Q 1,,Q k and R 1,,R m be the subtrees induced by paths P 1 and P 2 respectivey (see the iustration on Figure 2). That is, we define Q j for some 1 j k (and simiary we define R j ) as foows: Q j := { T (i) u j T (i) v if u j is the owest node in P 1 (which is u 1 in that case); otherwise, where v is the chid of u j that is not on the path. Note that Q 1 and R m are trivia subtrees that contain ony one eaf each. Additionay, note that subtrees are chosen in the way such that eaves in Q i (or R i ) are to the eft of eaves in Q j (or R j ) in the common eaf ordering if i < j. Lemma 1. For any fixed constant 4 at east one of the two statements aways hods: (i) Exists u T (i),v S (i), and x X (i) such that x Le(T u (i) ), x Le(S v (i) ), and (i) Le(T u ) Le(S v (i) ) X (i). (ii) A Q j, R max ( 2 X (i),1) for a 1 j k,1 m. Proof. If 2 X(i) < 2 then the statement is triviay true (case (i) hods if X (i) > 1 and case (ii) must hod otherwise). Assume 2 X(i) 2; it is sufficient to show that if (ii) does not hod, then (i) must hod. Without oss of generaity assume that exists 1 < j k such that Q j > 2 X(i) (note that j 1, since Q 1 = 1). onsider now the eft and right subtrees of S (i), S (i) = R 1 and S r (i) respectivey; i.e., subtrees rooted at the chidren of ρ(s (i) ). We consider two cases. 1 < j < k. Assume that Le(Q j ) intersects with Le(S (i) ) by at east X(i) eaves; then choose u := ρ(q j ), v := ρ(s (i) ), and x to be the right-most eaf in the eaf ordering. eary, x does not beong to Q j, since j < k and x does not beong to S (i) since x is ocated in the right subtree of S (i). That is, case (i) of our emma hods. Otherwise, Le(Q j ) shoud intersect with Le(S r (i) ) by at east X(i) eaves. Then choose u := ρ(q j ), v := ρ(s r (i) ), and x to be the eft-most eaf in the eaf ordering. For symmetric arguments case (i) of our emma hods again. 4

5 j = k. If Le(Q k ) intersects with Le(S r (i) ) by at east X(i) we choose x to be, e.g., the eft-most eaf. eaves then ceary case (i) hods if Otherwise, assume that it is not the case. It then foows that S (i) r < X(i) X(i) 4 ; hence, S (i) 3 4 X(i). Given our initia assumption that the eft subtree of T (i) is at east as arge as its right subtree, it foows that choosing u := ρ(t (i) ) (root of the eft subtree of T (i) ), v := ρ(s (i) ), and x to be the right-most eaf satisfies conditions of case (i) of our emma. Note that when case (i) hods in the above emma, the pair (x,le(t (i) u ) Le(S (i) v )) is a good pair for arge enough n (i.e., with 2ogn = n 4 when = 4). Additionay, note that choosing arger vaues of decreases the upper bound on sizes of Q 1,,Q k,r 1,,R m subtrees, when case (i) of the emma does not hod. We wi expoit this property in the next section, when proving our main resut. As for this section, we can consider to be equa 4. Lemma 2. If each subtree Q 1,,Q k and R 1,,R m is of size smaer than X(i) ogn then de-rooted T (i) and S (i) (and hence origina T and S) agree on a caterpiar tree of size at east ogn. Proof. We are going to construct a set A X (i) such that A ogn and A contains at most one eaf from each of the subtrees Q 1,,Q k,r 1,,R m. It is not then difficut to see that T (i) A and S (i) A (and hence T A and S A) are caterpiars, which must be equivaent after de-rooting, since the eaf orderings of T (i) and S (i) are equivaent. For convenience, we identify the eaves in T (i) and S (i) with their indices, 1,, X (i) = n (i), from the common eft-to-right eaf ordering. The eaves from each subtree Q 1,,Q k,r 1,,R m then represent an integer interva within [1,,n (i) ] of size at most n(i) ogn ; moreover, these intervas are ordered form eft to right in the same way as the subtrees are. Now construct set A as foows: Agorithm 1 Θ(og n) agreement set 1: h := 1,A := ; 2: whie h n (i) do 3: Add h to A; 4: Let Q j and R be the subtrees that contain eaf h; 5: Let r 1 and r 2 be the argest eaves from Q j and R respectivey; 6: h := max(r 1,r 2 )+1. 7: end whie Note that the above agorithm does not add more than one eaf to A from the same subtree. Further, in Line 6 h increases by at most n(i) ogn ; thus, the size of A in the end of the oop is at east ogn. Lemma 3. Assume that for some fixed 4 we have Q j, R 2 X(i) for a 1 j k,1 m (that is, case (ii) from Lemma 1 hods) and at east one of the subtrees Q 1,,Q k,r 1,,R m is of size at east X(i) ogn. Then there exists a good pair (x,y). Proof. The proof structure resembes the one of Lemma 1. Without oss of generaity assume that Q j is a tree of size X(i) ogn (note that j 1 since Q 1 = 1). We then distinguish two cases. First, assume that j < k; consider the eft and right subtrees, S (i) F {S (i),s r (i) } be the subtree with Le(Q j ) Le(F) Le(Q j) 2. If F = S (i) 5 and S (i) r, of S (i) and et then choose x to be

6 the right-most eaf in the common eaf ordering. Otherwise, when F = S r (i), choose x to be the eft-most eaf. It is then not difficut to see that (x,le(q j ) Le(F)) is a good pair. Finay, assume that j = k; then note that S (i) = R 1 and by our assumption R 1 2 X(i) X (i) 2. Simiary, we have Q k X(i) 2 and given that Le(R 1 ) is on the eft, whie Le(Q k ) in on the right, we have Le(R 1 ) Le(Q k ) =. Then choose x to be any eaf from Le(R 1 ) and Y = Le(Q k ). eary, (x,y) is a good pair. ombining Lemmas 1, 2, and 3 we have the foowing coroary. oroary 1. At east one of the foowing statements hods. (1) There is a good pair (x,y) with Y X(i) ; (2) There is a reguar good pair (x,y) with Y X(i) 2ogn ; (3) de-rooted T (i) and S (i) (and therefore origina T and S) agree on a caterpiar of size at east ogn. Whie it is not necessary for this section, we distinguish cases (1) and (2) above as we wi use them separatey ater for the proof of our main resut. oroary 1 then impies that we can have an agorithm fitting our origina iteration description; Agorithm 2 presents it. Agorithm 2 Locating an agreement caterpiar 1: Input: rooted X (1) -trees T (1),S (1) with the same eaf orderings (Ord(T (1) ) = Ord(S (1) )). 2: M :=,i := 1; 3: whie X (i) > 1 do 4: if exists a good pair (x,y) then 5: Add x to M and set X (i+1) := Y,T (i+1) := T (i) Y,S (i+1) := S (i) Y; 6: ese 7: There must exist a set A, such that origina trees T and S agree on A and A ogn; 8: return A. 9: end if 10: end whie 11: return M. Note that by Observation 2 T (1) M and S (1) M (and hence T M and S M) must be equivaent caterpiar trees. We now find the ower bound on the size of the returned set M (given that Lines 7 and 8 are not encountered). Note that we have X (i+1) X(i) 2ogn and assume that the number iterations performed is p. Then X (p+1) = 1 and X (p+1) (2ogn) p = (2ogn) p X (1) n pog(2ogn) 1 2 ogn with the ast inequaity hoding for n 4. p 1 ogn 2ogogn+1 1 ogn 4ogogn, Remark 1. As a coroary of Theorem 1 we have mast(n) Ω( ogn can be obtained as we demonstrate in the next section. 6 ogogn ). However, a stronger resut

7 4 Asymptotics of mast(n) We are going to refine the anaysis presented in the previous section in order to obtain our main resut. Theorem 2. mast(n) Θ(ogn). The upper bound of mast(n) O(og(n)) was shown by Kubicka et. a [4]. To observe this resut consider a baanced tree and a caterpiar tree; the maximum agreement subtree then must have the caterpiar shape and the size of such caterpiar is bounded by the ength of the ongest path in the baanced tree, which is O(og(n)). We now show that mast(n) Ω(ogn). To do that we re-use the set up from the previous section. That is, we focus on rooted X (1) -trees T (1) and S (1) with the same eaf orderings and of size at east n. Further, we re-use a simiar iteration methodoogy for construction of an agreement tree. Reca that Lemma 1 from the previous section aows us to choose a constant, which we set to := 40 in this section. We now refine Lemma 2. Lemma 4. Assume that X (i) n 1 4 and Q j, R 2 X(i) = X(i) 20 for a 1 j k,1 m (i.e., case (ii) from Lemma 1 hods); then at east one of the foowing statements hods. (i) There exist disjoint sets X,Y X (i) such that X n 1/16, Y X(i) 10ogn, ca T (i)(x) is incomparabe with ca T (i)(y), and ca S (i)(x) is incomparabe with ca S (i)(y); 1 (ii) T and S agree on at east 48 ogn eaves (that induce a caterpiar). The proof of Lemma 4 uses the foowing resut estabished by Martin and Thatte [5] and based on the earier work by Stee and Székey [6]. Proposition 1 (Martin and Thatte [5]; Stee and Székey [6]). Any two unrooted X-trees T and S on n eaves, where T is a caterpiar, have a maximum agreement subtree of size at east 1 3 ogn. Proof of Lemma 4. Simiar to the proof of Lemma 2 we identify eaves in T (i) and S (i) with their indices, 1,, X (i) = n, in their common eft-to-right eaf ordering. Then each subtree Q j or R induces an integer interva inside [1,n ] of size at most n /20. onsider now the eaves in the I := [ 8 20 n, n ] interva. Let be the smaest eaf (integer) from I such that the subtrees Q i1 and R h1 that contain ie competey within I (that is, Le(Q i1 ) and Le(R h1 ) are within I). Observe that 9 20 n. Simiary, we define r to be the argest eaf (integer) from I such that subtrees Q is and R ht that contain r ie competey within I; then r n. We now focus on subtrees Q i1,,q is and R h1,,r ht. Observe that i s =i1 Le(Q ) and h t =h 1 Le(R ) are supersets of {,,r} and {,,r} 2 20 n. By a simpe modification of Lemma 2 it is not difficut to see that either at east one of the Q i1,,q is,r h1,,r ht subtrees is of size at east (2/20)n ogn or T and S agree on a caterpiar of size at east ogn (i.e., statement (ii) hods). Assume now that the former hods and et Q y be a subtree of size at east (2/20)n ogn. In case there is no such Q y and a subtree of size at east (2/20)n ogn is among R h1,,r ht subtrees, the argument that we present next changes ony in one aspect, which we point out in the end. Let us now focus on the [1, 4 20 n ] interva. Again, by considering a simpe modification of Lemma 2, there must exists a subtree Q x (or R x, which we disregard for symmetry) of size at east (4/20)n ogn and Le(Q x ) ies within [1, 5 20 n ) otherwise, case (ii) of our Lemma hods. Reca that n n4; 1 then for sufficienty arge n we have (4/20)n ogn n

8 Q 1 Q x Q y Q k X Y Figure 3: An iustration of the potentia structure of T (i) and S (i) trees for the proof of Lemma 4 e.g., when case (ii) from that emma does not hod. R 1 R p X R j1 R j2 Y R je R m Let now R k1,,r kf be the subtrees from S (i) that intersect with Q x on the eaf-set. We caim that either (1) at east one of R k subtrees intersects with Q x on at east n 1 16 eaves or (2) case (ii) of ouremmahods. AssumethatasubtreesR k thatintersectwithq x have Le(R k ) Le(Q x ) < n 1 16; then, given the estabished Q x n 1 8 bound, the number of such subtrees must be at east n Taking a singe eaf from each of the R k1,,r kf subtrees wi then produce a set M with S M being a caterpiar of size at east n16. 1 Proposition 1 due to Martin et a. [5] then impies that T M and S M (and hence T and S) agree on a caterpiar of size at east 1/3og(n16) 1 = 1/48ogn; i.e., case (ii) hods. Otherwise, et R p be the subtree with Le(Q x ) Le(R p ) n16. 1 eary, Le(R p ) is within the [1, 6 20 n ) interva and therefore Le(R p ) does not intersect with Le(Q y ). Summing up the above arguments, define Y := Le(Q y ) and X := Le(Q x ) Le(R p ). We caim that these two sets satisfy condition (i) of our emma. The conditions on size are satisfied by the construction; hence, we ony need to confirm the incomparabiity conditions. Note that ca T (i)(x) and ca T (i)(y) are ocated within the Q x and Q y subtrees respectivey (x y) and therefore are incomparabe. Further, et R j1,,r je be the subtrees that intersect on eaves with the set Y; given that Y is within [ 8 20 n, n ] we have Le(R j ) ying within ( 7 20 n, n ) for a 1 e. Note now that ca S (i)(x) is within the R p subtree and Le(R p ) precedes the ( 7 20 n, n ) interva. Hence, if v p is the parent of the root of R p then cas (i) (Y) must be ocated beow it and ca S (i)(x) is incomparabe with ca S (i)(y) (see Figure 3 for an iustration). That is, case (i) hods. Finay, we come back to the assumption that Q y exist: if it does not, then a simiar subtree, R y, must exist in S (i) and the argument proceeds the same way with the exception that we woud ocate set X in the [ n,n ] interva instead of [1, 5 20 n ]. If case (ii) from the above emma hods, then Theorem 2 ceary hods as we. Otherwise, assume that case (i) hods. Due to Theorem 1 either (1) trees T (i) X and S (i) X agree on a rooted caterpiar of size at east ogn ogogn 1 16 = 1 ogn 16 4ogogn og16 1 ogn 64ogogn or (2) T and S agree on at east a ogn 1 16 = 1 16 ogn caterpiar. Agorithm 3 summarizes a these observations. If the construction presented in Agorithm 3 exits on ines 12 or 16 then we directy get at east a 1 48 ogn agreement subtree. Assume now that these ines are never reached and the agorithm returnsthe setm. Itis not difficutto seethat T (1) M shoudbeequivaent to S (1) M andtherefore 8

9 Agorithm 3 Ω(og n) MAST 1: Input: rooted X (1) -trees T (1),S (1) with the same eaf orderings. 2: M :=,i := 1, := 40; 3: whie X (i) n 1 4 do 4: if exists a good pair (x,y) with Y X(i) then 5: Add x to M and set X (i+1) := Y,T (i+1) := T (i) Y,S (i+1) := S (i) Y; 6: ese if exists a pair (X,Y) as described in Lemma 4, case (i) then 7: if T (i) X and S (i) X agree on M eaves (rooted caterpiar) then 8: Add eaves from M (with M 1 ogn 64 ogogn ) to M and 9: Set X (i+1) := Y,T (i+1) := T (i) Y,S (i+1) := S (i) Y; 10: ese 11: There must exist A ( A 1 16 ogn) such that T and S agree on A; 12: return A. 13: end if 14: ese 15: There must exist a eaf-set A ( A 1 48 ogn) such that T and S agree on A; 16: return A. 17: end if 18: end whie 19: return M. T and S agree on M. This can be seen by considering the foowing observation (a generaization of Observation 2). Observation 3. Let (X 1,,X p ) be an ordered partition of X and et rooted X-trees T and S have the foowing properties: ( p ) ca T (X i ) is incomparabe with ca T X j for a 1 i < p; j=i+1 Simiary, ca S (X i ) is incomparabe with ca S T X i = S X i for a 1 i p. Then T = S. ( p j=i+1 ) X j for a 1 i < p; Let us now determine the ower bound on the size of M. Assume that ine 5 is executed p times overa, whie ine 9 is executed q times. The size of M is then at east p+q 1 ogn. Further, et 64 ogogn X (p+q+1) be the set of eaves after the ast iteration of the agorithm (i.e., X (p+q+1) < n 1 4). We then have X (p+q+1) p (10ogn) q X (1) n n 1 4 p (10ogn) q n pog +q(ogogn+og10) 1 4 ogn p 1 (1 og 4 ogn qogogn qog10). 9

10 Finay, Note that 1 ogn M p+q 64ogogn ogn 4og +q( 1 ogn 64ogogn ogogn og og10 og ). for sufficienty arge n; hence M ogn 4og References 1 ogn 64ogogn ogogn og + og10 og for arge n and Theorem 2 hods. [1] A. Amir and D. Keseman. Maximum agreement subtree in a set of evoutionary trees: Metrics and efficient agorithms. SIAM Journa on omputing, 26(6): , [2] R. oe, M. Farach-oton, R. Hariharan, T. Przytycka, and M. Thorup. An O(n og n) agorithm for the maximum agreement subtree probem for binary trees. SIAM Journa on omputing, 30(5): , [3] P. Erdős and G. Szekeres. A combinatoria probem in geometry. ompositio mathematica, 2: , [4] E. Kubicka, G. Kubicki, and F. McMorris. On agreement subtrees of two binary trees. ongressus Numerantium, pages , [5] D. M. Martin and B. D. Thatte. The maximum agreement subtree probem. Discrete Appied Mathematics, 161(13-14): , [6] M. Stee and L. A. Székey. An improved bound on the maximum agreement subtree probem. Appied mathematics etters, 22(11): , [7] M. Stee and T. Warnow. Kaikoura tree theorems: omputing the maximum agreement subtree. Information Processing Letters, 48(2):77 82,