BCD Beam Search: considering suboptimal partial solutions in Bad Clade Deletion supertrees

PeerJ. 2018 Jun 8:6:e4987. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4987. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

Supertree methods enable the reconstruction of large phylogenies. The supertree problem can be formalized in different ways in order to cope with contradictory information in the input. Some supertree methods are based on encoding the input trees in a matrix; other methods try to find minimum cuts in some graph. Recently, we introduced Bad Clade Deletion (BCD) supertrees which combines the graph-based computation of minimum cuts with optimizing a global objective function on the matrix representation of the input trees. The BCD supertree method has guaranteed polynomial running time and is very swift in practice. The quality of reconstructed supertrees was superior to matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) and usually on par with SuperFine for simulated data; but particularly for biological data, quality of BCD supertrees could not keep up with SuperFine supertrees. Here, we present a beam search extension for the BCD algorithm that keeps alive a constant number of partial solutions in each top-down iteration phase. The guaranteed worst-case running time of the new algorithm is still polynomial in the size of the input. We present an exact and a randomized subroutine to generate suboptimal partial solutions. Both beam search approaches consistently improve supertree quality on all evaluated datasets when keeping 25 suboptimal solutions alive. Supertree quality of the BCD Beam Search algorithm is on par with MRP and SuperFine even for biological data. This is the best performance of a polynomial-time supertree algorithm reported so far.

Keywords: Divide-and-conquer; MRC; Matrix representation with parsimony; Minimum cut; Phylogenetics; Phylogeny; Split fit; Supermatrix; Supertree.

Associated data

  • figshare/10.6084/m9.figshare.6189113.v1

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, project BO∼1910/12. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.