Search citation statements

Paper Sections

Select...

2

1

1

1

Citation Types

0

10

0

Year Published

2014

2019

Publication Types

Select...

4

3

Relationship

1

6

Authors

Journals

(10 citation statements)

0

10

0

“…Although the time complexity of the best algorithm [38] for the Maximum Agreement Forest problem on two rooted binary phylogenetic trees, which is O(2.344 k n), is better than that of our algorithm Alg-hMaf, the methods of the algorithm in [38] seem difficult to extend to solving the hMaf problem.…”

confidence: 80%

“…Although the time complexity of the best algorithm [38] for the Maximum Agreement Forest problem on two rooted binary phylogenetic trees, which is O(2.344 k n), is better than that of our algorithm Alg-hMaf, the methods of the algorithm in [38] seem difficult to extend to solving the hMaf problem.…”

confidence: 80%

“…Whidden et al [37] improved this bound and developed an algorithm of running time O(2.42 k k + n 3 ). Chen et al [38] presented an algorithm of running time O(2.344 k n), which is the best known result of the Maximum Agreement Forest problem on two rooted binary phylogenetic trees.…”

confidence: 99%

“…A 2.5-approximation algorithm for the MAF problem on two rooted binary phylogenetic trees is presented in Shi et al (2016). In Chen et al (2015) an FPT algorithm for rooted SPR, with complexity O(2.344 k · n) is presented, which is an improvement compared to O(2.42 k · n) (Whidden et al 2010). Rooted SPR is investigated also for non binary trees (Whidden et al 2016), and MAF for multiple trees (Chen et al 2016).…”

confidence: 99%

“…For small instances, that is, when the compared trees are rather similar, exact exponential algorithms work reasonably fast. We have tested the SPRDist application (Wu, 2009), which was able to compute all our test cases (each test case consists of 1000 comparisons between randomly generated pair of trees) of size up to 20 leaves, and UltraNet (Chen et al, 2015) able to compute test cases up to 40 leaves. For test cases with 50 leaves UltraNet (which worked much faster than SPRDist) was able to compute only 25 distances in about 5 days on a desktop computer, so we decided to interrupt further computation of the exact rSPR distance.…”

confidence: 99%