Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups

Autores
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
Año de publicación
2005
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
New examples are presented, showing that supertree methods such as matrix representation with parsimony, minimum flip trees, and compatibility analysis of the matrix representing the input trees, produce supertrees that cannot be interpreted as displaying the groups present in the majority of the input trees. These methods may produce a supertree displaying some groups present in the minority of the trees, and contradicted by the majority. Of the three methods, compatibility analysis is the least used, but it seems to be the one that differs the least from majority rule consensus. The three methods are similar in that they choose the supertree(s) that best fit the set of input trees (quantified as some measure of the fit to the matrix representation of the input trees); in the case of complete trees, it is argued that, for a supertree method to be equivalent to majority rule or frequency difference consensus, two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions must be met. First, the measure of fit between a supertree and an input tree must be symmetrical. Second, the fit for a character representing a group must be measured as absolute: either it fits or it does not fit. In the restricted case of complete and equally resolved input trees, compatibility analysis (unlike MRP and minimum flipping) fulfils these two conditions: it is symmetrical (i.e., as long as the trees have the same taxon sets and are equally resolved, the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree A that require homoplasy in tree B is always the same as the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree B that require homoplasy in tree A) and it measures fit as all-or-none. In the case of just two complete and equally resolved input trees, the two conditions (symmetry and absolute fit) are necessary and sufficient, which explains why the compatibility analysis of such trees behaves as majority consensus. With more than two such trees, these conditions are still necessary but no longer sufficient for the equivalence; in such cases, the compatibility supertree may differ significantly from the majority rule consensus, even when these conditions apply (as shown by example). MRP and minimum flipping are asymmetric and measure various degrees of fit for each character, which explains why they often behave very differently from majority rule procedures, and why they are very likely to have groups contradicted by each of the input trees, or groups supported by a minority of the input trees.
Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
Materia
supertree methods
minority rule
least frequent group
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/100374

id CONICETDig_ecbfd3253b1b64882400ad98d3c01aba
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/100374
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groupsGoloboff, Pablo Augustosupertree methodsminority ruleleast frequent grouphttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1New examples are presented, showing that supertree methods such as matrix representation with parsimony, minimum flip trees, and compatibility analysis of the matrix representing the input trees, produce supertrees that cannot be interpreted as displaying the groups present in the majority of the input trees. These methods may produce a supertree displaying some groups present in the minority of the trees, and contradicted by the majority. Of the three methods, compatibility analysis is the least used, but it seems to be the one that differs the least from majority rule consensus. The three methods are similar in that they choose the supertree(s) that best fit the set of input trees (quantified as some measure of the fit to the matrix representation of the input trees); in the case of complete trees, it is argued that, for a supertree method to be equivalent to majority rule or frequency difference consensus, two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions must be met. First, the measure of fit between a supertree and an input tree must be symmetrical. Second, the fit for a character representing a group must be measured as absolute: either it fits or it does not fit. In the restricted case of complete and equally resolved input trees, compatibility analysis (unlike MRP and minimum flipping) fulfils these two conditions: it is symmetrical (i.e., as long as the trees have the same taxon sets and are equally resolved, the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree A that require homoplasy in tree B is always the same as the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree B that require homoplasy in tree A) and it measures fit as all-or-none. In the case of just two complete and equally resolved input trees, the two conditions (symmetry and absolute fit) are necessary and sufficient, which explains why the compatibility analysis of such trees behaves as majority consensus. With more than two such trees, these conditions are still necessary but no longer sufficient for the equivalence; in such cases, the compatibility supertree may differ significantly from the majority rule consensus, even when these conditions apply (as shown by example). MRP and minimum flipping are asymmetric and measure various degrees of fit for each character, which explains why they often behave very differently from majority rule procedures, and why they are very likely to have groups contradicted by each of the input trees, or groups supported by a minority of the input trees.Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaWiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc2005-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/100374Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 21; 3; 6-2005; 282-2940748-3007CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00064.xinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00064.xinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T10:44:51Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/100374instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 10:44:51.387CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
title Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
spellingShingle Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
supertree methods
minority rule
least frequent group
title_short Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
title_full Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
title_fullStr Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
title_full_unstemmed Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
title_sort Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
author Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
author_facet Goloboff, Pablo Augusto
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv supertree methods
minority rule
least frequent group
topic supertree methods
minority rule
least frequent group
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv New examples are presented, showing that supertree methods such as matrix representation with parsimony, minimum flip trees, and compatibility analysis of the matrix representing the input trees, produce supertrees that cannot be interpreted as displaying the groups present in the majority of the input trees. These methods may produce a supertree displaying some groups present in the minority of the trees, and contradicted by the majority. Of the three methods, compatibility analysis is the least used, but it seems to be the one that differs the least from majority rule consensus. The three methods are similar in that they choose the supertree(s) that best fit the set of input trees (quantified as some measure of the fit to the matrix representation of the input trees); in the case of complete trees, it is argued that, for a supertree method to be equivalent to majority rule or frequency difference consensus, two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions must be met. First, the measure of fit between a supertree and an input tree must be symmetrical. Second, the fit for a character representing a group must be measured as absolute: either it fits or it does not fit. In the restricted case of complete and equally resolved input trees, compatibility analysis (unlike MRP and minimum flipping) fulfils these two conditions: it is symmetrical (i.e., as long as the trees have the same taxon sets and are equally resolved, the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree A that require homoplasy in tree B is always the same as the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree B that require homoplasy in tree A) and it measures fit as all-or-none. In the case of just two complete and equally resolved input trees, the two conditions (symmetry and absolute fit) are necessary and sufficient, which explains why the compatibility analysis of such trees behaves as majority consensus. With more than two such trees, these conditions are still necessary but no longer sufficient for the equivalence; in such cases, the compatibility supertree may differ significantly from the majority rule consensus, even when these conditions apply (as shown by example). MRP and minimum flipping are asymmetric and measure various degrees of fit for each character, which explains why they often behave very differently from majority rule procedures, and why they are very likely to have groups contradicted by each of the input trees, or groups supported by a minority of the input trees.
Fil: Goloboff, Pablo Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; Argentina
description New examples are presented, showing that supertree methods such as matrix representation with parsimony, minimum flip trees, and compatibility analysis of the matrix representing the input trees, produce supertrees that cannot be interpreted as displaying the groups present in the majority of the input trees. These methods may produce a supertree displaying some groups present in the minority of the trees, and contradicted by the majority. Of the three methods, compatibility analysis is the least used, but it seems to be the one that differs the least from majority rule consensus. The three methods are similar in that they choose the supertree(s) that best fit the set of input trees (quantified as some measure of the fit to the matrix representation of the input trees); in the case of complete trees, it is argued that, for a supertree method to be equivalent to majority rule or frequency difference consensus, two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions must be met. First, the measure of fit between a supertree and an input tree must be symmetrical. Second, the fit for a character representing a group must be measured as absolute: either it fits or it does not fit. In the restricted case of complete and equally resolved input trees, compatibility analysis (unlike MRP and minimum flipping) fulfils these two conditions: it is symmetrical (i.e., as long as the trees have the same taxon sets and are equally resolved, the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree A that require homoplasy in tree B is always the same as the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree B that require homoplasy in tree A) and it measures fit as all-or-none. In the case of just two complete and equally resolved input trees, the two conditions (symmetry and absolute fit) are necessary and sufficient, which explains why the compatibility analysis of such trees behaves as majority consensus. With more than two such trees, these conditions are still necessary but no longer sufficient for the equivalence; in such cases, the compatibility supertree may differ significantly from the majority rule consensus, even when these conditions apply (as shown by example). MRP and minimum flipping are asymmetric and measure various degrees of fit for each character, which explains why they often behave very differently from majority rule procedures, and why they are very likely to have groups contradicted by each of the input trees, or groups supported by a minority of the input trees.
publishDate 2005
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2005-06
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/100374
Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 21; 3; 6-2005; 282-294
0748-3007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/100374
identifier_str_mv Goloboff, Pablo Augusto; Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups; Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc; Cladistics; 21; 3; 6-2005; 282-294
0748-3007
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00064.x
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00064.x
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley Blackwell Publishing, Inc
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844614486894313472
score 13.070432