





Magnus Bordewich,
Charles Semple and
Nihan Tokac. Constructing treechild networks from distance matrices. In Algorithmica, Vol. 80(8):22402259, 2018. Keywords: compressed network, explicit network, from distances, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, polynomial, reconstruction, tree child network, uniqueness. Note: http://www.math.canterbury.ac.nz/~c.semple/papers/BSN17.pdf.









Magnus Bordewich,
Katharina Huber,
Vincent Moulton and
Charles Semple. Recovering normal networks from shortest intertaxa distance information. In JOMB, 2018. Keywords: explicit network, from distances, normal network, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, polynomial, reconstruction, uniqueness. Note: http://www.math.canterbury.ac.nz/~c.semple/papers/BHMS18.pdf, to appear.





Guillaume Scholz. New algorithms and mathematical tools for phylogenetics beyond trees. PhD thesis, University of East Anglia, 2018. Keywords: circular split system, explicit network, explicit network, from splits, galled tree, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, polynomial, reconstruction, split network, uniqueness. Note: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/66952.








Philippe Gambette,
Katharina Huber and
Guillaume Scholz. Uprooted Phylogenetic Networks. In BMB, Vol. 79(9):20222048, 2017. Keywords: circular split system, explicit network, from splits, galled tree, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, polynomial, reconstruction, split network, uniqueness. Note: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.08387.



Sha Zhu and
James H. Degnan. Displayed Trees Do Not Determine Distinguishability Under the Network Multispecies Coalescent. In SB, Vol. 66(2):283298, 2017. Keywords: branch length, coalescent, explicit network, from network, likelihood, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, Program Hybridcoal, Program HybridLambda, Program PhyloNet, software, uniqueness. Note: presentation available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLYGTfEZG7g.










Katharina Huber,
Leo van Iersel,
Vincent Moulton and
Taoyang Wu. How much information is needed to infer reticulate evolutionary histories? In Systematic Biology, Vol. 64(1):102111, 2015. Keywords: explicit network, from network, from rooted trees, from subnetworks, from trinets, identifiability, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, reconstruction, uniqueness. Note: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syu076.






Katharina Huber and
Vincent Moulton. Encoding and Constructing 1Nested Phylogenetic Networks with Trinets. In ALG, Vol. 66(3):714738, 2013. Keywords: explicit network, from subnetworks, from trinets, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, reconstruction, uniqueness. Note: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0728.
Toggle abstract
"Phylogenetic networks are a generalization of phylogenetic trees that are used in biology to represent reticulate or nontreelike evolution. Recently, several algorithms have been developed which aim to construct phylogenetic networks from biological data using triplets, i.e. binary phylogenetic trees on 3element subsets of a given set of species. However, a fundamental problem with this approach is that the triplets displayed by a phylogenetic network do not necessarily uniquely determine or encode the network. Here we propose an alternative approach to encoding and constructing phylogenetic networks, which uses phylogenetic networks on 3element subsets of a set, or trinets, rather than triplets. More specifically, we show that for a special, wellstudied type of phylogenetic network called a 1nested network, the trinets displayed by a 1nested network always encode the network. We also present an efficient algorithm for deciding whether a dense set of trinets (i.e. one that contains a trinet on every 3element subset of a set) can be displayed by a 1nested network or not and, if so, constructs that network. In addition, we discuss some potential new directions that this new approach opens up for constructing and comparing phylogenetic networks. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC."






Philippe Gambette and
Katharina Huber. On Encodings of Phylogenetic Networks of Bounded Level. In JOMB, Vol. 65(1):157180, 2012. Keywords: characterization, explicit network, from clusters, from rooted trees, from triplets, galled tree, identifiability, level k phylogenetic network, phylogenetic network, uniqueness, weak hierarchy. Note: http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/hal00609130/en/.
Toggle abstract
"Phylogenetic networks have now joined phylogenetic trees in the center of phylogenetics research. Like phylogenetic trees, such networks canonically induce collections of phylogenetic trees, clusters, and triplets, respectively. Thus it is not surprising that many network approaches aim to reconstruct a phylogenetic network from such collections. Related to the wellstudied perfect phylogeny problem, the following question is of fundamental importance in this context: When does one of the above collections encode (i. e. uniquely describe) the network that induces it? For the large class of level1 (phylogenetic) networks we characterize those level1 networks for which an encoding in terms of one (or equivalently all) of the above collections exists. In addition, we show that three known distance measures for comparing phylogenetic networks are in fact metrics on the resulting subclass and give the diameter for two of them. Finally, we investigate the related concept of indistinguishability and also show that many properties enjoyed by level1 networks are not satisfied by networks of higher level. © 2011 SpringerVerlag."








Leo van Iersel,
Steven Kelk and
Matthias Mnich. Uniqueness, intractability and exact algorithms: reflections on levelk phylogenetic networks. In JBCB, Vol. 7(4):597623, 2009. Keywords: explicit network, from triplets, galled tree, level k phylogenetic network, NP complete, phylogenetic network, phylogeny, reconstruction, uniqueness. Note: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2932v2.



