<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:creator>Delucchi, Emanuele</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Hoessly, Linard</dc:creator>
  <dc:creator>Paolini, Giovanni</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2020-05-01</dc:date>
  <dc:description xmlns:ns0="xml" ns0:lang="en">We answer two questions raised by Bryant, Francis, and Steel in their work on  consensus methods in phylogenetics. Consensus methods apply to every practical  instance where it is desired to aggregate a set of given phylogenetic trees (say, gene  evolution trees) into a resulting, “consensus” tree (say, a species tree). Various  stability criteria have been explored in this context, seeking to model desirable  consistency properties of consensus methods as the experimental data are updated  (e.g., more taxa, or more trees, are mapped). However, such stability conditions can  be incompatible with some basic regularity properties that are widely accepted to be  essential in any meaningful consensus method. Here, we prove that such an  incompatibility does arise in the case of extension stability on binary trees and in the  case of associative stability. Our methods combine general theoretical considerations  with the use of computer programs tailored to the given stability requirements.  [Associative stability; consensus; extension stability; phylogeny.]</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/308741</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://folia.unifr.ch/documents/308741/files/del_irs.pdf</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:relation>info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1093/sysbio/syz071</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
  <dc:rights>License undefined</dc:rights>
  <dc:source>Systematic Biology. - 2020, vol. 69, no. 3, p. 557–565</dc:source>
  <dc:subject>info:eu-repo/classification/udc/51</dc:subject>
  <dc:title xmlns:ns1="xml" ns1:lang="en">Impossibility results on stability of phylogenetic consensus methods</dc:title>
  <dc:type>http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>
