Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
C. Randal Linder
dblp:86/2431
· DBLP profile ↗
6ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2012
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 6
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
2 papers |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology › phylogenetics
phylogeny estimation |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | DACTAL: divide-and-conquer trees (almost) without alignments · Bioinform. 2012 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
phylogenetics |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Reconstructing reticulate evolution in species: theory and practice · RECOMB 2004 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › phylogenetics › phylogenetic network
phylogenetic network inference |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Reconstructing reticulate evolution in species: theory and practice · RECOMB 2004 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › phylogenetics
reticulate evolution |
0.0 | 1 | 2004 | Reconstructing reticulate evolution in species: theory and practice · RECOMB 2004 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › sequence analysis › sequence comparison
alignment-free sequence analysis |
0.0 | 1 | 2012 | DACTAL: divide-and-conquer trees (almost) without alignments · Bioinform. 2012 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
supertree methods · 0.1maximum likelihood · 0.1divide-and-conquer · 0.1simulation · 0.0polynomial-time algorithm · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | DACTAL: divide-and-conquer trees (almost) without alignmentsabstractMOTIVATION: While phylogenetic analyses of datasets containing 1000-5000 sequences are challenging for existing methods, the estimation of substantially larger phylogenies poses a problem of much greater complexity and scale. METHODS: We present DACTAL, a method for phylogeny estimation that produces trees from unaligned sequence datasets without ever needing to estimate an alignment on the entire dataset. DACTAL combines iteration with a novel divide-and-conquer approach, so that each iteration begins with a tree produced in the prior iteration, decomposes the taxon set into overlapping subsets, estimates trees on each subset, and then combines the smaller trees into a tree on the full taxon set using a new supertree method. We prove that DACTAL is guaranteed to produce the true tree under certain conditions. We compare DACTAL to SATé and maximum likelihood trees on estimated alignments using simulated and real datasets with 1000-27 643 taxa. RESULTS: Our studies show that on average DACTAL yields more accurate trees than the two-phase methods we studied on very large datasets that are difficult to align, and has approximately the same accuracy on the easier datasets. The comparison to SATé shows that both have the same accuracy, but that DACTAL achieves this accuracy in a fraction of the time. Furthermore, DACTAL can analyze larger datasets than SATé, including a dataset with almost 28 000 sequences. AVAILABILITY: DACTAL source code and results of dataset analyses are available at www.cs.utexas.edu/users/phylo/software/dactal. Serita M. Nelesen, Kevin Liu, Li-San Wang, C. Randal Linder, Tandy J. Warnow |
Bioinform. | 4 |
| 2010 | An Experimental Study of Quartets MaxCut and Other Supertree Methods
M. Shel Swenson, Rahul Suri, C. Randal Linder, Tandy J. Warnow |
WABI | 3 |
| 2009 | A Simulation Study Comparing Supertree and Combined Analysis Methods Using SMIDGen
M. Shel Swenson, François Barbançon, C. Randal Linder, Tandy J. Warnow |
WABI | 3 |
| 2009 | Barking Up The Wrong Treelength: The Impact of Gap Penalty on Alignment and Tree AccuracyabstractThe current technique for estimating phylogenies from sequence data uses two phases: first, the sequences are aligned, and then the tree is estimated using the obtained alignment. More recently, however, several computational methods have been developed for simultaneous estimation of the alignment and the tree, of which POY (a heuristic for the NP-hard "minimum treelength" problem, which extends maximum parsimony (MP) so that gaps contribute to the cost) is the most popular. In a 2007 paper published in Systematic Biology, Ogden and Rosenberg reported on a simulation study in which they compared POY to the very simple two-phase method of estimating the alignment using ClustalW and then analyzing the resultant alignment using MP. They found that in the overwhelming majority of the cases, ClustalW + MP outperformed POY with respect to alignment and phylogenetic tree accuracy, and they concluded that simultaneous estimation techniques (collectively referred to as "Direct Optimization") are not competitive with two-phase techniques. Our paper presents a simulation study in which we take a closer look at the points raised by Ogden and Rosenberg. Instead of focusing specifically on POY, we focus on the NP-hard optimization problem that POY addresses: minimizing treelength. Since this optimization depends upon the specific edit distance criterion used to score a tree, our study considers the impact of the gap penalty (in particular, affine versus simple) on the accuracy of the resultant alignment and tree that optimizes the treelength for that gap penalty function. Our study suggests that the poor performance observed for POY by Ogden and Rosenberg is due to the simple gap penalties they used to score alignment/tree pairs, but also suggests the intriguing possibility that optimizing under an affine gap penalty might produce alignments that are not only better than ClustalW alignments, but competitive with (or perhaps better than) those produced by the best current alignment methods. This study also shows that optimizing under this affine gap penalty produces trees whose topological accuracy is better than ClustalW + MP, and competitive with the current best two-phase methods. Kevin Liu, Serita M. Nelesen, Sindhu Raghavan, C. Randal Linder, Tandy J. Warnow |
IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. | 4 |
| 2004 | Reconstructing reticulate evolution in species: theory and practiceabstractWe present new methods for reconstructing reticulate evolution of species due to events such as horizontal transfer or hybrid speciation; both methods are based upon extensions of Wayne Maddison's approach in his seminal 1997 paper. Our first method is a polynomial time algorithm for constructing phylogenetic networks from two gene trees contained inside the network. We allow the network to have an arbitrary number of reticulations, but we limit the reticulation in the network so that the cycles in network are node-disjoint (galled); we prove accuracy guarantees for our first method by presenting a formal characterization of the set of gene trees defined by a species network. Our second method is a polynomial time algorithm for constructing networks with one reticulation, where we allow for errors in the estimated gene trees. Using simulations, we demonstrate improved performance of this method over both NeighborNet and Maddison's method. Luay Nakhleh, Tandy J. Warnow, C. Randal Linder |
RECOMB | 3 |
| 2004 | Phylogenetic Networks: Modeling, Reconstructibility, and AccuracyabstractPhylogenetic networks model the evolutionary history of sets of organisms when events such as hybrid speciation and horizontal gene transfer occur. In spite of their widely acknowledged importance in evolutionary biology, phylogenetic networks have so far been studied mostly for specific data sets. We present a general definition of phylogenetic networks in terms of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and a set of conditions. Further, we distinguish between model networks and reconstructible ones and characterize the effect of extinction and taxon sampling on the reconstructibility of the network. Simulation studies are a standard technique for assessing the performance of phylogenetic methods. A main step in such studies entails quantifying the topological error between the model and inferred phylogenies. While many measures of tree topological accuracy have been proposed, none exist for phylogenetic networks. Previously, we proposed the first such measure, which applied only to a restricted class of networks. In this paper, we extend that measure to apply to all networks, and prove that it is a metric on the space of phylogenetic networks. Our results allow for the systematic study of existing network methods, and for the design of new accurate ones. Bernard M. E. Moret, Luay Nakhleh, Tandy J. Warnow, C. Randal Linder, Anna Tholse, Anneke Padolina, Jerry Sun 0001, Ruth E. Timme |
IEEE ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. | 4 |