| Â | phylo-n | phylo-t | phylo-m | phylo-tm | amGRP | MGR |
|---|
1:2 | 62 (62) | 62 (62) | 62 (62) | 62 (62) | 63 (63) | 63 (63) |
| Â | 0:05 | 0:05 | 0:08 | 0:08 | Â | Â |
1:1.5 | 51.5 (51) | 50 (49.5) | 50 (49.5) | 50 (49.5) | 52.5 (52) | 56 (55) |
| Â | 0:06 | 0:09 | 0:11 | 0:13 | Â | Â |
1:1 | 40 (39) | 39 (38) | 38 (37) | 39 (38) | 42 (41) | 49 (47) |
| Â | 0:08 | 0:08 | 0:14 | 0:14 | Â | Â |
- The results for the Campanulaceae dataset and the weighted reversal and transposition distance. The different lines correspond to the different weight ratio w
r
: w
t
, while the columns correspond to the different improvement strategies. Each entry consists of the weight of the best tree, the lower bound for the weight of the tree in brackets (with the given topology and labeling of internal nodes), and the average running time per run in minutes. The results of MGR and amGRP were achieved by creating a tree w.r.t. the reversal distance, and recalculating the tree weight with the weighted reversal and transposition distance. The running time for this method is mainly the running time of amGRP or MGR (see Table 6), thus we did not provide explicit running times for these results.
