Researcher profile

Remie Janssen

Remie Janssen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Connectedness of Unit Distance Subgraphs Induced by Closed Convex Sets

The unit distance graph $G_{\mathbb{R}^d}^1$ is the infinite graph whose nodes are points in $\mathbb{R}^d$, with an edge between two points if the Euclidean distance between these points is 1. The 2-dimensional version $G_{\mathbb{R}^2}^1$ of this graph is typically studied for its chromatic number, as in the Hadwiger-Nelson problem. However, other properties of unit distance graphs are rarely studied. Here, we consider the restriction of $G_{\mathbb{R}^d}^1$ to closed convex subsets $X$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$. We show that the graph $G_{\mathbb{R}^d}^1[X]$ is connected precisely when the radius of $r(X)$ of $X$ is equal to 0, or when $r(X)\geq 1$ and the affine dimension of $X$ is at least 2. For hyperrectangles, we give bounds for the graph diameter in the critical case that the radius is exactly 1.

preprint2020arXiv

A Unifying Characterization of Tree-based Networks and Orchard Networks using Cherry Covers

Phylogenetic networks are used to study evolutionary relationships between species in biology. Such networks are often categorized into classes by their topological features, which stem from both biological and computational motivations. We study two network classes in this paper: tree-based networks and orchard networks. Tree-based networks are those that can be obtained by inserting edges between the edges of an underlying tree. Orchard networks are a recently introduced generalization of the class of tree-child networks. Structural characterizations have already been discovered for tree-based networks; this is not the case for orchard networks. In this paper, we introduce cherry covers---a unifying characterization of both network classes---in which we decompose the edges of the networks into so-called cherry shapes and reticulated cherry shapes. We show that cherry covers can be used to characterize the class of tree-based networks as well as the class of orchard networks. Moreover, we also generalize these results to non-binary networks.

preprint2020arXiv

On Cherry-picking and Network Containment

Phylogenetic networks are used to represent evolutionary scenarios in biology and linguistics. To find the most probable scenario, it may be necessary to compare candidate networks, to distinguish different networks, and to see when one network is contained in another. In this paper, we introduce cherry-picking networks, a class of networks that can be reduced by a sequence of two graph operations. We show that some networks are uniquely determined by the sequences that reduce them---we call these the reconstructible cherry-picking networks, and further show that given two cherry-picking networks within the same reconstructible class, one is contained in the other if a sequence for the latter network reduces the former network. By restricting our scope to tree-child networks, we show that the converse of the above statement holds, thereby showing that {\sc Network Containment}, the problem of checking whether a network is contained in another, can be solved in linear time for tree-child networks. We implement this algorithm in Python and show that the linear-time theoretical bound on the input size is achievable in practice. Lastly, we provide a linear time algorithm for deciding whether two tree-child networks are isomorphic.

preprint2020arXiv

The Burning Number of Directed Graphs: Bounds and Computational Complexity

The burning number of a graph was recently introduced by Bonato et al. Although they mention that the burning number generalises naturally to directed graphs, no further research on this has been done. Here, we introduce graph burning for directed graphs, and we study bounds for the corresponding burning number and the hardness of finding this number. We derive sharp bounds from simple algorithms and examples. The hardness question yields more surprising results: finding the burning number of a directed tree is NP-hard, but FPT; however, it is W[2]-complete for DAGs. Finally, we give a fixed-parameter algorithm to find the burning number of a digraph, with a parameter inspired by research in phylogenetic networks.

preprint2017arXiv

Exploring the tiers of rooted phylogenetic network space using tail moves

Popular methods for exploring the space of rooted phylogenetic trees use rearrangement moves such as rNNI (rooted Nearest Neighbour Interchange) and rSPR (rooted Subtree Prune and Regraft). Recently, these moves were generalized to rooted phylogenetic networks, which are a more suitable representation of reticulate evolutionary histories, and it was shown that any two rooted phylogenetic networks of the same complexity are connected by a sequence of either rSPR or rNNI moves. Here, we show that this is possible using only tail moves, which are a restricted version of rSPR moves on networks that are more closely related to rSPR moves on trees. The connectedness still holds even when we restrict to distance-1 tail moves (a localized version of tail-moves). Moreover, we give bounds on the number of (distance-1) tail moves necessary to turn one network into another, which in turn yield new bounds for rSPR, rNNI and SPR (i.e. the equivalent of rSPR on unrooted networks). The upper bounds are constructive, meaning that we can actually find a sequence with at most this length for any pair of networks. Finally, we show that finding a shortest sequence of tail or rSPR moves is NP-hard.