Paper detail

Squaring within the Colless index yields a better balance index

The Colless index for bifurcating phylogenetic trees, introduced by Colless (1982), is defined as the sum, over all internal nodes $v$ of the tree, of the absolute value of the difference of the sizes of the clades defined by the children of $v$. It is one of the most popular phylogenetic balance indices, because, in addition to measuring the balance of a tree in a very simple and intuitive way, it turns out to be one of the most powerful and discriminating phylogenetic shape indices. But it has some drawbacks. On the one hand, although its minimum value is reached at the so-called maximally balanced trees, it is almost always reached also at trees that are not maximally balanced. On the other hand, its definition as a sum of absolute values of differences makes it difficult to study analytically its distribution under probabilistic models of bifurcating phylogenetic trees. In this paper we show that if we replace in its definition the absolute values of the differences of clade sizes by the squares of these differences, all these drawbacks are overcome and the resulting index is still more powerful and discriminating than the original Colless index.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.