Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T05:24:50.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac and Indscal Explained For Several Three-Sliced Arrays With A Two-Valued Typical Rank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Alwin Stegeman
Alwin Stegeman*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Alwin Stegeman, Heijmans Institute of Psychological Research, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Candecomp/Parafac (CP) method decomposes a three-way array into a prespecified number R of rank-1 arrays, by minimizing the sum of squares of the residual array. The practical use of CP is sometimes complicated by the occurrence of so-called degenerate sequences of solutions, in which several rank-1 arrays become highly correlated in all three modes and some elements of the rank-1 arrays become arbitrarily large. We consider the real-valued CP decomposition of all known three-sliced arrays, i.e., of size p× q × 3, with a two-valued typical rank. These are the 5 × 3 × 3 and 8 × 4 × 3 arrays, and the 3 × 3 × 4 and 3 × 3 × 5 arrays with symmetric 3 × 3 slices. In the latter two cases, CP is equivalent to the Indscal model. For a typical rank of {m, m+1}, we consider the CP decomposition with R=m of an array of rank m+1. We show that (in most cases) the CP objective function does not have a minimum but an infimum. Moreover, any sequence of feasible CP solutions in which the objective value approaches the infimum will become degenerate. We use the tools developed in Stegeman (2006), who considers p × p × 2 arrays, and present a framework of analysis which is of use to the future study of CP degeneracy related to a two-valued typical rank. Moreover, our examples show that CP uniqueness is not necessary for degenerate solutions to occur.

Keywords

CandecompParafacIndscalthree-way arraysdegenerate solutions
Type
Theory and Methods
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 601 - 619
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author is supported by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), VENI grant 451-04-102.

References

Cao, Y.Z., Chen, Z.P., Mo, C.Y., Wu, H.L., Yu, R.Q. (2000). A Parafac algorithm using penalty diagonalization error (PDE) for three-way data array resolution. The Analyst, 125, 2303–2310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J.D., Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of Eckart–Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Silva, V., & Lim, L.-H. (2006). Tensor rank and the ill-posedness of the best low-rank approximation problem. SCCM Technical Report, 06-06, preprint.Google Scholar
Harshman, R.A. (1970). Foundations of the Parafac procedure: Models and conditions for an “explanatory” multimodal factor analysis. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 16, 1–84.Google Scholar
Harshman, R.A., Lundy, M.E. (1984). Data preprocessing and the extended Parafac model. In Law, H.G., Snyder, C.W. Jr., Hattie, J.A., McDonald, R.P. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 216–284). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Kroonenberg, P.M. (1983). Three-mode principal component analysis, Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J.B. (1977). Three-way arrays: Rank and uniqueness of trilinear decompositions, with applications to arithmetic complexity and statistics. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 18, 95–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J.B., Harshman, R.A., Lundy, M.E. (1989). How 3-MFA data can cause degenerate Parafac solutions, among other relationships. In Coppi, R., Bolasco, S. (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 115–121). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Lim, L.-H. (2005). Optimal solutions to non-negative Parafac/multilinear NMF always exist. In Workshop on tensor decompositions and applications, August 29–September 2, CIRM, Luminy, Marseille, France.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B.C., Burdick, D.S. (1994). Slowly converging Parafac sequences: Swamps and two-factor degeneracies. Journal of Chemometrics, 8, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paatero, P. (1999). The Multilinear Engine—A table-driven least squares program for solving multilinear problems, including the n-way Parallel Factor Analysis model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 8, 854–888.Google Scholar
Paatero, P. (2000). Construction and analysis of degenerate Parafac models. Journal of Chemometrics, 14, 285–299.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayens, W.S., Mitchell, B.C. (1997). Two-factor degeneracies and a stabilization of Parafac. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 38, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidiropoulos, N.D. (2004). Low-rank decomposition of multi-way arrays: A signal processing perspective. In Proceedings of IEEE sensor array and multichannel (SAM) signal processing workshop, July 18–21, Sitges, Barcelona, Spain.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smilde, A., Bro, R., Geladi, P. (2004). Multi-way analysis: Applications in the chemical sciences, Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegeman, A. (2005). Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for 5×3×3 arrays of rank 6 or higher. Technical Report. Available at: http://www.gmw.rug.nl/~stegeman.Google Scholar
Stegeman, A. (2006). Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for p×p×2 arrays of rank p+1 or higher. Psychometrika, 71, 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegeman, A. (2007). Low-rank approximation of generic p×q×2 arrays and diverging components in the Candecomp/Parafac model. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, to appear.Google Scholar
Ten Berge, J.M.F. (2000). The typical rank of tall three-way arrays. Psychometrika, 65, 525–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J.M.F. (2004). Partial uniqueness in Candecomp/Parafac. Journal of Chemometrics, 18, 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J.M.F., Kiers, H.A.L. (1999). Simplicity of core arrays in three-way principal component analysis and the typical rank of p×q×2 arrays. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 294, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ten Berge, J.M.F., Sidiropoulos, N.D., Rocci, R. (2004). Typical rank and indscal dimensionality for symmetric three-way arrays of order I×2×2 or I×3×3. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 388, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasi, G., Bro, R. (2006). A comparison of algorithms for fitting the Parafac model. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 1700–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zijlstra, B.J.H., Kiers, H.A.L. (2002). Degenerate solutions obtained from several variants of factor analysis. Journal of Chemometrics, 16, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar