Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T09:50:36.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Uniqueness in Candecomp/Parafac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Jos M. F. ten Berge  and
Nikolaos D. Sidiropoulos
Jos M. F. ten Berge*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Nikolaos D. Sidiropoulos
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Jos M.E ten Berge, Heÿmans 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

One of the basic issues in the analysis of three-way arrays by CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) has been the question of uniqueness of the decomposition. Kruskal (1977) has proved that uniqueness is guaranteed when the sum of thek-ranks of the three component matrices involved is at least twice the rank of the solution plus 2. Since then, little has been achieved that might further qualify Kruskal's sufficient condition. Attempts to prove that it is also necessary for uniqueness (except for rank 1 or 2) have failed, but counterexamples to necessity have not been detected. The present paper gives a method for generating the class of all solutions (or at least a subset of that class), given a CP solution that satisfies certain conditions. This offers the possibility to examine uniqueness for a great variety of specific CP solutions. It will be shown that Kruskal's condition is necessary and sufficient when the rank of the solution is three, but that uniqueness may hold even if the condition is not satisfied, when the rank is four or higher.

Keywords

CandecompParafacuniquenessthree-way arrays
Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 67 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 399 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 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 authors are obliged to Henk Kiers for commenting on a previous draft, and to Tom Snijders for suggesting a proof mentioned in the appendix.

References

Carroll, J.D., & Chang, J.J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via ann-way general-isation of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R.L. (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.L. (1972). Determination and proof of minimum uniqueness conditions for PARAFAC1. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 22, 111–117.Google Scholar
Krijnen, W.P. (1993). The analysis of three-way arrays by constrained PARAFAC methods. Leiden, Netherlands: 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. (1989). Rank, decomposition, and uniqueness for 3-way andN-way arrays. In Coppi, R., & Bolasco, S. (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 7–18). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Liu, X., & Sidiropoulos, N.D. (2001). Cramer-Rao lower bounds for low-rank decomposition of multidimensional arrays. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 49, 2074–2086.Google Scholar
Paatero, P. (1999). The multilinear engine—A table-driven least squares program for solving multilinear programs, including then-way parallel factor analysis model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 8, 854–888.Google Scholar
Sidiropoulos, N.D., & Bro, R. (2000). On the uniqueness of multilinear decomposition ofN-way arrays. Journal of Chemometrics, 14, 229–239.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar