Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T00:49:58.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The SIMCLAS Model: Simultaneous Analysis of Coupled Binary Data Matrices with Noise Heterogeneity Between and Within Data Blocks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Tom F. Wilderjans ,
E. Ceulemans  and
I. Van Mechelen
Tom F. Wilderjans*
Affiliation:
Research Group of Quantitative Psychology and Individual Differences, Department of Psychology, KU Leuven
E. Ceulemans
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Sciences, KU Leuven
I. Van Mechelen
Affiliation:
Research Group of Quantitative Psychology and Individual Differences, Department of Psychology, KU Leuven
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Tom F. Wilderjans, Research Group of Quantitative Psychology and Individual Differences, Department of Psychology, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Box 3713, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many research domains different pieces of information are collected regarding the same set of objects. Each piece of information constitutes a data block, and all these (coupled) blocks have the object mode in common. When analyzing such data, an important aim is to obtain an overall picture of the structure underlying the whole set of coupled data blocks. A further challenge consists of accounting for the differences in information value that exist between and within (i.e., between the objects of a single block) data blocks. To tackle these issues, analysis techniques may be useful in which all available pieces of information are integrated and in which at the same time noise heterogeneity is taken into account. For the case of binary coupled data, however, only methods exist that go for a simultaneous analysis of all data blocks but that do not account for noise heterogeneity. Therefore, in this paper, the SIMCLAS model, being a Hierarchical Classes model for the simultaneous analysis of coupled binary two-way matrices, is presented. In this model, noise heterogeneity between and within the data blocks is accounted for by downweighting entries from noisy blocks/objects within a block. In a simulation study it is shown that (1) the SIMCLAS technique recovers the underlying structure of coupled data to a very large extent, and (2) the SIMCLAS technique outperforms a Hierarchical Classes technique in which all entries contribute equally to the analysis (i.e., noise homogeneity within and between blocks). The latter is also demonstrated in an application of both techniques to empirical data on categorization of semantic concepts.

Keywords

data fusioncoupled datamulti-set datanoise heterogeneitysimultaneous clusteringsHierarchical Classes Analysisoverlapping clusteringhierarchical relationsmultivariate binary data
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 724 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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 first author is a Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research (FWO)—Flanders (Belgium). The research reported in this paper was partially supported by the Research Council of K.U. Leuven (GOA/2005/04 and EF/2005/07, ‘SymBioSys’) and by IWT-Flanders (SBO 60045, ‘Bioframe’). We would like to thank Gert Storms and his collaborators for providing us with an interesting data set.

References

Aarts, E.H.L., Korst, J.H.M., & van Laarhoven, P.J.M. (1997). Simulated annealing. In Aarts, E.H.L., Lenstra, J.K. Local search in combinatorial optimization (pp. 91–120). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Barbut, M., & Monjardet, B. (1970). Ordre et classification : Algèbre et combinatoire. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G. (1940). Lattice theory. Providence: Am. Math. Soc.Google Scholar
Ceulemans, E., & Storms, G. (2010). Detecting intra- and inter-categorical structure in semantic concepts using hiclas. Acta Psychologica, 133, 296–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2003). Uniqueness of n-way n-mode hierarchical classes models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2004). Tucker2 hierarchical classes analysis. Psychometrika, 69, 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2005). Hierarchical classes models for three-way three-mode binary data: Interrelations and model selection. Psychometrika, 70, 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceulemans, E., Van Mechelen, I., & Leenen, I. (2003). Tucker3 hierarchical classes analysis. Psychometrika, 68, 413–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceulemans, E., Van Mechelen, I., & Leenen, I. (2007). The local minima problem in hierarchical classes analysis: An evaluation of a simulated annealing algorithm and various multistart procedures. Psychometrika, 72, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1988). Hierarchical classes: Model and data analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavioral Research Methods, 40, 1030–1048.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haggard, E.A. (1958). Intraclass correlation and the analysis of variance. New York: Dryden.Google Scholar
Kiers, H.A.L. (2000). Towards a standardized notation and terminology in multiway analysis. Journal of Chemometrics, 14, 105–122.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H.A.L., & ten Berge, J.M.F. (1989). Alternating least squares algorithms for simultaneous components analysis with equal component weight matrices for all populations. Psychometrika, 54, 467–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H.A.L., & ten Berge, J.M.F. (1994). Hierarchical relations between methods for simultaneous component analysis and a technique for rotation to a simple simultaneous structure. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 47, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, R.E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2 ed.). Belmont: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D.J., & Vecchi, M.P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220, 671–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leenen, I., & Van Mechelen, I. (2001). An evaluation of two algorithms for hierarchical classes analysis. Journal of Classification, 18, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenen, I., Van Mechelen, I., De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1999). indclas: A three-way hierarchical classes model. Psychometrika, 64, 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenen, I., Van Mechelen, I., Gelman, A., & De Knop, S. (2008). Bayesian hierarchical classes analysis. Psychometrika, 73, 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millsap, R.E., & Meredith, W. (1988). Component analysis in cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Psychometrika, 53, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J.M.F., Kiers, H.A.L., & van der Stel, V. (1992). Simultaneous components analysis. Statistica Applicata, 4, 377–392.Google Scholar
Timmerman, M.E., & Kiers, H.A.L. (2003). Four simultaneous component models for the analysis of multivariate time series from more than one subject to model intraindividual and interindividual differences. Psychometrika, 68, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Deun, K., Smilde, A.K., van der Werf, M.J., Kiers, H.A.L., & Van Mechelen, I. (2009). A structured overview of simultaneous component based data integration. BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Mechelen, I., De Boeck, P., & Rosenberg, S. (1995). The conjunctive model of hierarchical classes. Psychometrika, 60, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Mechelen, I., & Smilde, A.K., (2009). A generic model for data fusion. Paper presented at the 6th meeting of TRICAP (Three-way methods in chemistry and psychology), June 14–19, Vall de Núria, Spain. .Google Scholar
Van Mechelen, I., & Smilde, A.K. (2010). A generic linked-mode decomposition model for data fusion. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 104, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilderjans, T.F., Ceulemans, E., & Van Mechelen, I. (2008). The chic model: global model for coupled binary data. Psychometrika, 73, 729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilderjans, T.F., Ceulemans, E., Van Mechelen, I., & van den Berg, R.A. (2011). Simultaneous analysis of coupled data matrices subject to different amounts of noise. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 64, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed