Low-rank approximation of generic p × q × 2 arrays and diverging components in the Candecomp/Parafac model

SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 988-1007

  Stegeman, Alwin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Arrays; Border rank; Candecomp; Degenerate parafac solutions; Low rank tensor approximations; Parafac; Three way arrays

Indexed keywords

ARRAYS; BORDER RANK; CANDECOMP; DEGENERATE PARAFAC SOLUTIONS; LOW-RANK TENSOR APPROXIMATIONS; PARAFAC; THREE-WAY ARRAYS;

TENSORS;

EID: 52949146687     PISSN: 08954798     EISSN: 10957162     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1137/050644677     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. 2-7799) complexity for n × n approximate matrix multiplication, Inform. Process. Lett., 8 (1979), pp. 234-235.
2. D. BINI, G. LOTTI, AND F. ROMANI, Approximate solutions for the bilinear form computational problem, SIAM J. Comput., 9 (1980), pp. 692-697.
3. D. BINI, Relations between exact and approximate bilinear algorithms. Applications, Calcolo, 17 (1980), pp. 87-97.
4. D. BINI, Border rank of ap × g × 2 tensor and the optimal approximation of a pair of bilinear forms, in Automata, Languages and Programming, J. W. de Bakker and J. van Leeuwen, eds., Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 85, Springer, New York, 1980, pp. 98-108.
5. D. BINI, Border rank of m × n × (mn - g) tensors, Linear Algebra Appl., 79 (1986), pp. 45-51.
6. R. W. BROCKETT AND D. DOBKIN, On the optimal evaluation of a set of bilinear forms, Linear Algebra Appl., 19 (1978), pp. 207-235.
7. P. BÜRGISSER, M. CLAUSEN, AND M. A. SHOKROLLAHI, Algebraic Complexity Theory, Springer, Berlin, 1997.
8. Y. Z. CAO, Z. P. CHEN, C. Y. MO, H. L. WU, AND R. Q. YU, A Parafac algorithm using penalty diagonalization error (PDE) for three-way data array resolution, The Analyst, 125 (2000), pp. 2303-2310.
9. J. D. CARROLL AND J. J. CHANG, Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via ann-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition, Psychometrika, 35 (1970), pp. 283-319.
10. V. DE SILVA AND L.-H. LIM, Tensor Rank and the Ill-Posedness of the Best Low-Rank Approximation Problem, SCCM Technical report, 06-06, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 2006; available online at http://www.sccm.stanford.edu/wrap/pubtech.html.
11. C. ECKART AND G. YOUNG, The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank, Psychometrika, 1 (1936), pp. 211-218.
12. F. R. GANTMACHER, The Theory of Matrices, Volumes 1 and 2, Chelsea, New York, 1959.
13. R. A. HARSHMAN, Foundations of the Parafac procedure: Models and conditions for an "explanatory" multimodal factor analysis, UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 16 (1970), pp. 1-84.
14. R. A. HARSHMAN AND M. E. LUNDY, Data preprocessing and the extended Parafac model, in Research Methods for Multimode Data Analysis, H. G. Law, C. W. Snyder Jr., J. A. Hattie, and R. P. McDonald, eds., Praeger, New York, 1984, pp. 216-284.
15. F. L. HITCHCOCK, The expression of a tensor or a polyadic as a sum of products, J. Math. Phys., 6 (1927), pp. 164-189.
16. F. L. HITCHCOCK, Multiple invariants and generalized rank of a p-way matrix or tensor, J. Math. Phys., 7 (1927), pp. 39-79.
17. P. K. HOPKE, P. PAATERO, H. JIA, R. T. ROSS, AND R. A. HARSHMAN, Three-way (Parafac) factor analysis: Examination and comparison of alternative computational methods as applied to ill-conditioned data, Chemom. Intel. Lab. Syst., 43 (1998), pp. 25-42.
18. J. JA'JA', Optimal evaluation of pairs of bilinear forms, SIAM J. Comput., 8 (1979), pp. 443-462.
19. J. JA'JA', An addendum to Kronecker's theory of pencils, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 37 (1979), pp. 700-712.
20. L. KRONECKER, Algebraische reduction der schaaren bilinearer formen, Sitzungber. Akad. Berlin (1890), pp. 763-776.
21. P. M. KROONENBERG, Three-Mode Principal Component Analysis, DSWO, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1983.
22. J. B. KRUSKAL, Three-way arrays: Rank and uniqueness of trilinear decompositions, with applications to arithmetic complexity and statistics, Linear Algebra Appl., 18 (1977), pp. 95-138.
23. J. B. KRUSKAL, Rank, decomposition, and uniqueness for Z-way and N-way arrays, in Multiway Data Analysis, R. Coppi and S. Bolasco, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 7-18.
24. J. B. KRUSKAL, R. A. HARSHMAN, AND M. E. LUNDY, HOW 3-MFA data can cause degenerate Parafac solutions, among other relationships, in Multiway Data Analysis, R. Coppi and S. Bolasco, eds., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 115-121 .
25. J. M. LANDSBERG, The border rank of the multiplication of 2 × 2 matrices in seven, 3. Amer. Math. Soc, 19 (2006), pp. 447-459.
26. L.-H. LIM, What's possible and what's impossible in tensor decompositions/approximation, Talk at the Tensor Decomposition Workshop, Palo Alto, CA, 2004; available online at http://csmr.ca.sandia.gov/ ̃tgkolda/tdw2004/.
27. L.-H. LlM, Optimal solutions to nonnegative Parafac/multilinear NMF always exist, Talk at the Workshop on Tensor Decompositions and Applications, CIRM, Luminy, Marseille, France, 2005; available online at http://www.etis.ensea.fr/̃wtda/.
28. B. C. MITCHELL AND D. S. BURDICK, Slowly converging Parafac sequences: Swamps and two-factor degeneracies, 3. Chemometrics, 8 (1994), pp. 155-168.
29. P. PAATERO, The Multilinear Engine-A table-driven least squares program for solving multilinear problems, including the n-way Parallel Factor Analysis model, J. Comput. Graph. Statist., 8 (1999), pp. 854-888.
30. P. PAATERO, Construction and analysis of degenerate Parafac models, J. Chemometrics, 14 (2000), pp. 285-299.
31. W. S. RAYENS AND B. C. MITCHELL, Two-factor degeneracies and a stabilization of Parafac, Chemometrics Intel. Lab. Syst., 38 (1997), pp. 173-181.
32. N. D. SIDIROPOULOS, Low-rank decomposition of multi-way arrays: A signal processing perspective, Invited Plenary Lecture at the IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel (SAM) Signal Processing Workshop, Sitges, Barcelona, Spain, 2004. Available online at http://www.telecom.tuc.gr/ ̃nikos/.
33. A. SMILDE, R. BRO, AND P. GELADI, Multi-way Analysis: Applications in the Chemical Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2004.
34. A. STEGEMAN, Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for p × p × 2 arrays of rankp+ 1 or higher, Psychometrika, 71 (2006), pp. 483-501.
35. A. STEGEMAN, Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for several three-sliced arrays with a two-valued typical rank, Psychometrika, (2008), in press.
36. V. STRASSEN, Vermeidung von divisionen, J. Reine Angew. Math., 246 (1973), pp. 184-202.
37. J. M. F TEN BERGE, H. A. L. KIERS, AND J. DE LEEUW, Explicit Candecomp/Parafac solutions for a contrived 2 × 2 × 2 array of rank three, Psychometrika, 53 (1988), pp. 579-584.
38. J. M. F. TEN BERGE, Kruskal's polynomial for 2 × 2 × 2 arrays and a generalization to 2 × n × n arrays, Psychometrika, 56 (1991), pp. 631-636.
39. J. M. F. TEN BERGE AND H. A. L. KIERS, Simplicity of core arrays in three-way principal component analysis and the typical rank of p × q × 2 arrays, Linear Algebra Appl., 294 (1999), pp. 169-179.
40. J. M. F. TEN BERGE, Partial uniqueness in Candecomp/Parafac, 3. Chemometrics, 18 (2004), pp. 12-16.
41. G. TOMASI AND R. BRO, A Comparison of algorithms for fitting the Parafac model, Comput. Statist. Data Anal., 50 (2006), pp. 1700-1734.
42. K. WEIERSTRASS, Zur theorie der bilinearen und quadratischen formen, Monatsber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, (1868), pp. 310-338.
43. B. J. H. ZIJLSTRA AND H. A. L. KIERS, Degenerate solutions obtained from several variants of factor analysis, J. Chemometrics, 16 (2002), pp. 596-605.