Constrained Candecomp/Parafac via the Lasso

Psychometrika

Volumn 78, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 669-684

  Giordani, Paolo ^a   Rocci, Roberto ^b  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

Author keywords

Candecomp Parafac; degeneracy; Lasso; orthogonality constraints

Indexed keywords

ADULT; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMETRY; STATISTICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84884990043     PISSN: 00333123     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11336-013-9321-9     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bini, D. (1980). Border rank of a p×q×2 tensor and the optimal approximation of a pair of bilinear forms. In J. W. de Bakker & J. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 85. Automata, languages and programming (pp. 98-108). New York: Springer.
2. 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.
3. Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31, 33-42.
4. De Silva, V., & Lim, L.-H. (2008). Tensor rank and the ill-posedness of the best low-rank approximation problem. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 30, 1084-1127.
5. Gill, P. E., Murray, W., & Wright, M. H. (1981). Practical optimization. London: Academic Press.
6. Guggenheimer, H. W., Edelman, A. S., & Johnson, C. R. (1995). A simple estimate of the condition number of a linear system. The College Mathematics Journal, 26, 2-5.
7. Harshman, R. A. (1970). Foundations of the Parafac procedure: models and conditions for an "explanatory" multimodal factor analysis (UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 16, pp. 1-84).
8. Harshman, R. A., & De Sarbo, W. S. (1984). An application of PARAFAC to a small sample problem, demonstrating preprocessing, orthogonality constraints, and split-half diagnostic techniques. In H. G. Law, C. W. Snyder Jr., J. A. Hattie, & R. P. McDonald (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 602-642). New York: Praeger.
9. Harshman, R. A., & Lundy, M. E. (1984). Data preprocessing and the extended PARAFAC model. In H. G. Law, C. W. Snyder Jr., J. A. Hattie, & R. P. McDonald (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 216-284). New York: Praeger.
10. Jiang, T., & Sidiropoulos, N. D. (2004). Kruskal's permutation lemma and the identification of Candecomp/Parafac and bilinear models with constant modulus constraints. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 52, 2625-2636.
11. Krijnen, W. P. (2006). Convergence of the sequence of parameters generated by alternating least squares algorithms. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51, 481-489.
12. Krijnen, W. P., Dijkstra, T. K., & Stegeman, A. (2008). On the non-existence of optimal solutions and the occurrence of "degeneracy" in the Candecomp/Parafac model. Psychometrika, 73, 431-439.
13. 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.
14. Kruskal, J. B., Harshman, R. A., & Lundy, M. E. (1989). How 3-MFA data can cause degenerate PARAFAC solutions, among other relationships. In R. Coppi & S. Bolasco (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 115-122). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
15. Lawson, C. L., & Hanson, R. J. (1995). Classics in applied mathematics: Vol. 15. Solving least squares problems. Philadelphia: SIAM.
16. Louwerse, D. J., Smilde, A. K., & Kiers, H. A. L. (1999). Cross-validation of multiway component models. Journal of Chemometrics, 13, 491-510.
17. Lundy, M. E., Harshman, R. A., & Kruskal, J. B. (1989). A two stage procedure incorporating good features of both trilinear and quadrilinear models. In R. Coppi & S. Bolasco (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 123-130). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18. Merikoski, J. K., Urpala, U., Virtanen, A., Tam, T.-Y., & Uhlig, F. (1997). A best upper bound for the 2-norm condition number of a matrix. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 254, 355-365.
19. Mitchell, B. C., & Burdick, D. S. (1994). Slowly converging Parafac sequences: swamps and two-factor degeneracies. Journal of Chemometrics, 8, 155-168.
20. Ortega, J. M., & Rheinboldt, W. C. (1970). Iterative solution of nonlinear equations in several variables. San Diego: Academic Press.
21. Paatero, P. (2000). Construction and analysis of degenerate Parafac models. Journal of Chemometrics, 14, 285-299.
22. Rayens, W. S., & Mitchell, B. C. (1997). Two-factor degeneracies and a stabilization of Parafac. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 38, 173-181.
23. Rocci, R., & Giordani, P. (2010). A weak degeneracy revealing decomposition for the CANDECOMP/PARAFAC model. Journal of Chemometrics, 24, 57-66.
24. Stegeman, A. (2006). Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for p×p×2 arrays of rank p+1 or higher. Psychometrika, 71, 483-501.
25. Stegeman, A. (2007). Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac and Indscal explained for several three-sliced arrays with a two-valued typical rank. Psychometrika, 72, 601-619.
26. Stegeman, A. (2008). Low-rank approximation of generic p×q×2 arrays and diverging components in the Candecomp/Parafac model. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 30, 988-1007.
27. Stegeman, A. (2009a). On uniqueness conditions for Candecomp/Parafac and Indscal with full column rank in one mode. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 431, 211-227.
28. Stegeman, A. (2009b). Using the simultaneous generalized Schur decomposition as a Candecomp/Parafac algorithm for ill-conditioned data. Journal of Chemometrics, 23, 385-392.
29. Stegeman, A., Ten Berge, J. M. F., & De Lathauwer, L. (2006). Sufficient conditions for uniqueness in Candecomp/Parafac and Indscal with random component matrices. Psychometrika, 71, 219-229.
30. Stegeman, A. (2012). Candecomp/Parafac: from diverging components to a decomposition in block terms. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 30, 1614-1638.
31. Stegeman, A., & De Lathauwer, L. (2009). A method to avoid diverging components in the Candecomp/Parafac model for generic I×J×2 arrays. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications, 30, 1614-1638.
32. Styan, G. P. H. (1973). Hadamard products and multivariate statistical analysis. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 6, 217-240.
33. ten Berge, J. M. F., Kiers, H. A. L., & De Leeuw, J. (1988). Explicit Candecomp/Parafac solutions for a contrived 2×2×2 array of rank three. Psychometrika, 53, 579-584.
34. Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 58, 267-288.
35. Tomasi, G., & Bro, G. (2006). A comparison of algorithms for fitting the PARAFAC model. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50, 1700-1734.
36. Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Department of the Army, Washington.