Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-hj587 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:08:19.407Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Majorization as a Tool for Optimizing a Class of Matrix Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Henk A. L. Kiers
Henk A. L. Kiers*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Henk A. L. Kiers, Department of Psychology, Grote Kruisstr. 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of minimizing a general matrix, trace function, possibly subject to certain constraints, is approached by means of majorizing this function by one having a simple quadratic shape and whose minimum is easily found. It is shown that the parameter set that minimizes the majorizing function also decreases the matrix trace function, which in turn provides a monotonically convergent algorithm for minimizing the matrix trace function iteratively. Three algorithms based on majorization for solving certain least squares problems are shown to be special cases. In addition, by means of several examples, it is noted how algorithms may be provided for a wide class of statistical optimization tasks for which no satisfactory algorithms seem available.

Keywords

trace optimizationmajorizationalternating least squares
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 417 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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 Netherlands organization for scientific research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged for funding this project. This research was conducted while the author was supported by a PSYCHON-grant (560-267-011) from this organization. The author is obliged to Jos ten Berge, Willem Heiser, and Wim Krijnen for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

References

Bijleveld, C., & de Leeuw, J. (1987, June). Fitting linear dynamics systems by alternating least squares. Paper presented at the European Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1972, March). IDIOSCAL: A generalization of INDSCAL allowing IDIOsyncratic reference systems as well as an analytic approximation to INDSCAL. Paper presented at the Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Cliff, N. (1966). Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychometrika, 31, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, J. (1988). Convergence of the majorization method for Multidimensional Scaling. Journal of Classification, 5, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Leeuw, J., & Heiser, W. (1980). Multidimensional scaling with restrictions on the configuration. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis V (pp. 501–522). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, J., Young, F. W., & Takane, Y. (1976). Additive structure in qualitative data: an alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 41, 471–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckart, C., & Young, G. (1936). The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank. Psychometrika, 1, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harshman, R. A. (1978, August). Models for analysis of asymmetric relationships among N objects or stimuli. Paper presented at the first joint meeting of the Psychometic Society and the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Hamilton, Ontario.Google Scholar
Heiser, W. J. (1987). Correspondence Analysis with least absolute residuals. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 5, 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiers, H. A. L. (1989). INDSCAL for the analysis of categorical data. In Coppi, R., & Bolasco, S. (Eds.), Multiway data analysis (pp. 155–167). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Kiers, H. A. L., ten Berge, J. M. F., Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1990). A generalization of Takane's algorithm for DEDICOM. Psychometrika, 55, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroonenberg, P. M. (1983). Three mode principal component analysis: Theory and applications, Leiden: DSWO.Google Scholar
Kroonenberg, P. M., & de Leeuw, J. (1980). Principal component analysis of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingoes, J. C., & Borg, I. (1978). A direct approach to individual differences scaling using increasingly complex transformations. Psychometrika, 43, 491–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meulman, J. J. (1986). A distance approach to nonlinear multivariate analysis, Leiden: DSWO.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. (1975). Solving implicit equations in psychometric data analysis. Psychometrika, 40, 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Berge, J. M. F., Knol, D. L., & Kiers, H. A. L. (1988). A treatment of the Orthomax rotation family in terms of diagonalization, and a re-examination of a singular value approach to Varimax rotation. Computational Statistics Quarterly, 3, 207–217.Google Scholar
Wold, H. (1966). Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis II (pp. 391–420). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J., & Takane, Y. (1976). Regression with qualitative and quantitative variables: an alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychometrika, 41, 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar