Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-szhh2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T23:41:29.721Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Clarifications of the CANDECOMP Algorithm Applied to INDSCAL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Jos M. F. ten Berge  and
Henk A. L. Kiers
Jos M. F. ten Berge*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Henk A. L. Kiers
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to los ten Berge, Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carroll and Chang have claimed that CANDECOMP applied to symmetric matrices yields equivalent coordinate matrices, as needed for INDSCAL. Although this claim has appeared to be valid for all practical purposes, it has gone without a rigorous mathematical footing. The purpose of the present paper is to clarify CANDECOMP in this respect. It is shown that equivalent coordinate matrices are not granted at global minima when the symmetric matrices are not Gramian, or when these matrices are Gramian but the solution not globally optimal.

Keywords

CANDECOMPPARAFACINDSCAL
Type
Article
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 317 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

Part of this research has been supported by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), PSYCHON-grant (560-267-011).

References

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., Pruzansky, S., & McDonald, R. P. (1984). The CANDECOMP-CANDELINC family of models and methods for multidimensional data analysis. In Law, H. G., Snyder, C. W., & Hattie, J. A. (Eds.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 372–402). New York: Praeger.Google 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. (1970). Foundations of the PARAFAC procedure: models and conditions for an “explanatory” multi-mode factor analysis. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 16, 1–84.Google Scholar
Harshman, R. A. (1972). Determination and proof of minimum uniqueness conditions for PARAFAC1. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 22, 111–117.Google Scholar
Kroonenberg, P. M. (1983). Three mode principal component analysis: Theory and applications, Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar
Levin, J. (1988). Note on convergence of MINRES. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 413–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.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