IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/psycho/v83y2018i1d10.1007_s11336-017-9568-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simultaneous Component Analysis by Means of Tucker3

Author

Listed:
  • Alwin Stegeman

    (KU Leuven – Kulak
    KU Leuven)

Abstract

A new model for simultaneous component analysis (SCA) is introduced that contains the existing SCA models with common loading matrix as special cases. The new SCA-T3 model is a multi-set generalization of the Tucker3 model for component analysis of three-way data. For each mode (observational units, variables, sets) a different number of components can be chosen and the obtained solution can be rotated without loss of fit to facilitate interpretation. SCA-T3 can be fitted on centered multi-set data and also on the corresponding covariance matrices. For this purpose, alternating least squares algorithms are derived. SCA-T3 is evaluated in a simulation study, and its practical merits are demonstrated for several benchmark datasets.

Suggested Citation

  • Alwin Stegeman, 2018. "Simultaneous Component Analysis by Means of Tucker3," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 21-47, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:83:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11336-017-9568-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11336-017-9568-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11336-017-9568-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11336-017-9568-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathaniel Helwig, 2013. "The Special Sign Indeterminacy of the Direct-Fitting Parafac2 Model: Some Implications, Cautions, and Recommendations for Simultaneous Component Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 725-739, October.
    2. J. Carroll & Jih-Jie Chang, 1970. "Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 35(3), pages 283-319, September.
    3. Alwin Stegeman & Tam Lam, 2014. "Three-Mode Factor Analysis by Means of Candecomp/Parafac," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 426-443, July.
    4. Alwin Stegeman, 2006. "Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for p × p × 2 arrays of rank p + 1 or higher," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 483-501, September.
    5. Carl Eckart & Gale Young, 1936. "The approximation of one matrix by another of lower rank," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 1(3), pages 211-218, September.
    6. Stegeman, Alwin, 2014. "Finding the limit of diverging components in three-way Candecomp/Parafac—A demonstration of its practical merits," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 203-216.
    7. Kiers, Henk A. L., 1993. "An alternating least squares algorithm for PARAFAC2 and three-way DEDICOM," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 103-118, June.
    8. Ledyard Tucker, 1966. "Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 31(3), pages 279-311, September.
    9. Pieter Kroonenberg & Jan Leeuw, 1980. "Principal component analysis of three-mode data by means of alternating least squares algorithms," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 69-97, March.
    10. Marieke Timmerman & Henk Kiers, 2003. "Four simultaneous component models for the analysis of multivariate time series from more than one subject to model intraindividual and interindividual differences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 68(1), pages 105-121, March.
    11. Jos Berge & Henk Kiers, 1996. "Some uniqueness results for PARAFAC2," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 123-132, March.
    12. Tomasi, Giorgio & Bro, Rasmus, 2006. "A comparison of algorithms for fitting the PARAFAC model," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1700-1734, April.
    13. Kim De Roover & Eva Ceulemans & Marieke Timmerman & John Nezlek & Patrick Onghena, 2013. "Modeling Differences in the Dimensionality of Multiblock Data by Means of Clusterwise Simultaneous Component Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 648-668, October.
    14. Jos Berge & Henk Kiers, 1991. "A numerical approach to the approximate and the exact minimum rank of a covariance matrix," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 309-315, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alwin Stegeman & Tam Lam, 2014. "Three-Mode Factor Analysis by Means of Candecomp/Parafac," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 426-443, July.
    2. Stegeman, Alwin, 2014. "Finding the limit of diverging components in three-way Candecomp/Parafac—A demonstration of its practical merits," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 203-216.
    3. Dawn Iacobucci & Doug Grisaffe & Wayne DeSarbo, 2017. "Statistical perceptual maps: using confidence region ellipses to enhance the interpretations of brand positions in multidimensional scaling," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(3), pages 81-98, December.
    4. Paolo Giordani & Roberto Rocci & Giuseppe Bove, 2020. "Factor Uniqueness of the Structural Parafac Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 85(3), pages 555-574, September.
    5. Nathaniel Helwig, 2013. "The Special Sign Indeterminacy of the Direct-Fitting Parafac2 Model: Some Implications, Cautions, and Recommendations for Simultaneous Component Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 725-739, October.
    6. Pieter C. Schoonees & Patrick J. F. Groenen & Michel Velden, 2022. "Least-squares bilinear clustering of three-way data," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 16(4), pages 1001-1037, December.
    7. Mariela González-Narváez & María José Fernández-Gómez & Susana Mendes & José-Luis Molina & Omar Ruiz-Barzola & Purificación Galindo-Villardón, 2021. "Study of Temporal Variations in Species–Environment Association through an Innovative Multivariate Method: MixSTATICO," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, May.
    8. Richard Harshman & Margaret Lundy, 1996. "Uniqueness proof for a family of models sharing features of Tucker's three-mode factor analysis and PARAFAC/candecomp," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 133-154, March.
    9. Henk Kiers, 1991. "Hierarchical relations among three-way methods," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 449-470, September.
    10. Willem Kloot & Pieter Kroonenberg, 1985. "External analysis with three-mode principal component models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 479-494, December.
    11. Elisa Frutos-Bernal & Ángel Martín del Rey & Irene Mariñas-Collado & María Teresa Santos-Martín, 2022. "An Analysis of Travel Patterns in Barcelona Metro Using Tucker3 Decomposition," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, March.
    12. Rubinstein, Alexander & Slutskin, Lev, 2018. "«Multiway data analysis» and the general problem of journals’ ranking," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 50, pages 90-113.
    13. Yoshio Takane & Forrest Young & Jan Leeuw, 1977. "Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: An alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 42(1), pages 7-67, March.
    14. Giuseppe Brandi & Ruggero Gramatica & Tiziana Di Matteo, 2019. "Unveil stock correlation via a new tensor-based decomposition method," Papers 1911.06126, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2020.
    15. Carlos Martin-Barreiro & John A. Ramirez-Figueroa & Ana B. Nieto-Librero & Víctor Leiva & Ana Martin-Casado & M. Purificación Galindo-Villardón, 2021. "A New Algorithm for Computing Disjoint Orthogonal Components in the Three-Way Tucker Model," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Wilderjans, Tom & Ceulemans, Eva & Van Mechelen, Iven, 2009. "Simultaneous analysis of coupled data blocks differing in size: A comparison of two weighting schemes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 1086-1098, February.
    17. Paolo Giordani & Roberto Rocci, 2013. "Constrained Candecomp/Parafac via the Lasso," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 669-684, October.
    18. Krijnen, Wim P., 2006. "Convergence of the sequence of parameters generated by alternating least squares algorithms," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 481-489, November.
    19. Hildebrandt, Lutz & Klapper, Daniel, 1997. "Möglichkeiten und Ansätze der Analyse dreimodaler Daten für die Marktforschung," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,90, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    20. Richard Sands & Forrest Young, 1980. "Component models for three-way data: An alternating least squares algorithm with optimal scaling features," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 45(1), pages 39-67, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:psycho:v:83:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11336-017-9568-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.