, 71:483 | Cite as

Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for p × p × 2 arrays of rank p + 1 or higher

  • Alwin Stegeman


The Candecomp/Parafac (CP) model decomposes a three-way array into a prespecified number R of rank-1 arrays and a residual array, in which the sum of squares of the residual array is minimized. The practical use of CP is sometimes complicated by the occurrence of so-called degenerate solutions, in which some components are highly correlated in all three modes and the elements of these components become arbitrarily large. We consider the real-valued CP model in which p × p × 2 arrays of rank p + 1 or higher are decomposed into p rank-1 arrays and a residual array. It is shown that the CP objective function does not have a minimum in these cases, but an infimum. Moreover, any sequence of CP approximations, of which the objective value approaches the infimum, will become degenerate. This result extends Ten Berge, Kiers, & De Leeuw (1988), who consider a particular 2 × 2 × 2 array of rank 3.


Candecomp Parafac three-way arrays degenerate solutions 


  1. Apostol, T.M. (1969). Calculus (Vol. II, 2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Harshman, R.A. (1970). Foundations of the Parafac procedure: Models and conditions for an “explanatory” multimodal factor analysis. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 16, 1–84.Google Scholar
  4. Harshman, R.A. (2004). The problem and nature of degenerate solutions or decompositions of 3-way arrays. Talk at the Tensor Decompositions Workshop, July 19–23. Palo Alto, CA: AIM.Google Scholar
  5. 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 (Ed.), Research methods for multimode data analysis (pp. 216–284). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  6. Ja’ Ja’ J. (1979). Optimal evaluation of pairs of bilinear forms. SIAM Journal on Computing, 8, 443–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kroonenberg, P.M. (1983). Three-mode principal component analysis. Leiden: DSWO.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kruskal, J.B. (1989). Rank, decomposition, and uniqueness for 3-way and N-way arrays. In Coppi R. & Bolasco, S. (Eds.). Multiway data analysis (pp. 7–18). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Kruskal, J.B., Harshman, R.A., & Lundy, M.E. (1989). How 3-MFA data can cause degenerate Parafac solutions, among other relationships. In Coppi R. & Bolasco, S. (Eds.). Multiway data analysis (pp. 115–121). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  11. Lim, L.-H. (2005). Optimal solutions to non-negative Parafac/multilinear NMF always exist. Talk at the Workshop on Tensor Decompositions and Applications, August 29—September 2. Marseille: CIRM, Luminy.Google Scholar
  12. Mitchell, B.C., & Burdick, D.S. (1994). Slowly converging Parafac sequences: Swamps and two-factor degeneracies. Journal of Chemometrics, 8, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Paatero, P. (1999). The multilinear engine—A table-driven least squares program for solving multilinear problems, including the n-way parallel factor analysis model. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 8, 854–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Paatero, P. (2000). Construction and analysis of degenerate Parafac models. Journal of Chemometrics, 14, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rayens, W.S., & Mitchell, B.C. (1997). Two-factor degeneracies and a stabilization of Parafac. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 38, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sidiropoulos, N.D. (2004). Low-rank decomposition of multi-way arrays: A signal processing perspective. In Proceedings of IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel (SAM) Signal Processing Workshop, July 18–21, Sitges, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  17. Smilde, A., Bro, R., & Geladi, P. (2004). Multi-way analysis: Applications in the chemical sciences. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stegeman, A. (2005a). Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for random p × q × 2 arrays. Technical Report. Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. Submitted.Google Scholar
  19. Stegeman, A. (2005b). Degeneracy in Candecomp/Parafac explained for 5 × 3 × 3 arrays of rank 6 or higher. Technical Report. Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  20. Ten Berge, J.M.F. (1991). Kruskal’s polynomial for 2 × 2 × 2 arrays and a generalization to 2 × n × n arrays. Psychometrika, 56, 631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ten Berge, J.M.F. (2004). Partial uniqueness in Candecomp/Parafac. Journal of Chemometrics, 18, 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ten Berge, J.M.F., & Kiers, H.A.L. (1999). Simplicity of core arrays in three-way principal component analysis and the typical rank of p × q × 2 arrays. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 294, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Tucker, L.R. (1966). Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika, 31, 279–311.Google Scholar
  25. Zijlstra, B.J.H., & Kiers, H.A.L. (2002). Degenerate solutions obtained from several variants of factor analysis. Journal of Chemometrics, 16, 596–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningen

Personalised recommendations