Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:39:18.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MACPLUS: A Mathematical Programming Approach to Fitting the ADCLUS Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Phipps Arabie  and
J. Douglas Carroll
Phipps Arabie*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota and Bell Laboratories
J. Douglas Carroll*
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Phipps Arabic, Department of Psychology, Elliott Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, or to J. Douglas Carroll, Room 2C-553, Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974.
Requests for reprints should be sent to either Phipps Arabic, Department of Psychology, Elliott Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, or to J. Douglas Carroll, Room 2C-553, Bell Laboratories, 600 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present a new algorithm, MAPCLUS (MAthematical Programming CLUStering), for fitting the Shepard-Arabie ADCLUS (for ADditive CLUStering) model. MAPCLUS utilizes an alternating least squares method combined with a mathematical programming optimization procedure based on a penalty function approach, to impose discrete (0,1) constraints on parameters defining cluster membership. This procedure is supplemented by several other numerical techniques (notably a heuristically based combinatorial optimization procedure) to provide an efficient general-purpose computer implemented algorithm for obtaining ADCLUS representations. MAPCLUS is illustrated with an application to one of the examples given by Shepard and Arabie using the older ADCLUS procedure. The MAPCLUS solution uses half as many clusters to achieve nearly the same level of goodness-of-fit. Finally, we consider an extension of the present approach to fitting a three-way generalization of the ADCLUS model, called INDCLUS (INdividual Differences CLUStering).

Keywords

additive clusteringnonhierarchical clusteringalternating least squares

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , June 1980 , pp. 211 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We are indebted to Scott A. Boorman, W. K. Estes, J. A. Hartigan, Lawrence J. Hubert, Carol L. Krumhansl, Joseph B. Kruskal, Sandra Pruzansky, Roger N. Shepard, Edward J. Shoben, Sigfrid D. Soli, and Amos Tversky for helpful discussions of this work, as well as the anonymous referees for their suggestions and corrections on an earlier version of this paper. We are also grateful to Pamela Baker and Dan C. Knutson for technical assistance. The research reported here was supported in part by LEAA Grant 78-NI-AX-0142 and NSF Grants SOC76-24512 and SOC76-24394.

References

References Notes

Shepard, R. N., & Crawford, G. Multidimensional scaling based on the fitting of constrained difference functions. Paper presented at the U.S.-Japan Seminar on Multidimensional Scaling, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 20–24, 1975.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Pruzansky, S. Fitting of hierarchical tree structure (HTS) models, mixtures of HTS models, and hybrid models, via mathematical programming and alternating least squares. Paper presented at the U.S.-Japan Seminar on Multidimensional Scaling, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, August 20–24, 1975.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. J., Osser, H., Schiff, W., & Smith, J. An analysis of critical features of letters, tested by a confusion matrix. A basic research program on reading, 1963, Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., Young, F. W., & Seery, J. B. How to use KYST, a very flexible program to do multidimensional scaling and unfolding, 1973, Murray Hill, N. J.: Bell Telephone Laboratories.Google Scholar
Chang, J. J., & Shepard, R. N. Exponential fitting in the proximity analysis of confusion matrices. Presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association,New York, April 14, 1966.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Arabie, P. INDCLUS: A three-way approach to clustering. Paper presented at meeting of Psychometric Society, Monterey, CA, 1979.Google Scholar
Hubert, Lawrence J. Personal communication, 1978.Google Scholar

References

Adby, P. R., & Dempster, M. A. H. Introduction to optimization methods, 1974, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P., & Soli, S. D. The interface between the type of regression and methods of collecting proximities data. In Golledge, R. & Rayner, J. N. (Eds.), Multidimensional analysis of large data sets, 1980, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Banfield, C. F., & Bassill, L. C. A transfer algorithm for non-hierarchical classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series C), Applied Statistics, 1977, 26, 206–210.Google Scholar
Bunch, J. R., Kaufman, L., & Parlett, B. N. Decomposition of a symmetric matrix. Numerische Mathematik, 1976, 27, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Arabie, P. Multidimensional scaling. In Rosenzweig, M. R. & Porter, L. W. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, 1980, Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J.-J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Pruzansky, S.. In Lantermann, E. D. & Feger, H. (Eds.), Discrete and hybrid scaling models, 1980, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. D., & Wish, M. Models and methods for three-way multidimensional scaling. In Krantz, D. H., Atkinson, R. C., Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. II), 1974, San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J. P., & Shepard, R. N. Monotone mapping of similarities into a general metric space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1974, 11, 335–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. Some extensions of Johnson's hierarchical clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 1972, 37, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. J. Monotone invariant clustering procedures. Psychometrika, 1973, 38, 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubert, L. J., & Baker, F. B. Analyzing distinctive features. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1977, 2, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanescu, P. L., & Rudeanu, S. Pseudo-Boolean methods for bivalent programming, 1966, New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R., Fant, G. M., & Halle, M. Preliminaries to speech analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates, 1963, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, L. On the matric analysis of sociometric data. Sociometry, 1947, 10, 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, D. H. Structure of confusions in short-term memory between English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1968, 44, 401–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krumhansl, C. L. Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. An extremely portable random number generator. Communications of the ACM, 1969, 12, 93–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling and other methods for discovering structure. In Enslein, K., Ralston, A. & Wilf, H. S. (Eds.), Statistical methods for digital computers (Vol. 3), 1977, New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B., & Carroll, J. D. Geometrical models and badness-of-fit functions. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis II, 1969, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruskal, W. H. The geometry of generalized inverses. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series B), 1975, 37, 272–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, A. M., Delattre, P., & Cooper, F. S. The role of selected stimulus-variables in the perception of the unvoiced stop consonants. American Journal of Psychology, 1952, 65, 497–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 431–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 338–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, J. W., & Moser, L. On cliques in graphs. Israel Journal of Mathematics, 1965, 3, 23–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peay, E. R. Nonmetric grouping: Clusters and cliques. Psychometrika, 1975, 40, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podgorny, P., & Garner, W. R. Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet. Perception & Psychophysics, 1979, 26, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Maximum likelihood estimation in multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, C. R., & Mitra, S. K. Generalized inverse of matrices and its applications, 1971, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Robinson, S. M. Quadratic interpolation is risky. SIAM Journal of Numerical Analysis, 1979, 16, 377–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. Management and the worker, 1939, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 219–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Psychological representation of speech sounds. In David, E. E. Jr. & Denes, P. B. (Eds.), Human communication: A unified view, 1972, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N., & Arabie, P. Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soli, S. D., & Arabie, P. Auditory versus phonetic accounts of observed confusions between consonant phonemes. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1979, 66, 46–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sørenson, T. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation on Danish commons. Biologiske Skrifter, 1948, 5, 1–34.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, M. D., & Bilger, R. C. Consonant confusions in noise: A study of perceptual features. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1973, 54, 1248–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wickelgren, W. A. Distinctive features and errors in short-term memory for English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1966, 39, 388–398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wold, H. Estimation of principal components and related models by iterative least squares. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis, 1966, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar