The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Algorithms for Sparse Nonnegative Tucker Decompositions
Abstract
There is a increasing interest in analysis of large-scale multiway data. The concept of multiway data refers to arrays of data with more than two dimensions, that is, taking the form of tensors. To analyze such data, decomposition techniques are widely used. The two most common decompositions for tensors are the Tucker model and the more restricted PARAFAC model. Both models can be viewed as generalizations of the regular factor analysis to data of more than two modalities. Nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF), in conjunction with sparse coding, has recently been given much attention due to its part-based and easy interpretable representation. While NMF has been extended to the PARAFAC model, no such attempt has been done to extend NMF to the Tucker model. However, if the tensor data analyzed are nonnegative, it may well be relevant to consider purely additive (i.e., nonnegative) Tucker decompositions). To reduce ambiguities of this type of decomposition, we develop updates that can impose sparseness in any combination of modalities, hence, proposed algorithms for sparse nonnegative Tucker decompositions (SN-TUCKER). We demonstrate how the proposed algorithms are superior to existing algorithms for Tucker decompositions when the data and interactions can be considered nonnegative. We further illustrate how sparse coding can help identify what model (PARAFAC or Tucker) is more appropriate for the data as well as to select the number of components by turning off excess components. The algorithms for SN-TUCKER can be downloaded from Mørup (2007).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Solving Least Squares Problems
Lawson, C. L., & Hanson, R. J. (1995) · doi:10.1137/1.9781611971217 · Cited by 7,103
Analysis of Discrete Ill-Posed Problems by Means of the L-Curve
Hansen, P. C. (1992) · SIAM Review · doi:10.1137/1034115 · Cited by 3,903
Cited by
Projected Gradient Methods for Nonnegative Matrix Factorization
Lin, C.-J. (2007) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2007.19.10.2756 · Cited by 1,737
Xu, Y., & Yin, W. (2013) · SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences · doi:10.1137/120887795 · Cited by 1,160
Nonnegative Matrix Factorization: A Comprehensive Review
Wang, Y.-X., & Zhang, Y.-J. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2012.51 · Cited by 981
On Tensors, Sparsity, and Nonnegative Factorizations
Chi, E. C., & Kolda, T. G. (2012) · SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications · doi:10.1137/110859063 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Mørup, M., Hansen, L. K., & Arnfred, S. M.
- Venue
- Neural Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2112-2131
- ISSN
- 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-888X
- OpenAlex
- W2108837778
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Algorithms for Sparse Nonnegative Tucker Decompositions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/neco.2008.11-06-407
- The paper
- Mørup, M., Hansen, L. K., & Arnfred, S. M. (2008). Algorithms for Sparse Nonnegative Tucker Decompositions. Neural Computation. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.11-06-407
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.