Optimal Least-Squares Unidimensional Scaling: Improved Branch-and-Bound Procedures and Comparison to Dynamic Programming

There are two well-known methods for obtaining a guaranteed globally optimal solution to the problem of least-squares unidimensional scaling of a symmetric dissimilarity matrix: (a) dynamic programming, and (b) branch-and-bound. Dynamic programming is generally more efficient than branch-and-bound, but the former is limited to matrices with approximately 26 or fewer objects because of computer memory limitations. We present some new branch-and-bound procedures that improve computational efficiency, and enable guaranteed globally optimal solutions to be obtained for matrices with up to 35 objects. Experimental tests were conducted to compare the relative performances of the new procedures, a previously published branch-and-bound algorithm, and a dynamic programming solution strategy. These experiments, which included both synthetic and empirical dissimilarity matrices, yielded the following findings: (a) the new branch-and-bound procedures were often drastically more efficient than the previously published branch-and-bound algorithm, (b) when computationally feasible, the dynamic programming approach was more efficient than each of the branch-and-bound procedures, and (c) the new branch-and-bound procedures require minimal computer memory and can provide optimal solutions for matrices that are too large for dynamic programming implementation.

[1]  D. Younger.  Minimum Feedback Arc Sets for a Directed Graph , 1963 .

[2]  Phipps Arabie,et al.  Linear Unidimensional Scaling in the L2-Norm: Basic Optimization Methods Using MATLAB , 2002, J. Classif..

[3]  Lawrence Hubert,et al.  Applications of combinatorial programming to data analysis: Seriation using asymmetric proximity measures , 1977 .

[4]  L. Hubert.  SERIATION USING ASYMMETRIC PROXIMITY MEASURES , 1976 .

[5]  Michael J. Brusco,et al.  Using Quadratic Assignment Methods to Generate Initial Permutations for Least-Squares Unidimensional Scaling of Symmetric Proximity Matrices , 2000, J. Classif..

[6]  Michael J. Brusco,et al.  Combinatorial Data Analysis: Optimization by Dynamic Programming, by L. Hubert, P. Arabie, and J. Meulman , 2001, J. Classif..

[7]  Phipps Arabie,et al.  Combinatorial Data Analysis: Optimization by Dynamic Programming , 1987 .

[8]  E. Lawler.  A Comment on Minimum Feedback Arc Sets , 1964 .

[9]  Patrick J. F. Groenen,et al.  The majorization approach to multidimensional scaling : some problems and extensions , 1993 .

[10]  E. Rothkopf.  A measure of stimulus similarity and errors in some paired-associate learning tasks. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[11]  Lawrence Hubert,et al.  Linear and circular unidimensional scaling for symmetric proximity matrices , 1997 .

[12]  Michael J. Brusco,et al.  An interactive multiobjective programming approach to combinatorial data analysis , 2001 .

[13]  Byron J. T. Morgan,et al.  Acoustic confusion of digits in memory and recognition , 1973 .

[14]  S K Manning,et al.  Similarity ratings and confusability of lipread consonants compared with similarity ratings of auditory and orthographic stimuli. , 1991, The American journal of psychology.

[15]  V. Pliner.  Metric unidimensional scaling and global optimization , 1996 .

[16]  Ingwer Borg,et al.  Geometric representations of relational data : readings in multidimensional scaling , 1977 .

[17]  L. Hubert,et al.  Combinatorial Data Analysis , 1992 .

[18]  P. Groenen,et al.  The tunneling method for global optimization in multidimensional scaling , 1996 .

[19]  J. Leeuw,et al.  Multidimensional Data Analysis , 1989 .

[20]  Brian H. Ross,et al.  Food for Thought: Cross-Classification and Category Organization in a Complex Real-World Domain , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Lawrence Hubert,et al.  Graph-theoretic representations for proximity matrices through strongly-anti-Robinson or circular strongly-anti-Robinson matrices , 1998 .

[22]  Lawrence Hubert,et al.  The comparison and fitting of given classification schemes , 1977 .

[23]  John S. Decani.  A branch and bound algorithm for maximum likelihood paired comparison ranking , 1972 .

[24]  D. Defays.  A short note on a method of seriation , 1978 .

[25]  James F. Korsh,et al.  A branch search algorithm for maximum likelihood paired comparison ranking , 1974 .

[26]  P. Groenen,et al.  Global Optimization in Least-Squares Multidimensional Scaling by Distance Smoothing , 1999 .

[27]  Lawrence Hubert,et al.  The analysis of proximity matrices through sums of matrices having (anti‐)Robinson forms , 1994 .

[28]  M. Brusco.  Identifying a reordering of rows and columns for multiple proximity matrices using multiobjective programming , 2002 .

[29]  W. S. Robinson.  A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological Deposits , 1951, American Antiquity.

[30]  Reginald G. Golledge,et al.  Matrix reorganization and dynamic programming: Applications to paired comparisons and unidimensional seriation , 1981 .