Hopefully a simple question today:
I'm plotting an RDA (in R Studio) and would like to remove the second X and Y (top and right) axes . Purely for aesthetic purposes, but still. The code I'm using is below. I've managed to remove the first axes (I'll replace them with something nicer later) with xaxt="n" and yaxt="n", but it still puts the others in.
The question: How do I remove the top and right axes from a plot in R?
To make this example reproducible you will need two data frames of equal length called "bio" and "abio" respectively.
library (vegan) ##not sure which package I'm actually employing
library(MASS) ##these are just my defaults
rdaY1<-rda(bio,Abio) #any dummy data will do so long as they're of equal length
par(bg="transparent",new=FALSE)
plot(rdaY1,type="n",bty="n",main="Y1. P<0.001 R2=XXX",
ylab="XXX% variance explained",
xlab="XXX% variance explained",
col.main="black",col.lab="black", col.axis="white",
xaxt="n",yaxt="n",axes=FALSE, bty="n")
abline(h=0,v=0,col="black",lwd=1)
points(rdaY1,display="species",col="gray",pch=20)
#text(rdaY1,display="species",col="gray")
points(rdaY1,display="cn",col="black",lwd=2)
text(rdaY1,display="cn",col="black")
UPDATE: Using comments below I've played around with various ways to get rid of the axes and it seems like that second "points" command where I call for the vectors to be plotted is the problem. Any ideas?
bty="L" worked for me. I generated some random data using rnorm() to test:
library(vegan)
mat <- matrix(rnorm(100), nrow = 10)
pl <- rda(mat)
plot(pl, bty="L")
Here's the result.
Related
I have performed PCA Analysis using the prcomp function apart of the FactoMineR package on quite a substantial dataset of 3000 x 500.
I have tried plotting the main Principal Components that cover up to 100% of cumulative variance proportion with a fviz_eig plot. However, this is a very large plot due to the large dimensions of the dataset. Is there any way in R to split a plot into multiple plots using a for loop or any other way?
Here is a visual of my plot that only cover 80% variance due to the fact it being large. Could I split this plot into 2 plots?
Large Dataset Visualisation
I have tried splitting the plot up using a for loop...
for(i in data[1:20]) {
fviz_eig(data, addlabels = TRUE, ylim = c(0, 30))
}
But this doesn't work.
Edited Reproducible example:
This is only a small reproducible example using an already available dataset in R but I used a similar method for my large dataset. It will show you how the plot actually works.
# Already existing data in R.
install.packages("boot")
library(boot)
data(frets)
frets
dataset_pca <- prcomp(frets)
dataset_pca$x
fviz_eig(dataset_pca, addlabels = TRUE, ylim = c(0, 100))
However, my large dataset has a lot more PCs that this one (possibly 100 or more to cover up to 100% of cumulative variance proportion) and therefore this is why I would like a way to split the single plot into multiple plots for better visualisation.
Update:
I have performed what was said by #G5W below...
data <- prcomp(data, scale = TRUE, center = TRUE)
POEV = data$sdev^2 / sum(data$sdev^2)
barplot(POEV, ylim=c(0,0.22))
lines(0.7+(0:10)*1.2, POEV, type="b", pch=20)
text(0.7+(0:10)*1.2, POEV, labels = round(100*POEV, 1), pos=3)
barplot(POEV[1:40], ylim=c(0,0.22), main="PCs 1 - 40")
text(0.7+(0:6)*1.2, POEV[1:40], labels = round(100*POEV[1:40], 1),
pos=3)
and I have now got a graph as follows...
Graph
But I am finding it difficult getting the labels to appear above each bar. Can someone help or suggest something for this please?
I am not 100% sure what you want as your result,
but I am 100% sure that you need to take more control over
what is being plotted, i.e. do more of it yourself.
So let me show an example of doing that. The frets data
that you used has only 4 dimensions so it is hard to illustrate
what to do with more dimensions, so I will instead use the
nuclear data - also available in the boot package. I am going
to start by reproducing the type of graph that you displayed
and then altering it.
library(boot)
data(nuclear)
N_PCA = prcomp(nuclear)
plot(N_PCA)
The basic plot of a prcomp object is similar to the fviz_eig
plot that you displayed but has three main differences. First,
it is showing the actual variances - not the percent of variance
explained. Second, it does not contain the line that connects
the tops of the bars. Third, it does not have the text labels
that tell the heights of the boxes.
Percent of Variance Explained. The return from prcomp contains
the raw information. str(N_PCA) shows that it has the standard
deviations, not the variances - and we want the proportion of total
variation. So we just create that and plot it.
POEV = N_PCA$sdev^2 / sum(N_PCA$sdev^2)
barplot(POEV, ylim=c(0,0.8))
This addresses the first difference from the fviz_eig plot.
Regarding the line, you can easily add that if you feel you need it,
but I recommend against it. What does that line tell you that you
can't already see from the barplot? If you are concerned about too
much clutter obscuring the information, get rid of the line. But
just in case, you really want it, you can add the line with
lines(0.7+(0:10)*1.2, POEV, type="b", pch=20)
However, I will leave it out as I just view it as clutter.
Finally, you can add the text with
text(0.7+(0:10)*1.2, POEV, labels = round(100*POEV, 1), pos=3)
This is also somewhat redundant, but particularly if you change
scales (as I am about to do), it could be helpful for making comparisons.
OK, now that we have the substance of your original graph, it is easy
to separate it into several parts. For my data, the first two bars are
big so the rest are hard to see. In fact, PC's 5-11 show up as zero.
Let's separate out the first 4 and then the rest.
barplot(POEV[1:4], ylim=c(0,0.8), main="PC 1-4")
text(0.7+(0:3)*1.2, POEV[1:4], labels = round(100*POEV[1:4], 1),
pos=3)
barplot(POEV[5:11], ylim=c(0,0.0001), main="PC 5-11")
text(0.7+(0:6)*1.2, POEV[5:11], labels = round(100*POEV[5:11], 4),
pos=3, cex=0.8)
Now we can see that even though PC 5 is much smaller that any of 1-4,
it is a good bit bigger than 6-11.
I don't know what you want to show with your data, but if you
can find an appropriate way to group your components, you can
zoom in on whichever PCs you want.
I'm simply trying to display the fit I've generated using lm(), but the lines function is giving me a weird result in which there are multiple lines coming out of one point.
Here is my code:
library(ISLR)
data(Wage)
lm.mod<-lm(wage~poly(age, 4), data=Wage)
Wage$lm.fit<-predict(lm.mod, Wage)
plot(Wage$age, Wage$wage)
lines(Wage$age, Wage$lm.fit, col="blue")
I've tried resetting my plot with dev.off(), but I've had no luck. I'm using rStudio. FWIW, the line shows up perfectly fine if I make the regression linear only, but as soon as I make it quadratic or higher (using I(age^2) or poly()), I get a weird graph. Also, the points() function works fine with poly().
Thanks for the help.
Because you forgot to order the points by age first, the lines are going to random ages. This is happening for the linear regression too; he reason it works for lines is because traveling along any set of points along a line...stays on the line!
plot(Wage$age, Wage$wage)
lines(sort(Wage$age), Wage$lm.fit[order(Wage$age)], col = 'blue')
Consider increasing the line width for a better view:
lines(sort(Wage$age), Wage$lm.fit[order(Wage$age)], col = 'blue', lwd = 3)
Just to add another more general tip on plotting model predictions:
An often used strategy is to create a new data set (e.g. newdat) which contains a sequence of values for your predictor variables across a range of possible values. Then use this data to show your predicted values. In this data set, you have a good spread of predictor variable values, but this may not always be the case. With the new data set, you can ensure that your line represents evenly distributed values across the variable's range:
Example
newdat <- data.frame(age=seq(min(Wage$age), max(Wage$age),length=1000))
newdat$pred <- predict(lm.mod, newdata=newdat)
plot(Wage$age, Wage$wage, col=8, ylab="Wage", xlab="Age")
lines(newdat$age, newdat$pred, col="blue", lwd=2)
I try to overlay two histograms in the same plane but the option Probability=TRUE (relative frequencies) in hist() is not effective with the code below. It is a problem because the two samples have very different sizes (length(cl1)=9 and length(cl2)=339) and, with this script, I cannot vizualize differences between both histograms because each shows frequencies. How can I overlap two histograms with the same bin width, showing relative frequencies?
c1<-hist(dataList[["cl1"]],xlim=range(minx,maxx),breaks=seq(minx,maxx,pasx),col=rgb(1,0,0,1/4),main=paste(paramlab,"Group",groupnum,"cl1",sep=" "),xlab="",probability=TRUE)
c2<-hist(dataList[["cl2"]],xlim=range(minx,maxx),breaks=seq(minx,maxx,pasx),col=rgb(0,0,1,1/4),main=paste(paramlab,"Group",groupnum,"cl2",sep=" "),xlab="",probability=TRUE)
plot(c1, col=rgb(1,0,0,1/4), xlim=c(minx,maxx), main=paste(paramlab,"Group",groupnum,sep=" "),xlab="")# first histogram
plot(c2, col=rgb(0,0,1,1/4), xlim=c(minx,maxx), add=T)
cl1Col <- rgb(1,0,0,1/4)
cl2Col <- rgb(0,0,1,1/4)
legend('topright',c('Cl1','Cl2'),
fill = c(cl1Col , cl2Col ), bty = 'n',
border = NA)
Thanks in advance for your help!
When you call plot on an object of class histogram (like c1), it calls the S3 method for the histogram. Namely, plot.histogram. You can see the code for this function if you type graphics:::plot.histogram and you can see its help under ?plot.histogram. The help file for that function states:
freq logical; if TRUE, the histogram graphic is to present a
representation of frequencies, i.e, x$counts; if FALSE, relative
frequencies (probabilities), i.e., x$density, are plotted. The default
is true for equidistant breaks and false otherwise.
So, when plot renders a histogram it doesn't use the previously specified probability or freq arguments, it tries to figure it out for itself. The reason for this is obvious if you dig around inside c1, it contains all of the data necessarily for the plot, but does not specify how it should be rendered.
So, the solution is to reiterate the argument freq=FALSE when you run the plot functions. Notably, freq=FALSE works whereas probability=TRUE does not because plot.histogram does not have a probability option. So, your plot code will be:
plot(c1, col=rgb(1,0,0,1/4), xlim=c(minx,maxx), main=paste(paramlab,"Group",groupnum,sep=" "),xlab="",freq=FALSE)# first histogram
plot(c2, col=rgb(0,0,1,1/4), xlim=c(minx,maxx), add=T, freq=FALSE)
This all seems like a oversight/idiosyncratic decision (or lack thereof) on the part of the R devs. To their credit it is appropriately documented and is not "unexpected behavior" (although I certainly didn't expect it). I wonder where such oddness should be reported, if it should be reported at all.
Let's say I have the following dataset
bodysize=rnorm(20,30,2)
bodysize=sort(bodysize)
survive=c(0,0,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,1)
dat=as.data.frame(cbind(bodysize,survive))
I'm aware that the glm plot function has several nice plots to show you the fit,
but I'd nevertheless like to create an initial plot with:
1)raw data points
2)the loigistic curve and both
3)Predicted points
4)and aggregate points for a number of predictor levels
library(Hmisc)
plot(bodysize,survive,xlab="Body size",ylab="Probability of survival")
g=glm(survive~bodysize,family=binomial,dat)
curve(predict(g,data.frame(bodysize=x),type="resp"),add=TRUE)
points(bodysize,fitted(g),pch=20)
All fine up to here.
Now I want to plot the real data survival rates for a given levels of x1
dat$bd<-cut2(dat$bodysize,g=5,levels.mean=T)
AggBd<-aggregate(dat$survive,by=list(dat$bd),data=dat,FUN=mean)
plot(AggBd,add=TRUE)
#Doesn't work
I've tried to match AggBd to the dataset used for the model and all sort of other things but I simply can't plot the two together. Is there a way around this?
I basically want to overimpose the last plot along the same axes.
Besides this specific task I often wonder how to overimpose different plots that plot different variables but have similar scale/range on two-dimensional plots. I would really appreciate your help.
The first column of AggBd is a factor, you need to convert the levels to numeric before you can add the points to the plot.
AggBd$size <- as.numeric (levels (AggBd$Group.1))[AggBd$Group.1]
to add the points to the exisiting plot, use points
points (AggBd$size, AggBd$x, pch = 3)
You are best specifying your y-axis. Also maybe using par(new=TRUE)
plot(bodysize,survive,xlab="Body size",ylab="Probability of survival")
g=glm(survive~bodysize,family=binomial,dat)
curve(predict(g,data.frame(bodysize=x),type="resp"),add=TRUE)
points(bodysize,fitted(g),pch=20)
#then
par(new=TRUE)
#
plot(AggBd$Group.1,AggBd$x,pch=30)
obviously remove or change the axis ticks to prevent overlap e.g.
plot(AggBd$Group.1,AggBd$x,pch=30,xaxt="n",yaxt="n",xlab="",ylab="")
giving:
Suppose I ran a factor analysis & got 5 relevant factors. Now, I want to graphically represent the loading of these factors on the variables. Can anybody please tell me how to do it. I can do using 2 factors. But can't able to do when number of factors are more than 2.
The 2 factor plotting is given in "Modern Applied Statistics with S", Fig 11.13. I want to create similar graph but with more than 2 factors. Please find the snap of the Fig mentioned above:
X & y axes are the 2 factors.
Regards,
Ari
Beware: not the answer you are looking for and might be incorrect also, this is my subjective thought.
I think you run into the problem of sketching several dimensions on a two dimension screen/paper.
I would say there is no sense in plotting more factors' or PCs' loadings, but if you really insist: display the first two (based on eigenvalues) or create only 2 factors. Or you could reduce dimension by other methods also (e.g. MDS).
Displaying 3 factors' loadings in a 3 dimensional graph would be just hardly clear, not to think about more factors.
UPDATE: I had a dream about trying to be more ontopic :)
You could easily show projections of each pairs of factors as #joran pointed out like (I am not dealing with rotation here):
f <- factanal(mtcars, factors=3)
pairs(f$loadings)
This way you could show even more factors and be able to tweak the plot also, e.g.:
f <- factanal(mtcars, factors=5)
pairs(f$loadings, col=1:ncol(mtcars), upper.panel=NULL, main="Factor loadings")
par(xpd=TRUE)
legend('topright', bty='n', pch='o', col=1:ncol(mtcars), attr(f$loadings, 'dimnames')[[1]], title="Variables")
Of course you could also add rotation vectors also by customizing the lower triangle, or showing it in the upper one and attaching the legend on the right/below etc.
Or just point the variables on a 3D scatterplot if you have no more than 3 factors:
library(scatterplot3d)
f <- factanal(mtcars, factors=3)
scatterplot3d(as.data.frame(unclass(f$loadings)), main="3D factor loadings", color=1:ncol(mtcars), pch=20)
Note: variable names should not be put on the plots as labels, but might go to a distinct legend in my humble opinion, specially with 3D plots.
It looks like there's a package for this:
http://factominer.free.fr/advanced-methods/multiple-factor-analysis.html
Comes with sample code, and multiple factors. Load the FactoMineR package and play around.
Good overview here:
http://factominer.free.fr/docs/article_FactoMineR.pdf
Graph from their webpage:
You can also look at the factor analysis object and see if you can't extract the values and plot them manually using ggplot2 or base graphics.
As daroczig mentions, each set of factor loadings gets its own dimension. So plotting in five dimensions is not only difficult, but often inadvisable.
You can, though, use a scatterplot matrix to display each pair of factor loadings. Using the example you cite from Venables & Ripley:
#Reproducing factor analysis from Venables & Ripley
#Note I'm only doing three factors, not five
data(ability.cov)
ability.FA <- factanal(covmat = ability.cov,factor = 3, rotation = "promax")
load <- loadings(ability.FA)
rot <- ability.FA$rot
#Pairs of factor loadings to plot
ind <- combn(1:3,2)
par(mfrow = c(2,2))
nms <- row.names(load)
#Loop over pairs of factors and draw each plot
for (i in 1:3){
eqscplot(load[,ind[1,i]],load[,ind[2,i]],xlim = c(-1,1),
ylim = c(-0.5,1.5),type = "n",
xlab = paste("Factor",as.character(ind[1,i])),
ylab = paste("Factor",as.character(ind[2,i])))
text(load[,ind[1,i]],load[,ind[2,i]],labels = nms)
arrows(c(0,0),c(0,0),rot[ind[,i],ind[,i]][,1],
rot[ind[,i],ind[,i]][,2],length = 0.1)
}
which for me resulting in the following plot:
Note that I had to play a little with the the x and y limits, as well as the various other fiddly bits. Your data will be different and will require different adjustments. Also, plotting each pair of factor loadings with five factors will make for a rather busy collection of scatterplots.