There should be an easy way to deal with this, but I don't know. I'm plotting multiple figures with the par(mfrow=c(5,5)) subplot function of R (i.e. 25 figures). After plotting 10 figures say for example I've done something wrong with the 11th plot, now if I want to plot it again using plot function it takes the space for 12th subplot which means the whole subplot structure changes. I know that par(new=TRUE) would let me re-plotting on the top of the 11th figure, but what if the revised plot is so different that overlapping doesn't work? The idea is to erase the 11th figure and then plot it all over again. How about changing the 1st plot after plotting all 25 figures??
It is possible to use the screen family of functions, though I confess to not being an aficionado of them. As you would hope against, it is only to be used exclusive of par(mfrow=c(5.5)) or even layout(...).
Having said that, it is entirely possible to redraw over a screen. For instances:
split.screen(c(5,5))
for (scr in 1:25) {
screen(scr)
par(mar=rep(0,4)+0.1)
plot(0)
}
screen(7)
par(bg='white') # necessary for some display types
erase.screen()
plot(2)
(This is certainly not a beautiful example, but it is functional.)
Notice the explicit setting of the background color (bg) to white; with some displays where transparency is assumed, not doing this will appear to have no affect (that is, erase.screen() will do nothing).
Having said that, there are many modern and near-modern graphing functions/libraries/packages that do things that this package does not support. I have not tested this with image-capturing mechanisms (such as sandwiching things in png(file="...") and dev.off()). Caveat emptor!
Related
I am preparing a figure for a paper presenting data for 2 different experiments in one plot. For that reason I don't need a legend for every plot, so I try to combine them with ggdraw from cowplot.
My code
should generate a reproducible example
and gives this output:
It seems like the two figures get the same slot (A) and the legend gets slot (B). Typically, I would probably use facet wrap to plot them together (which should also guarantee that the scaling/legend is consistent across the two plots.), but that will probably not work in this case, as I am trying to add an additional figure type to C and D.
The problem is that this figure type is ordinal so I have used a somewhat “hacky” approach to plot it, giving me this figure looking essentially as I want it to:
I so far have not been able to extract to another element that ggdraw can use.
Ideally the final plot should roughly look like this (of course with different labels):
How would you go about plotting these different types together?
Thank you for taking time to read my question and I hope that you can help me. I now it is quite a mouth full, but I was not sure how I meaningfully could reduce it to smaller chunks.
I have dataset include about 100 observations, say all of them are in (x,y) format, all of y is in integer format. I need proc sgplot to make a graphic about them. The range about my y is from 1 to 150. I hope I can force the graphic to show every corresponding y value on the y-axis instead of automatically reducing the ticks to a small number in order to show them clearly. For example, if the first five value of my y is (1,3,4,6,7,....), I hope the y tick shows exactly (1,3,4,6,7,....) instead (1,5,...).
I tried
yaxis value=(1 to 150 by 1) valueshint display=all;
It does not work as maybe I have too many observations. I know the result maybe overwhelming, but I just want to see the result. Thanks.
You don't say if you're using SAS/GRAPH or ODS GRAPHICS (SGPLOT etc.), so I'll answer the latter which is what I know; the answer should be useful for both in concept.
You likely cannot get SAS to plot so much on the axis unless the axis is very large itself. This means you have two options.
Raise the size of the graphic produced a lot in terms of pixels(and then shrink that to a usable size via image physical size, or using an external tool). Not necessarily usable in all cases, but produces a very high resolution plot (which is very big size-wise). This page explains how to do that for ODS graphics (use image_dpi as a high number, and width and height in inches as a normal number), and this page explains for SAS/GRAPH. You may need to make your font small to make it work (if you're adding numbers, which I assume you are), or you may need to make an initially large plot first and then go into paint/photoshop/gimp/etc. and make it smaller.
Use annotate to create the axis marks. This is fairly easy if you know how to use annotate, as you're just writing to the location of the axis (y) and the item (x), and then a bit below that for the text. This will make it very easy to make a total garbage plot, but it will likely work ultimately.
These likely work in both SAS/GRAPH and ODS GRAPHICS, and I can't test either as you don't post any code or simulated data to test with, but I think both approaches have some merit (as does the approach of "don't do this", but you've thought that through).
I want to plot some data with barplot. Rather, I want to make a bar graph and barplot seemed the logical choice. I am plotting just fine but I was wondering if there is a way to intelligently scale the y axis to round up from the highest count.
For example I set the yaxis in this case to be 30, because I knew that Strand.22 had 27 counts in it: barplot(unlist(d), ylim=c(0,30), xlab="Forward Reverse", ylab="Counts")
In the future, I want this script to run on its own, so it would be optimal for the the Y-axis to choose it's own ylim. Short of pulling the information out of my 'd' variable I can't think of a good way to do this. Is there an easy way to do this with barplot? Would some other plotter work better? I have seen things about ggplots but it seemed super complex and I wasn't sure that it would do anything better.
EDIT: If I do not choose a ylim it picks automatically and this is what it decided was best.
I disagree with it's choice.
If you don't specify ylim, R will come up with something based on the data. (Sounds like you don't like it's choice, which is fair.)
If you specify something based on the data like:
barplot(unlist(d), ylim=c(0,1.1*max(unlist(d)))
R will draw you a plot that reflects the maximum value of data. That example just takes the maximum of your values and multiplies that by 1.1 (this could be any number) to give it a little extra height. R does something similar to this when you make a scatterplot but it handles barplots slightly differently.
I have computed values for several categories for three networks. I'd like to create a bar plot in R to show the differences between these parameters for the networks. So far I plotted this with the barplot R function with the categories on the x-axis, their values on the y-axis and to each category three bars (one for each network).
But now I have one value which is much higher than all the others. Therefore the differences for the rest cannot be seen since they're represented only by a thin line because of that one large bar which almost fills the whole plot.
My idea was now to plot the values on the y-axis on an irregular scale, meaning for example, that one half represents the values from 0 to 300, and the other half from 300 to 3000. Is there any way to do this? Or a good alternative approach to handle this problem? I also thought of plotting the logarithm but unfortunatly I have also negative values.
I would suggest that an irregular scale isn't a good plan - I think it confuses viewers of the chart. Instead, you could use the layout() function to plot three separate barplots in a horizontal layout. Thus, each category could have it's own plot, with it's own scale.
If, however, you still have a single bar at 3000, while everything else is at 300, that won't really help. In that case, you could manually set your y-axis limits with ylim=c(min,max). To keep the bar from stretching off the screen, you can just use simple logic to define anything > 300 as 300, or something similar. Then, put a text point there stating the actual value (using text, maybe with arrow).
With those ideas out there, I would suggest that a graph where one value is 10x the other values might not really be worth presenting, or if it is, the main takeaway from it isn't going to be "how do values 2 and 3 compare to each other", it's going to be "holy moley look how much bigger 1 is than 2 and 3". So, it might not be a big deal if one bar is giant and two are small, as long as you aren't doing all 9 on a single plot (which would screw up other, relevant comparisons). So, if you split them using layout(), then it wouldn't be as big of a deal.
I am in my way of finishing the graphs for a paper and decided (after a discussion on stats.stackoverflow), in order to transmit as much information as possible, to create the following graph that present both in the foreground the means and in the background the raw data:
However, one problem remains and that is overplotting. For example, the marked point looks like it reflects one data point, but in fact 5 data points exists with the same value at that place.
Therefore, I would like to know if there is a way to deal with overplotting in base graph using points as the function.
It would be ideal if e.g., the respective points get darker, or thicker or,...
Manually doing it is not an option (too many graphs and points like this). Furthermore, ggplot2 is also not what I want to learn to deal with this single problem (one reason is that I tend to like dual-axes what is not supprted in ggplot2).
Update: I wrote a function which automatically creates the above graphs and avoids overplotting by adding vertical or horizontal jitter (or both): check it out!
This function is now available as raw.means.plot and raw.means.plot2 in the plotrix package (on CRAN).
Standard approach is to add some noise to the data before plotting. R has a function jitter() which does exactly that. You could use it to add the necessary noise to the coordinates in your plot. eg:
X <- rep(1:10,10)
Z <- as.factor(sample(letters[1:10],100,replace=T))
plot(jitter(as.numeric(Z),factor=0.2),X,xaxt="n")
axis(1,at=1:10,labels=levels(Z))
Besides jittering, another good approach is alpha blending which you can obtain (on the graphics devices supporing it) as the fourth color parameter. I provided an example for 'overplotting' of two histograms in this SO question.
One additional idea for the general problem of showing the number of points is using a rug plot (rug function), this places small tick marks along the margin that can show how many points contribute (still use jittering or alpha blending for ties). This allows the actual points to show their true rather than jittered values, but the rug can then indicate which parts of the plot have more values.
For the example plot direct jittering or alpha blending is probably best, but in some other cases the rug plot can be useful.
You may also use sunflowerplot, while it would be hard to implement it here. I would use alpha-blending, as Dirk suggested.