similar to: which to trust...princomp() or prcomp() or neither?

In comparing the results of princomp and prcomp I find: 1. The reported standard deviations are similar but about 1% from each other, which seems well above round-off error. 2. princomp returns what I understand are variances and cumulative variances accounted for by each principal component which are all equal. "SS loadings" is always 1. 3. Same happens

Hello all, I'm currently using R to do PCA Analysis, and was wondering if anyone knew the specific R Code that could limit the output of the PCA Analysis so that you only get the Principal Component features as your output and none of the extraneous words or numbers that you don't want. If that was unclear, let me use linear regression as an example: "lm(y~x)" is the normal

Peter, As I understand your Q. You probably have data that is similar to each other like stock Prices for all RHS variable. In that case the difference between corr and cov is not significant; however, if your RHS contains totally dissimilar variables it matters a great deal. If x1 income, x2 job type, x3 Education level, etc..., then taking cov of these variables would not be desireable

Hi R People: When performing PCA, should I use prcomp, princomp or fast.prcomp, please? thanks. Erin -- Erin Hodgess Associate Professor Department of Computer and Mathematical Sciences University of Houston - Downtown mailto: erinm.hodgess at gmail.com

Hi , To my knowledge, there're two functions that can do principal component analysis, princomp and prcomp. I don't really know the difference; the only thing I know is that when the sample size < number of variable, only prcomp will work. Could someone tell me the difference or where I can find easy-to-read reference? To access the first PC using princomp:

Some webpage has described prcomp and princomp, but I am still not quite sure what the major difference between them is. Can they be used interchangeably? In help, it says 'princomp' only handles so-called R-mode PCA, that is feature extraction of variables. If a data matrix is supplied (possibly via a formula) it is required that there are at least as many units as

Hello fellow Rers, I have a no-doubt simple question which is turning into a headache so would be grateful for any help. I want to do a principal components analysis directly on a correlation matrix object rather than inputting the raw data (and specifying cor = TRUE or the like). The reason behind this is I need to use polychoric correlation coefficients calculated with John Fox's

Hi, I am a new user of R, and apologize beforehand for the simplistic nature of this question: I ran prcomp on a data set with 4 variables, and am able to see the summary information (variance contribution, rotation matrix, plots, etc.). However, I'd also like to extract the actual values of the principal components (PC) corresponding to each sample. I've looked in the help, on-line

When I look through archives at https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2003-October/040525.html I see this: Liaw, Andy wrote: >In the `Detail' section of ?princomp: > >princomp only handles so-called Q-mode PCA, that is feature extraction of >variables. If a data matrix is supplied (possibly via a formula) it is >required that there are at least as many units as variables. For

Dear all, perhaps I am using princomp.formula and prcomp.formula in a way that is not documented to work, but then the documentation just says: formula: a formula with no response variable. Thus, to avoid a lot of typing, it would be nice if one could use '.' and '-' in the formula, e.g. > library(DAAG) > res <- prcomp(~ . - case - site - Pop - sex, possum)

My previous post about prcomp and princomp was done in some haste as I had long ago indicated to Kurt that I would try to have this ready for the June release, and it appeared that I would miss yet another release. I also need to get it out before it becomes hopelessly buried by other work. Brian Ripley kindly pointed out some errors, and also pointed out that I was suggesting replacing some

Dear all, I have a very large dataset (1712351 , 20) and would like to plot only the arrows that represent the contribution of each variables. On the sample below I woild like to plot only the explanatory variables (Murder, Assault..) and not the sites. prcomp(USArrests) # inappropriate prcomp(USArrests, scale = TRUE) prcomp(~ Murder + Assault + Rape, data = USArrests, scale = TRUE)

Hello all, I was wondering if anyone knew how to get R to only spit out a certain portion of PRcomp data; namely, when I enter the following code, I get: > Summary(prcomp(USArrests)) Importance of components: PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 Standard Deviation 83.732 14.212 6.489 2.483 Proportion of Variance 0.966 0.0278 0.0058 0.00085 Cumulative Proportion 0.966

Hello again, I was hoping one of you could help me with this problem. Consider the sample data from R: > summary(prcomp(USArrests)) Importance of components: PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 Standard deviation 83.732 14.2124 6.4894 2.48279 Proportion of Variance 0.966 0.0278 0.0058 0.00085 Cumulative Proportion 0.966 0.9933 0.9991 1.00000 How do I access the

Hi ! I've used the example given in the documentation for the prcomp function both in R and SPAD to compare the results obtained. Surprisingly, I do not obtain the same results for the coordinates of the principal composantes with these two softwares. using USArrests data I obtain with R : > summary(prcomp(USArrests)) Importance of components: PC1 PC2

Hi, I run the example for princomp for R211 I got the following error for biplot > ## The variances of the variables in the > ## USArrests data vary by orders of magnitude, so scaling is appropriate > (pc.cr <http://pc.cr> <- princomp(USArrests)) # inappropriate Erreur dans cov.wt(z) : 'x' must contain finite values only > princomp(USArrests, cor = TRUE) # =^=

Hello folks, it may be regarded as a user error to scale() your data prior to prcomp() instead of using its 'scale.' argument. However, it is a user thing that may happen and sounds a legitimate thing to do, but in that case predict() with 'newdata' can give wrong results: x <- scale(USArrests) sol <- prcomp(x) all.equal(predict(sol), predict(sol, newdata=x)) ## [1]

G'Day R users! Following an ordination using prcomp, I'd like to test which variables singnificantly contribute to a principal component. There is a method suggested by Peres-Neto and al. 2003. Ecology 84:2347-2363 called "bootstrapped eigenvector". It was asked for that in this forum in January 2005 by J?r?me Lema?tre: "1) Resample 1000 times with replacement entire

Dear All, when I'm running a PCA with prcomp(USArrests, scale = TRUE) I get the right principal components, but with the wrong sign infront Rotation: PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 Murder 0.5358995 -0.4181809 0.3412327 0.64922780 Assault 0.5831836 -0.1879856 0.2681484 -0.74340748 UrbanPop 0.2781909 0.8728062 0.3780158 0.13387773 Rape 0.5434321 0.1673186 -0.8177779 0.08902432 instead of PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

Dear r-devel list, dear Ben I came across a post of Ben Bolker from Feb 2012 (see below) on handling NA values in prcomp(). As I faced the same issue and found Ben's suggestions interesting, I was wondering whether this led to further discussions I might have missed? I understand handling NA values is far from trivial, but would it be possible to add a warning in the documentation, and/or