similar to: prcomp

Dear R-list users, I'm new to principal components and factor analysis. I thought this method can be very useful for me to find relationships between several variables (which I know there is, only don't know which variables exactly and what kind of relation), so as a structure detection method. Now, I'm experimenting with the function prcomp from the mva package. In my source code

Hi all, I think I may be confused by different people/programs using the word rotation differently. Does prcomp not perform rotations by default? If I understand it correctly retx=TRUE returns ordinated data, that I can plot for individual samples (prcomp()$x: which is the scaled and centered (rotated?) data multiplied by loadings). What does it mean that the data is rotated from the

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

I have the following situation I want to analyse with prcomp. Each subject has a curve called the contrast sensitivity function (CSF). This curve's overall shape is due to the additive output of 3 "channels" (eigenvectors). #this shows 3 SF channels; net CSF = c1 + c2+c3 x<-1:100 c1<-dnorm(x,mean=20,sd=20) c2<-dnorm(x,mean=50,sd=20) c3<-dnorm(x,mean=80,sd=20)

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

Martin, I fully agree. This becomes an issue when you have big matrices. (Note that there are awesome methods for actually only computing a small number of PCs (unlike your code which uses svn which gets all of them); these are available in various CRAN packages). Best, Kasper On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Martin Maechler <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch > wrote: > Following from

Hello, It might be a trivial question but I just wanted to find out the relationship between sdev and proportion of variance generated by prcomp. I got the following result from my data set ???????????????????????????? PC1????? PC2????? PC3 Standard deviation???? 104.89454 15.40910 9.012047 Proportion of Variance?? 0.52344? 0.01130 0.003860 Cumulative Proportion??? 0.52344? 0.53474 0.538600

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

Hello all, I wish to compute site scores using PCA (prcomp) on a matrix with missing values, for example: Drain Slope OrgL a 4 1 NA b 2.5 39 6 c 6 8 45 d 3 9 12 e 3 16 4 ... Where a,b... are sites. The command > pca<-prcomp(~ Drain + Slope + OrgL, data = t, center = TRUE, scale = TRUE, na.action=na.exclude) works great, and from

In the manual page for prcomp(), it says that sdev is "the standard deviations of the principal components (i.e., the square roots of the eigenvalues of the covariance/correlation matrix, though the calculation is actually done with the singular values of the data matrix)." ?However, this is not what I'm finding. ?The values appear to be the standard deviations of a reprojection of

As I see it, the display showing the first p << n PCs adding up to 100% of the variance is plainly wrong. I suspect it comes about via a mental short-circuit: If we try to control p using a tolerance, then that amounts to saying that the remaining PCs are effectively zero-variance, but that is (usually) not the intention at all. The common case is that the remainder terms have a roughly

I've searched the Web with Google and do not find what might cause this particular error from an invocation of cenboxplot: cenboxplot(cu.t$quant, cu.t$ceneq1, cu.t$era, range=1.5, main='Total Recoverable Copper', ylab='Concentration (mg/L)', xlab='Time Period') Error in if (n > 0) (1L:n - a)/(n + 1 - 2 * a) else numeric() : argument is of length zero I do

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

> On 25 Mar 2016, at 10:08 , Jari Oksanen <jari.oksanen at oulu.fi> wrote: > >> >> On 25 Mar 2016, at 10:41 am, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> As I see it, the display showing the first p << n PCs adding up to 100% of the variance is plainly wrong. >> >> I suspect it comes about via a mental short-circuit: If we

Hello, not understanding the output of prcomp, I reduce the number of components and the output continues to show cumulative 100% of the variance explained, which can't be the case dropping from 8 components to 3. How do i get the output in terms of the cumulative % of the total variance, so when i go from total solution of 8 (8 variables in the data set), to a reduced number of

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

Following from the R-help thread of March 22 on "Memory usage in prcomp", I've started looking into adding an optional 'rank.' argument to prcomp allowing to more efficiently get only a few PCs instead of the full p PCs, say when p = 1000 and you know you only want 5 PCs. (https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2016-March/437228.html As it was mentioned, we already

> On 25 Mar 2016, at 10:41 am, peter dalgaard <pdalgd at gmail.com> wrote: > > As I see it, the display showing the first p << n PCs adding up to 100% of the variance is plainly wrong. > > I suspect it comes about via a mental short-circuit: If we try to control p using a tolerance, then that amounts to saying that the remaining PCs are effectively zero-variance, but

I agree with Kasper, this is a 'big' issue. Does your method of taking only n PCs reduce the load on memory? The new addition to the summary looks like a good idea, but Proportion of Variance as you describe it may be confusing to new users. Am I correct in saying Proportion of variance describes the amount of variance with respect to the number of components the user chooses to show? So

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