Using a biplot of values obtained through principal component analysis, it is possible to explore the explanatory variables that make up each principle component. Is this also possible with Linear Discriminant Analysis?
Examples provided use the The data is "Edgar Anderson's Iris Data" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_flower_data_set).
Here is the iris data:
id SLength SWidth PLength PWidth species
1 5.1 3.5 1.4 .2 setosa
2 4.9 3.0 1.4 .2 setosa
3 4.7 3.2 1.3 .2 setosa
4 4.6 3.1 1.5 .2 setosa
5 5.0 3.6 1.4 .2 setosa
6 5.4 3.9 1.7 .4 setosa
7 4.6 3.4 1.4 .3 setosa
8 5.0 3.4 1.5 .2 setosa
9 4.4 2.9 1.4 .2 setosa
10 4.9 3.1 1.5 .1 setosa
11 5.4 3.7 1.5 .2 setosa
12 4.8 3.4 1.6 .2 setosa
13 4.8 3.0 1.4 .1 setosa
14 4.3 3.0 1.1 .1 setosa
15 5.8 4.0 1.2 .2 setosa
16 5.7 4.4 1.5 .4 setosa
17 5.4 3.9 1.3 .4 setosa
18 5.1 3.5 1.4 .3 setosa
19 5.7 3.8 1.7 .3 setosa
20 5.1 3.8 1.5 .3 setosa
21 5.4 3.4 1.7 .2 setosa
22 5.1 3.7 1.5 .4 setosa
23 4.6 3.6 1.0 .2 setosa
24 5.1 3.3 1.7 .5 setosa
25 4.8 3.4 1.9 .2 setosa
26 5.0 3.0 1.6 .2 setosa
27 5.0 3.4 1.6 .4 setosa
28 5.2 3.5 1.5 .2 setosa
29 5.2 3.4 1.4 .2 setosa
30 4.7 3.2 1.6 .2 setosa
31 4.8 3.1 1.6 .2 setosa
32 5.4 3.4 1.5 .4 setosa
33 5.2 4.1 1.5 .1 setosa
34 5.5 4.2 1.4 .2 setosa
35 4.9 3.1 1.5 .2 setosa
36 5.0 3.2 1.2 .2 setosa
37 5.5 3.5 1.3 .2 setosa
38 4.9 3.6 1.4 .1 setosa
39 4.4 3.0 1.3 .2 setosa
40 5.1 3.4 1.5 .2 setosa
41 5.0 3.5 1.3 .3 setosa
42 4.5 2.3 1.3 .3 setosa
43 4.4 3.2 1.3 .2 setosa
44 5.0 3.5 1.6 .6 setosa
45 5.1 3.8 1.9 .4 setosa
46 4.8 3.0 1.4 .3 setosa
47 5.1 3.8 1.6 .2 setosa
48 4.6 3.2 1.4 .2 setosa
49 5.3 3.7 1.5 .2 setosa
50 5.0 3.3 1.4 .2 setosa
51 7.0 3.2 4.7 1.4 versicolor
52 6.4 3.2 4.5 1.5 versicolor
53 6.9 3.1 4.9 1.5 versicolor
54 5.5 2.3 4.0 1.3 versicolor
55 6.5 2.8 4.6 1.5 versicolor
56 5.7 2.8 4.5 1.3 versicolor
57 6.3 3.3 4.7 1.6 versicolor
58 4.9 2.4 3.3 1.0 versicolor
59 6.6 2.9 4.6 1.3 versicolor
60 5.2 2.7 3.9 1.4 versicolor
61 5.0 2.0 3.5 1.0 versicolor
62 5.9 3.0 4.2 1.5 versicolor
63 6.0 2.2 4.0 1.0 versicolor
64 6.1 2.9 4.7 1.4 versicolor
65 5.6 2.9 3.6 1.3 versicolor
66 6.7 3.1 4.4 1.4 versicolor
67 5.6 3.0 4.5 1.5 versicolor
68 5.8 2.7 4.1 1.0 versicolor
69 6.2 2.2 4.5 1.5 versicolor
70 5.6 2.5 3.9 1.1 versicolor
71 5.9 3.2 4.8 1.8 versicolor
72 6.1 2.8 4.0 1.3 versicolor
73 6.3 2.5 4.9 1.5 versicolor
74 6.1 2.8 4.7 1.2 versicolor
75 6.4 2.9 4.3 1.3 versicolor
76 6.6 3.0 4.4 1.4 versicolor
77 6.8 2.8 4.8 1.4 versicolor
78 6.7 3.0 5.0 1.7 versicolor
79 6.0 2.9 4.5 1.5 versicolor
80 5.7 2.6 3.5 1.0 versicolor
81 5.5 2.4 3.8 1.1 versicolor
82 5.5 2.4 3.7 1.0 versicolor
83 5.8 2.7 3.9 1.2 versicolor
84 6.0 2.7 5.1 1.6 versicolor
85 5.4 3.0 4.5 1.5 versicolor
86 6.0 3.4 4.5 1.6 versicolor
87 6.7 3.1 4.7 1.5 versicolor
88 6.3 2.3 4.4 1.3 versicolor
89 5.6 3.0 4.1 1.3 versicolor
90 5.5 2.5 4.0 1.3 versicolor
91 5.5 2.6 4.4 1.2 versicolor
92 6.1 3.0 4.6 1.4 versicolor
93 5.8 2.6 4.0 1.2 versicolor
94 5.0 2.3 3.3 1.0 versicolor
95 5.6 2.7 4.2 1.3 versicolor
96 5.7 3.0 4.2 1.2 versicolor
97 5.7 2.9 4.2 1.3 versicolor
98 6.2 2.9 4.3 1.3 versicolor
99 5.1 2.5 3.0 1.1 versicolor
100 5.7 2.8 4.1 1.3 versicolor
101 6.3 3.3 6.0 2.5 virginica
102 5.8 2.7 5.1 1.9 virginica
103 7.1 3.0 5.9 2.1 virginica
104 6.3 2.9 5.6 1.8 virginica
105 6.5 3.0 5.8 2.2 virginica
106 7.6 3.0 6.6 2.1 virginica
107 4.9 2.5 4.5 1.7 virginica
108 7.3 2.9 6.3 1.8 virginica
109 6.7 2.5 5.8 1.8 virginica
110 7.2 3.6 6.1 2.5 virginica
111 6.5 3.2 5.1 2.0 virginica
112 6.4 2.7 5.3 1.9 virginica
113 6.8 3.0 5.5 2.1 virginica
114 5.7 2.5 5.0 2.0 virginica
115 5.8 2.8 5.1 2.4 virginica
116 6.4 3.2 5.3 2.3 virginica
117 6.5 3.0 5.5 1.8 virginica
118 7.7 3.8 6.7 2.2 virginica
119 7.7 2.6 6.9 2.3 virginica
120 6.0 2.2 5.0 1.5 virginica
121 6.9 3.2 5.7 2.3 virginica
122 5.6 2.8 4.9 2.0 virginica
123 7.7 2.8 6.7 2.0 virginica
124 6.3 2.7 4.9 1.8 virginica
125 6.7 3.3 5.7 2.1 virginica
126 7.2 3.2 6.0 1.8 virginica
127 6.2 2.8 4.8 1.8 virginica
128 6.1 3.0 4.9 1.8 virginica
129 6.4 2.8 5.6 2.1 virginica
130 7.2 3.0 5.8 1.6 virginica
131 7.4 2.8 6.1 1.9 virginica
132 7.9 3.8 6.4 2.0 virginica
133 6.4 2.8 5.6 2.2 virginica
134 6.3 2.8 5.1 1.5 virginica
135 6.1 2.6 5.6 1.4 virginica
136 7.7 3.0 6.1 2.3 virginica
137 6.3 3.4 5.6 2.4 virginica
138 6.4 3.1 5.5 1.8 virginica
139 6.0 3.0 4.8 1.8 virginica
140 6.9 3.1 5.4 2.1 virginica
141 6.7 3.1 5.6 2.4 virginica
142 6.9 3.1 5.1 2.3 virginica
143 5.8 2.7 5.1 1.9 virginica
144 6.8 3.2 5.9 2.3 virginica
145 6.7 3.3 5.7 2.5 virginica
146 6.7 3.0 5.2 2.3 virginica
147 6.3 2.5 5.0 1.9 virginica
148 6.5 3.0 5.2 2.0 virginica
149 6.2 3.4 5.4 2.3 virginica
150 5.9 3.0 5.1 1.8 virginica
Example PCA biplot using the iris data set in R (code below):
This figure indicates that Petal length and Petal width are important in determining PC1 score and in discriminating between Species groups. setosa has smaller petals and wider sepals.
Apparently, similar conclusions can be drawn from plotting linear discriminant analysis results, though I am not certain what the LDA plot presents, hence the question. The axis are the two first linear discriminants (LD1 99% and LD2 1% of trace). The coordinates of the red vectors are "Coefficients of linear discriminants" also described as "scaling" (lda.fit$scaling: a matrix which transforms observations to discriminant functions, normalized so that within groups covariance matrix is spherical). "scaling" is calculated as diag(1/f1, , p) and f1 is sqrt(diag(var(x - group.means[g, ]))). Data can be projected onto the linear discriminants (using predict.lda) (code below, as demonstrated https://stackoverflow.com/a/17240647/742447). The data and the predictor variables are plotted together so that which species are defined by an increase in which predictor variables can be seen (as is done for usual PCA biplots and the above PCA biplot).:
From this plot, Sepal width, Petal Width and Petal Length all contribute to a similar level to LD1. As expected, setosa appears to smaller petals and wider sepals.
There is no built-in way to plot such biplots from LDA in R and few discussions of this online, which makes me wary of this approach.
Does this LDA plot (see code below) provide a statistically valid interpretation of predictor variable scaling scores ?
Code for PCA:
require(grid)
iris.pca <- prcomp(iris[,-5])
PC <- iris.pca
x="PC1"
y="PC2"
PCdata <- data.frame(obsnames=iris[,5], PC$x)
datapc <- data.frame(varnames=rownames(PC$rotation), PC$rotation)
mult <- min(
(max(PCdata[,y]) - min(PCdata[,y])/(max(datapc[,y])-min(datapc[,y]))),
(max(PCdata[,x]) - min(PCdata[,x])/(max(datapc[,x])-min(datapc[,x])))
)
datapc <- transform(datapc,
v1 = 1.6 * mult * (get(x)),
v2 = 1.6 * mult * (get(y))
)
datapc$length <- with(datapc, sqrt(v1^2+v2^2))
datapc <- datapc[order(-datapc$length),]
p <- qplot(data=data.frame(iris.pca$x),
main="PCA",
x=PC1,
y=PC2,
shape=iris$Species)
#p <- p + stat_ellipse(aes(group=iris$Species))
p <- p + geom_hline(aes(0), size=.2) + geom_vline(aes(0), size=.2)
p <- p + geom_text(data=datapc,
aes(x=v1, y=v2,
label=varnames,
shape=NULL,
linetype=NULL,
alpha=length),
size = 3, vjust=0.5,
hjust=0, color="red")
p <- p + geom_segment(data=datapc,
aes(x=0, y=0, xend=v1,
yend=v2, shape=NULL,
linetype=NULL,
alpha=length),
arrow=arrow(length=unit(0.2,"cm")),
alpha=0.5, color="red")
p <- p + coord_flip()
print(p)
Code for LDA
#Perform LDA analysis
iris.lda <- lda(as.factor(Species)~.,
data=iris)
#Project data on linear discriminants
iris.lda.values <- predict(iris.lda, iris[,-5])
#Extract scaling for each predictor and
data.lda <- data.frame(varnames=rownames(coef(iris.lda)), coef(iris.lda))
#coef(iris.lda) is equivalent to iris.lda$scaling
data.lda$length <- with(data.lda, sqrt(LD1^2+LD2^2))
scale.para <- 0.75
#Plot the results
p <- qplot(data=data.frame(iris.lda.values$x),
main="LDA",
x=LD1,
y=LD2,
shape=iris$Species)#+stat_ellipse()
p <- p + geom_hline(aes(0), size=.2) + geom_vline(aes(0), size=.2)
p <- p + theme(legend.position="none")
p <- p + geom_text(data=data.lda,
aes(x=LD1*scale.para, y=LD2*scale.para,
label=varnames,
shape=NULL, linetype=NULL,
alpha=length),
size = 3, vjust=0.5,
hjust=0, color="red")
p <- p + geom_segment(data=data.lda,
aes(x=0, y=0,
xend=LD1*scale.para, yend=LD2*scale.para,
shape=NULL, linetype=NULL,
alpha=length),
arrow=arrow(length=unit(0.2,"cm")),
color="red")
p <- p + coord_flip()
print(p)
The results of the LDA are as follows
lda(as.factor(Species) ~ ., data = iris)
Prior probabilities of groups:
setosa versicolor virginica
0.3333333 0.3333333 0.3333333
Group means:
Sepal.Length Sepal.Width Petal.Length Petal.Width
setosa 5.006 3.428 1.462 0.246
versicolor 5.936 2.770 4.260 1.326
virginica 6.588 2.974 5.552 2.026
Coefficients of linear discriminants:
LD1 LD2
Sepal.Length 0.8293776 0.02410215
Sepal.Width 1.5344731 2.16452123
Petal.Length -2.2012117 -0.93192121
Petal.Width -2.8104603 2.83918785
Proportion of trace:
LD1 LD2
0.9912 0.0088
Best Answer
Principal components analysis and Linear discriminant analysis outputs; iris data.
I will not be drawing biplots because biplots can drawn with various normalizations and therefore may look different. Since I'm not
Ruser I have difficulty to track down how you produced your plots, to repeat them. Instead, I will do PCA and LDA and show the results, in a manner similar to this (you might want to read). Both analyses done in SPSS.Principal components of iris data:
It is important to stress that it is loadings, not eigenvectors, by which we typically interpret principal components (or factors in factor analysis) - if we need to interpret. Loadings are the regressional coefficients of modeling variables by standardized components. At the same time, because components don't intercorrelate, they are the covariances between such components and the variables. Standardized (rescaled) loadings, like correlations, cannot exceed 1, and are more handy to interpret because the effect of unequal variances of variables is taken off.
It is loadings, not eigenvectors, that are typically displayed on a biplot side-by-side with component scores; the latter are often displayed column-normalized.
Linear discriminants of iris data:
About computations at extraction of discriminants in LDA please look here. We interpret discriminants usually by discriminant coefficients or standardized discriminant coefficients (the latter are more handy because differential variance in variables is taken off). This is like in PCA. But, note: the coefficients here are the regressional coefficients of modeling discriminants by variables, not vice versa, like it was in PCA. Because variables are not uncorrelated, the coefficients cannot be seen as covariances between variables and discriminants.
Yet we have another matrix instead which may serve as an alternative source of interpretation of discriminants - pooled within-group correlations between the discriminants and the variables. Because discriminants are uncorrelated, like PCs, this matrix is in a sense analogous to the standardized loadings of PCA.
In all, while in PCA we have the only matrix - loadings - to help interpret the latents, in LDA we have two alternative matrices for that. If you need to plot (biplot or whatever), you have to decide whether to plot coefficients or correlations.
And, of course, needless to remind that in PCA of iris data the components don't "know" that there are 3 classes; they can't be expected to discriminate classes. Discriminants do "know" there are classes and it is their natural job which is to discriminate.