I am trying to understand principal component analysis in Matlab,
There seems to be at least 3 different functions that do it.
I have some questions re the code below:
Am I creating approximate x values using only one eigenvector (the one corresponding to the largest eigenvalue) correctly? I think so??
Why are PC and V which are both meant to be the loadings for (x'x) presented differently? The column order is reversed because eig does not order the eigenvalues with the largest value first but why are they the negative of each other?
Why are the eig values not in ordered with the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue in the first column?
Using the code below I get back to the input matrix x when using svd and eig, but the results from princomp seem to be totally different? What so I have to do to make princomp match the other two functions?
Code:
x=[1 2;3 4;5 6;7 8 ]
econFlag=0;
[U,sigma,V] = svd(x,econFlag);%[U,sigma,coeff] = svd(z,econFlag);
U1=U(:,1);
V1=V(:,1);
sigma_partial=sigma(1,1);
score1=U*sigma;
test1=score1*V';
score_partial=U1*sigma_partial;
test1_partial=score_partial*V1';
[PC, D] = eig(x'*x)
score2=x*PC;
test2=score2*PC';
PC1=PC(:,2);
score2_partial=x*PC1;
test2_partial=score2_partial*PC1';
[o1 o2 o3]=princomp(x);
Yes. According to the documentation of svd, diagonal elements of the output S are in decreasing order. There is no such guarantee for the the output D of eig though.
Eigenvectors and singular vectors have no defined sign. If a is an eigenvector, so is -a.
I've often wondered the same. Laziness on the part of TMW? Optimization, because sorting would be an additional step and not everybody needs 'em sorted?
princomp centers the input data before computing the principal components. This makes sense as normally the PCA is computed with respect to the covariance matrix, and the eigenvectors of x' * x are only identical to those of the covariance matrix if x is mean-free.
I would compute the PCA by transforming to the basis of the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix (centered data), but apply this transform to the original (uncentered) data. This allows to capture a maximum of variance with as few principal components as possible, but still to recover the orginal data from all of them:
[V, D] = eig(cov(x));
score = x * V;
test = score * V';
test is identical to x, up to numerical error.
In order to easily pick the components with the most variance, let's fix that lack of sorting ourselves:
[V, D] = eig(cov(x));
[D, ind] = sort(diag(D), 'descend');
V = V(:, ind);
score = x * V;
test = score * V';
Reconstruct the signal using the strongest principal component only:
test_partial = score(:, 1) * V(:, 1)';
In response to Amro's comments: It is of course also possible to first remove the means from the input data, and transform these "centered" data. In that case, for perfect reconstruction of the original data it would be necessary to add the means again. The way to compute the PCA given above is the one described by Neil H. Timm, Applied Multivariate Analysis, Springer 2002, page 446:
Given an observation vector Y with mean mu and covariance matrix Sigma of full rank p, the goal of PCA is to create a new set of variables called principal components (PCs) or principal variates. The principal components are linear combinations of the variables of the vector Y that are uncorrelated such that the variance of the jth component is maximal.
Timm later defines "standardized components" as those which have been computed from centered data and are then divided by the square root of the eigenvalues (i.e. variances), i.e. "standardized principal components" have mean 0 and variance 1.
Related
Suppose there is a matrix B, where its size is a 500*1000 double(Here, 500 represents the number of observations and 1000 represents the number of features).
sigma is the covariance matrix of B, and D is a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are the eigenvalues of sigma. Assume A is the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix sigma.
I have the following questions:
I need to select the first k = 800 eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues with the largest magnitude to rank the selected features. The final matrix named Aq. How can I do this in MATLAB?
What is the meaning of these selected eigenvectors?
It seems the size of the final matrix Aq is 1000*800 double once I calculate Aq. The time points/observation information of 500 has disappeared. For the final matrix Aq, what does the value 1000 in matrix Aq represent now? Also, what does the value 800 in matrix Aq represent now?
I'm assuming you determined the eigenvectors from the eig function. What I would recommend to you in the future is to use the eigs function. This not only computes the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for you, but it will compute the k largest eigenvalues with their associated eigenvectors for you. This may save computational overhead where you don't have to compute all of the eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors of your matrix as you only want a subset. You simply supply the covariance matrix of your data to eigs and it returns the k largest eigenvalues and eigenvectors for you.
Now, back to your problem, what you are describing is ultimately Principal Component Analysis. The mechanics behind this would be to compute the covariance matrix of your data and find the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the computed result. It has been known that doing it this way is not recommended due to numerical instability with computing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors for large matrices. The most canonical way to do this now is via Singular Value Decomposition. Concretely, the columns of the V matrix give you the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix, or the principal components, and the associated eigenvalues are the square root of the singular values produced in the diagonals of the matrix S.
See this informative post on Cross Validated as to why this is preferred:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/79043/why-pca-of-data-by-means-of-svd-of-the-data
I'll throw in another link as well that talks about the theory behind why the Singular Value Decomposition is used in Principal Component Analysis:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/134282/relationship-between-svd-and-pca-how-to-use-svd-to-perform-pca
Now let's answer your question one at a time.
Question #1
MATLAB generates the eigenvalues and the corresponding ordering of the eigenvectors in such a way where they are unsorted. If you wish to select out the largest k eigenvalues and associated eigenvectors given the output of eig (800 in your example), you'll need to sort the eigenvalues in descending order, then rearrange the columns of the eigenvector matrix produced from eig then select out the first k values.
I should also note that using eigs will not guarantee sorted order, so you will have to explicitly sort these too when it comes down to it.
In MATLAB, doing what we described above would look something like this:
sigma = cov(B);
[A,D] = eig(sigma);
vals = diag(D);
[~,ind] = sort(abs(vals), 'descend');
Asort = A(:,ind);
It's a good thing to note that you do the sorting on the absolute value of the eigenvalues because scaled eigenvalues are also eigenvalues themselves. These scales also include negatives. This means that if we had a component whose eigenvalue was, say -10000, this is a very good indication that this component has some significant meaning to your data, and if we sorted purely on the numbers themselves, this gets placed near the lower ranks.
The first line of code finds the covariance matrix of B, even though you said it's already stored in sigma, but let's make this reproducible. Next, we find the eigenvalues of your covariance matrix and the associated eigenvectors. Take note that each column of the eigenvector matrix A represents one eigenvector. Specifically, the ith column / eigenvector of A corresponds to the ith eigenvalue seen in D.
However, the eigenvalues are in a diagonal matrix, so we extract out the diagonals with the diag command, sort them and figure out their ordering, then rearrange A to respect this ordering. I use the second output of sort because it tells you the position of where each value in the unsorted result would appear in the sorted result. This is the ordering we need to rearrange the columns of the eigenvector matrix A. It's imperative that you choose 'descend' as the flag so that the largest eigenvalue and associated eigenvector appear first, just like we talked about before.
You can then pluck out the first k largest vectors and values via:
k = 800;
Aq = Asort(:,1:k);
Question #2
It's a well known fact that the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix are equal to the principal components. Concretely, the first principal component (i.e. the largest eigenvector and associated largest eigenvalue) gives you the direction of the maximum variability in your data. Each principal component after that gives you variability of a decreasing nature. It's also good to note that each principal component is orthogonal to each other.
Here's a good example from Wikipedia for two dimensional data:
I pulled the above image from the Wikipedia article on Principal Component Analysis, which I linked you to above. This is a scatter plot of samples that are distributed according to a bivariate Gaussian distribution centred at (1,3) with a standard deviation of 3 in roughly the (0.878, 0.478) direction and of 1 in the orthogonal direction. The component with a standard deviation of 3 is the first principal component while the one that is orthogonal is the second component. The vectors shown are the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix scaled by the square root of the corresponding eigenvalue, and shifted so their tails are at the mean.
Now let's get back to your question. The reason why we take a look at the k largest eigenvalues is a way of performing dimensionality reduction. Essentially, you would be performing a data compression where you would take your higher dimensional data and project them onto a lower dimensional space. The more principal components you include in your projection, the more it will resemble the original data. It actually begins to taper off at a certain point, but the first few principal components allow you to faithfully reconstruct your data for the most part.
A great visual example of performing PCA (or SVD rather) and data reconstruction is found by this great Quora post I stumbled upon in the past.
http://qr.ae/RAEU8a
Question #3
You would use this matrix to reproject your higher dimensional data onto a lower dimensional space. The number of rows being 1000 is still there, which means that there were originally 1000 features in your dataset. The 800 is what the reduced dimensionality of your data would be. Consider this matrix as a transformation from the original dimensionality of a feature (1000) down to its reduced dimensionality (800).
You would then use this matrix in conjunction with reconstructing what the original data was. Concretely, this would give you an approximation of what the original data looked like with the least amount of error. In this case, you don't need to use all of the principal components (i.e. just the k largest vectors) and you can create an approximation of your data with less information than what you had before.
How you reconstruct your data is very simple. Let's talk about the forward and reverse operations first with the full data. The forward operation is to take your original data and reproject it but instead of the lower dimensionality, we will use all of the components. You first need to have your original data but mean subtracted:
Bm = bsxfun(#minus, B, mean(B,1));
Bm will produce a matrix where each feature of every sample is mean subtracted. bsxfun allows the subtraction of two matrices in unequal dimension provided that you can broadcast the dimensions so that they can both match up. Specifically, what will happen in this case is that the mean of each column / feature of B will be computed and a temporary replicated matrix will be produced that is as large as B. When you subtract your original data with this replicated matrix, the effect will subtract every data point with their respective feature means, thus decentralizing your data so that the mean of each feature is 0.
Once you do this, the operation to project is simply:
Bproject = Bm*Asort;
The above operation is quite simple. What you are doing is expressing each sample's feature as a linear combination of principal components. For example, given the first sample or first row of the decentralized data, the first sample's feature in the projected domain is a dot product of the row vector that pertains to the entire sample and the first principal component which is a column vector.. The first sample's second feature in the projected domain is a weighted sum of the entire sample and the second component. You would repeat this for all samples and all principal components. In effect, you are reprojecting the data so that it is with respect to the principal components - which are orthogonal basis vectors that transform your data from one representation to another.
A better description of what I just talked about can be found here. Look at Amro's answer:
Matlab Principal Component Analysis (eigenvalues order)
Now to go backwards, you simply do the inverse operation, but a special property with the eigenvector matrix is that if you transpose this, you get the inverse. To get the original data back, you undo the operation above and add the means back to the problem:
out = bsxfun(#plus, Bproject*Asort.', mean(B, 1));
You want to get the original data back, so you're solving for Bm with respect to the previous operation that I did. However, the inverse of Asort is just the transpose here. What's happening after you perform this operation is that you are getting the original data back, but the data is still decentralized. To get the original data back, you must add the means of each feature back into the data matrix to get the final result. That's why we're using another bsxfun call here so that you can do this for each sample's feature values.
You should be able to go back and forth from the original domain and projected domain with the above two lines of code. Now where the dimensionality reduction (or the approximation of the original data) comes into play is the reverse operation. What you need to do first is project the data onto the bases of the principal components (i.e. the forward operation), but now to go back to the original domain where we are trying to reconstruct the data with a reduced number of principal components, you simply replace Asort in the above code with Aq and also reduce the amount of features you're using in Bproject. Concretely:
out = bsxfun(#plus, Bproject(:,1:k)*Aq.', mean(B, 1));
Doing Bproject(:,1:k) selects out the k features in the projected domain of your data, corresponding to the k largest eigenvectors. Interestingly, if you just want the representation of the data with regards to a reduced dimensionality, you can just use Bproject(:,1:k) and that'll be enough. However, if you want to go forward and compute an approximation of the original data, we need to compute the reverse step. The above code is simply what we had before with the full dimensionality of your data, but we use Aq as well as selecting out the k features in Bproject. This will give you the original data that is represented by the k largest eigenvectors / eigenvalues in your matrix.
If you'd like to see an awesome example, I'll mimic the Quora post that I linked to you but using another image. Consider doing this with a grayscale image where each row is a "sample" and each column is a feature. Let's take the cameraman image that's part of the image processing toolbox:
im = imread('camerman.tif');
imshow(im); %// Using the image processing toolbox
We get this image:
This is a 256 x 256 image, which means that we have 256 data points and each point has 256 features. What I'm going to do is convert the image to double for precision in computing the covariance matrix. Now what I'm going to do is repeat the above code, but incrementally increasing k at each go from 3, 11, 15, 25, 45, 65 and 125. Therefore, for each k, we are introducing more principal components and we should slowly start to get a reconstruction of our data.
Here's some runnable code that illustrates my point:
%%%%%%%// Pre-processing stage
clear all;
close all;
%// Read in image - make sure we cast to double
B = double(imread('cameraman.tif'));
%// Calculate covariance matrix
sigma = cov(B);
%// Find eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the covariance matrix
[A,D] = eig(sigma);
vals = diag(D);
%// Sort their eigenvalues
[~,ind] = sort(abs(vals), 'descend');
%// Rearrange eigenvectors
Asort = A(:,ind);
%// Find mean subtracted data
Bm = bsxfun(#minus, B, mean(B,1));
%// Reproject data onto principal components
Bproject = Bm*Asort;
%%%%%%%// Begin reconstruction logic
figure;
counter = 1;
for k = [3 11 15 25 45 65 125 155]
%// Extract out highest k eigenvectors
Aq = Asort(:,1:k);
%// Project back onto original domain
out = bsxfun(#plus, Bproject(:,1:k)*Aq.', mean(B, 1));
%// Place projection onto right slot and show the image
subplot(4, 2, counter);
counter = counter + 1;
imshow(out,[]);
title(['k = ' num2str(k)]);
end
As you can see, the majority of the code is the same from what we have seen. What's different is that I loop over all values of k, project back onto the original space (i.e. computing the approximation) with the k highest eigenvectors, then show the image.
We get this nice figure:
As you can see, starting with k=3 doesn't really do us any favours... we can see some general structure, but it wouldn't hurt to add more in. As we start increasing the number of components, we start to get a clearer picture of what the original data looks like. At k=25, we actually can see what the cameraman looks like perfectly, and we don't need components 26 and beyond to see what's happening. This is what I was talking about with regards to data compression where you don't need to work on all of the principal components to get a clear picture of what's going on.
I'd like to end this note by referring you to Chris Taylor's wonderful exposition on the topic of Principal Components Analysis, with code, graphs and a great explanation to boot! This is where I got started on PCA, but the Quora post is what solidified my knowledge.
Matlab - PCA analysis and reconstruction of multi dimensional data
I have a matrix M where the columns are data points and the rows are features. Now I want to do PCA and select only the first component which has highest variance.
I know that I can do it in Matlab with [coeff,score,latent] = pca(M'). First I think I have to transpose matrix M.
How can I select now the first component? I'm not sure about the three different output matrices.
Second, I also want to calculate the percentage of variance explained for each component. How can I do this?
Indeed, you should transpose your input to have rows as data points and columns as features:
[coeff, score, latent, ~, explained] = pca(M');
The principal components are given by the columns of coeff in order of descending variance, so the first column holds the most important component. The variances for each component are given in latent, and the percentage of total variance explained is given in explained.
firstCompCoeff = coeff(:,1);
firstCompVar = latent(1);
For more information: pca documentation.
Note that the pca function requires the Statistics Toolbox. If you don't have it, you can either search the internet for an alternative or implement it yourself using svd.
If your matrix has dimensions m x n, where m is cases and n is variables:
% First you might want to normalize the matrix...
M = normalize(M);
% means very close to zero
round(mean(M),10)
% standard deviations all one
round(std(M),10)
% Perform a singular value decomposition of the matrix
[U,S,V] = svd(M);
% First Principal Component is the first column of V
V(:,1)
% Calculate percentage of variation
(var(S) / sum(var(S))) * 100
I have a doubt about SVD. in the literature that i had read, it's written that we have to convert our input matrix into covariance matrix first, and then SVD function from matlab (SVD) is used.
But, in Mathworks website we can use SVD function directly to the input matrix (no need to convert it into covariance matrix)..
[U,S,V]=svd(inImageD);
Which one is the true??
And if we want to do dimensionality reduction, we have to project our data into eigen vector.. But where is the eigen vector generated by SVD function..
I know that S is the eigen value.. But what is U and S??
To reduce our data dimensional, do we need to substract the input matrix with its mean and then multiply it with eigen vector?? or we can just multiply our input matrix with the eigen vector (no need to substract it first with its mean)..
EDIT
Suppose if I want to do classification using SIFT as the features and SVM as the classifier.
I have 10 images for training and I arrange them in a different row..
So 1st row for 1st images, 2nd row for second images and so on...
Feat=[1 2 5 6 7 >> Images1
2 9 0 6 5 >> Images2
3 4 7 8 2 >> Images3
2 3 6 3 1 >> Images4
..
.
so on. . ]
To do dimensionality reduction (from my 10x5 matrix), we have yo do A*EigenVector
And from what U had explained (#Sam Roberts), I can compute it by using EIGS function from the covariance matrix (instead of using SVD function).
And as I arrange the feat of images in different row, so I need to do A'*A
So it becomes:
Matrix=A'*A
MAT_Cov=Cov(Matrix)
[EigVector EigValue] = eigs (MAT_Cov);
is that right??
Eigenvector decomposition (EVD) and singular value decomposition (SVD) are closely related.
Let's say you have some data a = rand(3,4);. Note that this not a square matrix - it represents a dataset of observations (rows) and variables (columns).
Do the following:
[u1,s1,v1] = svd(a);
[u2,s2,v2] = svd(a');
[e1,d1] = eig(a*a');
[e2,d2] = eig(a'*a);
Now note a few things.
Up to the sign (+/-), which is arbitrary, u1 is the same as v2. Up to a sign and an ordering of the columns, they are also equal to e1. (Note that there may be some very very tiny numerical differences as well, due to slight differences in the svd and eig algorithms).
Similarly, u2 is the same as v1 and e2.
s1 equals s2, and apart from some extra columns and rows of zeros, both also equal sqrt(d1) and sqrt(d2). Again, there may be some very tiny numerical differences as well just due to algorithmic issues (they'll be on the order of something to the -10 or so).
Note also that a*a' is basically the covariances of the rows, and a'*a is basically the covariances of the columns (that's not quite true - a would need to be centred first by subtracting the column or row mean for them to be equal, and there might be a multiplicative constant difference as well, but it's basically pretty similar).
Now to answer your questions, I assume that what you're really trying to do is PCA. You can do PCA either by taking the original data matrix and applying SVD, or by taking its covariance matrix and applying EVD. Note that Statistics Toolbox has two functions for PCA - pca (in older versions princomp) and pcacov.
Both do essentially the same thing, but from different starting points, because of the above equivalences between SVD and EVD.
Strictly speaking, u1, v1, u2 and v2 above are not eigenvectors, they are singular vectors - and s1 and s2 are singular values. They are singular vectors/values of the matrix a. e1 and d1 are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a*a' (not a), and e2 and d2 are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of a'*a (not a). a does not have any eigenvectors - only square matrices have eigenvectors.
Centring by subtracting the mean is a separate issue - you would typically do that prior to PCA, but there are situations where you wouldn't want to. You might also want to normalise by dividing by the standard deviation but again, you wouldn't always want to - it depends what the data represents and what question you're trying to answer.
I have two matrices X and Y. Both represent a number of positions in 3D-space. X is a 50*3 matrix, Y is a 60*3 matrix.
My question: why does applying the mean-function over the output of pdist2() in combination with 'Mahalanobis' not give the result obtained with mahal()?
More details on what I'm trying to do below, as well as the code I used to test this.
Let's suppose the 60 observations in matrix Y are obtained after an experimental manipulation of some kind. I'm trying to assess whether this manipulation had a significant effect on the positions observed in Y. Therefore, I used pdist2(X,X,'Mahalanobis') to compare X to X to obtain a baseline, and later, X to Y (with X the reference matrix: pdist2(X,Y,'Mahalanobis')), and I plotted both distributions to have a look at the overlap.
Subsequently, I calculated the mean Mahalanobis distance for both distributions and the 95% CI and did a t-test and Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test to asses if the difference between the distributions was significant. This seemed very intuitive to me, however, when testing with mahal(), I get different values, although the reference matrix is the same. I don't get what the difference between both ways of calculating mahalanobis distance is exactly.
Comment that is too long #3lectrologos:
You mean this: d(I) = (Y(I,:)-mu)inv(SIGMA)(Y(I,:)-mu)'? This is just the formula for calculating mahalanobis, so should be the same for pdist2() and mahal() functions. I think mu is a scalar and SIGMA is a matrix based on the reference distribution as a whole in both pdist2() and mahal(). Only in mahal you are comparing each point of your sample set to the points of the reference distribution, while in pdist2 you are making pairwise comparisons based on a reference distribution. Actually, with my purpose in my mind, I think I should go for mahal() instead of pdist2(). I can interpret a pairwise distance based on a reference distribution, but I don't think it's what I need here.
% test pdist2 vs. mahal in matlab
% the purpose of this script is to see whether the average over the rows of E equals the values in d...
% data
X = []; % 50*3 matrix, data omitted
Y = []; % 60*3 matrix, data omitted
% calculations
S = nancov(X);
% mahal()
d = mahal(Y,X); % gives an 60*1 matrix with a value for each Cartesian element in Y (second matrix is always the reference matrix)
% pairwise mahalanobis distance with pdist2()
E = pdist2(X,Y,'mahalanobis',S); % outputs an 50*60 matrix with each ij-th element the pairwise distance between element X(i,:) and Y(j,:) based on the covariance matrix of X: nancov(X)
%{
so this is harder to interpret than mahal(), as elements of Y are not just compared to the "mahalanobis-centroid" based on X,
% but to each individual element of X
% so the purpose of this script is to see whether the average over the rows of E equals the values in d...
%}
F = mean(E); % now I averaged over the rows, which means, over all values of X, the reference matrix
mean(d)
mean(E(:)) % not equal to mean(d)
d-F' % not zero
% plot output
figure(1)
plot(d,'bo'), hold on
plot(mean(E),'ro')
legend('mahal()','avaraged over all x values pdist2()')
ylabel('Mahalanobis distance')
figure(2)
plot(d,'bo'), hold on
plot(E','ro')
plot(d,'bo','MarkerFaceColor','b')
xlabel('values in matrix Y (Yi) ... or ... pairwise comparison Yi. (Yi vs. all Xi values)')
ylabel('Mahalanobis distance')
legend('mahal()','pdist2()')
One immediate difference between the two is that mahal subtracts the sample mean of X from each point in Y before computing distances.
Try something like E = pdist2(X,Y-mean(X),'mahalanobis',S); to see if that gives you the same results as mahal.
Note that
mahal(X,Y)
is equivalent to
pdist2(X,mean(Y),'mahalanobis',cov(Y)).^2
Well, I guess there are two different ways to calculate mahalanobis distance between two clusters of data like you explain above:
1) you compare each data point from your sample set to mu and sigma matrices calculated from your reference distribution (although labeling one cluster sample set and the other reference distribution may be arbitrary), thereby calculating the distance from each point to this so called mahalanobis-centroid of the reference distribution.
2) you compare each datapoint from matrix Y to each datapoint of matrix X, with, X the reference distribution (mu and sigma are calculated from X only)
The values of the distances will be different, but I guess the ordinal order of dissimilarity between clusters is preserved when using either method 1 or 2? I actually wonder when comparing 10 different clusters to a reference matrix X, or to each other, if the order of the dissimilarities would differ using method 1 or method 2? Also, I can't imagine a situation where one method would be wrong and the other method not. Although method 1 seems more intuitive in some situations, like mine.
I want to use the "princomp" function of Matlab but this function gives the eigenvalues in a sorted array. This way I can't find out to which column corresponds which eigenvalue.
For Matlab,
m = [1,2,3;4,5,6;7,8,9];
[pc,score,latent] = princomp(m);
is the same as
m = [2,1,3;5,4,6;8,7,9];
[pc,score,latent] = princomp(m);
That is, swapping the first two columns does not change anything. The result (eigenvalues) in latent will be: (27,0,0)
The information (which eigenvalue corresponds to which original (input) column) is lost.
Is there a way to tell matlab to not to sort the eigenvalues?
With PCA, each principle component returned will be a linear combination of the original columns/dimensions. Perhaps an example might clear up any misunderstanding you have.
Lets consider the Fisher-Iris dataset comprising of 150 instances and 4 dimensions, and apply PCA on the data. To make things easier to understand, I am first zero-centering the data before calling PCA function:
load fisheriris
X = bsxfun(#minus, meas, mean(meas)); %# so that mean(X) is the zero vector
[PC score latent] = princomp(X);
Lets look at the first returned principal component (1st column of PC matrix):
>> PC(:,1)
0.36139
-0.084523
0.85667
0.35829
This is expressed as a linear combination of the original dimensions, i.e.:
PC1 = 0.36139*dim1 + -0.084523*dim2 + 0.85667*dim3 + 0.35829*dim4
Therefore to express the same data in the new coordinates system formed by the principal components, the new first dimension should be a linear combination of the original ones according to the above formula.
We can compute this simply as X*PC which is the exactly what is returned in the second output of PRINCOMP (score), to confirm this try:
>> all(all( abs(X*PC - score) < 1e-10 ))
1
Finally the importance of each principal component can be determined by how much variance of the data it explains. This is returned by the third output of PRINCOMP (latent).
We can compute the PCA of the data ourselves without using PRINCOMP:
[V E] = eig( cov(X) );
[E order] = sort(diag(E), 'descend');
V = V(:,order);
the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix V are the principal components (same as PC above, although the sign can be inverted), and the corresponding eigenvalues E represent the amount of variance explained (same as latent). Note that it is customary to sort the principal component by their eigenvalues. And as before, to express the data in the new coordinates, we simply compute X*V (should be the same as score above, if you make sure to match the signs)
"The information (which eigenvalue corresponds to which original (input) column) is lost."
Since each principal component is a linear function of all input variables, each principal component (eigenvector, eigenvalue), corresponds to all of the original input columns. Ignoring possible changes in sign, which are arbitrary in PCA, re-ordering the input variables about will not change the PCA results.
"Is there a way to tell matlab to not to sort the eigenvalues?"
I doubt it: PCA (and eigen analysis in general) conventionally sorts the results by variance, though I'd note that princomp() sorts from greatest to least variance, while eig() sorts in the opposite direction.
For more explanation of PCA using MATLAB illustrations, with or without princomp(), see:
Principal Components Analysis