@@ -693,6 +693,7 @@ iter_plot_list <- c(list_plot_cntrs[1], list_plot_lbls[1],
693
693
# ncol = 4,
694
694
# rel_heights = c(1.10, 1, 1))
695
695
696
+ ggarrange(plots = iter_plot_list, ncol =4, common.legend = TRUE)
696
697
697
698
698
699
ggarrange(iter_plot_list[[1]] +
@@ -746,14 +747,16 @@ ggarrange(iter_plot_list[[1]] +
746
747
axis.ticks.y = element_blank(),
747
748
axis.title.y = element_blank(),
748
749
plot.margin = margin(l = 2, t = 2, b = 2)),
750
+ ggplot() + theme_void(), ggplot() + theme_void(), ggplot() + theme_void(), ggplot() + theme_void(),
749
751
iter_plot_list[[9]] +
750
752
theme(plot.margin = margin(r = 2)),
751
753
iter_plot_list[[10]] +
752
754
theme(axis.text.y = element_blank(),
753
755
axis.ticks.y = element_blank(),
754
756
axis.title.y = element_blank(),
755
757
plot.margin = margin(l = 2) ),
756
- ncol = 4)
758
+ heights = c(4, 4, -1, 4),
759
+ ncol = 4)
757
760
```
758
761
759
762
This looks like a relatively bad clustering of the data, but K-means cannot improve it.
0 commit comments