Why is my Rcpp code is much slower than glmnet's? - c++

Question

I edited the lasso code from this site to use it for multiple lambda values.
I used lassoshooting package for one lambda value (this package works for one lambda value) and glmnet for multiple lambda values for comparison.
The coefficient estimates are different and this is expected because of standardization and scaling back to original scale. This is out of scope and not important here.
For one parameter case, lassoshooting is 1.5 times faster.
Both methods used all 100 lambda values in my code for multiple lambda case. But glmnet is 7.5 times faster than my cpp code. Of course, I expected that glmnet was faster, but this amount seems too much. Is it normal or is my code wrong?
EDIT
I also attached lshoot function which calculates coefficient path in an R loop. This outperforms my cpp code too.
Can I improve my cpp code?
C++ code:
// [[Rcpp::depends(RcppArmadillo)]]
#include <RcppArmadillo.h>
using namespace Rcpp;
using namespace arma;
// [[Rcpp::export]]
vec softmax_cpp(const vec & x, const vec & y) {
return sign(x) % max(abs(x) - y, zeros(x.n_elem));
}
// [[Rcpp::export]]
mat lasso(const mat & X, const vec & y, const vec & lambda,
const double tol = 1e-7, const int max_iter = 10000){
int p = X.n_cols; int lam = lambda.n_elem;
mat XX = X.t() * X;
vec Xy = X.t() * y;
vec Xy2 = 2 * Xy;
mat XX2 = 2 * XX;
mat betas = zeros(p, lam); // to store the betas
vec beta = zeros(p); // initial beta for each lambda
bool converged = false;
int iteration = 0;
vec beta_prev, aj, cj;
for(int l = 0; l < lam; l++){
while (!converged && (iteration < max_iter)){
beta_prev = beta;
for (int j = 0; j < p; j++){
aj = XX2(j,j);
cj = Xy2(j) - dot(XX2.row(j), beta) + beta(j) * XX2(j,j);
beta(j) = as_scalar(softmax_cpp(cj / aj, as_scalar(lambda(l)) / aj));
}
iteration = iteration + 1;
converged = norm(beta_prev - beta, 1) < tol;
}
betas.col(l) = beta;
iteration = 0;
converged = false;
}
return betas;
}
R code:
library(Rcpp)
library(rbenchmark)
library(glmnet)
library(lassoshooting)
sourceCpp("LASSO.cpp")
library(ElemStatLearn)
X <- as.matrix(prostate[,-c(9,10)])
y <- as.matrix(prostate[,9])
lambda_one <- 0.1
benchmark(cpp=lasso(X,y,lambda_one),
lassoshooting=lassoshooting(X,y,lambda_one)$coefficients,
order="relative", replications=100)[,1:4]
################################################
lambda <- seq(0,10,len=100)
benchmark(cpp=lasso(X,y,lambda),
glmn=coef(glmnet(X,y,lambda=lambda)),
order="relative", replications=100)[,1:4]
####################################################
EDIT
lambda <- seq(0,10,len=100)
lshoot <- function(lambda){
betas <- matrix(NA,8,100)
for(l in 1:100){
betas[, l] <- lassoshooting(X,y,lambda[l])$coefficients
}
return(betas)
}
benchmark(cpp=lasso(X,y,lambda),
lassoshooting_loop=lshoot(lambda),
order="relative", replications=300)[,1:4]
Results for one parameter case:
test replications elapsed relative
2 lassoshooting 300 0.06 1.0
1 cpp 300 0.09 1.5
Results for multiple parameter case:
test replications elapsed relative
2 glmn 300 0.70 1.000
1 cpp 300 5.24 7.486
Results for lassoshooting loop and cpp:
test replications elapsed relative
2 lassoshooting_loop 300 4.06 1.000
1 cpp 300 6.38 1.571

Answer 1

Package {glmnet} uses warm starts and special rules for discarding lots of predictors, which makes fitting the whole "regularization path" very fast.
See their paper.