Lasso and Partially-Rotated Designs

Rares-Darius Buhai

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Lasso and Partially-Rotated Designs

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for partially-rotated designs, Lasso's prediction error depends only on the support submatrix's restricted eigenvalue, not on arbitrary correlations among the other columns.

desk verdict A promising new design family and a clean deterministic reduction, but the main probabilistic lemma has a real gap and the central theorem is unproven as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11093 v1 pith:77EVKMVD submitted 2025-05-16 math.ST cs.DSstat.MLstat.TH

Rares-Darius Buhai This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.STcs.DSstat.MLstat.TH MSC 62J0760B20

keywords Lassorestrictedeigenvaluepartially-rotateddesignssemirandomnormalizedorthogonalitysparselinearregressionhigh-dimensionalstatisticspredictionerror

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces partially-rotated designs, a semirandom family of design matrices for sparse linear regression, and proves that once a subset of columns is randomly rotated, the restricted eigenvalue (RE) constant with respect to any smaller set is, up to a factor of $0.9$, exactly the RE constant of that submatrix alone. The main payoff is a Lasso prediction error bound of $O(k \log d/(\gamma_S(F_S) n))$ with high probability, independent of arbitrary correlations among the columns outside the support. This matters because strongly correlated irrelevant features are a classic obstruction to fast Lasso rates; the paper shows that one random rotation of the support columns removes the obstruction. The proof is carried by a new deterministic property, restricted normalized orthogonality, which may be useful beyond this construction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is restricted normalized orthogonality (RNO): a matrix satisfies $(m,S,\rho)$-RNO if every $m$-sparse linear combination of columns in $S$ has normalized inner product at most $\rho$ with every $m$-sparse linear combination of columns outside $S$. The proof has two links. First, partial rotation plus a covering argument shows that the matrix satisfies RNO with high probability for $m$ proportional to $|S'|/\gamma_{S'}(F_S)$. Second, a deterministic reduction shows that RNO implies the desired RE lower bound: a convex-geometric subsampling lemma approximates arbitrary off-support coefficient vectors by sparse ones, so the sparse RNO bound can be applied after a small approximation error. Choosing $m$ large enough absorbs the error and yields the $0.9$ factor.

What would settle it

Take a fixed well-conditioned support submatrix $F_S$, attach any fixed off-support columns, and apply one random orthogonal rotation to the support columns. For $n \ge C k \log d/\gamma_S(F_S)$, compute $\gamma_S(F)/\gamma_S(F_S)$ over many independent rotations; the theorem predicts the ratio is at least $0.9$ except with probability $e^{-\Omega(n)}$. A single fixed off-support block for which this ratio falls below $0.9$ with non-negligible frequency would refute the main theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the sparse linear model $y = F\beta + w$ with $k$-sparse $\beta$, assume $F$ is $(0.01,\nu)$-partially rotated with respect to a set $S$ containing $\operatorname{supp}(\beta)$: every normalized linear combination of $S$-columns has inner product at most $0.01$ with every normalized linear combination of the remaining columns, except with probability $e^{-\Omega(\nu n)}$. Theorem 1.5 states that, with probability $1 - e^{-\Omega(n)}$, for every $S' \subseteq S$ with $n \geq C |S'| \log d/\gamma_{S'}(F_S)$, the full-design RE constant satisfies $\gamma_{S'}(F) \geq 0.9\,\gamma_{S'}(F_S)$. Since the reverse inequality is immediate, the RE constant is preserved up to the constant $0.9$ once the sample size condition holds. Corollary 1.6 converts this into a Lasso prediction error bound $O(k\log d/(\gamma_S(F_S) n))$, matching the rate the design would have if all off-support columns were perfectly well-conditioned.

Load-bearing premise

The construction requires the set $S$ to be known when the design is randomized, and the secret's support must lie inside $S$; if the support is unknown at design time, the partial-rotation premise is not met and the conclusion is not claimed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under the sample condition $n \ge C k \log d/\gamma_S(F_S)$, Lasso's prediction error is $O(k\log d/(\gamma_S(F_S) n))$ with high probability, regardless of how the off-support columns are correlated.
If the support submatrix itself is well-conditioned, with smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}$ of $\frac{1}{n}F_S^\top F_S$, the error becomes $O(k\log d/(\lambda_{\min} n))$, the same rate as a fully Gaussian design.
The RE statement is uniform over all subsets $S' \subseteq S$ satisfying the sample condition, so the guarantee applies simultaneously to every sparse support contained in $S$.
The $\ell^1$ and support-coordinate recovery bounds for Lasso carry over with $\gamma_S(F_S)$ in place of the full-design RE constant; the stronger global $\ell^2$ recovery bound is not obtained in this framework.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Going beyond the paper: the RNO-to-RE reduction is deterministic, so any design that can be certified to satisfy RNO with the right parameters—not only rotated ones—should inherit the same support-only prediction guarantee; certifying RNO for structured designs is a natural next step.
Going beyond the paper: because the construction needs $S$ at design time, a two-stage protocol is conceivable: use a pilot sample to guess a superset of the support, then randomize those columns; whether pilot errors propagate is a testable extension the paper does not address.
Going beyond the paper: the alternative-RE counterexample in the appendix suggests the gap between prediction-oriented recovery and global $\ell^2$ recovery is real, so one might probe empirically whether parameter $\ell^2$ error degrades in partially-rotated designs even when prediction error stays at the fast rate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the deterministic half is sound and worth reading: RNO is a nice condition, and the sparsification argument (Prop 1.10) showing that RNO implies an RE constant independent of the off-support columns checks out. Second, the probabilistic half—the proof that partially-rotated matrices satisfy RNO (Lemma 1.11)—has a serious gap. The proof picks orthonormal bases U_c, U_d of the random column spans and then applies the partial-rotation tail bound to net points u_i, u_j. But partial rotation is a pointwise bound for fixed coefficient vectors c, d. The vector U_c u_i has coefficients that depend on the random realization through the basis, so the event the tail bound controls is not the event the net argument needs. The union bound over the net doesn't cover this. In fact, the pointwise bound alone cannot imply a uniform bound over the continuum: for a Gaussian n×q support matrix and a fixed off-support column, the maximum inner product over q-sparse c is the largest principal cosine between the random subspace and that column, roughly sqrt(q/n), which can be far above 0.02 even when the pointwise tail holds with constant nu. So Theorem 1.5 is not proved by the argument given. The stress-test note lands on the right spot.

Credit where it's due: the idea of partially-rotated designs is new and natural; RNO is a clean way to isolate the off-support columns; Lemmas 1.3 and 1.4 give genuine examples of partial rotation; and the deterministic reduction from RNO to RE is properly proved. The paper also honestly flags that the design requires knowing the support, and the appendix counterexample for the alternative RE definition is a good sanity check.

Caveats in proportion: aside from the proof gap, the contribution is narrow—same fast rate as standard Lasso, new design family. The support-known-at-design-time assumption is an explicit semirandom modeling choice, not a hidden flaw, but it determines who will use this.

Bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee because the conceptual contribution is real and the gap may be repairable, but I would not accept it in current form. If you referee it, ask the authors to fix Lemma 1.11—for instance by strengthening the partial-rotation definition to a uniform bound, or by proving RNO directly via subspace concentration for the Gaussian/rotation models. As written, the main theorem is unproven.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a semirandom family of designs called partially-rotated designs, in which a subset of the design columns is randomized so as to decorrelate them from the remaining columns. The main claim is that, for such designs, the restricted eigenvalue (RE) constant with respect to subsets of the randomized support block is, up to a 0.9 factor, equal to the RE constant of the support submatrix alone, independently of the arbitrary off-support columns. From this the authors derive a Lasso prediction error bound O(k log d / (gamma n)) in which gamma is the RE constant of the support submatrix. The technical route is to introduce a deterministic condition called restricted normalized orthogonality (RNO), prove that RNO implies the desired RE lower bound (Proposition 1.10), and then prove that partially-rotated matrices satisfy RNO with high probability (Lemma 1.11). The paper also provides two constructions of partially-rotated designs, a semirandom Gaussian design and a rotated-adversary design, and discusses the relation of RNO to RIP and to the restricted orthogonality condition.

Significance. If the main theorem were valid, the result would be a clean and useful addition to the literature on semirandom designs: it would show that Lasso's fast rate can be made independent of arbitrarily ill-conditioned off-support columns once the support block is randomized. The RNO framework is conceptually appealing, the sparsification argument in Section 3 and the algebra in Proposition 1.10 are correct, and the paper is clearly written. However, the central probabilistic step, Lemma 1.11, is not proven and, in the regime used by the proof, is actually false. Since Theorem 1.5 and Corollary 1.6 rely directly on this lemma, the paper's main contribution is not established as written.

major comments (2)

[Section 5, proof of Lemma 1.11] The net argument is invalid because the net elements depend on the random realization of F. After fixing support sets S_alpha and S_beta, the proof takes orthonormal bases U_alpha and U_beta of the spans of the corresponding columns of F_S and F_{S^c}, and then applies the (alpha,nu)-partial-rotation tail bound 'for each u_c and u_d'. But Definition 1.2 bounds probabilities only for fixed deterministic coefficient vectors c,d, whereas the vectors u_c,u_d are coordinates of the normalized random vectors in bases U_alpha,U_beta that themselves depend on F. A union bound over such random net points does not yield the uniform RNO condition. This is not a cosmetic issue: the statement being proved requires a bound over all q-sparse c,d, and the proof supplies no valid mechanism to pass from fixed-c,d tail bounds to a uniform bound.
[Lemma 1.11 and Theorem 1.5] Lemma 1.11 is false as stated. For a numerical illustration of the failure mode, take S={1,...,q} with q=n/200, let F_S be an n x q matrix with iid N(0,1) entries, and let the off-support block be a single fixed unit vector f. For fixed c,d the vector F_S c / ||F_S c|| is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere and independent of f, so F is (0.01,nu)-partially rotated with nu=Omega(1). For the type of constant C that a net union bound yields (say C=100), the premise n >= C nu^{-1} q max(log d, log(1/0.01)) can be satisfied by taking d of size about e^{100/C} and q = n/(2 C log(1/0.01)); explicitly q/n is about 1/920, so the premise holds. Yet with probability 1-o(1) the maximum inner product of f with the span of F_S is at least (1-o(1)) sqrt(q/n) > 0.02, so there exists c with |<F_S c/||F_S c||, f>| > 0.02. Thus the (q,S,0.02)-RNO conclusion of Lemma 1.11 fails. Since the proof of Theorem 1.5 in Section 6 invokes Lemma 1.11 to obtain the RNO condition, the proof of the main theorem does not go through.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Section 1.1] The abstract's example says a random rotation is applied to the columns indexed by supp(beta), while Lemma 1.3 and Model 1.8 rotate the complementary columns; the abstract wording appears inconsistent with the formal definitions.
[Section 5, proof of Lemma 1.11] The proof introduces orthonormal bases U_alpha,U_beta without explicitly noting that they are random and depend on F; clarifying this dependence would make the invalidity of the subsequent partial-rotation step more visible.
[Appendix B, proof of Corollary 1.6] The Lasso step is described as a 'straightforward adjustment' of Theorem 7.20b in [Wai19]; if the main theorem is repaired, this derivation should be written out in full, since the definition of the RE constant used here is weaker than the one in some standard references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained, and the flagged proof concern is a soundness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation is not circular. Partially-rotated designs are defined by a probabilistic orthogonality condition (Definition 1.2) that makes no reference to restricted eigenvalues or to the Lasso error bound. The deterministic RNO condition (Definition 1.9) is a separate uniform version of that orthogonality, and Proposition 1.10 proves that RNO implies a lower bound on the RE constant using only the sparsification lemma (Lemma 2.2) and standard algebra; it does not assume the target inequality. Lemma 1.11 attempts to derive RNO from partial rotation by a net argument, and Lemmas 1.3 and 1.4 establish partial rotation from rotation invariance or sub-Gaussianity using standard concentration inequalities. Theorem 1.5 and Corollary 1.6 then combine these implications with the known Lasso fast rate. The final error bound depends on gamma_{S}(F_S), the RE constant of the support submatrix, which is an input property of the design, not a fitted parameter or a renamed prediction. The fact that constructing a partially-rotated design requires knowing supp(beta) is a modeling limitation of the semirandom model, not a circular step: the theorem is conditional on the design satisfying the partial-rotation property with respect to S. The only substantive concern in the paper is a possible gap in the proof of Lemma 1.11, where the net points are defined in coefficient spaces of random bases; that is a proof-soundness question, not a circularity, and does not affect this score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data: the constants delta=0.01, nu, and 0.9 are absolute constants, and the theorem's bound depends only on the input's own smallest eigenvalue lambda_min. The paper relies on standard external results (Hanson-Wright, approximate Caratheodory, Lasso fast-rate theorem) and on the modeling assumptions that the columns are normalized to norm sqrt(n) and that the rotation is independent of the support columns.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Sparse linear model y = X beta + w with w ~ N(0, sigma^2 I_n) (Equation 1)
The Lasso error bound in Corollary 1.6 holds in this fixed-design Gaussian-noise model.
domain assumption Columns of X are normalized to have l2 norm sqrt(n)
Standard normalization used throughout; makes gamma related to eigenvalues of the normalized Gram matrix.
standard math Hanson-Wright inequality and sub-Gaussian tail bounds (Fact A.5 and Facts A.2-A.4)
Used in Lemma 1.4 to bound inner products and norms of rotated vectors.
standard math Approximate Caratheodory theorem (Fact 3.1, Theorem 0.0.2 in [Ver18])
Underlies the sparsification Lemma 2.2, which is used to approximate dense vectors by s-sparse ones.
standard math Known fast rate of Lasso under the RE condition (Theorem 7.20b in [Wai19])
Corollary 1.6 converts the RE bound into a prediction error bound; this is an external theorem, not a claim of this paper.
standard math Distributional properties of random rotations: Rv uniform on sphere for orthogonal R (Lemma 1.3), and sub-Gaussian entries concentration (Lemma 1.4)
These imply the partial rotation property Definition 1.2.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lasso and Partially-Rotated Designs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77EVKMVD

@misc{pith2026250511093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lasso and Partially-Rotated Designs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77EVKMVD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11093}
}

abstract

We consider the sparse linear regression model $\mathbf{y} = X \beta +\mathbf{w}$, where $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times d}$ is the design, $\beta \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ is a $k$-sparse secret, and $\mathbf{w} \sim N(0, I_n)$ is the noise. Given input $X$ and $\mathbf{y}$, the goal is to estimate $\beta$. In this setting, the Lasso estimate achieves prediction error $O(k \log d / \gamma n)$, where $\gamma$ is the restricted eigenvalue (RE) constant of $X$ with respect to $\mathrm{support}(\beta)$. In this paper, we introduce a new $\textit{semirandom}$ family of designs -- which we call $\textit{partially-rotated}$ designs -- for which the RE constant with respect to the secret is bounded away from zero even when a subset of the design columns are arbitrarily correlated among themselves. As an example of such a design, suppose we start with some arbitrary $X$, and then apply a random rotation to the columns of $X$ indexed by $\mathrm{support}(\beta)$. Let $\lambda_{\min}$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $\frac{1}{n} X_{\mathrm{support}(\beta)}^\top X_{\mathrm{support}(\beta)}$, where $X_{\mathrm{support}(\beta)}$ is the restriction of $X$ to the columns indexed by $\mathrm{support}(\beta)$. In this setting, our results imply that Lasso achieves prediction error $O(k \log d / \lambda_{\min} n)$ with high probability. This prediction error bound is independent of the arbitrary columns of $X$ not indexed by $\mathrm{support}(\beta)$, and is as good as if all of these columns were perfectly well-conditioned. Technically, our proof reduces to showing that matrices with a certain deterministic property -- which we call $\textit{restricted normalized orthogonality}$ (RNO) -- lead to RE constants that are independent of a subset of the matrix columns. This property is similar but incomparable with the restricted orthogonality condition of [CT05].

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Adamczak, A

R. Adamczak, A. E. Litvak, A. Pajor, and N. Tomczak-Jaegermann. Restricted isometry property of matrices with independent columns and neighborly polytopes by random sampling. Constr. Approx. , 34(1):61--88, 2011

work page 2011
[2]

Bickel, Ya'acov Ritov, and Alexandre B

Peter J. Bickel, Ya'acov Ritov, and Alexandre B. Tsybakov. Simultaneous analysis of lasso and D antzig selector. Ann. Statist. , 37(4):1705--1732, 2009

work page 2009
[3]

Correlated variables in regression: Clustering and sparse estimation

Peter Bühlmann, Philipp Rütimann, Sara van de Geer , and Cun-Hui Zhang. Correlated variables in regression: Clustering and sparse estimation. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , 143(11):1835--1858, 2013

work page 2013
[4]

Candes and Terence Tao

Emmanuel J. Candes and Terence Tao. Decoding by linear programming. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 51(12):4203--4215, 2005

work page 2005
[5]

Consistent estimation for pca and sparse regression with oblivious outliers

Tommaso d'Orsi, Chih-Hung Liu, Rajai Nasser, Gleb Novikov, David Steurer, and Stefan Tiegel. Consistent estimation for pca and sparse regression with oblivious outliers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:25427--25438, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

Outlier-robust estimation of a sparse linear model using l1-penalized huber's m-estimator

Arnak Dalalyan and Philip Thompson. Outlier-robust estimation of a sparse linear model using l1-penalized huber's m-estimator. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Ordered weighted l1 regularized regression with strongly correlated covariates: Theoretical aspects

Mario Figueiredo and Robert Nowak. Ordered weighted l1 regularized regression with strongly correlated covariates: Theoretical aspects. In Arthur Gretton and Christian C. Robert, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 51 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 930--938, Cadi...

work page 2016
[8]

Variable selection through correlation sifting

Jim C Huang and Nebojsa Jojic. Variable selection through correlation sifting. In International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology , pages 106--123. Springer, 2011

work page 2011

Show all 32 references

[9]

On the power of preconditioning in sparse linear regression

Jonathan A Kelner, Frederic Koehler, Raghu Meka, and Dhruv Rohatgi. On the power of preconditioning in sparse linear regression. In 2021 IEEE 62nd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) , pages 550--561. IEEE, 2022

2021
[10]

Feature adaptation for sparse linear regression

Jonathan Kelner, Frederic Koehler, Raghu Meka, and Dhruv Rohatgi. Feature adaptation for sparse linear regression. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

2024
[11]

Lasso with latents: Efficient estimation, covariate rescaling, and computational-statistical gaps

Jonathan Kelner, Frederic Koehler, Raghu Meka, and Dhruv Rohatgi. Lasso with latents: Efficient estimation, covariate rescaling, and computational-statistical gaps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15409 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Semi-random sparse recovery in nearly-linear time

Jonathan Kelner, Jerry Li, Allen X Liu, Aaron Sidford, and Kevin Tian. Semi-random sparse recovery in nearly-linear time. In The Thirty Sixth Annual Conference on Learning Theory , pages 2352--2398. PMLR, 2023

2023
[13]

Compressed sensing with adversarial sparse noise via l1 regression

Sushrut Karmalkar and Eric Price. Compressed sensing with adversarial sparse noise via l1 regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08055 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[14]

Sparse recovery under weak moment assumptions

Guillaume Lecu\' e and Shahar Mendelson. Sparse recovery under weak moment assumptions. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 19(3):881--904, 2017

2017
[15]

Graph-based regularization for regression problems with highly-correlated designs

Yuan Li, Benjamin Mark, Garvesh Raskutti, and Rebecca Willett. Graph-based regularization for regression problems with highly-correlated designs. In 2018 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing (GlobalSIP) , pages 740--742, 2018

2018
[16]

High dimensional robust sparse regression

Liu Liu, Yanyao Shen, Tianyang Li, and Constantine Caramanis. High dimensional robust sparse regression. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , pages 411--421. PMLR, 2020

2020
[17]

Uniform uncertainty principle for B ernoulli and subgaussian ensembles

Shahar Mendelson, Alain Pajor, and Nicole Tomczak-Jaegermann. Uniform uncertainty principle for B ernoulli and subgaussian ensembles. Constr. Approx. , 28(3):277--289, 2008

2008
[18]

Negahban, Pradeep Ravikumar, Martin J

Sahand N. Negahban, Pradeep Ravikumar, Martin J. Wainwright, and Bin Yu. A unified framework for high-dimensional analysis of M -estimators with decomposable regularizers. Statist. Sci. , 27(4):538--557, 2012

2012
[19]

The lower tail of random quadratic forms with applications to ordinary least squares

Roberto Imbuzeiro Oliveira. The lower tail of random quadratic forms with applications to ordinary least squares. Probab. Theory Related Fields , 166(3-4):1175--1194, 2016

2016
[20]

Maurey-Schwartz

Gilles Pisier. Remarques sur un r \'e sultat non publi \'e de b. maurey. S \'e minaire d'Analyse fonctionnelle (dit" Maurey-Schwartz") , pages 1--12, 1981

1981
[21]

On sparse reconstruction from F ourier and G aussian measurements

Mark Rudelson and Roman Vershynin. On sparse reconstruction from F ourier and G aussian measurements. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 61(8):1025--1045, 2008

2008
[22]

Hanson- W right inequality and sub- G aussian concentration

Mark Rudelson and Roman Vershynin. Hanson- W right inequality and sub- G aussian concentration. Electron. Commun. Probab. , 18:no. 82, 9, 2013

2013
[23]

Wainwright, and Bin Yu

Garvesh Raskutti, Martin J. Wainwright, and Bin Yu. Restricted eigenvalue properties for correlated gaussian designs. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 11(78):2241--2259, 2010

2010
[24]

Wainwright, and Bin Yu

Garvesh Raskutti, Martin J. Wainwright, and Bin Yu. Minimax rates of estimation for high-dimensional linear regression over _q -balls. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 57(10):6976--6994, 2011

2011
[25]

Reconstruction from anisotropic random measurements

Mark Rudelson and Shuheng Zhou. Reconstruction from anisotropic random measurements. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 59(6):3434--3447, 2013

2013
[26]

Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso

Robert Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 58(1):267--288, 1996

1996
[27]

u r Statistik, Eidgen \

Sara Van de Geer. The deterministic lasso. Seminar f \"u r Statistik, Eidgen \"o ssische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Z \"u rich, 2007

2007
[28]

van de Geer and Peter B\" u hlmann

Sara A. van de Geer and Peter B\" u hlmann. On the conditions used to prove oracle results for the L asso. Electron. J. Stat. , 3:1360--1392, 2009

2009
[29]

High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science

Roman Vershynin. High-Dimensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science . Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2018

2018
[30]

Wainwright

Martin J. Wainwright. High-dimensional statistics , volume 48 of Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019. A non-asymptotic viewpoint

2019
[31]

A comparative framework for preconditioned lasso algorithms

Fabian L Wauthier, Nebojsa Jojic, and Michael I Jordan. A comparative framework for preconditioned lasso algorithms. In C.J. Burges, L. Bottou, M. Welling, Z. Ghahramani, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 26. Curran Associ...

2013
[32]

Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net

Hui Zou and Trevor Hastie. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 67(2):301--320, 03 2005

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adamczak, A

R. Adamczak, A. E. Litvak, A. Pajor, and N. Tomczak-Jaegermann. Restricted isometry property of matrices with independent columns and neighborly polytopes by random sampling. Constr. Approx. , 34(1):61--88, 2011

work page 2011

[2] [2]

Bickel, Ya'acov Ritov, and Alexandre B

Peter J. Bickel, Ya'acov Ritov, and Alexandre B. Tsybakov. Simultaneous analysis of lasso and D antzig selector. Ann. Statist. , 37(4):1705--1732, 2009

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Correlated variables in regression: Clustering and sparse estimation

Peter Bühlmann, Philipp Rütimann, Sara van de Geer , and Cun-Hui Zhang. Correlated variables in regression: Clustering and sparse estimation. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference , 143(11):1835--1858, 2013

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Candes and Terence Tao

Emmanuel J. Candes and Terence Tao. Decoding by linear programming. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 51(12):4203--4215, 2005

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Consistent estimation for pca and sparse regression with oblivious outliers

Tommaso d'Orsi, Chih-Hung Liu, Rajai Nasser, Gleb Novikov, David Steurer, and Stefan Tiegel. Consistent estimation for pca and sparse regression with oblivious outliers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:25427--25438, 2021

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Outlier-robust estimation of a sparse linear model using l1-penalized huber's m-estimator

Arnak Dalalyan and Philip Thompson. Outlier-robust estimation of a sparse linear model using l1-penalized huber's m-estimator. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Ordered weighted l1 regularized regression with strongly correlated covariates: Theoretical aspects

Mario Figueiredo and Robert Nowak. Ordered weighted l1 regularized regression with strongly correlated covariates: Theoretical aspects. In Arthur Gretton and Christian C. Robert, editors, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 51 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 930--938, Cadi...

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Variable selection through correlation sifting

Jim C Huang and Nebojsa Jojic. Variable selection through correlation sifting. In International Conference on Research in Computational Molecular Biology , pages 106--123. Springer, 2011

work page 2011