Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2017/iii/paper-205/2/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 205 2 Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Use the normalizationfor the Lasso. A centered sub-Gaussian random variable with parameter satisfies for all ; for a noncentered variable apply this definition to . With fixed , independence of the errors givesThe exponential Markov bound, optimized over separately for the two signs, gives . Take and apply the union bound over columns:The specified positive tuning parameter requires ; at its formula is zero. For small the probability lower bound can be negative and hence uninformative. Although centering makes the centered errors dependent, means , so the preceding proof uses the original independent errors, not independence after centering.
The Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions, using the subdifferential of the L1 norm, areConsequently, for nonempty , on ,This establishes the required active-set inequality without any rank condition on .
For , a sufficient Compatibility condition for the Lasso isIndeed, for , comparison of the two Lasso objective values and the score bound on give the Basic inequality for the LassoIt follows that satisfies the Lasso cone condition and . Thus , including the trivial case. This proves the slightly stronger , and in particular the requested . If , the same basic inequality forces on ; no nonempty-support compatibility constant is needed.
For the support-size argument, use the stated prediction bound with constant . Set . By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the definition of the sparse maximum eigenvalue,Combining with the lower bound and squaring gives for every nonempty . If and , choose of size ; this contradicts the strict inequality defining . If , proves the assertion directly. Hence in both cases.
When , minimality and monotonicity of the sparse maximum eigenvalues giveWhen , the first result gives , so the same final bound holds. Thus the finite-index conclusion is .
There is a genuine domain omission in the printed last assertion: the definition of only makes sense for , so is undefined when . This case can occur: take centered orthogonal columns with , , , and . Then for every available and none exceeds , so . A universally defined replacement, from and monotonicity, isAlternatively, explicitly extend the definition by for , including infinity. Under that added convention the printed final expression is meaningful and follows from this replacement bound. Neither convention nor finiteness should be silently assumed.
New to topics? Read the docs here!