Use the normalization
for 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 gives
The 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, are
Consequently, for nonempty , on ,
This establishes the required active-set inequality without any rank condition on .
For , a sufficient Compatibility condition for the Lasso is
Indeed, for , comparison of the two Lasso objective values and the score bound on give the Basic inequality for the Lasso
It 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 give
When , 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, is
Alternatively, 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.