Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Sharp Guarantees for Solving Random Equations with One-Bit Information

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under Gaussian one-bit measurements, every convex-loss estimator's asymptotic correlation is exactly $\sqrt{1/(1+(\alpha/\mu)^2)}$, where $(\mu,\alpha,\lambda)$ solve the three equations (9); the paper also proves a universal upper bound…

desk verdict General convex losses in one-bit recovery: the paper extends the CGMT sharp-analysis program beyond least squares, and the new predictions are probably right, but the main theorem is not fully proved in this manuscript because a key convergence step is deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04433 v2 pith:MRTV32D6 submitted 2019-08-12 math.ST cs.ITcs.LGeess.SPmath.ITstat.TH

Hossein Taheri , Ramtin Pedarsani , Christos Thrampoulidis This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STcs.ITcs.LGeess.SPmath.ITstat.TH MSC 62F1262J07
keywords one-bitmeasurementssignedconvexlossfunctionsGaussianmeasurementvectorsMoreauenvelopehigh-dimensionalasymptoticsmin-maxtheoremuniversalperformancebound
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

This paper seeks exact, not merely order-of-magnitude, predictions for a basic high-dimensional estimation problem: recovering the direction of a signal from Gaussian inner products that have been reduced to signs and then flipped with probability $\varepsilon$. The authors prove that for any convex loss function used in the estimator in (4), the limiting correlation between the estimate and the true signal is a deterministic function of the loss, the oversampling ratio $\delta=m/n$, and the noise level $\varepsilon$. That function is $\sqrt{1/(1+(\alpha/\mu)^2)}$, where $(\mu,\alpha,\lambda)$ is the unique solution of the three nonlinear equations (9), which involve the loss only through its Moreau envelope. They further prove a universal upper bound on correlation across all continuously differentiable convex losses, so the result also delimits what the whole convex class can achieve. Because the prediction is exact in the limit, it lets practitioners compare estimators such as least squares, least absolute deviations, hinge loss, and logistic loss by solving a small system of equations rather than running large simulations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Moreau envelope of the loss, $M_\ell(x;\lambda)=\min_v \frac1{2\lambda}(x-v)^2+\ell(v)$, which acts as a smoothed surrogate that encodes both the loss and the proximal scale $\lambda$. The proof reduces the original high-dimensional program to a scalar min-max problem by a convex Gaussian min-max comparison argument; the random optimizers of that auxiliary problem are then asserted to converge to the deterministic optimizers of (40). Taking first-order conditions in that limiting problem produces exactly the system (9), whose unknowns $\mu,\alpha,\lambda$ are the limiting signal bias, fluctuation norm, and proximal scale of the estimator. The Moreau envelope is what makes the reduction work: the inner minimization over coordinates in the auxiliary problem evaluates in closed form as a Moreau envelope, and its derivatives supply the expectation identities in (9).

What would settle it

Pick a loss in the paper's class, say logistic loss, fix $\varepsilon=0.1$ and $\delta=4$, solve (9) numerically to get the predicted correlation, then simulate the estimator at $n=1024$ over many trials; a systematic mismatch between the simulated average correlation and the prediction would refute the formula. The same test can be sharpened by computing the minimizers of the auxiliary problem (39) and checking whether they converge to the solution of (40), the exact deferred step the proof relies on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the asymptotic behavior of $\hat x_\ell=\arg\min_x \frac1m\sum_{i=1}^m \ell(y_i a_i^T x)$ is governed exactly by the scalar system (9): under Gaussian measurements and $m/n\to\delta>1$, the absolute correlation converges almost surely to $\sqrt{1/(1+(\alpha/\mu)^2)}$, and $\|\hat x_\ell-\mu x_0/\|x_0\|_2\|_2^2\to\alpha^2$, where $(\mu,\alpha,\lambda)$ is the unique solution of (9). The loss enters the equations only through the Moreau envelope $M_\ell(x;\lambda)=\min_v \frac1{2\lambda}(x-v)^2+\ell(v)$ and its derivatives. A consequence of the same analysis is the universal bound $\sigma_\ell^2 I(\sigma_\ell G+SY)\ge 1/\delta$ on the ratio $\sigma_\ell=\alpha/\mu$, with $G,S$ standard normal and $Y$ the corrupted sign of $S$; inverting it gives a numerical upper bound on correlation that holds for every continuously differentiable convex loss.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the deferred claim that the data-dependent minimizers of the simplified auxiliary problem converge to the deterministic solution of the limiting problem; if that convergence fails, the correlation formula does not follow even when the rest of the setup holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any convex loss satisfying the theorem's conditions, the limiting correlation is now a computable function of $\delta$ and $\varepsilon$, so LS, LAD, hinge, and logistic estimators can be compared exactly without simulation.
  • For least squares the system closes in closed form: $\mu=(1-2\varepsilon)\sqrt{2/\pi}$ and $\alpha^2=(1-(1-2\varepsilon)^2 2/\pi)/(\delta-1)$, recovering the interpretation of one-bit least squares as a noisy linear inverse problem.
  • For hinge and logistic losses, recovery is only well-posed above a threshold $\delta^*_\varepsilon$ that runs from $+\infty$ at $\varepsilon=0$ down to $2$ at $\varepsilon=1/2$; simulations show hinge can outperform LS and LAD at larger $\delta$.
  • The universal bound of Theorem III.2 means no continuously differentiable convex loss can exceed the correlation upper bound derived from $\sigma_\ell^2 I(\sigma_\ell G+SY)\ge 1/\delta$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If correct, the paper reduces the optimal-loss design problem to a scalar program: choose the convex loss whose Moreau envelope minimizes $\alpha/\mu$ in (9). The authors flag this as open; pursuing it could turn the universal bound into an achievability result.
  • The universal bound is proved from a Fisher-information inequality, suggesting the optimal estimator may be one that saturates an information-theoretic limit for the binary channel; a natural test is whether a piecewise-linear loss designed from the channel statistics attains the bound.
  • The paper's LS result shows one-bit measurements behave like linear measurements with a known scaling and noise variance; if the same equivalence holds for other losses, one could extend these correlation predictions to full distributional statements about the estimator error.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies high-dimensional estimation of a signal from one-bit Gaussian measurements with bit flips. For estimators obtained by minimizing a general convex loss function over linear predictors, it claims an exact asymptotic characterization of the correlation with the true signal in the limit m,n -> infinity with m/n -> delta > 1. The characterization is given by a system of three scalar equations (Eq. (9)) involving the Moreau envelope of the loss. The authors specialize the general result to least squares, least absolute deviations, and hinge loss, provide a closed-form result for least squares that matches the earlier result of Thrampoulidis et al. [29], and derive a universal upper bound on correlation over all continuously differentiable convex losses. Numerical simulations for n=128 are presented as corroboration.

Significance. If the main theorem is fully established, the paper would be a valuable contribution: it extends sharp CGMT-based predictions from least-squares nonlinear measurements to general convex losses and gives a principled way to compare estimators such as LAD and hinge loss, where only order-wise guarantees existed. The explicit closed-form least-squares result and the universal lower bound on sigma are concrete, testable achievements. The paper is honest about several deferred technical steps, but the central claim currently rests on one convergence assertion whose proof is not supplied, and the threshold condition for bounded minimizers contains contradictory statements. The overall framework is sound and the result is likely correct, but the manuscript as written does not yet meet the standard for a full journal proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B-C, Eqs. (39)-(40)] The proof of Theorem III.1 hinges on the assertion that the random optimizers alpha_n and mu_n of the auxiliary problem (39) converge to the deterministic optimizers alpha and mu of the limiting problem (40). The text states "Based on that, it can be shown" and defers details to the long version, while Appendix B explicitly lists "uniform convergence in going from (39) to (40)" among omitted technical details. This is a load-bearing step: pointwise convergence in probability of the objective functions does not imply convergence of their argmins without uniform/equicontinuity estimates and compactness control. The stated assumptions of Theorem III.1 (bounded set of minimizers of (4), unique solution of (9)) do not, on their own, provide those estimates, and the step must hold for non-smooth losses such as LAD and hinge loss. The gap must be closed by a proof or the theorem must be restated with this convergence as an explicit hypothesis.
  2. [Remark 2 / Remark 3, Eq. (15)] The threshold condition for boundedness of the minimizer set is stated inconsistently. Remark 2 says the minimizer set is "unbounded if delta > delta_epsilon", while Remark 3 concludes that for logistic and hinge loss the set is bounded iff delta > delta_epsilon, i.e. unbounded for delta < delta_epsilon. The quotation of [7] around Eq. (15) also has a sign issue: the condition "1/delta <= delta_epsilon" is not equivalent to the stated conclusion "delta < delta_epsilon". Since boundedness of the minimizer set is an explicit hypothesis of Theorem III.1, the correct threshold and its direction must be stated precisely and, if necessary, proved for the present signed-measurement model rather than transferred from the logistic model in [7]. As written, the applicability of Theorem III.1 to hinge and logistic losses is not established.
  3. [Theorem III.1 and Remark 2] The theorem assumes that the system of equations (9) has a unique solution, but for hinge and logistic losses solvability is left as a conjecture. Consequently, the abstract and introduction claim that the results include hinge-loss and logistic-loss as special cases is stronger than what is proved: for these losses neither the bounded-minimizer condition nor the solvability of (9) is verified. The numerical simulations are suggestive but do not replace a proof. Please either prove the needed conditions for these losses or clearly restate the claims as conditional on them.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Remark 5] In Remark 5, the text refers to "the system of non-linear equations in (4)" and "(4) is equivalent to v = F(v)"; these should refer to system (9), not to the optimization problem (4).
  2. [Section IV-C] The sentence "We obtain the hinge-loss estimator in by setting" is missing a word; it should read "in this section" or "in (4)".
  3. [Remark 7] "In other works" should be "In other words".
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The caption contains the typo "Numeical" instead of "Numerical".
  5. [Theorem III.2 proof] "Cauchy-Schwartz" should be "Cauchy-Schwarz".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymptotic correlation formula is derived from a fixed-point system via CGMT and validated against an independent LS special case and simulations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem III.1, is not obtained by fitting or by renaming inputs. The correlation limit (12) is expressed through alpha/mu, where (mu,alpha,lambda) solve the population equations (9), which are first-order conditions of the deterministic auxiliary problem (40) derived from the CGMT reduction. The CGMT is invoked as an external theorem ([30, Thm 6.1], [31]), not as a restatement of the target result. The LS corollary is shown to reduce to the least-squares problem (19) and to match the independent result of [29]; this is an external check, not a load-bearing premise. The only weakness the paper itself discloses is that the passage from the random scalar problem (39) to the deterministic problem (40) is asserted ('it can be shown') with details deferred; that is an omitted technical proof, not a circular step. No parameter is fitted to the simulated correlations, and no equation is defined in terms of the quantity being predicted. Self-citations to [29], [30], and [31] concern prior methodology or the LS special case and do not assume the general result. Hence no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on Gaussian design, the CGMT, a boundedness and uniqueness condition, an unproven auxiliary convergence step, and the Candes-Sur threshold. No numbers are fitted to data; mu, alpha, and lambda are deterministic unknowns of a fixed-point system. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Measurement vectors have IID standard normal entries (Assumption 1).
    The entire analysis, including CGMT application and rotational invariance, requires Gaussian design; non-Gaussian behavior is not treated.
  • standard math The Convex Gaussian Min-Max Theorem of [30, Theorem 6.1] applies to the primary-auxiliary pair (35)-(36).
    A background theorem from cited literature that is used without proof and is essential to the proof sketch.
  • domain assumption Theorem III.1 assumes the set of minimizers of (4) is bounded and Equations (9) have a unique solution (mu,alpha,lambda) with mu != 0.
    The theorem is conditional on these; for hinge and logistic losses boundedness is only analyzed via a threshold from [7], and the solvability equivalence is conjectured.
  • ad hoc to paper Random optimizers of (39) converge to deterministic optimizers of (40) as m,n go to infinity.
    The text says 'it can be shown' and defers details to a long version; this convergence is the bridge from the auxiliary program to the asymptotic correlation formula.
  • domain assumption The feasibility threshold from [7] carries over to the one-bit model.
    The paper says close inspection of [7] shows the requirement can be relaxed, but does not demonstrate the extension in this manuscript.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sharp Guarantees for Solving Random Equations with One-Bit Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRTV32D6

@misc{pith2026190804433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sharp Guarantees for Solving Random Equations with One-Bit Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRTV32D6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04433}
}
read the original abstract

We study the performance of a wide class of convex optimization-based estimators for recovering a signal from corrupted one-bit measurements in high-dimensions. Our general result predicts sharply the performance of such estimators in the linear asymptotic regime when the measurement vectors have entries IID Gaussian. This includes, as a special case, the previously studied least-squares estimator and various novel results for other popular estimators such as least-absolute deviations, hinge-loss and logistic-loss. Importantly, we exploit the fact that our analysis holds for generic convex loss functions to prove a bound on the best achievable performance across the entire class of estimators. Numerical simulations corroborate our theoretical findings and suggest they are accurate even for relatively small problem dimensions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04433 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The value of the threshold δ ? ε in (15) as a function of probability of error ε ∈ [0, 1/2]. For logistic and hinge-loss, the set of minimizers in (4) is bounded (as required by Theorem III.1) iff δ > δ? ε . See Remark 3 and [7]. Candes and Sur [7] who prove that (14) holds iff 1 δ ≤ δ ? ε :=  min c∈R E h (G + c S Y ) 2 − i−1 , (15) where G, S and Y are random variables as in (8) and (t)− := min{0, t}. It can be c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Numerical evaluations of σ 2 ` I(σ`G + SY ), as defined in Theorem III.2, with respect to σ` for  = 0, 0.1 and 0.25 (recall (8)). σ 2 ` I(σ`G + SY ) ∈ [0, 1) and it is an increasing function of σ`, which implies the existence and uniqueness of minimum value of σ` for all δ > 1. Recall that W = αG + µSY and G ∼ N (0, 1). Now, since (e.g., [1, Eqn. 2.13]) I(c · H) = I(H)/c2 , we have that I(W) = I  µ α µ G + SY  … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparisons between theoretical and simulated results for the least [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between theoretical and simulated results for LAD, LS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between theoretical and simulated results for LAD, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Lasso with non-linear measurements is equivalent to one with linear mea- surements

    Christos Thrampoulidis, Ehsan Abbasi, and Babak Hassibi. Lasso with non-linear measurements is equivalent to one with linear mea- surements. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3420–3428, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [7]

    The phase transition for the existence of the maximum likelihood estimate in high-dimensional logistic regression

    Emmanuel J Cand `es and Pragya Sur. The phase transition for the existence of the maximum likelihood estimate in high-dimensional logistic regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09753 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    Monotonic central limit theorem for densities

    Andrew R Barron. Monotonic central limit theorem for densities. Department of Statistics, Stanford University, California, Tech. Rep , 50, 1984

    work page 1984

  4. [2]

    The dynamics of message passing on dense graphs, with applications to compressed sensing

    Mohsen Bayati and Andrea Montanari. The dynamics of message passing on dense graphs, with applications to compressed sensing. Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on , 57(2):764–785, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [3]

    The lasso risk for gaussian matrices

    Mohsen Bayati and Andrea Montanari. The lasso risk for gaussian matrices. Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on , 58(4):1997– 2017, 2012

    work page 1997

  6. [4]

    Log-Quadratic Bounds for the Gaussian Q-function

    Andrew Mastin and Patrick Jailleth. Log-Quadratic Bounds for the Gaussian Q-function. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.2488 , 2013

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  7. [5]

    1-bit compressive sensing

    Petros T Boufounos and Richard G Baraniuk. 1-bit compressive sensing. In 2008 42nd Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS) , pages 16–21. IEEE, 2008

    work page 2008

  8. [6]

    A generalized linear model with” gaussian” regressor variables

    David R Brillinger. A generalized linear model with” gaussian” regressor variables. A Festschrift For Erich L. Lehmann , page 97, 1982

    work page 1982

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    The convex geometry of linear inverse problems.Foundations of Computational Mathematics , 12(6):805–849, 2012

    Venkat Chandrasekaran, Benjamin Recht, Pablo A Parrilo, and Alan S Willsky. The convex geometry of linear inverse problems.Foundations of Computational Mathematics , 12(6):805–849, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    Phase retrieval via polytope optimization: Geometry, phase transitions, and new algorithms

    Oussama Dhifallah, Christos Thrampoulidis, and Yue M Lu. Phase retrieval via polytope optimization: Geometry, phase transitions, and new algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09555 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    High dimensional robust m- estimation: Asymptotic variance via approximate message passing

    David Donoho and Andrea Montanari. High dimensional robust m- estimation: Asymptotic variance via approximate message passing. Probability Theory and Related Fields , 166(3-4):935–969, 2016

    2016

  4. [11]

    Message- passing algorithms for compressed sensing

    David L Donoho, Arian Maleki, and Andrea Montanari. Message- passing algorithms for compressed sensing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(45):18914–18919, 2009

    2009

  5. [12]

    The noise- sensitivity phase transition in compressed sensing

    David L Donoho, Arian Maleki, and Andrea Montanari. The noise- sensitivity phase transition in compressed sensing. Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on , 57(10):6920–6941, 2011

    2011

  6. [13]

    On the impact of predictor geometry on the performance on high-dimensional ridge-regularized generalized robust regression estimators

    Noureddine El Karoui. On the impact of predictor geometry on the performance on high-dimensional ridge-regularized generalized robust regression estimators. 2015

    2015

  7. [14]

    High-dimensional estimation of structured signals from non-linear observations with general convex loss functions

    Martin Genzel. High-dimensional estimation of structured signals from non-linear observations with general convex loss functions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 63(3):1601–1619, 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    Recovering structured data from super- imposed non-linear measurements

    Martin Genzel and Peter Jung. Recovering structured data from super- imposed non-linear measurements. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07451 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Structured signal recovery from non-linear and heavy-tailed measurements

    Larry Goldstein, Stanislav Minsker, and Xiaohan Wei. Structured signal recovery from non-linear and heavy-tailed measurements. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 64(8):5513–5530, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    On Milman’s inequality and random subspaces which escape through a mesh in Rn

    Yehoram Gordon. On Milman’s inequality and random subspaces which escape through a mesh in Rn. Springer, 1988

    1988

  11. [18]

    Robust 1-bit compressive sensing via binary stable embed- dings of sparse vectors

    Laurent Jacques, Jason N Laska, Petros T Boufounos, and Richard G Baraniuk. Robust 1-bit compressive sensing via binary stable embed- dings of sparse vectors. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 59(4):2082–2102, 2013

    2013

  12. [19]

    Asymptotic behavior of unregularized and ridge-regularized high-dimensional robust regression estimators: rig- orous results

    Noureddine El Karoui. Asymptotic behavior of unregularized and ridge-regularized high-dimensional robust regression estimators: rig- orous results. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.2445 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  13. [20]

    The squared-error of generalized lasso: A precise analysis

    Samet Oymak, Christos Thrampoulidis, and Babak Hassibi. The squared-error of generalized lasso: A precise analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.0830, 2013

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Robust 1-bit compressed sensing and sparse logistic regression: A convex programming approach

    Yaniv Plan and Roman Vershynin. Robust 1-bit compressed sensing and sparse logistic regression: A convex programming approach. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 59(1):482–494, 2012

    2012

  15. [22]

    One-bit compressed sensing by linear programming

    Yaniv Plan and Roman Vershynin. One-bit compressed sensing by linear programming. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathe- matics, 66(8):1275–1297, 2013

    2013

  16. [23]

    The generalized lasso with non-linear observations

    Yaniv Plan and Roman Vershynin. The generalized lasso with non-linear observations. IEEE Transactions on information theory , 62(3):1528–1537, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Variational analysis , volume 317

    R Tyrrell Rockafellar and Roger J-B Wets. Variational analysis , volume 317. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

    2009

  18. [25]

    The impact of regularization on high-dimensional logistic regression

    Fariborz Salehi, Ehsan Abbasi, and Babak Hassibi. The impact of regularization on high-dimensional logistic regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03761, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Various thresholds for 𝓁1-optimization in compressed sensing

    Mihailo Stojnic. Various thresholds for 𝓁1-optimization in compressed sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.3666 , 2009

    2009 arXiv

  20. [27]

    A framework to characterize performance of lasso algorithms

    Mihailo Stojnic. A framework to characterize performance of lasso algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1303.7291 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  21. [28]

    A modern maximum-likelihood theory for high-dimensional logistic regression

    Pragya Sur and Emmanuel J Cand `es. A modern maximum-likelihood theory for high-dimensional logistic regression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , page 201810420, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Precise error analysis of regularized m-estimators in high dimensions

    Christos Thrampoulidis, Ehsan Abbasi, and Babak Hassibi. Precise error analysis of regularized m-estimators in high dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 64(8):5592–5628, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Regu- larized linear regression: A precise analysis of the estimation error

    Christos Thrampoulidis, Samet Oymak, and Babak Hassibi. Regu- larized linear regression: A precise analysis of the estimation error. In Proceedings of The 28th Conference on Learning Theory , pages 1683–1709, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    The generalized lasso for sub-gaussian measurements with dithered quantization

    Christos Thrampoulidis and Ankit Singh Rawat. The generalized lasso for sub-gaussian measurements with dithered quantization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.06976, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    High-Dimensional Estimation of Structured Signals from Non-Linear Observations with General Convex Loss Functions

    Martin Genzel. High-Dimensional Estimation of Structured Signals from Non-Linear Observations with General Convex Loss Functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.03436 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Optimal M-estimation in high-dimensional regression

    Derek Bean, Peter Bickel, Noureddine El Karoui and Bin Yu. Optimal M-estimation in high-dimensional regression. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ,110(36):14563–14568, 2013. APPENDIX In this section we provide a proof sketch of Theorem III.1. The main technica...

    2013

  27. [35]

    Gordon’s Min-Max Theorem (GMT): The Gordon’s Gaussian comparison inequality [17] compares the min-max value of two doubly indexed Gaussian processes based on how their autocorrelation functions compare. The inequality is quite general (see [17]), but for our purposes we only n...

  28. [36]

    Convex Gaussian Min-Max Theorem (CGMT): The proof of Theorem III.1 builds on the CGMT [31]. For ease of reference we summarize here the essential ideas of the framework following the presentation in [30]; please see [30, Section 6] for the formal statement of the theorem and f...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.