1: \begin{abstract}

2: %In the matrix normal setting, we have the following representation

3: %where $X$ follows the matrix variate normal distribution with the Kronecker Sum covariance structure:

4: %\bens

5: %\label{eq::ksum}

6: %\mvec{X} \sim \N(0, \Sigma) \; \; \text{ where } \; \; 

7: %\Sigma = A \oplus B,

8: %\eens

9: %which is generalized to the subgaussian settings as follows.

10: Suppose that we observe $y \in \R^f$ and $X \in \R^{f \times m}$ in the following errors-in-variables model:

11: \begin{eqnarray*}

12: y & =  & X_0 \beta^* + \e \\

13: X & = & X_0 + W

14: \end{eqnarray*}

15: where $X_0$ is a $f \times m$ design matrix with independent

16: subgaussian row vectors, $\e \in \R^f$ is a noise vector and 

17: $W$ is a mean zero $f \times m$ random noise matrix with independent

18: subgaussian column vectors, independent of $X_0$ and $\e$.

19: This model is significantly different from those analyzed in the literature

20: in the sense that we allow the measurement error for each covariate 

21: to be a dependent vector across its $f$ observations. Such error structures appear in the 

22: science literature when modeling the trial-to-trial fluctuations in response strength shared

23: across a set of neurons.

24: %matrix $X_0$ to explain column-wise dependency in $X$, and the measurement

25: %error matrix $W$ to explain its row-wise dependency.

26: 

27: Under sparsity and restrictive eigenvalue type of conditions, we show that one is able to 

28: recover a sparse vector $\beta^* \in \R^m$ from the model

29: given a single observation matrix $X$ and the response vector $y$.

30: We establish consistency in estimating $\beta^*$ and obtain the rates of convergence 

31: in the $\ell_q$ norm, where $q = 1, 2$ for the Lasso-type estimator,

32: and for $q \in [1, 2]$ for a Dantzig-type conic programming estimator.

33: We show error bounds which approach that of the regular Lasso and the Dantzig selector 

34: in case the errors in $W$ are tending to 0.

35: \end{abstract}

36: