\section{Introduction}
 A {\em frame} for a finite dimensional or infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space $H$ is a sequence of vectors
$(x_j)_{j=1}^N\subset H$ (where $N\in{\mathbb N}$ or $N=\infty$) for which there exist constants
$0< A\leq B$,  called {\em frame bounds}, such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:frame}
A\|x\|^2\leq \sum_{i=1}^N |\langle x, x_j\rangle|^2\leq
B\|x\|^2,\qquad \textrm{ for all }x\in H.
\end{equation}
The ratio $B/A$ is called the  {\em condition number} of $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$.
We say that  $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is {\em Bessel} if it satisfies the upper bound of \eqref{E:frame} for some $B<\infty$ and call $B$ a {\em Bessel bound}.   A frame is called \emph{tight} if it has condition number $1$.  The {\em analysis operator} of $X=(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is the map $U_X:H\rightarrow \ell_2^N$ given by $U_X(x)=(\langle x,x_j\rangle)_{j=1}^N$ for all $x\in H$ and the {\em frame operator} of $X=(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is the positive operator $S_X:H\rightarrow H$ given by $S_X=U_X^* U_X$.  Note that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $B$ if and only if $\|S_X\|=\|U_X\|^2\leq B$.  

For a choice of $\mathcal{E}=(\varepsilon_j)_{j=1}^N$ with $|\varepsilon_j|=1$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ we let $D_\mathcal{E}:\ell_2^N\rightarrow \ell_2^N$ be the map $D_\mathcal{E}(b_j)_{j=1}^N=(\varepsilon_j b_j)_{j=1}^N$.
It immediately follows that if $X=(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $F=(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both sequences in $H$ with Bessel bound $B$ and analysis operators $U_X$ and $U_F$ then
\begin{equation}
\|U^*_X D_\mathcal{E} U_F x\|=\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j\rangle x_j\Big\|\leq B\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H$ and all  $\mathcal{E}=(\varepsilon_j)_{j=1}^N$}.    
\end{equation}
This idea can be generalized further through the introduction of frame multipliers \cite{B1,SB1}.  Let $X=(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $F=(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ be sequences in a Hilbert space $H$, and 
let $m=(m_j)_{j=1}^N$ be a sequence of scalars called the {\it symbol}. 
The corresponding frame multiplier $M_{m,X, F}:H\rightarrow H$ is given by 
\begin{equation} \label{multdef}
 M_{m,X,F}x=\sum_{j=1}^N m_j \langle x,f_j \rangle x_j, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H$.}
\end{equation} 
  These operators are closely related to the concept of weighted frames \cite{BAG}, i.e. sequences $(d_j x_j)$, where $(d_j)$ is a sequence of scalars and $(x_j)$ is a sequence of vectors.  Note that if $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a sequence of non-zero scalars then the frame multipliers $M_{m,(d_j x_j), (\overline{d}_j^{-1}f_j)}$ and $M_{m,(x_j), (f_j)}$ are equal.  However, the sequences $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(\overline{d}_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ may have very different frame bounds from $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$.
The following conjectures that if  we are given an unconditionally convergent multiplier then we can shift the weights to get two Bessel sequences.

\begin{conj}[\cite{SB2}]\label{C:SB}
Let $M_{m,X,F}$ be an unconditionally convergent multiplier on a separable Hilbert space $H$.   Then there exists sequences of scalars $(c_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ such that $c_j \overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $j\in {\mathbb N}$ and both $(c_j x_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ are Bessel.
\end{conj}

This idea of shifting weights is also considered in \cite{HLLL} for the case where the multiplier is constant $1$ and the sequences satisfy a reproducing formula.  Suppose that $(x_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ are sequences in a Hilbert space $H$ such that $x=\sum \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j$, and the series converges unconditionally  for all $x\in H$.   Then there exists a sequence $(d_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ such that $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(\overline{d_j}^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ are both frames of $H$ if and only if the induced operator valued map ${\mathfrak M}^{F,X} (a_j)_{j=1}^\infty = \sum a_j f_j\otimes x_j$ is a completely bounded map between the $C^*$-algebra $\ell_\infty$ and the $C^*$-algebra $B(H)$ (where $B(H)$ is the space of bounded operators on $H$) \cite{HLLL}. 

Many problems for infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces have corresponding quantitative problems for finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces.  Notably, the Kadison-Singer Problem was a famous and long open question about operators on infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces which was shown to be equivalent to  the Feichtinger Conjecture \cite{CCLV}, the Paving Conjecture \cite{A}, Weaver's Conjecture \cite{W}, and the Bourgain-Tzafriri Conjecture \cite{BT}. 
 Marcus, Spielman, and Srivastava \cite{MSS} solved the Kadison-Singer Problem by proving a very strong quantitative and finite-dimensional theorem which directly implied Weaver's Conjecture and has since been applied to solve many other problems in applied harmonic analysis and approximation theory \cite{NOU}\cite{FS}\cite{LT}\cite{DKU}.
 In Section \ref{S:fm} we show that Conjecture \ref{C:SB} is equivalent to the following  quantitative and finite-dimensional  conjecture.

\begin{conj}\label{C:SB quant}
There exists a universal constant $\kappa>0$ so that the following holds.  Let $C>0$ and let $M_{(m_j)_{j=1}^N,(x_j)_{j=1}^N,(f_j)_{j=1}^N}$ be a multiplier on a finite dimensional Hilbert space $H$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{E:unc}
 \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j m_j\langle x,f_j \rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
\end{equation}
Then there exists sequences of constants $(c_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ such that $c_j \overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ and both $(c_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are  $C\kappa$-Bessel.
\end{conj}

By expressing Conjecture \ref{C:SB} in a quantitative and finite dimensional way, we hope to open the problem to new methods and techniques.
Conjecture \ref{C:SB}  has been solved for a large number of important classes of sequences \cite{SB2}.  Likewise, we will solve Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant}  for certain important cases. Our results are distinctly different from what has been done in infinite-dimensions, and we will make use of probabilistic methods which are inherently finite-dimensional.  The following theorem solves Conjecture \ref{C:SB} in the case where the largest eigenvalue of the frame operator is proportional to the average of the eigenvalues.


\begin{thm}\label{T:intro}
 Let $C,\beta>0$ and $N,M\in{\mathbb N}$.  Suppose that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are  sequences in an $M$-dimensional Hilbert space  which satisfy $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ and
 \begin{equation}\label{E:unc T:intro}
  \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x,f_j \rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{ for all $x\in \ell_2^M$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
 \end{equation}
If the frame operator for $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$  has eigenvalues $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ satisfying $\lambda_1\leq \frac{\beta}{ M}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ then $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$, where $K_{1}$ is the universal constant given by Khintchine's Inequality (Theorem~\ref{thm:khintchine}).  The same holds for $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$.
\end{thm}

Note that if $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a frame of an $M$-dimensional Hilbert space and $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ are the eigenvalues of the frame operator of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ then $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has condition number $\lambda_1/\lambda_M$.  Thus, if $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are frames with condition number $\beta$ and  $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ then $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ both have Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$ where $C$ satisfies \eqref{E:unc T:intro}.
This gives the following  corollary for pairs of equi-norm tight frames.

\begin{cor} \label{C:intro}
Let $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ be tight frames for a finite dimensional Hilbert space with $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  Let $C>0$ be the least constant such that
$$
 \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x,f_j\rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in \ell_2^M$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
Then the tight frames $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ have the same frame bound $B=M^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^N\|x_j\|^2$ and  $C\leq B\leq \frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4}C$.
\end{cor}

In Theorem \ref{T:intro} we made an assumption about the eigenvalues of the frame operators for $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$. In the following theorem we do not assume anything about the frame structure of $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ but we require a uniform lower bound $\|x_j\|\|f_j\|\geq b$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.
This gives a quantitative version of one direction of Proposition 1.1 in \cite{SB2}.

\begin{prop}\label{P:Par_intro}
Let $b,C>0$ and $N\in{\mathbb N}\cup\{\infty\}$.  Let $(x_j)_{j=1}^N,(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ be sequences in a Hilbert space $H$ such that $\|x_j\|\|f_j\|\geq b$  for all $1\leq j\leq N$ and that
$$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j\rangle x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
Then $(d_jx_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ have Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$ where $d_j=\|x_j\|^{-1/2}\|f_j\|^{1/2}$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.
\end{prop}



Note that the Bessel bound given in Proposition \ref{P:Par_intro} scales as $C^2$ instead of $C$ as in Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant}.
Furthermore, we give an example in Section \ref{S:Par} which shows that the scaling of $C^2$ is necessary here.  However, this does not contradict Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant} as the choice of $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ specified in Proposition \ref{P:Par_intro} is not necessarily the optimal choice for Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant}.  



The paper is organized as follows.  In Section \ref{S:fm} we prove that Conjecture \ref{C:SB} is equivalent to Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant}.  In Section \ref{S:Par} we use the Parallelogram Law to give a short proof of Proposition \ref{P:Par_intro}.  We prove our main results, including Theorem \ref{T:intro}, in Section \ref{S:equinorm}. 




\section{Frame multipliers in finite dimensions}\label{S:fm}

Our goal for this section is to prove that Conjecture \ref{C:SB} on unconditionally convergent frame multipliers for infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces is equivalent to  Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant} on uniform quantitative bounds for frame multipliers on finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. 

\begin{thm}
The following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item  For every unconditonally convergent frame multiplier $M_{(m_j)_{j=1}^\infty,(x_j)_{j=1}^\infty,(f_j)_{j=1}^\infty}$  on a separable Hilbert space $H$ there exists sequences of constants $(c_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ such that $c_j \overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $j\in {\mathbb N}$ and both $(c_j x_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ are Bessel.\\
    \item  There exists a universal constant $\kappa>0$ so that the following holds.  Let $C>0$ and let $M_{(m_j)_{j=1}^n,(x_j)_{j=1}^n,(f_j)_{j=1}^n}$ be a multiplier on a finite dimensional Hilbert space $H$ such that
$$
 \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^n \varepsilon_j m_j\langle x,f_j \rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
Then there exists sequences of scalars $(c_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^n$ such that $c_j \overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $1\leq j\leq n$ and both $(c_j x_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_j f_j)_{j=1}^n$ are $C\kappa$-Bessel.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We first assume that (2) is true and will prove that (1) is true.  Let $M_{(m_j)_{j=1}^\infty,(x_j)_{j=1}^\infty,(f_j)_{j=1}^\infty}$ be an unconditionally convergent frame multiplier on a separable Hilbert space $H$.  That is, 
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{j=1}^\infty \varepsilon_j m_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j\hspace{1cm}\textrm{ converges for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$.}
\end{equation}
For each $m,n\in{\mathbb N}$ and $(\varepsilon_j)_{j=m}^n$ with $|\varepsilon_j|=1$ for all $m\leq j\leq n$ we let $T_{(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n}$ be the finite rank operator on $H$ defined by $T_{(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n}(x)=\sum_{j=m}^n \varepsilon_j m_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j$ for all $x\in H$.  Let $x\in H$ and for the sake of contradiction we assume that $\sup_{ (\varepsilon_j)_{j=m}^n} \|T_{(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n}(x)\|=\infty$.  By piecing finite sequences together, we can create an infinite sequence $(\varepsilon_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ such that $\sup_{m\leq n}\|T_{(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n}(x)\|=\infty$.  This contradicts that $\sum_{j=1}^\infty \varepsilon_j m_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j$ converges.  Hence, for all $x\in H$ there exists $C_x>0$ so that $\|T_{(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n}(x)\|\leq C_x \|x\|$ for all $(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n$.  By the Uniform Boundedness Principle there exists a uniform constant $C>0$ so that $\|T_{(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n}(x)\|\leq C \|x\|$ for all $(\varepsilon)_{j=m}^n$ and all $x\in H$.  Thus, we have for all $N\in{\mathbb N}$ that 
\begin{equation}
    \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j m_j\langle x,f_j\rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in \text{span}_{1\leq j\leq N}x_j$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
\end{equation}
By (2), there exists $(c_{N,j})_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_{N,j})_{j=1}^n$ such that $c_{N,j} \overline{d_{N,j}}=m_j$ for all $j\in {\mathbb N}$ and both $(c_{N,j} x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_{N,j} f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are $\kappa C$-Bessel.  Without loss of generality, we assume that $m_j\neq0$, $x_j\neq0$, and $f_j\neq 0$ for all $j\in{\mathbb N}$.  Thus, we have that $|c_{N,j}|\leq \kappa C \|x_j\|^{-1}$ and $|d_{N,j}|\leq \kappa C \|f_j\|^{-1}$ for all $j\in{\mathbb N}$.  As $c_{N,j} \overline{d_{N,j}}=m_j$, we have for all $j\in {\mathbb N}$ that

\begin{equation}\label{E:cd}
     |m_j|\kappa^{-1} C^{-1} \|f_j\| \leq |c_{N,j}|\leq \kappa C \|x_j\|^{-1},\hspace{.1cm}\textrm{ and }\hspace{.1cm}
|m_j|\kappa^{-1} C^{-1} \|x_j\|  \leq |d_{N,j}|\leq \kappa C \|f_j\|^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Thus, for each $j\in{\mathbb N}$ we have positive uniform upper and lower bounds on $(c_{N,j})_{N=1}^\infty$ and $(d_{N,j})_{N=1}^\infty$. After passing to a subsequence, we may assume that there exists $(c_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ so that $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}c_{N,j}=c_j$ and $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}d_{N,j}=d_j$ for all $j\in{\mathbb N}$.  By \eqref{E:cd} we have that $c_j$ and $d_j$ are non-zero and that $c_j\overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $j\in {\mathbb N}$.  For all $n\leq N$ we have that $(c_{N,j} x_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_{N,j} f_j)_{j=1}^n$ are $\kappa C$-Bessel.  Thus by taking the limit, we have for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$ that $(c_j x_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_j f_j)_{j=1}^n$ are $\kappa C$-Bessel.  Hence, $(c_j x_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ are $\kappa C$-Bessel.  This proves (1).


We now assume that (2) is false.  Thus, for all $k\in{\mathbb N}$ there exists $C_k>0$ and a multiplier 
 $M_{(m_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k},(x_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k},(f_{j_k})_{j=1}^{n_k}}$  on a finite dimensional Hilbert space $H_k$ such that
$$
 \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{n_k} \varepsilon_j m_{k,j}\langle x,f_{k,j} \rangle  x_{k,j}\Big\|\leq C_k\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H_k$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$},
$$
but that for all sequences of scalars $(c_j)_{j=1}^{n_k}$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^{n_k}$ such that $c_j \overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $1\leq j\leq n_k$ we have that either $(c_j x_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k}$ or $(d_j f_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k}$ is not $k C_k$-Bessel.  By scaling both  $(x_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k}$ and $(f_{j_k})_{j=1}^{n_k}$ by $C_k^{-1/2}$ we have that  $M_{(m_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k},(C_k^{-1/2}x_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k},(C_k^{-1/2}f_{j_k})_{j=1}^{n_k}}$ is a multiplier on  $H_k$ such that 
$$
 \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{n_k} \varepsilon_j m_{k,j}\langle x,C_k^{-1/2}f_{k,j} \rangle  C_k^{-1/2}x_{k,j}\Big\|\leq \|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H_k$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$},
$$
but that for all sequences of scalars $(c_j)_{j=1}^{n_k}$ and $(d_j)_{j=1}^{n_k}$ such that $c_j \overline{d_j}=m_j$ for all $1\leq j\leq k$ we have that either $\big(c_j C_k^{-1/2} x_{k,j}\big)_{j=1}^{n_k}$ or $\big(d_j C_k^{-1/2} f_{k,j}\big)_{j=1}^{n_k}$ is not $k$-Bessel. 

We now let $H=\oplus_{k=1}^\infty H_k$ and let $M_{(m_{j})_{j=1}^{\infty},(x_{j})_{j=1}^{\infty},(f_{k,j})_{j=1}^{\infty}}$ be the multiplier on $H$ which is the direct sum of the multipliers $\big(M_{(m_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k},(C_k^{-1/2}x_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k},(C_k^{-1/2}f_{k,j})_{j=1}^{n_k}}\big)_{k=1}^\infty$. That is, we enumerate by  $t\in{\mathbb N}$, where, if $k\in{\mathbb N}$, and $1\leq j\leq n_{k}$ are such that   $t=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} n_i+j$ then $m_t=m_{k,j}$,  $x_t=C_k^{-1/2}x_{k,j}$ and $f_t=C_k^{-1/2}f_{j_k}$.
Let $x\in H$ and let $(\varepsilon_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ be a sequence of scalars with  $\varepsilon_t=\pm1$ for all $t\in{\mathbb N}$.  For each $k\in{\mathbb N}$ and $1\leq j\leq n_k$ we let $\varepsilon_{k,j}=\varepsilon_t$ where $t=\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} n_i+j$.
Thus, we have that

\begin{align*}
\Big\|\sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \varepsilon_t m_t\langle x,f_t\rangle  x_t\Big\|^2
&= \sum_{k=1}^\infty\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^{n_k} \varepsilon_{k,j} m_{k,j}\langle P_{H_k}x,C_k^{-1/2}f_{k,j} \rangle  C_k^{-1/2}x_{k,j}\Big\|^2\\
&\leq \sum_{k=1}^\infty \|P_{H_k}x\|^2=\|x\|^2.
\end{align*}
Thus, the multiplier $M_{(m_{t})_{t=1}^{\infty},(x_{t})_{t=1}^{\infty},(f_{t})_{t=1}^{\infty}}$ is unconditionally convergent.  However, there does not exist scalars $(c_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ and $(d_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ such that $c_t \overline{d_t}=m_t$ for all $t\in {\mathbb N}$ and both $(c_t x_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ and $(d_t f_t)_{t=1}^\infty$ are Bessel.  Thus we have that (1) is false.



\end{proof}


\section{Lower bounds and the parallelogram law}\label{S:Par}

The parallelogram law states that if $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a sequence of vectors in a Hilbert space then 
\begin{equation} \label{eq:paralleogram} 2^{-N}\sum_{\varepsilon_j=\pm1} \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j x_j \Big\|^2 =\sum_{j=1}^N  \|x_j\|^2.
\end{equation}
That is, if $(\varepsilon_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a sequence of independent mean-$0$ random variables with $|\varepsilon_j|=1$ then we have the following formula for the expectation.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:expectation}
{\mathbb E} \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j x_j \Big\|^2 =\sum_{j=1}^N \|x_j\|^2.
\end{equation}
Note that Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant} concerns pairs of vectors $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ such that the inequality $\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j\|\leq C\|x\|$ is satisfied for all vectors  $x$ and all $|\varepsilon_j|=1$.  This inequality naturally lends itself to the parallelogram law.  We now restate and prove Proposition \ref{P:Par_intro} from the introduction.


\begin{prop}\label{P:Par}
Let $b,C>0$ and $N\in{\mathbb N}\cup\{\infty\}$.  Let $(x_j)_{j=1}^N,(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ be sequences in a Hilbert space $H$ such that $\|x_j\|\|f_j\|\geq b$  for all $1\leq j\leq N$ and that
\begin{equation}\label{E:unc par}
\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j\rangle x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
\end{equation}
Then $(d_jx_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ have Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$ where $d_j=\|x_j\|^{-1/2}\|f_j\|^{1/2}$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first assume that $N\in{\mathbb N}$ is finite.
Let  $(\varepsilon_j)_{j=1}^N$ be a sequence of independent mean-$0$ random variables with $|\varepsilon_j|=1$.  Let $x\in H$.
We have that,
\begin{align*}
C^2\|x\|^2&\geq {\mathbb E} \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j\rangle  x_j\Big\|^2\\
&= {\mathbb E} \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, 
d_j^{-1}f_j\rangle d_j x_j\Big\|^2\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^N |\langle x,
d_j^{-1}f_j \rangle|^2 d_j^2\|x_j\|^2\qquad\textrm{ by the parallelogram law,}\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^N |\langle x, 
d_j^{-1}f_j\rangle|^2 \|x_j\|\|f_j\|\\
&\geq b \sum_{j=1}^N |\langle x,
d_j^{-1}f_j\rangle|^2.
\end{align*}
This gives that $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$.
For all $|\varepsilon_j|=1$, the adjoint of the operator $S(x)=\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j \langle x, f_j\rangle x_j$ is the operator  $S^*(f)=\sum_{j=1}^N \overline{\varepsilon_j}\langle f, x_j\rangle f_j$.  Thus, the roles of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ may be interchanged.  The same argument we used for  $(\overline{d_j}^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ now proves that $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$.

For the case $N=\infty$, we have that $(d_jx_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ have Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$ if and only if $(d_jx_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^n$ have Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$ for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$.  Thus, the infinite case follows from the finite case.

\end{proof}

For the infinite case, it was previously known that if $(x_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^\infty$ satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition \ref{P:Par} then $(d_jx_j)_{j=1}^n$ and $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^n$ are both Bessel \cite{SB2}. The contribution of Proposition \ref{P:Par} is that it provides an explicit Bessel bound.



Note that the Bessel bound given in Proposition \ref{P:Par} scales as $C^2$ instead of $C$ as in Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant}.
The following example shows that this is necessary.  

\begin{example}\label{Ex}
Let $(e_j)_{j=1}^N$ be the unit vector basis of $\ell_2^N$.  We let $x_j=e_j$ and $f_j=e_1$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  Then we have that,
\begin{equation}\label{E:example}
\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, e_1\rangle e_j\Big\|\leq N^{1/2}\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{for all $x\in \ell_2^N$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
\end{equation}
Note that equality in \eqref{E:example} is achieved  for $x=e_1$.  We have the values $b=1$ and $C=N^{1/2}$ for Proposition \ref{P:Par}, which gives that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ must have Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2=N$. Furthermore, $N$ is exactly the Bessel bound of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N=(e_1)_{j=1}^N$.
\end{example}

We have that the sequence of pairs $(e_j,e_1)_{j=1}^N$ in Example \ref{Ex} satisfies the unconditionality inequality with constant $N^{1/2}$ and yet $(e_1)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $N$.  However, we can shift weights so that $(N^{1/4}e_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(N^{-1/4}e_1)_{j=1}^N$ each have Bessel bound $N^{1/2}$.  This shows that it may be necessary to shift weights to minimize the maximum of the Bessel bounds of $(d_jx_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ even when $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.

   
\section{Pairs of equi-norm frames}\label{S:equinorm}

 The flexibility of choosing a sequence of scalars $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ is the most challenging aspect of Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant}.  One reason for the difficulty is that the Bessel bounds for $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are  global properties that apply to all $x\in H$, where as modifying the value for $d_k$ for some fixed $1\leq k\leq N$ makes a local change in one dimension for the frame operators for $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^N$.  Intuitively, a common problem in many different areas of mathematics is that it is difficult to optimize a global property through local modifications.  Another difficulty is that the optimal Bessel bound of the sequence $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a continuous function of the variables $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$, but it is not a smooth function of $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$. Indeed, for the simplest case where $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is an orthonormal basis, we have that the optimal Bessel bound for $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is $B=\max_{1\leq j\leq N}|d_j|$.
 In Proposition \ref{P:Par} we explicitly choose  $d_j=\|x_j\|^{-1/2}\|f_j\|^{1/2}$ by using the local hypothesis $\|x_j\|\|f_j\|\geq b$  for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  This works well for large $b>0$, but (as shown in Example \ref{Ex}) this choice of $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ may yield very large Bessel bound when $b$ is small relative to the unconditionality constant $C$.  
Because it is very difficult to choose the sequence $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$  in general, we will identify a situation where the optimal choice  is  $d_j=\overline{d_j}^{-1}=1$. That is, choosing $d_j=\overline{d_j}^{-1}=1$ will minimize the maximum of the Bessel bounds of $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(\overline{d_j}^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^N$.
We will make use of the following simple lemma. 

\begin{lem}\label{L:trace}
Let $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ be a finite frame for $\ell_2^M$ with frame operator $S_X$, upper frame bound $B$, and lower frame bound $A$. Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item  $\emph{trace}(S_X)=\sum_{j=1}^N \|x_j\|^2$,\label{lem:eq1}
\item  $AM\leq \emph{trace}(S_X)\leq BM$,\label{lem:eq2}
\item If $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$  is $B$-tight, then $\emph{trace}(S_X)=BM$.\label{lem:eq3}
\item Let $U_X$ be the analysis operator of $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ which has the following matrix form,
\[ U_X=
\begin{bmatrix}
    -      & x_1 & -  \\
    -      & x_2 & -  \\
 & \vdots & \\
    -      & x_N & -  \\
\end{bmatrix}_{N\times M}
=\begin{bmatrix}
    |     & | &   &  | \\
    c_1  & c_2  &\hdots & c_M \\
    |     & | &   &  | \\
\end{bmatrix}_{N\times M}
\]\label{lem:eq4}
\end{enumerate}
Then, the sequence of columns $(c_j)_{j=1}^M$ of $U_X$ is a basis for the column space and has upper frame bound $B$ and lower frame bound $A$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The operator $S_X:\ell_2^M\rightarrow \ell_2^M$ is defined by $S_X(x)=\sum_{j=1}^N \langle x, x_j\rangle x_j$ for all $x\in \ell_2^M$.
Let $(e_k)_{k=1}^M$ be an orthonormal basis for $\ell_2^M$. Then,
$$
\text{trace}(S_X)=\sum_{k=1}^M\sum_{j=1}^N |\langle e_k,x_j\rangle|^2=\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{k=1}^M |\langle e_k,x_j\rangle|^2=\sum_{j=1}^N \|x_j\|^2.
$$
This gives \eqref{lem:eq1}.  Conditions 
\eqref{lem:eq2} and \eqref{lem:eq3} follow easily (see \cite[Cor. 5.2]{B2}). 

Note that the upper frame bound $B$ is the largest eigenvalue of the frame operator $S_X=U_X^*U_X$ and is hence the square of the largest singular value of $U_X$.  As $U_X$ and $U_X^*$ have the same non-zero singular values, $B$ is the upper frame bound of $(c_j)_{j=1}^M$.  Likewise, $A$ is the lower frame bound of $(c_j)_{j=1}^M$.
\end{proof}



\noindent The following proposition gives a case where the optimal choice for $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ is constant $1$. 
That is, we provide a situation where the local optimization of having $\|d_j x_j\|=\|d_j^{-1} f_j\|$ gives the global optimization of minimizing $\max\{B_{dX},B_{d^{-1}F}\}$ where $B_{dX}$ is the Bessel bound of $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $B_{d^{-1}F}$ is the Bessel bound of $(d_j^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^N$.  Furthermore, this minimizes the condition numbers for both $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d_j^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^N$ to be $1$ as in the sense of weighted frames \cite{BAG}.


\begin{prop}\label{P:1}
Let $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ be finite frames for $\ell_2^M$ with $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$, for all $1\leq j\leq N$. Let $A>0$ be a lower frame bound for either $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ or $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$.  Then for all non-zero scalars $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$, if $B$ is a Bessel bound for both $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(\frac{1}{d_j}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ then $B$ must be at least $A$.

In particular, we have that if $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both tight frames then they are both $A$-tight for some $A>0$ and
$$
A=\min_{d=(d_j)_{j=1}^N}\max\{B_{dX},B_{d^{-1}F}\},
$$
where $B_{dX}$ is the optimal Bessel bound of $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $B_{d^{-1}F}$ is the optimal Bessel bound of $(d_j^{-1} f_j)_{j=1}^N$. 
\end{prop}


\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, we assume that $A$ is a lower frame bound for $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$.
Let $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ be a sequence of non-zero scalars.  Let
$S_{dX}$ be the frame operator of $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $S_{d^{-1}F}$ be the frame operator of $(\frac{1}{d_j} f_j)_{j=1}^N$. We will prove that the  trace of $S_{dX}+S_{d^{-1}F}$ is at least $2AM$. Lemma~\ref{L:trace}~\eqref{lem:eq2} then gives that the minimal Bessel bound of
either $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ or $(\frac{1}{d_j}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ must be greater than or equal to $A$. 


By Lemma \ref{L:trace}~\eqref{lem:eq1} we have that 
$$
{\rm trace}(S_{dX})=\sum_{j=1}^n |d_j|^2\|x_j\|^2,\qquad\textrm { and }\qquad
{\rm trace}(S_{d^{-1}F})=\sum_{j=1}^n |d_j|^{-2}\|f_j\|^2.
$$
By adding these equations together, we get that
\begin{align*}
{\rm trace}(S_{dX}+S_{d^{-1}F})&=\sum_{j=1}^N |d_j|^2\|x_j\|^2+|d_j|^{-2}\|f_j\|^2\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^N ( |d_j|^2+|d_j|^{-2})\|x_j\|^2 \qquad\textrm{ as }\|x_j\|=\|f_j\| \textrm{ for all }1\leq j\leq N,\\
&\geq  \sum_{j=1}^n 2\|x_j\|^2\qquad\textrm{as $t^2+t^{-2}$ is minimized  at $t= 1$,}\\
&=2\,{\rm trace}(S_X) \qquad \textrm {by Lemma~\ref{L:trace}~\eqref{lem:eq1},}\\
&\geq 2AM \qquad \textrm {by Lemma~\ref{L:trace}~\eqref{lem:eq2}.}
\end{align*}
Thus ${\rm trace}(S_{dX}+S_{d^{-1}F})\geq 2AM$ and our proof is complete.
\end{proof}

 
 Proposition \ref{P:1} gives a general situation where we know the optimal values for the sequence $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$.  That is, if $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both tight frames with $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$, for all $1\leq j\leq N$ then choosing $d_j=1$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ will minimize the maximum of the Bessel bounds of $(d_j x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d^{-1}_j f_j)_{j=1}^N$.
 Other than specific examples, this is the only general situation where the optimal values for $(d_j)_{j=1}^N$ are known, and we will solve Conjecture \ref{C:SB quant} completely for this case.  In particular,  Theorem \ref{T:main1} gives that if such frames $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ satisfy \eqref{E:unc} for some constant $C>0$ then $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ both have Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4}K_1^{-4} C$.
 Note that this case includes many important examples of frames, including the finite unit norm tight frames.
 A sequence $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ in $\ell_2^M$ is called a {\em finite unit norm tight frame or FUNTF} if $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a tight frame and $\|x_j\|=1$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  Finite unit norm tight frames (FUNTFs) were introduced in \cite{BF}, and are of particular interest in both theory and applications \cite{BH}\cite{CFK}\cite{CMS}.   If $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a FUNTF for $\ell_2^M$ then its frame bound is exactly $N M^{-1}$.  An {\em equi-norm tight frame} is a tight frame where all the vectors have the same norm, and in finite dimensions is just a rescaling of a FUNTF.  This gives the following corollary for Proposition \ref{P:Par} for the case that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are frames which are both equi-norm and tight.

 
 \begin{cor}\label{C:Par}
 Let $C\geq1$ and $M,N\in {\mathbb N}$.  Suppose that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both equi-norm tight frames with 
 $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j\rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{ for all $x\in \ell_2^M$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
Then $(dx_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(d^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ have Bessel bound $N^{1/2}M^{-1/2}C$ where $d=\|x_1\|^{-1/2}\|f_1\|^{1/2}$.
 \end{cor}
 
\begin{proof}
As  $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both equi-norm tight frames there exists a constant $b>0$ so that $\|x_j\|\|f_j\|=b$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  We apply Proposition \ref{P:Par} to obtain that the sequences $(dx_j)_{j=1}^N$ and  $(d^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ have Bessel bound $b^{-1}C^2$.  As $(b^{-1/2}dx_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a FUNTF, it has frame bound $NM^{-1}$.   By scaling, $(dx_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a tight frame with frame bound $b NM^{-1}$.  This gives that $bNM^{-1}\leq b^{-1}C^2$.  Hence, $b\leq N^{-1/2}M^{1/2} C$.  As $(dx_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a tight frame with frame bound $bNM^{-1}$ we get that $(dx_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $N^{1/2}M^{-1/2} C$.  Likewise, $(d^{-1}f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $N^{1/2}M^{-1/2}C$.
 \end{proof}
 
One interesting aspect of Corollary \ref{C:Par} is that it gives a Bessel bound for the case of equi-norm tight frames which does not explicitly state the value of $\|x_j\|$ and $\|f_j\|$.   The Bessel bound given in Corollary \ref{C:Par} depends on both $N$ and $M$.  There exist length $N$ FUNTFs for $\ell_2^M$ for all $N\geq M$, and hence the Bessel bound $N^{1/2}M^{-1/2}C$ can be arbitrarily large. One of our goals for the remainder of this section is to improve this by giving a uniform Bessel bound which is independent of $N$ and $M$.   Our proof will be probabilistic and will rely on the following case of Khintchine's Inequality (see for example Lemma 6.29 in \cite{FHHSPZ} for the general statement).

\begin{thm}[Khintchine's Inequality]\label{thm:khintchine}
There exists a constant $K_{1}>0$ such that for all $M\in{\mathbb N}$ and all scalars $(a_j)_{j=1}^N$,
$$2^{-N}\sum_{\delta_j=\pm1} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^N \delta_j a_j \Big|\geq K_{1} \left(\sum_{j=1}^N |a_j|^2\right)^{1/2}.
$$
That is, if $(\delta_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a sequence of independent symmetric random variables with $\delta_j=\pm1$, then we have the following lower bound for the expectation,
$$ \mathbb{E}\Big|\sum_{j=1}^N \delta_j a_j\Big|\geq K_{1}\big\|(a_j)_{j=1}^N\big\|_{\ell_2^N}.$$
\end{thm}

We use the notation $K_{1}$ for the constant in Khintchine's inequality because it gives a bound on the $\ell_1$-norm.  Khintchine's inequality may be used to compare any pair of $\ell_p$ and $\ell_q$-norms for $1\leq p,q<\infty$ (with a constant which depends on $p,q$), but we will only need it for comparing the $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ norms.  We are now ready to prove the following solution to Conjecture~\ref{C:SB quant} for the case of families of equi-norm vectors.  We will extend this to more general sets of vectors in Theorem \ref{T:main1}.




\begin{lem} \label{L:equinorm}
 Let $C,D,\beta>0$ and $N\in{\mathbb N}$.  Suppose that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both sequences in a finite dimensional Hilbert space  which satisfy $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|=D$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ and
 $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j \rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{ for all $x\in \ell_2^M$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
If the frame operator for $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$  has eigenvalues $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$   satisfying $\lambda_1\leq  \frac{\beta}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ then $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$, where $K_{1}$ is the constant in Khintchine's inequality. 

Likewise, if the frame operator for $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$  has eigenvalues $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ which satisfy $\lambda_1\leq \frac{\beta}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ then $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$. 
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}

Let $M\in{\mathbb N}$ and assume that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are sequences of vectors in $\ell_2^M$. Let $\beta>0$ be such that  $\lambda_1\leq \beta M^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ where $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ are the eigenvalues of the frame operator of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$.
Let $[a_{i,j}]_{N\times M}$ be the analysis matrix for the frame $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ and let $[b_{j,i}]_{M\times N}$ be the synthesis matrix for the frame $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$.  That is,
\[ 
\begin{bmatrix}
    -      & f_1 & -  \\
    -      & f_2 & -  \\
 & \vdots & \\
    -      & f_N & -  \\
\end{bmatrix
=
\begin{bmatrix}
    a_{1,1} &  \dots  & a_{1,M} \\
    a_{2,1} &  \dots  & a_{2,M} \\
    \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
    a_{N,1} &   \dots  & a_{N,M}
\end{bmatrix
,\quad \textrm{ and }\quad
\begin{bmatrix}
    |     & | &   &  | \\
    x_1  & x_2  &\hdots & x_N \\
    |     & | &   &  | \\
\end{bmatrix
=
\begin{bmatrix}
    b_{1,1} &   \dots  & b_{1,N} \\
    b_{2,1} &  \dots  & b_{2,N} \\
    \vdots &  \ddots & \vdots \\
    b_{M,1} &   \dots  & b_{M,N}
\end{bmatrix
\]
We now claim that the following two conditions are satisfied.

\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item  $(\sum_{j=1}^M a_{i,j}^2)^{1/2}=(\sum_{j=1}^M b_{j,i}^2)^{1/2}=D$  for all $1\leq i\leq N$,  \label{pr:i}
\item The sequence of columns of $[a_{i,j}]_{N\times M}$ has Bessel bound $\beta NM^{-1}D^2$.  \label{pr:ii}
\end{enumerate}

Note that \eqref{pr:i} is simply that $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|=D$, for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  To prove \eqref{pr:ii} we note that $\lambda_1$ is the optimal Bessel bound of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ and hence $\lambda_1$ is the optimal Bessel bound of the  columns of $[a_{i,j}]_{N\times M}$ by Lemma \ref{L:trace}.  By taking the trace of the frame operator of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ we have that $\sum_{i=1}^M\lambda_i=\sum_{j=1}^N\|f_j\|^2=ND^2$.  As, $\lambda_1\leq \beta M^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ we have that $\lambda_1\leq \beta NM^{-1}D^2$.  Thus, we have proven that \eqref{pr:ii} is true. The rest of the proof is concerned with bounding  $\beta NM^{-1}D^2$ in terms of $C$ and $\beta$.
 







 Let $(\delta_j)_{j=1}^M$  be a sequence of independent symmetric random variables with $\delta_j=\pm1$.
 By taking expectation we calculate,
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb E} \sum_{i=1}^N \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|&=  \sum_{i=1}^N {\mathbb E} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|\\
&\geq K_{1} \sum_{i=1}^N \left(\sum_{j=1}^M |a_{i,j}|^2\right)^{1/2} \qquad\textrm{by Khintchine's Inequality,}\\
&= K_{1} \sum_{i=1}^N D= K_{1} D N \qquad\textrm{by \eqref{pr:i}.}
\end{align*}

\noindent Thus, we may fix a particular realization for  $(\delta_j)_{j=1}^M$ such that 
\begin{equation}\label{E:choice_1}
 \sum_{i=1}^N \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|\geq K_{1} D N.
\end{equation}

\noindent For each $\alpha>0$, we define a subset $I_\alpha\subseteq \{1,2,...,N\}$ by,
$$I_\alpha:= \Big\{i\in\{1,...,N\}\,:\,  \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|\geq D\alpha  \Big\}.
$$
By \eqref{pr:ii}, the vector $(\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j})_{i=1}^N $ is in the column space of $[a_{i,j}]_{N\times M}$ and has norm at most $\beta^{1/2} DN^{1/2}$. We will now calculate a lower bound for the cardinality of $I_\alpha$.

\begin{align*}
\beta^{1/2}DN^{1/2}&\geq\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|^2\right)^{1/2}\\
&\geq \left(\sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|^2\right)^{1/2}\\
&\geq |I_\alpha|^{-1/2}\sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big| \qquad\textrm{by Cauchy-Schwarz,}\\
&= |I_\alpha|^{-1/2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|-\sum_{i\not\in I_\alpha} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|\right)\\
&\geq  |I_\alpha|^{-1/2}\left(\sum_{i=1}^N \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big|- (N-|I_\alpha|)D\alpha\right)\\
&\geq  |I_\alpha|^{-1/2}\Big(K_{1} D N- (N-|I_\alpha|)D\alpha\Big)\qquad\textrm{ by \eqref{E:choice_1},}\\
&\geq  |I_\alpha|^{-1/2} (K_{1}  -\alpha)DN.
\end{align*}
Thus, we have that $|I_\alpha|\geq \beta^{-1}(K_{1} -\alpha)^2 N$.  We now apply similar estimates to the matrix $[b_{j,i}]_{M\times N}$ restricted to the columns in $I_\alpha$.

Let $(\gamma_j)_{j=1}^M$  be a sequence of independent symmetric random variables with $\gamma_j=\pm1$.
 By taking the expectation we calculate,
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb E} \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \gamma_j b_{j,i}\Big|&=  \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} {\mathbb E}\Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \gamma_j b_{j,i}\Big|\\
&\geq K_{1} \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \left(\sum_{j=1}^M |b_{j,i}|^2\right)^{1/2} \qquad\textrm{by Khintchine's Inequality,}\\
&= K_{1} \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} D \quad\textrm{ by (1),}\\
&=DK_{1}|I_\alpha|\geq D \beta^{-1} K_{1} (K_{1} -\alpha)^2 N.
\end{align*}

\noindent Thus, we may fix a particular realization for  $(\gamma_j)_{j=1}^M$ such that 
\begin{equation}\label{E:choice_2}
 \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \gamma_j b_{i,j}\Big|\geq \beta^{-1} DK_{1}(K_{1}-\alpha)^2 N.
\end{equation}
We have that $x:=(M^{-1/2} \delta_j)_{j=1}^M$ and $f:=(M^{-1/2}\gamma_j)_{j=1}^M$ are unit norm vectors in $\ell_2^M$.  For $1\leq i\leq N$, we define $$\varepsilon_i:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\text{phase}( \langle x, f_i\rangle \langle x_i,f\rangle )^{-1}, & \textrm{ if } \langle x, f_i\rangle \langle x_i,f\rangle \neq 0,\\1, &\textrm{ otherwise.}
\end{array}\right. $$

Thus, we have that 

\begin{align*}
C\|x\|&\geq\Big\|\sum_{i=1}^N \varepsilon_i \langle x, f_i\rangle x_i\Big\|\\
&\geq  \sum_{i=1}^N \varepsilon_i \langle x_i, f\rangle \langle x, f_i\rangle\qquad \textrm{ as $\|f\|=1$,}\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^N |\langle x_i, f\rangle \langle x, f_i\rangle|\\
&= M^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^N \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big| \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \gamma_j b_{j,i}\Big|\\
&\geq M^{-1} \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_j a_{i,j}\Big| \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \gamma_j b_{j,i}\Big|\\
&\geq M^{-1} \sum_{i\in I_\alpha} \alpha D \Big|\sum_{j=1}^M \gamma_j b_{j,i}\Big|\\
&\geq  \alpha D^2 \beta^{-1} K_{1}(K_{1}-\alpha)^2 NM^{-1}\qquad\qquad\textrm{ by \eqref{E:choice_2},}\\
&= \frac{4}{27} D^2 \beta^{-1} K_{1}^4 NM^{-1}\qquad \textrm{ for }\alpha=K_{1}/3.
\end{align*}
Thus,  $\beta D^2NM^{-1}\leq \frac{27}{4} \beta^2  CK_{1}^{-4}$ as $\|x\|=1$. From $(ii)$ we deduce that $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$   has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} \beta^2 CK_{1}^{-4}$.  
\end{proof}


In Lemma \ref{L:equinorm} we considered frames $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ such that $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|=D$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  We will now extend this to  the case where $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ but we no longer require that $\|x_j\|= \|x_i\|$ when $i\neq j$.  The following theorem is a restatement of Theorem \ref{T:intro} from the introduction along with some immediate corollaries.

\begin{thm} \label{T:main1}
 Let $C,D,\beta>0$ and $N\in{\mathbb N}$.  Suppose that $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ are both sequences in a Hilbert space $H$ which satisfy $\|x_j\|=\|f_j\|$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$ and
 $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle x, f_j\rangle  x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{ for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
If the frame operator for $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$  has eigenvalues $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$  satisfying $\lambda_1\leq \frac{\beta}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ then $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$, where $K_{1}$ is the constant in Khintchine's inequality. 
In particular, if $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has condition number $\beta$ then $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$ and if $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ is a tight frame then $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} C$. 

Likewise, if the frame operator for $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$  has eigenvalues $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ which satisfy $\lambda_1\leq \frac{\beta}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ then $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$. 
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let $\beta>0$ be such that  $\lambda_1\leq \beta M^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^M\lambda_j$ where $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ are the eigenvalues of the frame operator of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$.


We first will assume that the values $\|x_j\|^2=\|f_j\|^2$ are non-zero and rational for all $1\leq j\leq N$.
Thus, there exists $K,k_1,...,k_N\in {\mathbb N}$ such that $\|x_j\|^2=\|f_j\|^2=\frac{k_j}{K}$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  We have that 
$$
\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^{k_j}\langle x,k_j^{-1/2}f_j\rangle k_j^{-1/2}x_j=\sum_{j=1}^N\langle x,f_j\rangle x_j,\hspace{1cm}\textrm{ for all }x\in H.
$$
Thus, the systems $\Big(\Big(\sqrt{\frac{1}{k_j}}x_j\Big)_{i=1}^{k_j}\Big)_{j=1}^N$ and $\Big(\Big(\sqrt{\frac{1}{k_j}}f_j\Big)_{i=1}^{k_j}\Big)_{j=1}^N$ are each equi-norm  sequences with the same frame operator  as $(x_j)_{j=1}^N$ and $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ respectively.

We now claim for all  $x\in H$  that
\begin{equation}\label{E:claim}
\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^{k_j} \varepsilon_{i,j} \langle x,k_j^{-1/2} f_j\rangle k_j^{-1/2} x_j\Big\|\leq C\|x\|,\qquad\textrm{for all }|\varepsilon_{i,j}|=1. 
\end{equation}
Assuming the claim, we have by Lemma \ref{L:equinorm} that $\Big(\Big(\sqrt{\frac{1}{k_j}}f_j\Big)_{i=1}^{k_j}\Big)_{j=1}^N$ and consequently also $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ have Bessel bound $\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$. 

We now prove the claim that \eqref{E:claim} is satisfied.  Let $x\in H$.  We will first prove that  the set $\left\{\sum_{j=1}^N a_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j:\ |a_j|\leq 1\right\}$ is contained in   $\text{conv}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j:\ |\varepsilon_j|= 1\right\},$ the convex hull of the vectors $\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j$.  To see this, let $(a_j)_{j=1}^N$ be a sequence of scalars and assume without loss of generality that $0\leq |a_1|\leq |a_2|\leq...\leq |a_N|\leq 1$.  We construct a sequence $(b_i)_{i=1}^{2N+1}$ in $[0,1]$ by $b_1=|a_1|$, $b_2=b_3=(|a_2|-|a_1|)/2$, $b_4=b_5=(|a_3|-|a_2|)/2$,..., $b_{2N}=b_{2N+1}=(1-|a_N|)/2$.  For each $1\leq j\leq N$ and $1\leq i\leq 2N+1$ we now give $\varepsilon_{j,i}$ with $|\varepsilon_{j,i}|=1$.   For $1\leq i\leq 2j-1$ we let $\varepsilon_{j,i}=\text{phase}(a_j)$, and for $2j\leq i\leq 2N+1$ we let $\varepsilon_{j,i}=(-1)^i$.  The telescoping aspect of the construction gives that $\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1} b_i=1$.  Furthermore,  $\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1}b_i\epsilon_{j,i}=a_j$, for all $1\leq j\leq N$.    We have that
$$
\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1} b_i\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_{j,i} \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j =\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1} b_i \varepsilon_{j,i} \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j=\sum_{j=1}^Na_j   \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j.
$$
This proves that $\left\{\sum_{j=1}^N a_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j:\ |a_j|\leq 1\right\}\subseteq \textrm{conv}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j:\ |\varepsilon_j|= 1\right\}$. 

Moreover, every vector $\sum_{i=1}^{L} b_i\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_{j,i} \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j$ in  $\textrm{conv}\left\{\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j:\ |\varepsilon_j|=1\right\}$ has the following bound on its norm.
\begin{align*}
\left\|\sum_{i=1}^{L} b_i\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_{j,i} \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j \right\|&\leq 
\sum_{i=1}^{L} b_i\left\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_{j,i} \langle x,f_j\rangle x_j \right\|\\ &\leq \sum_{i=1}^L b_i C\|x\|=C\|x\|.
\end{align*}
Thus, we have for all sequences $(a_j)_{j=1}^N$ with $|a_j|\leq 1$  that $\|\sum_{j=1}^N a_j \langle x, f_j\rangle x_j\|\leq C\|x\|$.  To prove our claim that \eqref{E:claim} is satisfied we let $a_j=\sum_{i=1}^{k_j}\varepsilon_{j,i} k_j^{-1}$, for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  Note that $|a_j|\leq 1$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  Thus we have that
\begin{align*}
\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^{k_j} \varepsilon_{j,i} \langle x, k_j^{-1/2} f_j\rangle k_j^{-1/2}x_j\Big\|& = \Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N\Big(\sum_{i=1}^{k_j} \varepsilon_{j,i} k_j^{-1}\Big)\langle x,  f_j\rangle x_j\Big\|\\
&=\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N a_j \langle x, f_j\rangle x_j\Big\|
\leq C\|x\|.
\end{align*}
Thus, we have proven our claim that \eqref{E:claim} is satisfied and the proof is complete for the case that $\|x_j\|^2=\|f_j\|^2$ are non-zero and rational for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  

We now consider the general case where  $\|x_j\|^2=\|f_j\|^2$ for all $1\leq j\leq N$, but they may not all be rational.  We may throw out any terms which are zero, and thus we assume without loss of generality that $\|x_j\|^2=\|f_j\|^2$ are non-zero  for all $1\leq j\leq N$.  Let $\varepsilon>0$ and let $\lambda_1\geq...\geq\lambda_M$ be the eigenvalues for the frame operator of $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$.  We may choose scalars $(\alpha_j)_{j=1}^N$ which are arbitrarily close to $1$ so that $\|\alpha_j x_j\|^2=\|\alpha_j f_j\|^2$ is rational for all $1\leq j\leq N$  and 
 $$\Big\|\sum_{j=1}^N \varepsilon_j\langle \alpha_j f_j, x\rangle  \alpha_j x_j\Big\|\leq (C+\varepsilon)\|x\|, \qquad\textrm{ for all $x\in H$ and $|\varepsilon_j|=1$}.
$$
Furthermore, we may assume that if $\gamma_1\geq...\geq\gamma_M$ are the eigenvalues of the frame operator for $(\alpha_j f_j)_{j=1}^n$ then $(1+\varepsilon)^{-1}\gamma_i\leq \lambda_i\leq (1+\varepsilon)\gamma_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq M$.
Hence, by our previous argument,  $(\alpha_j f_j)_{j=1}^n$ has Bessel bound 
$\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2(1+\varepsilon)^4 (C+\varepsilon)$.  As the scalars $(\alpha_j)_{j=1}^N$ may be chosen arbitrarily close to $1$ we have that $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound 
$\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2(1+\varepsilon)^4 (C+\varepsilon)$.  As $\varepsilon>0$ was arbitrary,  $(f_j)_{j=1}^N$ has Bessel bound 
$\frac{27}{4} K_{1}^{-4} \beta^2 C$.
\end{proof}


 



