The Expected Shape of Random Doubly Alternating Baxter Permutations

Abstract: Guibert and Linusson introduced the family of doubly alternating Baxter permutations, i.e. Baxter permutations $\sigma \in S_n$, such that $\sigma$ and $\sigma^{-1}$ are alternating. They proved that the number of such permutations in $S_{2n}$ and $S_{2n+1}$ is the Catalan number $C_n$. In this paper we explore the expected limit shape of such permutations, following the approach by Miner and Pak.

\section{Introduction}

\noindent
A \emph{Catalan structure} is a family of combinatorial objects whose number is the Catalan number
$$
C_n \, = \, \frac{1}{n+1}\hskip.02cm \binom{2n}{n}\..
$$
There is a staggering amount of literature on various Catalan structures,
the list of which is ever growing (see~\cite{Gould,Pak,Slo,S1,S2}).
This multitude and diversity of Catalan structures
is in part a
consequence of their different nature, and in part a misperception,
as many such structures are essentially equivalent, via a ``nice bijection''.
In the latter case, this can happen despite the apparently different geometric
representations of the Catalan objects (think polygon triangulations
vs.~binary trees). Discerning different combinatorial structures
can be difficult and even harder to formalize (as in, how do you prove
non-existence of a ``nice bijection''?).

\smallskip

In this paper we study the asymptotic behavior of doubly alternating
Baxter permutations $\sigma\in S_n$.  Following~\cite{miner-pak},
we compute the \emph{expected limit shape} of $\mathcal{B}_n$ by viewing permutations
as 0-1 matrices, and averaging them.  When scaled appropriately
the resulting distribution on $[0,1]^2$ converges to a \emph{limit
surface} $\Phi(x,y)$ with an explicit formula that seems new in
the literature, thus differentiating this Catalan structure
from others (see Theorem~\ref{thm:asymptotic} below).

\smallskip

\emph{Baxter permutations} \hskip.02cm are defined to be $\sigma\in S_n$,
such that there are no indices \hskip.02cm $1\le i < j < k\le n$, which
satisfy \hskip.02cm $\sigma(j + 1) < \sigma(i) < \sigma(k) < \sigma(j)$ \hskip.02cm or \hskip.02cm
$\sigma(j) < \sigma(k) < \sigma(i) < \sigma(j + 1)$.  They were introduced
and enumerated by Baxter in 1964~\cite{baxter} (see also~\cite{chung-et,Vie}),
and recently became a popular subject (see~$\S\ref{s:fin-bax}$).

The \emph{alternating permutations} are defined to be $\sigma\in S_n$,
such that $\sigma(1)<\sigma(2)>\sigma(3)<\sigma(4)>\ldots$.  They were defined
by Andr\'{e} in~1879, and extensively studied over the years
(see~\cite{Sta,S1}).  Their number is known as the
\emph{Euler--Bernoulli number} with the exponential
generating function $\tan(x) + \sec(x)$, and they have
numerous connections to other fields.

A Baxter permutation $\sigma \in S_n$ is called
\emph{doubly alternating} if both~$\sigma$ and $\sigma^{-1}$ are alter-nating.
Guibert and Linusson showed in~\cite{guibert-linusson} that
the set $\mathcal{B}_n$ of such permutations is a Catalan structure:
$$\bigl|\mathcal{B}_{2n}\bigr| \. = \. \bigl|\mathcal{B}_{2n+1}\bigr| \. = \. C_n\,.$$
Let $P(m,i,j)$ denote the probability that a random $\sigma\in \mathcal{B}_{2m}$ has
$\sigma(i)=j$.  Here is our main result.

\medskip

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:asymptotic}
  Let $0 < \alpha < \beta < 1 - \alpha$.
  Then, as $m$ goes to infinity, we have:
  \begin{equation*}
    P(m,\lfloor 2\alpha m \rfloor , \lfloor 2\beta m \rfloor) \, \sim \, \frac{\varphi(\alpha,\beta)}{m}\.,
  \end{equation*}
  where
  \begin{equation*}
    \varphi(\alpha,\beta) \, = \.\frac{1}{8\pi}\. \int_0^\alpha \int_0^{\alpha-y} \.\frac{dx\ dy}{[(x+y)(\beta-x)(1-\beta-y)]^{3/2}}\..
  \end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=8cm]{superboldlines-r500-numbering.png}

  \caption{The graph of the limit surface~$\Phi(x,y)$.}
  \label{fig:limit-surface}
\end{figure}

In other words, when the distribution $P(m,i,j)$ is scaled appropriately,
it converges to the limit surface $\Phi(x,y)$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:limit-surface}.
Here the surface $\Phi: (0,1)^2\to \mathbb R$ is obtained from
$\varphi: \{0<x<y<1, \. x+y < 1\}\to \mathbb R$ by reflection across both diagonals.

There are a few things to note.  First, the surface $\Phi(x,y)$ has the symmetry
group of a square. Curiously, most of symmetries do not appear in the actual
numbers~$B(m,i,j)$.
We discuss this in further detail in Section \ref{sec:final-remarks}.
Second, most of the surface is ``under water'', i.e. we have $\Phi(x,y)<1$
everywhere except near the corners and at the center spike $\Phi(\frac12,\frac12)=\frac32$.
The reason is simple: the peaks in the corners actually diverge
(see Theorem~\ref{t:spikes}).\footnote{Our graph in Figure~\ref{fig:limit-surface}
has been truncated.}   Finally, the limit shape for $\mathcal{B}_n$ is fundamentally different
from those in~\cite{miner-pak}, where the limit surfaces are degenerate.
We give more details on these in Section~\ref{sec:final-remarks}.

\smallskip

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section
we introduce the basic notations.  In Section~\ref{sec:DAB-results},
we present the main lemma (Lemma~\ref{mainlemma:main-theorem-enumerative}),
giving an explicit triple summation formula for~$P(m,i,j)$.
Section~\ref{sec:proof-mainlemma} contains the proof of the main lemma.
We then use the main lemma to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:asymptotic} in
Section~\ref{sec:asymptotics}.  We conclude with final remarks and
open problems in Section~\ref{sec:final-remarks}.

\bigskip

\section{Basic definitions and notation}

\noindent
For a permutation $\sigma \in S_n$, its \emph{complement} $\sigma^c$
is defined pointwise by $\sigma^c (i) = n + 1 - \sigma (i)$.
Given $\sigma = a_1 \cdots a_n \in S_n$ and permutations
$\tau_1, \dots ,\tau_n$, we define the \emph{inflation}
$\sigma[\tau_1, \dots ,\tau_n]$ to be the permutation obtained
by replacing $a_i$ with a copy of $\tau_i$, shifted to be in
the same relative position as $a_i$.

We say that $a_n \sim b_n$, or $a_n$ is asymptotically equivalent
to~$b_n$ if  $a_n/b_n \rightarrow 1$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$.
Recall Stirling's formula,
\begin{equation*}
  n! \. \sim \. \sqrt{2\hskip.02cm \pi\hskip.02cm n} \left( \frac{n}{e} \right)^n\..
\end{equation*}
It gives the following asymptotic formula for the Catalan numbers:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:catalan-asymptotic}
  C_n \. \sim \. \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} \hskip.02cm n^{3/2}} \,\hskip.02cm 4^n\,.
\end{equation}
In Section~\ref{sec:asymptotics}, we will make heavy use of this approximation.

\bigskip

\section{Main Lemma}
\label{sec:DAB-results}

\noindent
As in the introduction, let $\mathcal{B}_n$ denote the set of doubly
alternating Baxter permutations of length~$n$.  Recall that $|\mathcal{B}_{2m}|$
is equal to the $m$-th Catalan number $C_m$.  It was proved
in~\cite{guibert-linusson} that for $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_n$ with $n$~odd,
we have $\sigma = 12[1,\tau^c]$, for some $\tau \in \mathcal{B}_{n-1}$.
Therefore, the limit shape of $\mathcal{B}_{2m+1}$ is that of~$\mathcal{B}_{2m}$.
From this point on, we restrict our attention to sets~$\mathcal{B}_{2m}$.

It was further proved~\cite{guibert-linusson}, that elements of~$\mathcal{B}_{2m}$
can be described by a standard recursive Catalan structure.
Specifically, if $\sigma(1) = 2k+1$ (and $\sigma(1)$ must always be odd),
then we have $\sigma = 2341[1,\tau^c,1,\omega]$ with $\omega \in \mathcal{B}_{2k}$
and $\tau \in \mathcal{B}_{2(m-k-1)}$.
Figure~\ref{fig:dab-recursive-structure} illustrates this decomposition.
\begin{figure}[h]\centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    [scale=0.35,
    every node/.style={align=center}]

    \draw (0,7.5) node {$\sigma = $};

    \begin{scope}[xshift = 2cm]
      \draw (0,0) rectangle (15,15);

      \filldraw (0,9) circle (6pt);
      \filldraw (6,15) circle (6pt);
      \draw (3,12) node {$\tau^c$};

      \draw (0.38,9.38) rectangle (5.62,14.62);

      \draw[dashed] (0,8.5) -- (15,8.5);
      \draw[dashed] (6.5,0) -- (6.5,15);

      \draw (7,0) rectangle (15,8);
      \draw (11,4) node {$\omega$};
    \end{scope}
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{A recursive description for $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{2m}$.}
  \label{fig:dab-recursive-structure}
\end{figure}

For $r,s \geq 1$, let $p_{r,s}$ be the number of Dyck paths of
length~$2(r+s-1)$, which first revisit the horizontal axis by
step~$2s$ at the latest.  Then $p_{r,s}$ is given by a partial
Catalan convolution:
\begin{equation*}
  p_{r,s} \, = \, \sum_{k=1}^{s} \. C_{r+s-(k+1)} \cdot C_{k-1}
  \, = \, C_{r+s-2}C_0 \. + \. \ldots \. + \. C_{r-1}C_{s-1}\..
\end{equation*}
Let $B(m,i,j)$ be the number of permutations $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{2m}$
such that $\sigma(i) = j$.
We use the recursive structure above to obtain the following summation
formula for~$B(m,i,j)$, in terms of the Catalan numbers.

\smallskip

\begin{mainlemma}\label{mainlemma:main-theorem-enumerative}
  Let $B(m,i,j)$ and $p_{r,s}$ be defined as above, and let
  $a = \left\lceil i/2 \right\rceil$, $b = \left\lfloor j/2 \right\rfloor$.
  Suppose further that $i \leq j \leq 2m-i$.  Then we have:
  \begin{equation}
    B(m,i,j) = \left\{
      \begin{array}{rll}
        C_b C_{m-b-1} \!\!\!\! & + \displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{a - 1} \displaystyle\sum_{s=1}^{a - r} p_{r,s} \cdot C_{b-r+1} \cdot C_{m-b-s-1} & \text{for $j$ odd}\.,\\
        [2em]
        & \phantom{+} \displaystyle\sum_{r=1}^{a - 1} \displaystyle\sum_{s=1}^{a - r} p_{r,s} \cdot C_{b-r} \cdot C_{m-b-s} & \text{for $j$ even}\..
      \end{array}\right. \label{eq:main-lemma-equation}\tag{$\ast$}
  \end{equation}
\end{mainlemma}

\smallskip

We prove the main lemma by induction in the next section, and use it in
Section~\ref{sec:asymptotics} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:asymptotic}.

\bigskip

\section{Proof of Main Lemma}
\label{sec:proof-mainlemma}

\subsection{The symmetries}
We observe the following easy properties of~$B(m,i,j)$.
\begin{proposition}
  We have
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item[$(i)$]
    $B(m,i,j) = B(m,j,i) = B(m,2m+1-j,2m+1-i)$\hskip.02cm.

  \item[$(ii)$]
    For~$i=1$, we have
    \begin{equation*}
      B(m,1,j) = \left\{
        \begin{array}{ll}
          0 & \text{if $j$ is even}\.,\\
          C_{b} \cdot C_{m- b - 1} & \text{if $j = 2b+1$ is odd}\..
        \end{array}
      \right.
    \end{equation*}

  \item[$(iii)$]
    Let $i>1$ and $j < 2m$.
    Then

    \begin{equation*}\label{eq:basic-recurrence-for-dabs}
      \begin{aligned}
        B(m,i,j)\, = \, & \sum_{k=1}^{\lceil i/2 \rceil - 1} C_{k-1} \cdot B(m-k,i-2k,j) \,
        + \hskip.02cm \sum_{k=m - \lfloor j/2 \rfloor + 1}^{m} C_{m-k} \cdot B(k-1,i-1,2m-j)\hskip.02cm.
      \end{aligned}
  \end{equation*}

  \end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
    The equalities in~$(i)$ correspond to reflection over the main diagonal and main antidiagonal, respectively.
    These reflections preserve both the Baxter and doubly alternating properties.

    The equality in~$(ii)$ follows immediately from the recursive structure of $\mathcal{B}_{2m}$ given in Figure~\ref{fig:dab-recursive-structure}.
    As a special case, note that $B(m,1,1) = C_{m-1}$\hskip.02cm.

    The recurrence relation in~$(iii)$ follows from conditioning on $\sigma(2k) = 2m$, and checking the resulting restrictions
    on $\sigma(i)=j$.
    Note that for the second sub-sum, we require $2(k-1) \geq 2m -j$ to satisfy the required constraints.
\end{proof}

The first part of this proposition shows that our Main Lemma is sufficient to calculate $B(m,i,j)$ for \emph{all} $i,j$, by using reflections.

\subsection{Preliminary calculations}
Throughout the rest of this section, we assume that $i \leq j \leq 2m-i$.
Let us further refine the recurrence in equation in~$(iii)$.
We need to ensure that all terms $B(n,p,q)$ in the above satisfy the inequalities $p \leq q \leq 2n -p$.
The first sum requires no modification.
The second sum must be split however, and a symmetry applied to one group of terms.
Since we need $i-1 \leq 2m-j \leq 2k-i-1,$ it follows that the terms with
$k \geq m + \frac{1}{2}(i+1-j)$ are already of the desired form.
For summands preceding this cut-off point, we will apply an antidiagonal reflection to the terms $B(*,*,*)$.
For notational convenience, let
$h = \left\lfloor \frac{1}{2} (j - i - 1) \right\rfloor$ and let $a,$ $b$ be as in the Main Lemma.
Then our triple sum becomes
\begin{align*}
  B(m,i,j) =& \sum_{k=1}^{a - 1} C_{k-1} \cdot B(m-k,i-2k,j)\\
  &+ \sum_{k=m - b +1}^{m - h - 1} C_{m-k} \cdot B(k-1,j-1-2(m-k),2k-i)\\
  &+ \sum_{k=m - h}^{m} C_{m-k} \cdot B(k-1,i-1,2m-j).
\end{align*}
We reindex the second two sums of the above, by letting $k \gets m - b + \ell$:
\begin{align}\label{eq:triple-sum-reindexed}
  B(m,i,j) =& \sum_{k=1}^{a - 1} C_{k-1} \cdot B(m-k,i-2k,j)\nonumber\\
  &+ \sum_{\ell = 1}^{b - h - 1} C_{b - \ell} \cdot B(m - b + \ell-1,j-1-2(b - \ell),2(m - b + \ell)-i)\\
  &+ \sum_{\ell = b - h}^{b} C_{b - \ell} \cdot B(m - b + \ell-1,i-1,2m-j).\nonumber
\end{align}

We also state a simple lemma:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:p-sum-simplify}
  Let $r,s \geq 1$.
  Then
  \begin{equation*}
    p_{r,s} = C_{r+s-2} + \sum_{k=1}^{s-1} C_{k-1} \cdot p_{r,s-k}\..
  \end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  This follows from expanding each $p_{r,s-k}$ term and changing the order of summation.

\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Main Lemma}
\label{pf:proof-main-theorem-enumerative}
  Suppose our formula (\ref{eq:main-lemma-equation}) holds for all $B(n,p,q)$ satisfying $n<m$, and $p,q \in \{1, \dots ,2n\}$ with $p \leq q \leq 2n-p$.
  To show that the result holds for $B(m,i,j)$, we prove it separately for each of the four choices on the parity of $i$ and $j$.
  Let $i=2a$ and $j=2b$.
  In this case, we have
  \begin{equation*}
    a = \left\lceil \frac{i}{2} \right\rceil, \qquad b = \left\lfloor \frac{j}{2} \right\rfloor, \quad \text{and} \quad h = \left\lfloor \frac{(j-i-1)}{2} \right\rfloor = b - a -1\..
  \end{equation*}
  Thus, the triple sum in equation (\ref{eq:triple-sum-reindexed}) becomes
  \begin{align*
    B(m,2a,2b) =& \sum_{k=1}^{a-1} C_{k-1} \cdot B\bigl(m-k,2(a-k), 2b\bigr)\nonumber\\
    &+ \sum_{\ell=1}^{a} C_{b-\ell} \cdot B\bigl(m-b+\ell-1, 2(\ell-1)+1, 2(m-b-a+\ell)\bigr)\nonumber\\
    &+ \sum_{\ell=a+1}^{b} C_{b-\ell} \cdot B\bigl(m-b+\ell-1, 2a-1, 2(m-b)\bigr)\..
  \end{align*}
  By induction, this gives
  \begin{equation} \label{eq:triple-sum-even-even-inductive}
    \begin{aligned}
      B(m,2a,2b) =& \sum_{k=1}^{a-1} C_{k-1} \cdot \sum_{c=1}^{a-k-1}\sum_{d=1}^{a-k-c} p_{c,d} \cdot C_{b-c} \cdot C_{m-k-b-d} \\
      &+ \sum_{\ell=1}^{a} C_{b-\ell} \cdot \sum_{c=1}^{\ell - 2}\sum_{d=1}^{\ell - 1 - c} p_{c,d} \cdot C_{m-b-a+\ell - c} \cdot C_{a-1-d} \\
      &+ \sum_{\ell=a+1}^{b} C_{b-\ell} \cdot \sum_{c=1}^{a-1}\sum_{d=1}^{a-1-c} p_{c,d} \cdot C_{m-b-c} \cdot C_{\ell - 1 - d}\,.
    \end{aligned}
  \end{equation}

  For a fixed $r$ and $s$, let $c_1,c_2,c_3$ be the coefficients on $C_{b-r}\cdot C_{m-b-s}$ in the first, second and third sums in the above equation.

  Looking at the first sum we see that $c_1$ is only nonzero when $r \leq a-s$.
  In such a case, by considering $c = r$ and $k+d = s$ we see that the coefficient is given by
  \begin{equation*}
    c_1 = \sum_{k=1}^{s-1}p_{r,s-k} \cdot C_{k-1} = p_{r,s} - C_{r+s-2}\.,
  \end{equation*}
  with equality following from Lemma \ref{lemma:p-sum-simplify}.

  For the second sum, we consider $\ell = r$ and $a+c-r = s$.
  Since $c \geq 1$, the second sum contributes nothing for the cases when $r+s \leq a$.
  Thus for $r+s \leq a$ we have $c_2 = 0$, and for $r+s > a$ we instead get
  \begin{equation*}
    c_2 = \sum_{j=1}^{a-s} p_{r+s-a,j}\cdot C_{a-j-1}\..
  \end{equation*}

  Our third sum requires some manipulation.
  We rewrite the third sum in (\ref{eq:triple-sum-even-even-inductive}) as
  \begin{equation*}
    \sum_{c=1}^{a-1} \sum_{d=1}^{a-1-c} p_{c,d} \cdot C_{m-b-c} \cdot \left( \sum_{\ell=a+1}^{b} C_{b-\ell} \cdot C_{\ell - 1 - d} \right),
  \end{equation*}
  and here the inner sum can be re-expressed as a subtraction, through the standard Catalan convolution:
  \begin{equation*}
    \sum_{c=1}^{a-1} \sum_{d=1}^{a-1-c}  p_{c,d} \cdot C_{m-b-c} \cdot (C_{b-d} - C_{b-d-1}C_{0} - \ldots - C_{b-a}C_{a-d-1})\..
  \end{equation*}
  If we consider those summands where $c = s$ we obtain that for $r+s \leq a$ we have $c_3 = C_{r+s-2}$, and otherwise
  \begin{equation*}
    c_3 = -\left( \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{a-s} p_{s,j}\cdot C_{r-j-1} \right).
  \end{equation*}

  Combining these terms, we see that
  \begin{equation*}
    c_1 + c_2 + c_3 = \left\{
      \begin{array}{ll}
        p_{r,s} & \text{for $r + s \leq a$}\hskip.02cm, \\
        [1em]
        \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{a-s} \left( p_{r+s-a,j}\cdot C_{a-j-1} - p_{s,j}\cdot C_{r-j-1} \right) & \text{for $r + s \geq a$}\hskip.02cm.
      \end{array}
    \right.
  \end{equation*}
  Expand and rearrange each $p_{*,*}$ term in this latter sum, and observe that it is equal to~$0$.
  This completes the proof for the case when~$i$ and~$j$ are both even.
  The other three cases are similar and their proof is omitted.\footnote{Full proofs
  of these cases will appear in the first author's Ph.D.~thesis~\cite{Dok}.} \ $\square$

\bigskip

\section{Asymptotic estimates}\label{sec:asymptotics}

\subsection{Preliminaries}
Let $P(m,i,j)$ be the probability that $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{2m}$ satisfies $\sigma(i) = j$.
Then $P(m,i,j) = B(m,i,j)/C_m$.

Throughout the section, it will be convenient to pretend that $2 \alpha m, 2 \beta m$ are integers.
Further, we assume that $2 \alpha m, 2 \beta m$ are even, in order to restrict to one version of the formulas
in the equation~(\ref{eq:main-lemma-equation}).
Therefore, we write:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:probability}
  P(m,2 \alpha m, 2 \beta m) \, = \.\sum_{r=1}^{\alpha m - 1} \sum_{s=1}^{\alpha m - r} \frac{p_{r,s} \cdot C_{\beta m - r} \cdot C_{m -\beta m - s}}{C_m}\,. \tag{$**$}
\end{equation}

\begin{theorem}\label{t:spikes}
  We have the following corner probabilities:
  \begin{align*}
    P(m,1,1)\hskip.02cm, \. P(m,1,2m-1)\hskip.02cm, \. P(m,2,2m-1) \, & \rightarrow \, \frac{1}{4}\.,\\
    P(m,1,2) \. = \. P(m,1,2m) \. = \. P(m,2,2) \. &= \. 0\.,
  \end{align*}
  and the remaining corner cases are given by symmetries.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  It follows at once from the formulas in the Main Lemma that the probabilities in these cases are either~$0$,
  or $C_{m-1}/C_m \rightarrow 1/4$\hskip.02cm.
\end{proof}

Before proving Theorem \ref{thm:asymptotic}, we will need to take a closer look at the partial Catalan convolutions $p_{r,s}$.
Note that $C_{r+s-2} \leq p_{r,s} \leq C_{r+s-1}$.
In fact, the following stronger result holds.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:partial-convo-approx}
  Fix $\rho \in (2/3, 1)$.

  Suppose that $k$ satisfies
  \begin{equation*}
    n^\rho < k < n - n^\rho\hskip.02cm.
  \end{equation*}
  Then, for every $\varepsilon > 0$,
  \begin{equation*}

    (1-\varepsilon) C_{n-1} \leq 2 \cdot p_{n-k,k} \leq (1+\varepsilon) C_{n-1}\.,
  \end{equation*}
  for all $n$ large enough.
\end{lemma}
Letting $k=s, r = n-k-1$ gives this above inequality.
We omit the proof.

\subsection{Partitioning the summation}
Observe that the double sum in equation (\ref{eq:probability}) is over a
triangular set of points $\textsc{T}$, with $(r,s)\in T$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
  1 \leq r \leq \alpha m - 1 \qquad \text{and} \quad 1 \leq s \leq \alpha m - r\..
\end{equation*}
We partition $\textsc{T}$ into the four sets $\textsc{A},\textsc{B},\textsc{C}$ and $\textsc{D}$ as follows (see Figure \ref{fig:tri-region}).
\begin{align*}
  \textsc{A} &= \{(r,s) : (r+s) \leq \alpha m^\delta\} \\
  \textsc{B} &= T \setminus (A \cup C \cup D) \\
  \textsc{C} &= \{(r,s) : s \leq (r+s)^\rho \} \\
  \textsc{D} &= \{(r,s) : s \geq r+s - (r+s)^\rho \} \\
\end{align*}
We show that the sum of terms in~(\ref{eq:probability}) corresponding
to each of the sets $\textsc{A},\textsc{C}$ and $\textsc{D}$ are dominated
by the those from set~$\textsc{B}$.
This will allow us to apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:partial-convo-approx}
and approximation in~(\ref{eq:catalan-asymptotic}) to terms whose indices
lie in set~$\textsc{B}$.
\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}[domain=1:3,smooth,variable=\x]

    \draw[thick] (0,0)--(0,3)--(3,0)--(0,0);

    \draw[thick] (0,0)--(0,1)--(1,0)--(0,0);

    \draw[->]    (0,3) -- (0,3.5);
    \draw[->]    (3,0) -- (4,0);

    \draw (4,0)[right] node {$r$};
    \draw (0,3.5)[above] node {$s$};

    \draw (0,3)[left]    node {$\alpha m -1$};
    \draw (3,0)[below]   node {$\alpha m -1$};

    \draw (0,1)[left]    node {$\alpha m^\delta$};
    \draw (1,0)[below]   node {$\alpha m^\delta$};

    \draw (0.3,0.3)      node {$\textsc{A}$};
    \draw (1,1)          node {$\textsc{B}$};
    \draw (2,0.23)       node {$\textsc{C}$};
    \draw (0.2,2)        node {$\textsc{D}$};
    \draw (2.7,1)        node {$\textsc{T}$};

    \draw (0,0.1)[left]  node {$1$};
    \draw (0.1,0)[below] node {$1$};

    \draw[thick] plot ({\x - 0.4*sqrt((2*\x-1.5)/2)}, {0.4*(sqrt((2*\x-1.5)/2))});
    \draw[thick] (1,0)--(3,0)--(3-0.5865,0.5865);
    \begin{scope}[xscale=-1,rotate=90]
      \draw[thick] plot ({\x - 0.4*sqrt((2*\x-1.5)/2)}, {0.4*(sqrt((2*\x-1.5)/2))});
      \draw[thick] (1,0)--(3,0)--(3-0.5865,0.5865);
    \end{scope}

  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{The summation points, partitioned into four sets.}
  \label{fig:tri-region}
\end{figure}

We reduce the problem of summation over $\textsc{T}$ to an integral
over the right triangle $\Delta$, given by $x,y \geq 0$ and $x+y < \alpha$.
For that we similarly define the regions $\textbf{A},\textbf{B},\textbf{C}$ and $\textbf{D}$ to be all $(x,y)$ in $\Delta$ so that $(\lceil mx \rceil , \lceil my \rceil)$ is a point in $\textsc{A},\textsc{B},\textsc{C}$ or $\textsc{D}$, respectively.

\subsection{Estimates for set ${\normalfont \textsc{A}}$}\label{sec:set-A-is-small}
Each of the three sets $\textsc{A},\textsc{C}$ and $\textsc{D}$ contains a relatively small number of terms.
We will show that the sum of terms in (\ref{eq:probability}) corresponding to these sets grows slowly, so that their contribution is dwarfed by that of set $\textsc{B}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:A-is-small}
  Let $\delta < 1/4$.
  Then the sum of terms in $($\ref{eq:probability}$)$ corresponding to ${\normalfont \textsc{A}}$ is $o \! \left( \frac{1}{m} \right)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  The largest individual term in (\ref{eq:probability}) is obtained when $r=s=1$. We get:
  \begin{equation*}
    \frac{2 C_{\beta m -1} C_{m -  \beta m   - 1}}{C_m} \,\sim \, \frac{1}{\beta(1-\beta)8\sqrt{\pi}} \cdot \frac{1}{m^{3/2}}\,.
  \end{equation*}
  We bound each of the summands from $\textsc{A}$ by this, so that their total is at most
  \begin{align*}
    & |\textsc{A}| \cdot \frac{2 C_{ \beta m   -1} C_{m -  \beta m   - 1}}{C_m}
    \, = \, (\alpha m^\delta)^2 \cdot \frac{C_{\beta m   -1} C_{m - \beta m - 1}}{C_m} \\
    & \qquad \ \ \sim \, \frac{1}{8\hskip.02cm \sqrt{\pi}\hskip.02cm\beta(1-\beta)} \cdot \frac{(\alpha m^\delta)^2}{m^{3/2}}
    \, = \, \frac{\alpha^2}{8\sqrt{\pi}\beta(1-\beta)} \cdot \frac{1}{m^{3/2 - 2\delta}}
    \, = \, o\left( \frac{1}{m} \right),
  \end{align*}
  where the last equality follows from $\delta < 1/4$\hskip.02cm.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Estimates for sets ${\normalfont \textsc{C} \ and \ \textsc{D}}$}\label{sec:sets-CD-are-small}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:CD-are-small}
  Let $\rho \in (2/3, 1)$.
  Then the sum of terms in $($\ref{eq:probability}$)$ corresponding to set $\textsc{C}$ is $o \! \left( \frac{1}{m} \right)$.
  The same also holds for the set~$\textsc{D}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}  Choose a constant $M$ large enough so that
  \begin{equation*}
    C_n \, \leq \, M \cdot \frac{4^n}{(n+1)^{3/2}}\,, \qquad \text{for all} \, \ n \geq 0\..
  \end{equation*}
  Denote by $\Psum{C}$ the sum of terms in (\ref{eq:probability}) corresponding to~$\textsc{C}$, i.e.
  \begin{equation*}
    \Psum{C} \, = \,
    \sum_{(r,s)\in \textsc{C}} \frac{p_{r,s} \cdot C_{\beta m  - r} \cdot C_{m - \beta m  - s}}{C_m}
    \, \leq \.\sum_{(r,s)\in \textsc{C}} \frac{C_{r+s-1} \cdot C_{\beta m  - r} \cdot C_{m - \beta m  - s}}{C_m}\,,
  \end{equation*}
  where the last inequality follows from \hskip.02cm $p_{r,s} \leq C_{r+s-1}$.
  We use formula (\ref{eq:catalan-asymptotic}) as well as our choice of~$M$ to obtain
  \begin{align*}
    \frac{4 \Psum{C}}{\sqrt{\pi} \hskip.02cm M^3} \, &\leq  \,
    \sum_{(r,s)\in \textsc{C}} \frac{m^{3/2}}{[(r+s)(\beta m - r + 1)((1-\beta)m-s+1)]^{3/2}}\,.
     \end{align*}
  And as $m\rightarrow \infty$ this last sum is asymptotically equivalent to
  \begin{equation*}
    \frac{1}{m} \iint_{\textbf{C}} \frac{dx\ dy}{[(x+y) (\beta - x) (1-\beta - y)]^{3/2}}\,.
  \end{equation*}
  Now observe that the above integral converges, and that $Area(\textbf{C}) \rightarrow 0$
  as $m\rightarrow \infty$.  Thus, $\Psum{C}=o\left( \frac{1}{m} \right)$, as desired.
  The proof for $\textsc{D}$ follows verbatim from the above argument and the bound
  $p_{r,s} \leq C_{r+s-1}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
  At the beginning of this section, we assumed that $2\alpha m, 2\beta m$ are even integers.
  For the other choices of parity, the sum (\ref{eq:probability}) differs in the range of indices $(r,s)$, and, depending on the chosen parity of $2\alpha m$, the addition of a $O(m^{-3/2})$ term, coming from the first term in the summation (\ref{eq:main-lemma-equation}) from the main lemma.

  The above arguments and the following proof of Theorem \ref{thm:asymptotic} can be adapted with little difficulty to handle these differences.
\end{remark}

\medskip

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:asymptotic}}\label{sec:proof-of-asymptotic}
  Denote by $\Psum{B}$ the sum of terms from (\ref{eq:probability}) corresponding to set $\textsc{B}$, i.e.
  \begin{equation*}
    \Psum{B} \, = \. \sum_{(r,s) \in \textsc{B}}\frac{p_{r,s} \cdot C_{\beta m -r} \cdot C_{m - \beta m -s}}{C_m}\,.
  \end{equation*}

We need to prove that $\Psum{B}\sim \frac{1}{m} \varphi(\alpha,\beta)$.
  This follows from the construction of $\textsc{B}$.
  First, note that for $(r,s) \in \textsc{B}$, the indices $r+s,~\beta m - r$ and $(1-\beta) m - s \to \infty$
  as $m\to \infty$.
  Thus, by Lemma \ref{lemma:partial-convo-approx} we have
  \begin{equation*}
    \Psum{B} \, \sim \, \frac{1}{2} \sum_{(r,s)\in \textsc{B}} \frac{C_{r+s-1} \cdot C_{\beta m -r} \cdot C_{m - \beta m -s}}{C_m}\,.
  \end{equation*}
  From formula (\ref{eq:catalan-asymptotic}) we obtain
  \begin{align*}
    \Psum{B} \, &\sim \,\frac{1}{8\pi} \. \sum_{(r,s)\in \textsc{B}} \. \frac{m^{3/2}}{[(r+s)(\beta m - r)((1-\beta)m - s)]^{3/2}}\\
    &\sim \, \frac{1}{8\pi m} \. \iint_{\textbf{B}} \. \frac{dx\ dy}{[(x+y)(\beta-x)(1-\beta-y)]^{3/2}}\,.
  \end{align*}
  As $m\to \infty$, the region $\textbf{B}$ expands to fill the entire triangle~$\Delta$, so we obtain
  \begin{equation*}
    \Psum{B} \, \sim \, \frac{1}{8\pi m}\. \int_0^\alpha
    \int_0^{\alpha - y} \frac{dx\ dy}{[(x+y)(\beta-x)(1-\beta-y)]^{3/2}} \, = \, \frac{\varphi(\alpha,\beta)}{m}\,.
  \end{equation*}
  Finally, by Lemmas \ref{lemma:A-is-small} and \ref{lemma:CD-are-small}, the probability
  $P(m,2\alpha m, 2\beta m) \sim \Psum{B}$.    This completes the proof. \ $\square$

\bigskip

\section{Final remarks and open problems}
\label{sec:final-remarks}

\subsection{}
There is a large literature on the asymptotic behavior of Catalan structures,
too large for us to summarize.  We refer to~\cite{FS,Odl,PW} for a comprehensive
introduction to asymptotic methods, and to~\cite{Pit} for strongly related
discrete probability results.

\subsection{}\label{s:fin-bax}
The choice of doubly alternating Baxter permutations is a part of a general
program of study of pattern-avoiding permutations. Baxter permutations are
defined to avoid two (generalized) patterns, and widely studied in the literature
(see e.g.~~\cite{ackerman-et, bonichon-et, dulucq-guibert-baxter,FFNO},
in part due to their connection to plane bipolar orientations, tilings~\cite{Korn},
and other combinatorial objects (see~\cite[$\S 2.2$]{Kit} for the introduction
and references).  As mentioned in the introduction, the alternating permutations
are classical in the own right; we refer to~\cite{Sta} for a comprehensive survey
on their role in Enumerative Combinatorics, to~\cite{DW} for a recent detailed
probabilistic study, and to~\cite[$\S 6.1$]{Kit} for connections to other
pattern-avoiding permutations.

\subsection{}\label{s:fin-3}
The study of random pattern avoiding permutations by means of the limit shape was
recently introduced by Miner and the second author~\cite{miner-pak}.  The authors
obtained highly detailed information for {\bf 123} and {\bf 213} patterns,
each a classical Catalan structure.  In both cases the limit surface is degenerate
as most permutation matrix entries concentrate around the anti-diagonal, and the
interesting behavior occurs in the micro-scale near the anti-diagonal with various
phase transitions.  We refer to~\cite{AM,ML} for strongly related results, and
some interesting extensions for larger patterns.

\subsection{}
Following the ideas in~\cite{ML} and~\cite{miner-pak}, one can ask whether for a
given (generalized) pattern there is always a limit surface, and whether
it is degenerate.  Since the set of bistochastic matrices is a compact (in fact, the
\emph{Birkhoff polytope}), the answer to the former is likely yes.  But the latter question
seems difficult and currently out of reach.

\subsection{}
The fact that the limit surface $\Phi(x,y)$ is highly symmetric and piecewise smooth
came as a surprise, as in the initial experiments for averages of all $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_n$,
the graphs exhibited fewer symmetries and numerous small spikes, see Figure~\ref{fig:skipes}.
Of course, these spiked are due to the the parity differences in
formula~$(\ast)$ in the Main Lemma, and as $n$~grows, they gradually disappear.
Curiously, the asymmetry across the main diagonal persisted until very large~$n$,
suggesting a rather slow convergence in Theorem~\ref{thm:asymptotic}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \subcaptionbox{}{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{100-dab-surface-truncated.png}} \qquad \
  \subcaptionbox{}{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{400-dab-surface-truncated.png}}
  \caption{Averages of all $\sigma\in \mathcal{B}_n$, where $n=200$ and~$800$.}
  \label{fig:skipes}
\end{figure}

To illustrate this phenomenon, note that the limit shape has an extra
degree of symmetry, which the actual numbers $B(m,i,j)$ do not have.
The following two graphs are for $\alpha = 3/40$, and the horizontal axis
is~$\beta$.  The red line is $\varphi(\alpha,\beta)$, the blue line is
$m \cdot P(m,2\alpha m, 2\beta m)$, for $m = 500$ on the left and $m = 2000$
on the right.  For the emphasis, recall that in the notation above,
we have $n=2m$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \subcaptionbox{}{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{graphcompare-alpha0075-m500-bold.png}} \qquad \
   \subcaptionbox{}{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{graphcompare-alpha0075-m2000-bold.png}}
  \caption{Horizontal slices of the limit surface.}
  \label{fig:horiz-slices}
\end{figure}

\subsection{}
Let us note that for the case of size~3 patterns mentioned in~$\S\ref{s:fin-3}$,
the random restricted permutations do in fact resemble their limit shapes, due
to exponentially small decay of probabilities away from the anti-diagonal.
However, in the the case of random $\sigma \in\mathcal{B}_n$, permutations tend to
exhibit a high degree or structure, and do not resemble the limit
surface~$\Phi(x,y)$.  This suggests that computing square-to-square
correlations would an interesting problem.  While we expect this to
be doable, this goes outside the scope of our project.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
\subcaptionbox{$\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{2000}$}{\input{sample-m-1000.tikz}}\qquad \qquad
\subcaptionbox{$\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{4000}$}{\input{sample-m-2000.tikz}}
  \caption{Randomly sampled permutations $\sigma \in \mathcal{B}_{2000}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{4000}$.}
  \label{fig:rand}
\end{figure}

\subsection{}
It would be interesting to compute the limit shape of random Baxter permutations.
While they can be sampled exactly uniformly (see e.g.~\cite{FFNO,Vie}), the
underlying bijection does not seem to give any useful formulas.  In fact,
a special effort is required to sample beyond $n=20$.  Still, the
apparent connection to $\Phi(x,y)$ is undeniable (see Figure~\ref{fig:baxter-alt}).

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
   \subcaptionbox{}{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{full-baxters-20.png}} \qquad \
   \subcaptionbox{}{\includegraphics[width=5.8cm]{500-surface-million-odd-truncated-smoothed.png}}
  \caption{Averages of Baxter permutations ($n=20$) and alternating permutations $(n=500)$.}
  \label{fig:baxter-alt}
\end{figure}

A possible explanation lies in the ``flat structure'' of alternating
permutations.  As evident from Figure~\ref{fig:baxter-alt} for~$n=500$,
there seem to be a limit surface of alternating permutations, with no spikes
except at the boundary.  In fact, the existence of such a flat surface follows
from the asymptotics of Entringer numbers given in~\cite{DW}.  This suggests
that all spikes in $\Phi(\cdot,\cdot)$ come from the ``Baxter condition''.

\vskip.7cm

\noindent
\textbf{Acknowledgments:} \. The authors are grateful to
Stephen DeSalvo, Scott Garrabrant, Neal Madras and Sam Miner
for useful remarks and help with the references.
The second author was partially supported by the~NSF.

\vskip.9cm


Subspace Clustering with Missing and Corrupted Data

Abstract: Given full or partial information about a collection of points that lie close to a union of several subspaces, subspace clustering refers to the process of clustering the points according to their subspace and identifying the subspaces. One popular approach, sparse subspace clustering (SSC), represents each sample as a weighted combination of the other samples, with weights of minimal $\ell_1$ norm, and then uses those learned weights to cluster the samples. SSC is stable in settings where each sample is contaminated by a relatively small amount of noise. However, when there is a significant amount of additive noise, or a considerable number of entries are missing, theoretical guarantees are scarce. In this paper, we study a robust variant of SSC and establish clustering guarantees in the presence of corrupted or missing data. We give explicit bounds on amount of noise and missing data that the algorithm can tolerate, both in deterministic settings and in a random generative model. Notably, our approach provides guarantees for higher tolerance to noise and missing data than existing analyses for this method. By design, the results hold even when we do not know the locations of the missing data; e.g., as in presence-only data.

\section{Introduction}

	In many applications, including image compression \cite{hong2006multiscale, yang2008unsupervised}, network estimation \cite{eriksson2011domain}, video segmentation \cite{costeira1998multibody, kanatani2001}, and recommender systems \cite{zhang2012guess}, what is ostensibly high-dimensional data can be modeled as data sampled from a {\it union of low-dimensional subspaces}. In~subspace clustering, we observe a data matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times N}$ whose columns lie near a union of several low-dimensional subspaces of~$\mathbb{R}^n$. We wish to cluster the columns according to their subspace and infer the subspaces. In practice, $X$ may be corrupted by large amounts of noise, adversarial or otherwise, or it may have missing entries.

	Subspace clustering has experienced significant attention over the last decade, resulting in many different algorithms with varying levels of established theory. These include expectation-maximization methods~\cite{bradley2000k}, algebraic methods~\cite{vidal2005generalized}, matrix factorization methods~\cite{costeira1998multibody}, and local sampling methods \cite{rao2008motion}, among others. Of particular note is sparse subspace clustering (SSC)~\cite{elhamifar2009sparse}, which exhibits good empirical performance in many real data applications, most notably in computer vision applications, and enjoys provable guarantees on its performance~\cite{soltanolkotabi2012}. Moreover, various theoretical and empirical work has been carried out to show that SSC can handle outliers~\cite{soltanolkotabi2012} and certain forms of noisy measurements~\cite{soltanolkotabi2014robust,Wang2016}.

In the noiseless setup, SSC tries to represent each column of the data matrix $X$ as a linear combination of the other data points, with coefficients of minimal $\ell_1$ norm, by solving the following optimization program,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:ssc}
	\min_{C}~\|C\|_{1} \quad \text{subject~to}~~~ X = XC,~\diag(C) = 0,\end{equation}
	where $\|C\|_1$ denotes the sum of absolute values of all entries in $C$.
	The entries of the optimal solution are hoped to approximately encode whether pairs of columns of $X$ come from the same subspace. If so, spectral clustering can be applied to $|C|+|C|^T$ to recover a partition for columns of $X$. Most of theoretical analysis for SSC, e.g., see \cite{soltanolkotabi2012,Wang2016}, is dedicated to establishing guarantees on the pattern of zero entries in the optimal $C$ and presenting conditions under which $C_{ij}$ is zero whenever samples $i$ and $j$ do not belong to the same subspace. Such property, referred to as the {\em subspace detection property} in \cite{soltanolkotabi2012}, can then be used as a proxy for the performance of the spectral clustering phase and clustering.

	In this paper we analyze the following {\em robust} variant of SSC, designed to work in the presence of corruptions and missing data,
		\begin{equation}\label{lasso_ssc}
		\min_C~\|C\|_{1}+\frac{\lambda}{2}\|XC-X\|_F^2 \quad \text{subject~to}~~~ \diag(C) = 0,
		\end{equation}
		where $X$ is the observed matrix, either corrupted with additive noise or with zeros in place of missing entries.
	We refer to this approach as LS-SSC since it involves a least-squares (LS) loss. This estimator has been previously considered in the literature with different theoretical guarantees \cite{soltanolkotabi2014robust,Wang2016} or with only empirical evidence for its effectiveness \cite{yang2015}. In this work, we consider different geometric quantities and provide an analysis that is similar in nature to \cite{Wang2016} but guarantees successful recovery for higher noise levels. Such improved thresholds directly translate to the ability to tolerate more missing entries: $O(n/d)$ versus $O(n/d^2)$ missing entries, for $d$-dimensional subspaces in $\mathbb{R}^n$.

	\subsection{Summary of Main Results}

		We provide analysis for (\ref{lasso_ssc}) and give theoretical guarantees for establishing the subspace detection property (see Definition~\ref{def:sub-det-prop}). We give a deterministic criteria for success based on the geometry of the true samples and the corruptions as well as the noise level defined as the maximum $\ell_2$ norm of the additive error in each observation.

The optimization problem in \eqref{lasso_ssc} has been previously studied in the literature \cite{Wang2016}. Our analysis in the deterministic setting follows the well-known strategy of constructing a dual certificate, similarly taken by \cite{Wang2016}. However, {\em our analysis removes a step of projection for the dual certificates} that is required in \cite{Wang2016}. As a result, we use a different definition of incoherence. This difference leads to an improved trade-off between the noise level and the dimensions of the subspaces.

Our analysis allows us to show that \eqref{lasso_ssc} succeeds in the presence of noisy and missing data under the setup where subspaces are chosen uniformly at random and samples are drawn uniformly at random from these subspaces.
More specifically, we can tolerate corruptions with $\ell_2$ norm bounded by $O(1/\sqrt{d})$, or $O(n/d)$ missing entries per sample, where our subspaces are $d$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^n$. This is an improvement over what we get using results from \cite{Wang2016}: tolerating corruptions with $\ell_2$ norm bounded by $O(1/d)$, or $O(n/d^2)$ missing entries per sample.
This is an important distinction in high-dimensional settings, where our results indicate the ability to recover from missing entries when the dimension of each subspace is as large as the ambient dimension, up to constants, while the results of \cite{Wang2016} require $d \lesssim \sqrt{n}$. Our improved rates concerning the number of missing entries are similar to the ones in a work that has been done in parallel \cite{tsakiris2018theoretical}. Our work uses different proof techniques that may extend to other
settings more easily, or at the very least provide different insights into subspace clustering with missing data.

		Finally, the presented framework is {\it location-agnostic}, as the estimator and the results need not know the location of the missing entries. This feature allows the estimator to be used in more general situations than algorithms such as those in \cite{yang2015,elhamifar2016high,tsakiris2018theoretical} that exploit the locations of the missing entries for estimation. This feature is important in certain real-data settings, such as the presence-only data described in Section~\ref{sec:compare}.

	In the following, we state informal versions of our main results in both deterministic and random settings.

	\begin{theorem}[deterministic guarantee]
		Suppose we are given $X = Y+Z$ where $Y$ comes from a union of subspaces model and each column of $Z$ has $\ell_2$ norm bounded by an explicit function of the configuration of subspaces and the placement of the true samples on the subspaces. Then there is an explicit interval of $\lambda$ for which $\eqref{lasso_ssc}$ returns a nontrivial solution with no false positives.
	\end{theorem}

	\begin{theorem}[missing data]
		 Let $Y\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times N}$ be a matrix whose columns are drawn from the intersection of the unit ball and the union of $L$ $d$-dimensional subspaces that are drawn uniformly at random, and there are $\kappa d$ points in $Y$ corresponding to each subspace (i.e. $N = \kappa d L$).
		 Suppose we are given an incomplete version $X$ of $Y$ where zeros have been filled in to missing locations. If $d \leq O(n/\log N)$ and each column is missing at most $O(n/d)$ entries, then there is an explicit interval of $\lambda$ for which \eqref{lasso_ssc} returns a nontrivial solution with no false positives, with high probability.
Here $O(\cdot)$ hides a small dependence on the number of points drawn from each subspace.
	\end{theorem}

\subsection{Comparison to Other Work}\label{sec:compare}
In this section, we briefly discuss the existing literature in relation to our main contributions.
\paragraph{Location-agnostic Estimation.}
	The robust variant of SSC given in \eqref{lasso_ssc} does not require knowledge of the locations of the corruptions. This is in contrast with recent efforts in subspace clustering with missing data \cite{yang2015,elhamifar2016high,tsakiris2018theoretical} where the location of missing entries is a main ingredient for the estimator.
		In practice, such information may not be available. For example, in some applications we face {\it presence-only} data where we only record the observed presence of a feature \cite{pearce2006modelling}. In ecological modeling, we often only have access to the observed population presence of a species in a given location but we do not know when a species is absent~\cite{ward2009presence}. Authors in~\cite{burnside2005knowledge} acknowledge that in structured mammography data, there is ambiguity in whether to interpret zeros as missing or as indicating that a breast imaging radiology feature is actually not present. This ambiguity is common in many models and applications \cite{liu2003building,elkan2008learning,fithian2013finite}, yet many proposed subspace clustering algorithms cannot be used in this setting.

	\paragraph{High-rank Matrix Completion.}
		When there are missing entries, subspace clustering can be viewed as a generalization of low-rank matrix completion \cite{candes2012exact}. Unlike low-rank matrix completion, the data matrix may have high rank if there are many subspaces. While there are many algorithms for low-rank matrix completion with theoretical guarantees on convergence and correctness (e.g. see \cite{candes2012exact} and references therein), such analysis has been more elusive for subspace clustering with missing data. Various algorithms for subspace clustering with missing data have been proposed \cite{gruber2004multibody, vidal2004motion, yang2015, pimentel2016group, elhamifar2016high,tsakiris2018theoretical,LADMC_allerton}. Many of these exhibit strong empirical results but lack theoretical guarantees. On the other hand, \cite{eriksson2012high} gives a theoretically justified method for subspace clustering with missing data, but requires an unrealistically large number of samples. Authors in \cite{pimentel2016information} give information-theoretic lower bounds on the number of observations per column required, but it is not known whether the aforementioned methods meet these bounds.

	\paragraph{Other Robust Variants.}
	The key idea behind SSC is that if $X$ comes from a union of subspaces model, then the columns of $X$ are {\em self-expressive}. That is, each column of $X$ can be expressed as a linear combination of a small number of columns from the same subspace. Mathematically, this means that we can write $X = XC$ where $C$ is sparse and has 0 on the diagonals. If we assume that $X = Y+Z$ where $Y$ comes from a union of subspaces model, then $Y$ satisfies $Y = YC$ for C sparse. Therefore,
	we get $X-XC = Z-ZC = Z(I-C)$. Thus, minimizing a norm of $X-XC$ can be viewed as a proxy for minimizing a norm of $Z$, and prior information on the corruption mechanism can inform us on the design of the estimator. For example, when $Z$ is believed to be sparse, it makes sense to study another robust variant of SSC as
		\begin{equation}\label{l1_ssc}
		\min_C~\|C\|_{1}+\lambda\|XC-X\|_1 \quad \text{subject~to}~~~ \diag(C) = 0.
		\end{equation}

	To analyze SSC and its variants, we often look at vectors $\nu$ that are optimal for the dual program to the SSC optimization. In studying \eqref{lasso_ssc}, the structure of the dual vectors allows us to understand them by analyzing their projection on to the subspaces in our union of subspaces model. However, in studying \eqref{l1_ssc}, this projection-based approach becomes more difficult due to the differing structure of the dual vectors.

		An earlier version of this manuscript was flawed in its analysis of \eqref{l1_ssc} due to an error in using the total inradius as opposed to the restricted inradius. We have removed the incorrect analysis of \eqref{l1_ssc} and updated our work to use restricted inradii accordingly when necessary (see Lemma \ref{polytope_rel_radii}, which replaces Lemma \ref{polytope_radii}).

\section{Problem Setup}

		We are given a matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times N}$, where $X$ is the sum of an uncorrupted data matrix $Y$ and a noise matrix $Z$. We can view subspace clustering with missing data as a special case of this setup where the unobserved entries of $Y$ are replaced by 0 to obtain $X$. This is equivalent to the setting where the noise matrix $Z$ satisfies $Z_{ij} = -Y_{ij}$ for each missing entry $(i,j)$. We do not assume that we know the locations of the missing data. This way, we allow for a zero entry in $X$ to correspond to an actual zero or to a missing entry. We assume that the columns of $Y$ come from a union of $L$ subspaces
		$$S_1 \cup S_2 \cup \ldots \cup S_{L}.$$
		We make no assumptions on how the subspaces are aligned so that they can intersect arbitrarily.

		The original SSC method first solves the optimization problem in \eqref{eq:ssc}.
		SSC then uses spectral clustering \cite{ng2002spectral} on the affinity matrix $W = |C|+|C|^T$ to recover a partition of samples.
		The key idea by \cite{elhamifar2009sparse} is that the columns of $X$ are {\it self-expressive}. If the $i$th column $x_i$ lies in a low-dimensional subspace from which we have enough closely-aligned samples, we can express $x_i$ as a sparse linear combination $c_i$ of other columns from that subspace. By enforcing $x_i = Xc_i$ and minimizing $\|c_i\|_1$, we hope to recover that sparse representation. If we approximately recover this $c_i$ for all $x_i$, then spectral clustering on the graph with edge weights from $W$ will recover the correct clusters.

		While this approach has empirical and theoretical guarantees when $X$ is uncorrupted by noise, we have to change our approach when $X$ has missing data or noise added. In order to perform sparse subspace clustering in these kinds of settings, we need to relax the assumption that $X = XC$. We do this by using a loss term of the form $\|X-XC\|_F^2$. This gives us the optimization problem LS-SSC in \eqref{lasso_ssc}.
		For LS-SSC, \cite{Wang2016} describe a method to solve \eqref{lasso_ssc} using a modification of the ADMM method \cite{boyd2011distributed}. Moreover, \cite{soltanolkotabi2014robust} show that TFOCS \cite{becker2011templates} has competitive performance in solving this optimization program in practical applications.
		We then apply spectral clustering to the weighted graph corresponding to the affinity matrix $W = |C|+|C|^T$. The resulting clusters are the subspace clusters we return. We use the standard technique of estimating the number of clusters $\hat{L}$ from the spectrum of the normalized Laplacian associated to $W$~\cite{von2007tutorial}. The full algorithm for LS-SSC is given in Algorithm~\ref{alg}.
		\begin{algorithm}
			{\bf Input: }A data matrix $X \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times N}$ and $\lambda > 0$.\\
		    1. Solve
		    $$\min_{C}~\|C\|_{1} + \frac{\lambda}{2}\|X-XC\|_F^2~~\text{s.t.}~~\diag(C)=0.$$\\
		    2. Form the weighted graph $G$ on $N$ vertices with affinity matrix $W = |C|+|C|^T$.\\
		    3. Let $\sigma_1\geq \sigma_2 \geq \ldots \geq \sigma_N$ denote the eigenvalues of the normalized Laplacian of $G$. Set
		    $$\hat{L} = N-\argmax_{i=1,\ldots, N-1} (\sigma_i-\sigma_{i+1}).$$
		    4. Apply spectral clustering to $G$ with $\hat{L}$ clusters.\\
			{\bf Output: }Clusters $\mathcal{X}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{X}_{\hat{L}}$.
			\caption{LS-SSC}
			\label{alg}
		\end{algorithm}

		We wish to find conditions for which LS-SSC has low clustering mismatch error. A good proxy for this is to show that $C$ has no false positives (\cite{von2007tutorial}), that is, for any $i$ and $j$ corresponding to different subspaces, $C_{ij} = 0$. This is reflected in the following definition.
		\begin{defn}[\cite{soltanolkotabi2012}] \label{def:sub-det-prop}
		We say that $X$ {\it obeys the subspace detection property with parameter~$\lambda$} if for all $\ell$ and for all $x_i$ corresponding to $S_\ell$, the columns $c_i$ of the solution to (\ref{lasso_ssc}) have non-zero entries corresponding only to columns in $Y$ sampled from $S_\ell$. We say that the {\it subspace detection property} holds if there is a non-empty interval of values of $\lambda$ for which the subspace detection property with parameter $\lambda$ holds.\end{defn}
		The above definition states that $c_i$ does not contain any entries corresponding to other subspace than the one to which $x_i$ corresponds. If the $c_i$ are non-zero and the subspace detection property holds, we should get low clustering error from spectral clustering.

	\subsection{Preliminaries}

		Let $Y\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times N}$ be the matrix whose columns are all the uncorrupted samples. Let $N_\ell$ denote the number of columns in $Y$ drawn from $S_\ell$, and $Y^{(\ell)} \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times N_\ell}$ be the submatrix collecting such columns. We let $X^{(\ell)}$ and $Z^{(\ell)}$ denote the corresponding submatrices of $X$ and $Z$. Let $d_\ell$ be the dimension of $S_\ell$ and define $\kappa_\ell \coloneqq N_\ell/d_\ell$.

		For a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$, we let $A_{-i}$ denote the $n \times (m-1)$ submatrix formed by removing the $i$th column. We let $\mathcal{Y} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ denote the set of columns of $Y$ and let $\mathcal{Y}^{(\ell)}$ be the set of columns in $X$ corresponding to $S^{(\ell)}$. We define $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{X}^{(\ell)}$ analogously.

		For a matrix $A$, let $\mathcal{SC}(A)$ denote the symmetrized convex hull of its columns. If $A$ has columns $a_1,\ldots, a_n$, then $\mathcal{SC}(A)$ is $\conv(\pm a_1,\ldots, \pm a_n)$. We define $$\mathcal{Q}_{-i}^{(\ell)} \coloneqq \mathcal{SC}(Y_{-i}^{(\ell)}).$$ Finally, we require some definitions from convex analysis.
		Given a set $\mathcal{P}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$, the {\it polar set} $\mathcal{P}^\circ$ of $\mathcal{P}$ is defined as
		$$\mathcal{P}^\circ = \{y \in \mathbb{R}^d :~ \langle x,y\rangle \leq 1\text{ for all }x \in \mathcal{P}\}.$$
		Note that $\mathcal{P}^\circ$ is a convex region.

		\begin{defn}For any closed polytope $\mathcal{P}$, we let $r(\mathcal{P})$ denote the {\it inradius} of $\mathcal{P}$. This is defined as the radius of the largest Euclidean ball that can be inscribed in $\mathcal{P}$.\end{defn}

		\begin{defn}For any closed polytope $\mathcal{P}$ and subspace $S$, we let $r_S(\mathcal{P})$ denote the {\it restricted inradius} of $\mathcal{P}$ with respect to $S$. This is defined as the radius of the largest disk in $S$ that can be inscribed in $\mathcal{P}$.\end{defn}

		Suppose $\mathcal{P} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is symmetric and convex. Here symmetric means that $\mathcal{P} = -\mathcal{P}$. For such polytopes, the largest inscribed ball will necessarily be centered at 0. This follows from the fact that if a ball $B$ of radius $r$ can be inscribed in to $\mathcal{P}$, then by symmetry, so can $-B$. Taking the convex hull of $B \cup -B$, we necessarily contain the ball of radius $r$ centered at 0.
		Let $B_r$ denote the Euclidean ball centered at 0 of radius $r$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then for $\mathcal{P}$ symmetric and convex, we have
		\begin{align*}
			r(\mathcal{P}) = \sup\{ r : B_r \subseteq \mathcal{P}\}~,~~
			r_S(\mathcal{P}) = \sup \{ r : B_r\cap S \subseteq \mathcal{P}\}.
		\end{align*}
		We now define the notion of circumradius.

		\begin{defn}For any closed polytope $\mathcal{P}$, the {\it circumradius} of $\mathcal{P}$, denoted $R(\mathcal{P})$ is the radius of the Euclidean ball containing $\mathcal{P}$.\end{defn}

		\begin{defn}For any closed polytope $\mathcal{P}$, the {\it restricted circumradius} of $\mathcal{P}$, denoted $R_S(\mathcal{P})$ is the radius of the smallest disk in $S$ containing $\mathcal{P}$.\end{defn}
		With the same notation as above, and assuming $\mathcal{P}$ is symmetric and convex, we have
		\begin{align*}
			R(\mathcal{P}) = \inf\{ r : B_r \supseteq \mathcal{P}\} ~,~~
			R_S(\mathcal{P}) = \inf \{ r : B_r \cap S \supseteq \mathcal{P}\}.
		\end{align*}
		For notational convenience, we define
		\begin{align}\label{def:r-ell}
			r_\ell \coloneqq \min_{i: x_i \in \mathcal{X}^{(\ell)}}r_{S_\ell}(\mathcal{Q}_{-i}^{(\ell)}) ~~,~~~
			r \coloneqq \min_{\ell=1,\ldots,L} r_\ell.
		\end{align}
Finally, for a given subspace $S\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ and a point $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$, we denote by $\proj_S(x)$ the orthogonal projection of $x$ onto $S$. Given a matrix $A$, we overload the notation to denote by $\proj_S(A)$ the matrix which collects the projection of columns of $A$ onto $S$.

	\subsection{Dual Directions and Incoherence}\label{section:incoherence}

	    Given a vector $x$ and a matrix $A$, we define an optimization problem denoted $P(x,A,\lambda)$ as
	    \begin{equation}\label{eq:gen_lasso}
	    \min_{c,e}~\|c\|_1 + \frac{\lambda}{2}\|e\|_2^2~~\text{s.t.}~~e = x-Ac,\end{equation}
	    and its Lagrangian dual $D(x,A,\lambda)$ is given by
	    \begin{equation}\label{eq:dual_lasso}
	    \max_\nu~\langle x,\nu\rangle - \frac{1}{2\lambda}\|\nu\|_2^2~~\text{s.t.}~~\|A^T\nu\|_\infty \leq 1.\end{equation}

	    The optimization problem for LS-SSC in (\ref{lasso_ssc}) is equivalent to solving $P(x_i,X_{-i},\lambda)$ for $i = 1,\ldots, N$. We will use the dual program to analyze the geometry underlying our problem. For a given $x, A, \lambda$, let $\nu$ be the solution to $D(x,A,\lambda)$. If there are multiple solutions, select the one with the smallest $\ell_2$ norm. The corresponding {dual \em direction} $v$ is defined by
	     $$v(x,A,\lambda) = \nu/\|\nu\|_2.$$
		Define
		\begin{align}\label{def:incoh-us}
		v_i^{(\ell)} \coloneqq v(x_i^{(\ell)},X_{-i}^{(\ell)},\lambda) ~~\text{and}~~
		V^{(\ell)} \coloneqq [v_1^{(\ell)},\ldots, v_{N_\ell}^{(\ell)}].
		\end{align}
		We say that the set $\mathcal{X}^{(\ell)}$ is {\it $\mu$-incoherent} with respect to the set $\mathcal{X}\backslash\mathcal{X}_{-i}^{(\ell)}$ if
		\begin{equation}\label{def:incoherence}
		\mu \geq \mu(\mathcal{X}^{(\ell)}) \coloneqq \max_{y \in \mathcal{Y}\backslash\mathcal{Y}^{(\ell)}} \|(V^{(\ell)})^Ty\|_\infty
		= \max_{ \substack{y \in \mathcal{Y}\backslash\mathcal{Y}^{(\ell)} \\ 1 \leq i \leq N_\ell } } |\langle v_i^{(\ell)},y\rangle|
		\end{equation}
		For notational convenience, we consider
		\begin{align}\label{def:mu-ell}
			\mu_\ell \coloneqq \mu(\mathcal{X}^{(\ell)}) ~~,~
		\mu \coloneqq \max_{\ell=1,\ldots,L} \mu_\ell.
		\end{align}
		This parameter $\mu$ is referred to as the {\em incoherence}. It is a measure of the alignment between the true observations $\mathcal{Y}^{(i)}$ from each subspace $S_i$ and the corrupted observations $\mathcal{X}^{(j)}$ from $S_j$ for $j \neq i$. Intuitively, the smaller $\mu$ is, the less aligned $\mathcal{Y}^{(i)}$ and $\mathcal{X}^{(j)}$ are. If $\mu$ is small enough, then it should be easier to group observations from distinct subspaces into distinct clusters. In Figure~\ref{fig}, we give a pictorial explanation of the subspace incoherence.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}{cc}
        \includegraphics[width=.35\textwidth]{incoh1-cut.png}	&  \includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{incoh2.png}
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Left: The dual direction $v(x_{i}^{(\ell)}, X_{-i}^{(\ell)},\lambda)$, where $x_{i}^{(\ell)}$ is a corrupted version of the true observation $y_{i}^{(\ell)}$. Right: The subspace incoherence $\mu_\ell$ is the radius of the smallest sphere in the span of $X^{(\ell)}$ containing all projections of $y \in \mathcal{Y}\backslash \mathcal{Y}^{(\ell)}$ onto the polytope determined by the dual directions.}
    \label{fig}
\end{figure}

This definition of subspace incoherence is a generalization of the subspace incoherence defined by \cite{soltanolkotabi2012} to the noisy setup described above. If there is no noise in the samples then for $\lambda$ sufficiently large these definitions of subspace incoherence will specialize to the definition in~\cite{soltanolkotabi2012}.

On the other hand, our definition of incoherence is different from the one in \cite{Wang2016}, which is
\begin{align}\label{def:incoh-WX}
v_i^{(\ell)} = \frac{\proj_{S_\ell}(\nu)}{\|\proj_{S_\ell}(\nu)\|_2} ~~~~ \text{(in \cite{Wang2016})}
\end{align}
where $\nu$ is the optimal solution to $D(x_i^{(\ell)},X_{-i}^{(\ell)},\lambda)$. This difference leads to different results for deterministic scenarios; i.e.,  Theorem 6 in \cite{Wang2016} and Theorem \ref{det_thm} below.
Straightforward applications of both deterministic results to standard random generative models show that our results lead to improved tolerance to noise and missing entries.
We elaborate on these differences in Section~\ref{sec:compareWX}.

\section{Main Results}

	\subsection{Deterministic Model}

		Let $Y$ be a matrix of samples drawn from a union of subspaces model. We assume that $Y$ is self-expressive, so that every column of $Y$ can be expressed as a linear combination of other columns from the same subspace. Let $Z$ be a deterministic noise matrix. We observe $X = Y+Z$. We assume that each column of $X$ has at least 1 non-zero entry. Define
		$$\delta = \max_i \|z_i\|_2.$$
		We will characterize how large $\delta$ can be for the subspace detection property to hold. For ease of analysis we assume, as in \cite{soltanolkotabi2012}, that each column $y$ of $Y$ lies on the unit sphere.\footnote{The results below all generalize to the case that $Y$ is unnormalized. The results will depend on the gap between the largest and smallest norm of columns in $Y$.}

		The following theorem gives conditions on the subspaces and noise under which LS-SSC will have the subspace detection property and produce a non-trivial output. Recall the definitions of~$r$ in~\eqref{def:r-ell} and $\mu$ in~\eqref{def:mu-ell}.

		\begin{theorem}[Deterministic model criteria]\label{det_thm}Suppose that
		\begin{equation}\label{det_crit}
		\delta < \dfrac{r-\mu}{5}\end{equation}
		and $\lambda$ lies in the non-empty interval
		\begin{equation}\label{lambda_crit}
		\dfrac{5}{2r + 3\mu} < \lambda < \frac{15}{2r+8\mu}.\end{equation}
		Then the subspace detection property with parameter $\lambda$ will hold. Moreover, we are guaranteed that any optimal $C$ for \eqref{lasso_ssc} have all nonzero columns.
		\end{theorem}
		This theorem (proved in Appendix~\ref{app:pf_det_thm}) gives conditions that guarantee when $c_i$ will not have any false positives. It then refines this to find $\lambda$ for which the $c_i$ will also be non-trivial.
When $\delta = 0$, the condition in \eqref{det_crit} reduces to having $\mu < r$, which is similar to the deterministic criteria in \cite{soltanolkotabi2012}.

		We will refer to the condition in (\ref{det_crit}) as the {\em geometric separation condition}. We will show that under random model assumptions, the geometric separation condition will hold with high probability.

	\subsection{Random Model}

		In the following, we define a random generative model for the uncorrupted points $Y$ on $L$ subspaces.
		We then add a noise matrix $Z$ and impose Assumption \ref{indep_assumption} which comes after.

		\begin{defn}[Random Model]\label{def:rand_model}
		Given a number $L\geq 1$, integer parameters $d_1,\ldots,d_L$, and positive parameters $\kappa_1,\ldots, \kappa_L$, the random generative model $\mathcal{RM}(L,\{d_\ell\}, \{\kappa_\ell\})$ is defined as the set of points generated as follows:
		each subspace is drawn independently and uniformly at random among all $d_\ell$-dimensional subspaces, and $N_\ell = \kappa_\ell d_\ell$ samples are drawn independently and uniformly from the intersection of the subspace and the unit sphere.
		\end{defn}

		\begin{assumption}\label{indep_assumption}
			For columns $y_i$ and $y_j$ drawn from distinct subspaces, $z_i$ is independent from $y_j$. In other words, the noise added to the points in one subspace is independent from the points in other subspaces.
		\end{assumption}
		This assumption will appear in bounding the incoherence parameter.
		As before, let $\delta = \max_{i} \|z_i\|_2$. The theorem below (proved in Appendix~\ref{app:pf_rand_thm}) gives conditions on the noise under which the subspace detection property holds and the columns of the optimal solution are non-trivial with high probability.

		\begin{theorem}[Random model criteria]\label{rand_thm}
Assume $N=\sum_{\ell=1}^L$ samples are drawn from $\mathcal{RM}(L,\{d_\ell\}, \{\kappa_\ell\})$ and stored in $Y$. Assume $Z$ is a noise matrix that satisfies Assumption~\ref{indep_assumption} with respect to~$Y$.
		There are absolute constants $c_1, c_2$ such that, if for all $\ell$,
		\begin{equation}\label{rand_dl_cond}
		d_\ell < \dfrac{c_1c(\kappa_\ell)^2\log(\kappa_\ell)}{\log N} n \end{equation}
		and
		\begin{equation}\label{rand_delta_cond}
		\delta < c_2c(\kappa_\ell)\sqrt{\dfrac{\log(\kappa_\ell)}{d_\ell}},\end{equation}
		then with probability at least
		$$1-\frac{2}{N}-\sum_{\ell=1}^L N_\ell e^{-\sqrt{\kappa_\ell}d_\ell}$$
		the subspace detection property holds and the output of LS-SSC is non-trivial for all $\lambda$ satisfying
		$$\frac{5}{7}\sqrt{\dfrac{n}{6 \log N}} < \lambda < \frac{10}{3}\sqrt{\dfrac{n}{6 \log N}}.$$
		\end{theorem}

	Here, $c(\kappa)$ is a constant depending only on $\kappa$. It is the same constant $c(\kappa)$ as that in Section 1.4.2~of \cite{soltanolkotabi2012}. They also show that for all $\kappa$ sufficiently large we can take $c(\kappa)$ to be a constant. Moreover, in many reasonable scenarios, we can treat $c(\kappa_\ell)$ as a small constant.

		It is also worth noting that the condition in \eqref{rand_dl_cond} is, up to constants, the same as the condition on $d_\ell$ for noiseless subspace clustering \cite{soltanolkotabi2012}. Therefore, for $\delta$ sufficiently small, we recover the sufficient condition in \cite{soltanolkotabi2012} on $d_\ell$ for subspace detection under the same random model.

	\subsection{Missing Data}

		As in the random model, we assume that the $L$ subspaces are chosen independently and uniformly at random, and that the points $y_i$ are drawn randomly from the unit ball in $S_\ell$. Our data matrix $X$ satisfies $X = Y+Z$ where, $Z_{ij} = -Y_{ij}$ if we do not view $Y_{ij}$ and zero otherwise. In other words, $X$ is the entry-wise zero fill of $Y$ in the missing entries.

		We do not assume that we know the locations of the missing entries. A zero entry in $X$ could be because we do not observe that entry, or because there is a zero in $Y$ there. This allows LS-SSC to be used in more general settings such as with presence-only data.

Denote by $\odot$ the Hadamard (entry-wise) product.
		\begin{assumption}\label{missing_assump}
		Given uncorrupted samples $Y\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times N}$ that are generated according to a random generative model, we observe $X = Y\odot \Omega$ where the mask matrix $\Omega\in\{0,1\}^{n\times N}$ is generated independently from $Y$.
		\end{assumption}

		The following theorem (proved in Appendix~\ref{app:pf_scmd_rand}) gives conditions under which LS-SSC succeeds in this model with high probability.

		\begin{theorem}[Missing data criteria]\label{scmd_rand}
	    Assume $N=\sum_{\ell=1}^L$ samples are drawn from the random generative model $\mathcal{RM}(L,\{d_\ell\}, \{\kappa_\ell\})$ where
		\begin{equation}\label{missing_d_cond}
		d_\ell < \dfrac{c_1c(\kappa_\ell)^2\log(\kappa_\ell)}{\log N} n \end{equation}
	    Moreover, assume that the observed data matrix $X$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{missing_assump} and each column corresponding to $S_\ell$ is missing at most $M_\ell$ entries, where
	    $$ M_\ell \coloneqq c_3c(\kappa_\ell)^2\log(\kappa_\ell)\dfrac{n}{d_\ell}. $$
	    Then, with probability at least
	    $$1-\frac{2}{N}-\sum_{\ell=1}^L N_\ell e^{-\sqrt{\kappa_\ell}d_\ell}-2\sum_{\ell=1}^L N_\ell e^{-M_\ell/16},$$
	    the subspace detection property holds and the output of LS-SSC is non-trivial for all $\lambda$ satisfying
		$$\frac{5}{7}\sqrt{\dfrac{n}{6 \log N}} < \lambda < \frac{10}{3}\sqrt{\dfrac{n}{6 \log N}}.$$\end{theorem}

	    Here, the constant $c_1$ is the same as in Theorem \ref{rand_thm}. This condition says that if the dimensions $d_\ell$ of our subspaces obey the same condition required for the noiseless SSC to succeed, then LS-SSC will succeed in the presence of $O(n/d)$ missing entries per column with high probability. If $d$ is constant with respect to $n$, then this says that LS-SSC can tolerate a constant fraction of missing entries in each column.

\subsection{Comparison with \cite{Wang2016}}\label{sec:compareWX}

Our alternative definition for the incoherence parameter is what led to the deterministic criteria in Lemmas \ref{intermediate_det} and \ref{lambda_lower} different from the ones in Section 5.3.3~of \cite{Wang2016}. Then, in combining these conditions for subspace detection property and non-triviality of the solutions, we get a different condition on the noise level $\delta$ in Theorem~\ref{det_thm}, which is
\begin{align}\label{eq:us}
\delta < \dfrac{r-\mu}{5},
\end{align}
than the one in Theorem 6 of \cite{Wang2016}, which is
\begin{align}\label{eq:WX}
\delta < \min_{\ell=1,\ldots, L} \frac{r(r_\ell-\mu_\ell)}{2+7r_\ell}.
\end{align}
While our definition of $\mu_\ell$ is different from \cite{Wang2016}, in the random model similar arguments can be used to bound both. The only property of the dual directions used in these arguments is the unit $\ell_2$ norm, which holds for both definitions of the dual direction (in \eqref{def:incoh-us} and \eqref{def:incoh-WX}).
Under the assumption on the dimensions of the subspaces specified in \eqref{rand_dl_cond} and \eqref{missing_d_cond}, which is the same as the assumption in Theorem~11 in \cite{Wang2016} up to a constant factor, we can derive high-probability bounds on $r_\ell$ and $\mu_\ell$ (provided in \eqref{eq:r-ell-mu-ell} in Appendix \ref{app:pf_rand_thm}) as
\begin{align*}
	    r_\ell &\geq \dfrac{c(\kappa_\ell)\sqrt{\log(\kappa_\ell)}}{\sqrt{2d_\ell}}
	     \geq\sqrt{ \dfrac{24\log N }{n}}
	     \geq 2\mu_\ell.
\end{align*}
Plugging these bounds in \eqref{eq:us} yields
\begin{align}
\delta \lesssim \sqrt{\frac{1}{d_\ell}}
\end{align}
and allows for $M_\ell \simeq \frac{n}{d_\ell}$ missing entries per sample using this paper's analysis approach.
Plugging the bounds in \eqref{eq:WX} yields
\begin{align}
\delta \lesssim \frac{1}{d_\ell}
\end{align}
which allows for $M_\ell \simeq \frac{n}{d_\ell^2}$ missing entries per sample using the \cite{Wang2016} analysis approach.
This is an important distinction in high-dimensional settings, where our results indicate the ability of the method to recover from missing entries when the dimension of each subspace is as large as the ambient dimension, up to a constant factor, while a straightforward application of the results in \cite{Wang2016} require $d_\ell \lesssim \sqrt{n}$.

It is worth mentioning that in the noiseless setup of \cite{soltanolkotabi2012}, there are infinitely many solutions to the dual program and a projection step allows for well-posed analysis. While \cite{Wang2016} followed the same strategy of projection, it is not required as, in the noisy case and with \eqref{lasso_ssc}, the dual program is strongly concave and has a unique solution.

\section{Sketch of Proofs}\label{proof_section}

	\subsection{Dual Certificates and Admissible $\lambda$}

		Recall that in LS-SSC, we solve $P(x_i,X_{-i},\lambda)$ for $1 \leq i \leq N$. Fix some $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq N$. In order to guarantee that the solution $(c,e)$ to this problem contains no false positives, we consider an idealized problem. That is, we analyze
		$$P(x_i,X_{-i}^{(\ell)},\lambda).$$

		In other words, we attempt to solve LS-SSC but only using the matrix of other samples drawn from the same subspace. Since we do not know $X_{-i}^{(\ell)}$ a priori, we cannot solve this problem in practice. However, we show in Lemma \ref{lem:opt_cond} in the appendix that as long as the solution to this idealized problem and its dual satisfy certain conditions, the solution to $P(x_i, X_{-i},\lambda)$ will satisfy the subspace detection property. This follows from similar techniques to those in \cite{Wang2016}. We find the following sufficient condition for the subspace detection property.

		\begin{lemma}[establishing the subspace detection property]\label{intermediate_det}
		Suppose that for all $\ell$ we have
		\begin{equation}\label{inter_cond}
		2\lambda\delta < \dfrac{r_\ell-\mu_\ell-2\delta}{\mu_\ell+\delta}.\end{equation}
		Then the subspace detection property with parameter $\lambda$ holds.
		\end{lemma}

	    We now consider the parameter $\lambda$ in our optimization program. We want a condition on $\lambda$ that guarantees that the solution $(c,e)$ to $P(x_i,X_{-i},\lambda)$ is non-trivial. Using tools from convex geometry, one can show the following lemma. The full proof is contained in the appendix. Note that here we assume that $x_i \neq 0$. If $x_i = 0$, we have little to no hope of correctly clustering this point.

	    \begin{lemma}[non-trivial solution]\label{lambda_lower}If
	    $$\lambda > \frac{1}{r_\ell-2\delta-\delta^2},$$
	    then the solution $(c,e)$ to $P(x_i,X_{-i},\lambda)$ satisfies $c \neq 0$.\end{lemma}

	    We would like conditions on $\delta$ for which there is a non-empty set of $\lambda$ for which the subspace detection property holds and such that all of the columns of the output $C$ are non-zero. By Lemma \ref{lambda_lower} and Lemma \ref{intermediate_det}, we require that for all $\ell$,
	    \begin{gather*}
	    \dfrac{1}{r_\ell - 2\delta-\delta^2} < \lambda ~~~\text{and}~~~
	    2\lambda\delta < \dfrac{r_\ell-\mu_\ell-2\delta}{\mu_\ell+\delta}.\end{gather*}
	    Straightforward calculations show that for all $\delta$ satisfying (\ref{det_crit}) and for all $\lambda$ satisfying (\ref{lambda_crit}), the conditions of both Lemma \ref{intermediate_det} and \ref{lambda_lower} will hold. This allows us to derive Theorem \ref{det_thm}. The details are contained in the appendix.

	\subsection{Geometric Separation in the Random Model}

	    We now assume the conditions of the random model. By Theorem \ref{det_thm}, it suffices to give condition on $\delta$ and $d_\ell$ for which $\delta < \frac{r-\mu}{5}$ holds with high probability. Using techniques from \cite{soltanolkotabi2012} we lower bound $r$ and upper bound $\mu$, as
	    	    \begin{gather*}
	    r_\ell \geq \dfrac{c(\kappa_\ell)\sqrt{\log(\kappa_\ell)}}{\sqrt{2d_\ell}}
	    ~~,~~
	    \mu_\ell \leq \sqrt{ \dfrac{6\log N}{n}}.
	    \end{gather*}
with high probability.

	\subsection{Subspace Clustering with Missing Data}

		As noted above, clustering with missing data is a special case of subspace clustering with additive noise. Let $X = Y+Z$ where each entry $Z_{ij}$ either equals $-Y_{ij}$ or 0. If the number of missing entries is not too large, then the corruption matrix $Z$ is relatively sparse.

		Recall that we assume that in each column coming from $S_\ell$, we have at most $M_\ell$ missing entries. We make no assumptions on how these missing entries are selected except that the missing locations are chosen independently from the observations; see Assumption~\ref{missing_assump}. We want a condition on $M_\ell$ under which LS-SSC succeed with high probability. It suffices to find a condition on $M_\ell$ such that the assumptions of Theorem \ref{rand_thm} hold.

		To do this, we have to control $\|z\|_2$ for each column $z$ of $Z$. In the missing data model, $z$ is the negative of the projection of a column $y$ of $Y$ on to $m$ coordinates. We can then use the following lemma.

		\begin{lemma}[Corollary~3.4~\cite{barvinok2005math}]\label{proj_lem}
		Let $x$ be uniformly drawn from the unit sphere and let $S \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be any $m$-dimensional subspace. For $x \in S^{n-1}$, let $\proj_S(x)$ denote the orthogonal projection of $x$ on to $S$. Then for any $0 < \epsilon < 1$,
		\begin{align*}
			\mathbb{P} \bigg( \|\proj_S(x)\|_2 \geq \frac{1}{1-\epsilon}\sqrt{ \frac{m}{n} } \bigg) \leq 2e^{-\epsilon^2m/4}.
		\end{align*}
		\end{lemma}

		This allows us to bound $\|z\|_2$ in terms of the number of missing entries $m$ and the ambient dimension $n$ of the data. If we select $m = O(n/d)$, where $d$ is the dimension of the subspace containing $y$, then with high probability the conditions of Theorem \ref{rand_thm} will hold. The details of the proof are left to the appendix.

\section{Conclusion}

	Subspace clustering in the presence of corrupted and missing data is an important task in a variety of machine learning problems, including high-rank matrix completion. Prior methods for subspace clustering with missing data either have few theoretical performance guarantees or are based on assumptions that are often not met in practice. Furthermore, prior methods often assume that the locations of missing entries are known a priori, whereas in practice we are often presented with a zero-filled matrix where we cannot distinguish between missing entries and zero-valued entries.
	LS-SSC can be applied without knowing the locations of missing entries, making it especially applicable to presence-only data settings.
	Our study of LS-SSC in \eqref{lasso_ssc} addresses all these challenges. The theoretical guarantees we derive are based on straightforward assumptions on the data and yield bounds that match previous bounds when the noise level is small enough.

\bibliographystyle{alpha}