Remarks.**]{}

1.  It is worth recalling that, in the result above as well as in all the result of the paper, the probability is with respect to joint distribution of the entire sample and of the splitting process.

2.  For simplicity, we have phrased the bound in in an asymptotic manner. The result can be trivially turned into a finite sample statement by appropriately adjusting the value of the constant $C$ depending on how rapidly $\max\{ B_n, u B_n \} \rightarrow 0$ vanishes.  

3.  The proof of the above theorem relies namely an inequality for matrix norms and the vector and matrix Bernstein concentration inequalities (see below).

4.  Theorems \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accuracy2\] can be easily generalized to cover the case in which the model selection and the computation of the projection parameters are performed on the entire dataset and not on separate, independent splits. In this situation, it is necessary to obtain a high probability bound for the quantity $$\max_{S} \| \beta_S - \hat{\beta}_S \|$$ where the maximum is over all non-empty subsets of $\{1,\ldots,d\}$ of size at most $k$ and $\hat{\beta}_S =
    \hat{\Sigma}_{S}^{-1}\hat{\alpha}_{S}$ (see Equation \[eq:alpha.beta.hat\]). Since there are less than $ \left( \frac{e
      d}{k} \right)^k $ such subsets, an additional union bound argument in each application of the matrix and vector Bernstein’s inequalities (see Lemma \[lem:operator\]) within the proofs of both Theorem \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accuracy2\] will give the desired result. The rates so obtained will be then worse than the ones from Theorems \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accuracy2\] which, because of the sample splitting do not require a union bound. In particular, the scaling of $k$ with respect to $n$ will be worse by a factor of $k \log \frac{d}{k}$. This immediately gives a rate of consistency for the projection parameter under arbitrary model selection rules without relying on sample splitting. We omit the details.

### Confidence sets for the projection parameters: Normal Approximations {#confidence-sets-for-the-pro
Remarks. * * ] { } 

 1.   It is worth recalling that, in the result above as well as in all the resultant role of the newspaper, the probability is with respect to joint distribution of the entire sample and of the splitting summons. 

 2.   For simplicity, we have phrased the bind in in an asymptotic manner. The solution can be trivially turned into a finite sample statement by appropriately adjusting the value of the ceaseless $ C$ depending on how rapidly $ \max\ { B_n, uranium B_n \ } \rightarrow 0 $ vanishes.  

 3.   The validation of the above theorem relies namely an inequality for matrix norms and the vector and matrix Bernstein assiduity inequalities (determine downstairs). 

 4.   Theorems \[thm: beta.accuracy\ ] and \[thm: beta.accuracy2\ ] can be easily generalized to shroud the case in which the model selection and the computation of the project parameters are performed on the entire dataset and not on separate, independent split. In this situation, it is necessary to obtain a high probability bound for the quantity $ $ \max_{S } \| \beta_S - \hat{\beta}_S \|$$ where the utmost is over all non - empty subset of $ \{1,\ldots, d\}$ of size at about $ k$ and $ \hat{\beta}_S = 
     \hat{\Sigma}_{S}^{-1}\hat{\alpha}_{S}$ (see Equation \[eq: alpha.beta.hat\ ]). Since there are less than $ \left (\frac{e 
       d}{k } \right)^k $ such subsets, an additional union bound argument in each lotion of the matrix and vector Bernstein ’s inequalities (determine Lemma \[lem: operator\ ]) within the proofs of both Theorem \[thm: beta.accuracy\ ] and \[thm: beta.accuracy2\ ] will give the desired resultant role. The rates so obtained will be then bad than the ones from Theorems \[thm: beta.accuracy\ ] and \[thm: beta.accuracy2\ ] which, because of the sample splitting do not require a union bind. In particular, the scaling of $ k$ with respect to $ n$ will be worse by a factor of $ k \log \frac{d}{k}$. This immediately gives a rate of consistency for the protrusion parameter under arbitrary model selection rules without trust on sample splitting. We neglect the detail. 

 # # # Confidence sets for the projection parameters: Normal Approximations { # confidence - sets - for - the - pro
Remwrks.**]{}

1.  It is worth recalllng that, in the tewult auove as well as in all the result of the pa'er, rhe peobability is with resoect to jlint disrribntion of the entmde sample and lf tke splitting progess.

2.  For shmplicity, we hdvd 'hrased the bound in in an asymptotis mannet. Hhe result can be uridialmj uurned into a finite sample statejent by appropriatelu adjusting the value of tje clnstant $C$ dependinh on how rakjdlr $\max\{ B_n, u B_n \} \rightarrow 0$ vanishes.  

3.  The proof of the above theordm rekies nameli zn hnequality hor manrix norms and the vewtor anc matrix Bernsbein roncwntration inequalitiev (see below).

4.  Theorgms \[thm:betd.aecuracy\] and \[thm:beta.acxueacy2\] wan te exwilh gtnecaljzed tl ckver the czse in whicy the model selectipn qnd the compufation os the projection parameters are performtd on the entire dataset and not on separate, indekendent spjits. In this situation, it is necessary to obtain d higi oroyqbiligt hound for the quantity $$\max_{S} \| \beta_S - \hat{\beta}_S \|$$ shtre the maximum if over all moj-ekkty subsets of $\{1,\ldots,b\}$ or size at most $k$ ajd $\hat{\bgta}_S =
    \hat{\Sigia}_{S}^{-1}\hst{\alpha}_{S}$ (see Equation \[eq:alpya.beta.hat\]). Siuce there are less thcn $ \left( \frae{e
      d}{k} \tight)^k $ such subsets, an addjtional uniln bound zfgument in each xppkiwation of the matrix and vqctor Beristeiu’s inequxlitoes (seq Lemma \[lel:operator\]) within the prolfs oy botv Theorem \[hhm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accucecy2\] will give tve gesired xesult. The rates so obtained will be theu worsd than the ones fcom Theorems \[thm:beta.accurdfy\] and \[thm:beva.accuracr2\] whuch, vecause uf the sample xplitting do not rewuire a union bounv. In larticular, the wcaoing of $k$ with tesoece no $i$ wilj be worse by a fxctut of $y \log \frac{d}{j}$. Thix immediately gives d rafe of consistency gov the prohection [arameter undrr arbitrary model selertion cules eitrout relying on sample splittihg. We omih tme details.

### Cogfidcnce sets for che projection parameters: Normal Approxinations {#confidencg-sets-for-the-pro
Remarks.**]{} 1. It is worth recalling that, result as well in all the probability with respect to distribution of the sample and of the splitting process. For simplicity, we have phrased the bound in in an asymptotic manner. The can be trivially turned into a finite sample statement by appropriately adjusting the of constant depending how rapidly $\max\{ B_n, u B_n \} \rightarrow 0$ vanishes. 3. The proof of the above relies namely an inequality for matrix norms and vector and matrix Bernstein inequalities (see below). 4. Theorems and can be generalized cover case in which model selection and the computation of the projection parameters are performed on the entire dataset and not separate, independent this situation, is to a high probability the quantity $$\max_{S} \| \beta_S - the maximum is over all non-empty subsets of of size most $k$ and $\hat{\beta}_S = \hat{\Sigma}_{S}^{-1}\hat{\alpha}_{S}$ Equation \[eq:alpha.beta.hat\]). Since there are less than $ \frac{e d}{k} \right)^k $ such subsets, an additional union bound argument in each application of and vector Bernstein’s inequalities Lemma \[lem:operator\]) within proofs both \[thm:beta.accuracy\] \[thm:beta.accuracy2\] will the desired result. The rates so obtained will be then worse the ones from Theorems \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accuracy2\] which, because of splitting not require a bound. In particular, the of with respect to $n$ worse a \log This gives a rate of for the projection parameter under model selection rules without omit the details. ### Confidence sets for the parameters: Normal Approximations {#confidence-sets-for-the-pro
Remarks.**]{}

1.  It is worth recalling That, in the rEsult AboVe aS wEll aS in aLl the result of tHE papEr, the probability is with RespeCt TO joiNT dIstriBution oF ThE ENtiRe SaMplE aND oF the sPliTting prOcess.

2.  For siMplIcIty, we have phrASeD the bound iN in An asymptotic ManNer. The ReSulT Can be TriViallY turneD Into a fInite sampLe STatemeNT by apprOPRiAtelY adjusting the valuE Of THe constant $C$ depEnding On HOw RAPidLy $\mAx\{ B_n, u B_n \} \rigHtArrow 0$ VAnishes.  

3.  tHe PROOf oF The above theorEm relies namELy aN inequAlIty FOr matrIx norMs ANd tHe vector and MatrIx BernsteIn concENtratioN InequalIties (sEe bEloW).

4.  TheOReMs \[Thm:BeTA.acCUrAcy\] ANd \[tHm:beta.acCuRaCy2\] can Be eaSILY GeneRalIzed To covEr the case in whIch The mODel SelecTion aNd thE cOmputAtion oF the pRoJection parameteRs arE performeD on ThE enTiRe datASet and Not On sEparate, IndepenDEnt SpLITS. IN this situation, it is NeCESsAry to obtAin a hiGH pRoBAbility bOuNd fOr thE QUantiTy $$\maX_{s} \| \bEta_S - \hat{\bEta}_S \|$$ whERe ThE maximuM iS over aLl Non-EmpTy subSEts oF $\{1,\ldots,D\}$ of size aT most $K$ And $\hat{\beta}_S =
    \hat{\sIgma}_{S}^{-1}\hat{\alpha}_{s}$ (SeE eQuATion \[Eq:aLpha.beta.hat\]). sincE TherE are LEsS thAN $ \left( \Frac{e
      D}{k} \RIgHT)^k $ such subsets, an addiTiOnal unIon boUnd argument in Each applicATIOn of the mAtriX AnD Vector BernsteiN’s ineQualities (sEE Lemma \[leM:operAtor\]) withIn the prooFS Of both ThEorEm \[tHm:bEta.ACCuRacy\] and \[thm:betA.ACcurAcY2\] will giVe tHe desirEd rEsuLt. THe rAtEs so obtaiNed will bE tHeN wOrSe tHan thE Ones from thEorEmS \[thM:beta.ACcuracY\] and \[tHm:beTa.AcCUraCy2\] which, BEcAUSe of ThE sAmplE spLiTting Do noT ReqUire a unIon bound. IN paRTicuLaR, tHe scaliNg of $k$ with respEcT to $n$ will be WoRse By a facTOR of $k \log \fRac{d}{k}$. This immediately givES a rate oF coNsistEncy For the proJecTion paRamETer undEr arbiTrary MoDel SELectiON RuLes WiThout relyiNG On sAmple SpLittIng. We omIt the details.

### ConfidENce Sets for the proJecTion PARaMetERs: nOrmAl aPprOXImations {#confideNce-sets-for-ThE-PrO
Remarks.**]{}

1.  It is w orth recal lingtha t,in  the  res ult above as w e ll a s in all the result of  thepa p er,t he  prob ability is w ith  r es pec tt ojoint  di stribut ion of the  en ti re sample an d  o f the spli tti ng process.
2.   Forsi mpl i city,  we  have  phras e d thebound inin an asy m ptoticm a nn er.The result can be tr i vially turnedinto a  f i ni t e  sa mpl e statemen tby ap p ropriat e ly a d jus t ing the value  of the con s tan t $C$de pen d ing on  howra p idl y $\max\{ B _n,u B_n \}\right a rrow 0$ vanishe s.  
3. Th e pr o of  o f t he abo v ethe o rem  reliesna me ly an  ine q u a l ityfor  mat rix n orms and thevec tora ndmatri x Ber nste in  conc entrat ion i ne qualities (seebelo w).

4. The or ems  \ [thm: b eta.ac cur acy \] and\[thm:b e ta. ac c u r ac y2\] can be easily  g e n er alized t o cove r  t he case inwh ich  the m odelsele c ti on and t he com p ut at ion ofth e proj ec tio n p arame t ersare pe rformedon th e  entire datase t  and not on s e pa r a te ,  ind epe ndent split s. I n  thi s si t ua tio n , itis ne ce s sa r y to obtain a highpr obabil ity b ound for thequantity $ $ \ m ax_{S} \ | \b e ta _ S - \hat{\beta }_S \ |$$ wheret he maxim um is  over al l non-emp t y  subsets  of  $\ {1, \ld o t s, d\}$ of sizea t  mos t$k$ and  $\ hat{\be ta} _S=
  \h at{\Sigma }_{S}^{- 1} \h at {\ alp ha}_{ S }$ (seeEq uat io n \ [eq:a l pha.be ta.ha t\]) .Si n cethere a r el e ss t ha n$ \l eft (\frac {e
   d}{k}\right)^k  $s uchsu bs ets, an  additional u ni on bound a rg ume nt ine a ch appli cation of the matrix an d  vector  Be rnste in’s  inequali tie s (see  Le m ma \[l em:ope rator \] ) w i t hin t h e  p roo fs  of both T h e ore m \[t hm :bet a.accur acy\] and \[thm:be t a.a ccuracy2\] wi llgive t he  de s ir e d r es u lt. T he rates so obt ained will  b e  t hen worset han  t he ones  from T heore m s \[thm :beta.acc uracy\] a nd  \[t h m :be ta.accurac y2\] whi ch, becau s e oft he  samp lesplitt in g d o not  requi r e a  unio n boun d.  In pa rticu la r, the s caling of $k$ with resp ect to  $n$wil l be wors e b y  afactor of  $k\log \frac {d} {k} $. Th isi mmedi atel y  g ive s  a ra te o f  consiste n cy  fo r th e projectio n p ara meter  un d er arb itra ry model selectio n  rules without  rel y i ngons ampl esplitting. Weomi tt h e detail s. 

### Confi dence se ts for t he pro jectio n param e t er s : Norm al A ppr oximation s { #c o nfidenc e- se t s-for- the- pr o
Remarks.**]{}

1. _It is_worth recalling that, in_the result_above_as well_as_in all the_result of the_paper, the probability is_with respect to_joint_distribution of the entire sample and of the splitting process.

2.  For simplicity, we_have_phrased the_bound_in_in an asymptotic manner. The_result can be trivially turned_into a_finite sample statement by appropriately adjusting the value_of_the constant $C$_depending on how rapidly $\max\{ B_n, u B_n \}_\rightarrow 0$ vanishes.  

3.  The_proof of the_above_theorem_relies namely an inequality_for matrix norms and the vector_and matrix Bernstein concentration inequalities (see_below).

4.  Theorems \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accuracy2\] can_be easily generalized to cover the_case in which the model_selection and_the computation of the projection_parameters are performed_on the_entire dataset and_not on separate, independent splits. In_this situation, it_is necessary to obtain a high_probability_bound for the_quantity_$$\max_{S}_\| \beta_S_- \hat{\beta}_S \|$$_where_the maximum_is_over all non-empty subsets of $\{1,\ldots,d\}$_of_size at most $k$ and $\hat{\beta}_S =
_   \hat{\Sigma}_{S}^{-1}\hat{\alpha}_{S}$_(see_Equation \[eq:alpha.beta.hat\]). Since there_are less than $ \left(_\frac{e
     _d}{k} \right)^k_$ such_subsets, an additional union bound argument in each application of the_matrix and vector Bernstein’s inequalities (see_Lemma \[lem:operator\]) within the_proofs of_both_Theorem \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and_\[thm:beta.accuracy2\]_will give_the desired result. The rates so obtained_will be_then worse than the ones from_Theorems \[thm:beta.accuracy\] and \[thm:beta.accuracy2\]_which,_because of the sample splitting do_not require a union bound. In_particular, the scaling of $k$_with_respect_to $n$ will be worse_by a factor of $k \log_\frac{d}{k}$. This immediately_gives a rate of consistency for the_projection_parameter under arbitrary model selection rules_without_relying on sample splitting. We omit_the_details.

###_Confidence sets for the projection_parameters: Normal Approximations {#confidence-sets-for-the-pro