 Computational tradeoffs of the kernel trick

For $d$ input coordinates, the homogeneous quadratic polynomial kernel has a weighted quadratic feature map with $D=d(d+1)/2$ distinct monomials. Computing an inner product of already stored mapped vectors costs $O(D)$ arithmetic operations, whereas $(x^{T}z{)}^2$ costs $O(d)$ using the input vectors. Here $O$ denotes big O notation. Higher fixed degrees can make the dimension gap much larger.

Sample count still matters. With $n$ training examples, materializing a dense kernel matrix stores $n^2$ numbers and requires $n(n+1)/2$ distinct evaluations using symmetry. A dense direct solve for kernel ridge regression typically takes $O(n^3)$ operations after constructing the kernel matrix, while a dual prediction with $m$ nonzero coefficients uses $m$ kernel evaluations. Explicit finite feature maps can be preferable when $D$ is small relative to $n$, and a stored primal weight vector can make prediction depend on $D$ rather than on $n$. The kernel trick by Ryan Giordano (sections Ridge regression and The polynomial kernel) explains the change from feature-coordinate equations to training-example equations; neither representation is universally faster.

The kernel trick saves explicit feature construction when the positive-semidefinite kernel is economical to evaluate; it does not remove the cost of optimization, choose a useful positive-semidefinite kernel, or establish generalization. Random Fourier features illustrate a different tradeoff: replacing the exact Gaussian kernel with a finite approximate feature map can reduce dependence on the sample count while introducing approximation error.