Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2018/iii/paper-218/2/d/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 218 2 d Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
First use the dual convention for support vectors, and interpret the stipulated uniqueness as applying to each training fit. If , the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions in the preceding part give and . Delete the th primal variable and its zero dual coefficient. All remaining primal constraints, stationarity equations and complementary-slackness equations still hold with the same . These conditions certify a global minimizer of the reduced convex optimization problem, since the objective is convex and the Slater condition holds by choosing positive large slacks. Uniqueness therefore gives exactly the same fitted score and support-vector-machine decision boundary. The omitted point is correctly classified.
For the geometric convention, a non-support point has strict margin . One can obtain the same conclusion using just uniqueness of the full fit: if the reduced problem had another optimizer, the convex segment from the original optimizer toward it would also consist of reduced optimizers. A sufficiently short segment retains strict margin at , hence has zero omitted hinge loss and would give another full optimizer, a contradiction.
Only a support vector can therefore cause a held-out error. Each contributes at most one, proving the support-vector leave-one-out error boundKeeping fixed is necessary for this deletion argument: holding an average-loss penalty parameter fixed while changing the sample size changes the optimization problem's effective .
New to topics? Read the docs here!