Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 65 5 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
A kernel support vector machine constructs a large-margin classifier in a feature Hilbert space. Given training points and labels , choose a feature map and an affine score . Prediction is the sign of the score. Normalizing the functional margin to one makes the closest separating geometric margin , and the full margin between the two supporting hyperplanes is . Maximizing that margin therefore minimizes .
For separable data, the hard-margin support vector machine primal isNoisy or nonseparable data use slack variables and the soft-margin support vector machine:Eliminating gives the equivalent hinge loss objective . The parameter balances margin size against violations; it is not a hard bound on their number. The bias is unpenalized here, which determines the equality constraint in the dual.
Attach multipliers to and to . The Lagrangian isStationarity gives , and . Eliminating yieldswhere is a positive-definite kernel, meaning positive semidefinite Gram matrices. The hard-margin dual is the same objective with only , without the upper bound. Soft-margin strict feasibility follows by taking and all , so strong duality and the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions apply. For separable hard-margin data a separator can be rescaled to give strict margins, supplying the analogous qualification. Although the feature space may be infinite dimensional, projecting onto the finite span of the training feature vectors preserves scores and cannot increase its norm, so this optimization reduces to a finite span.
The complementary slackness relations arePoints with are support vectors. If , then and ; such a point gives . A point with can lie inside the margin or be misclassified, while contributes no term to . If no coefficient lies strictly between the bounds, an admissible bias must be obtained from the KKT inequalities, rather than dividing by a nonexistent margin vector. Bias and dual coefficients can be nonunique even when the optimal feature-space weight is unique.
The kernel trick operates both during training and prediction. The dual optimization uses only the Gram matrix , so the feature vectors need not be formed. Prediction likewise usesA nonlinear kernel therefore makes a linear separator in feature space represent a nonlinear boundary in input space. For example, on the degree-two polynomial kernel corresponds to . Gaussian kernels yield infinite-dimensional feature spaces. An arbitrary similarity is not automatically a valid kernel: for every finite collection and real coefficients , one needs . This makes the dual quadratic form positive semidefinite and the maximization concave.
Mercer's theorem gives a spectral realization under its additional analytic hypotheses. For a continuous symmetric positive-semidefinite kernel on a compact domain with a finite full-support measure, the integral operator is compact, self-adjoint and positive. The Mercer expansion iswith the standard uniform convergence conclusions under these hypotheses. Since , the nonlinear feature mapis well defined. This explains the connection of Mercer kernels to Hilbert space features, rather than treating the kernel trick as a purely formal substitution.
The finite-Gram positivity condition is more general than this compact-domain spectral theorem. Every such kernel generates a Reproducing-kernel Hilbert space: on finite sums of kernel sections definequotient out zero-norm elements, and complete. The resulting space satisfies the reproducing property . Its canonical feature map is , whose inner product is exactly . A feature map need not be injective; calling it an embedding does not by itself prove distinct inputs remain distinct. The kernel support vector machine uses this geometry together with convex duality to fit and evaluate a maximum-margin classifier while accessing the geometry only through kernel evaluations.