# Validating Kernel Functions

I'd appreciate help in clarifying my understanding of how to valid kernel functions, using the following two examples:

1. $K(x, t) = x^Tt - (x^Tt)^2$
2. $K(x, t) = e^{(x_1t_1)}$ where $x_1\ and\ t_1$ are the first elements in the $x\ and\ t$ vectors.

As I understand it, I can either:

1. Find a feature map $\phi(x)$ such that $K(x, t) = \phi(x)^T \phi(t)$
2. Build a Gram matrix $K$ and check if it is positive semi-definite.

For the first question, I built a Gram matrix using vectors $\begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 2 \end{bmatrix}$ and $\begin{bmatrix}2 \\ 2 \end{bmatrix}$ $\rightarrow$ $\begin{bmatrix}-20 && -30 \\ -30 && -56 \end{bmatrix}$

In row-echelon form, a pivot is negative: $\begin{bmatrix}60 && 90 \\ 0 && -11 \end{bmatrix}$

Thus (as I understand it) the kernel is not valid. Is this understanding correct?

As for the second question, it seems likes a variation of a Gaussian kernel, but I'm unclear as to the influence, if any, of the usage of only the first element in the argument vectors. How do I address the validity of this kernel (#2)?

A kernel is psd if and only if all Gram matrices are psd. Thus if you find an instance of a Gram matrix which is not psd, then the kernel is not psd; but finding a single psd Gram matrix does not prove that it is always psd.

So, yes, your first kernel is not psd. (Incidentally, I don't understand your notation $(x^T - t)^2$ at all.) In fact, you can find a simpler counterexample in this case: if $k(x, x) < 0$ for any $x$, then $k$ is not psd, since the Gram matrix of the set $\{ x \}$ is not psd.

For the second kernel: I again don't understand your notation $e^{(x_1, t_1)}$ at all.

• If you somehow meant $e^{- (x_1 - t_1)^2}$, then yes, it is a valid kernel. This is because it's a valid kernel (the Gaussian) on one-dimensional inputs, and ignoring elements of your input vectors doesn't matter. That's because, if $k$ is a valid kernel on $\mathbb R$, then $k_d(x, y) = k(x_d, y_d)$ is valid on $\mathbb R^m$: if you have a set of points $\{x^{(a)}\}_{a=1}^n$ and associated weights $\alpha_a$, then $$\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i k_d(x^{(i)}, x^{(j)}) \alpha_j = \sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i k(x_d^{(i)}, x_d^{(j)}) \alpha_j \ge 0$$ since $k$ is a valid kernel.

• If you meant $e^{(x_1 - t_1)^2}$, then no, it's not a valid kernel, because the Gaussian kernel is not psd with a negative multiplier.

• If you meant $e^{x_1 t_1}$, then yes, it is valid: $(x, t) \mapsto x_1 t_1$ is a valid kernel, and in general, if $k$ is a valid kernel then so is $e^k$ (proof).

• Apologies for the typos and the resulting invalid equations; I appreciate you bearing with those issues and for providing an insightful answer. I've now corrected the equations in the post. With respect to the first (now correct) kernel, does the following -- k(x,x) < 0 for any x, then k is not psd -- hold in all cases or just this case? – Ari Apr 22 '17 at 15:16
• @Ari In all cases: if $k(x, x) < 0$, then the kernel matrix of the set $\{x\}$ is $[k(x,x)]$, whose sole eigenvalue (corresponding to the eigenvector $[1]$) is $k(x, x) < 0$. But a matrix is psd iff all its eigenvalues are nonnegative, and so we have demonstrated an example of a non-psd kernel matrix: thus the kernel is not psd. – Danica Apr 22 '17 at 16:20