SVM Understanding the math - Unconstrained minimization


This is the Part 4 of my series of tutorials about the math behind Support Vector Machines.
Today we are going to learn how to solve an unconstrained minimization problem.
If you did not read the previous articles, you might want to take a look before reading this one:

SVM - Understanding the math

Part 1: What is the goal of the Support Vector Machine (SVM)?
Part 2: How to compute the margin?
Part 3: How to find the optimal hyperplane?
Part 4: Unconstrained minimization
Part 5: Convex functions
Part 6: Duality and Lagrange multipliers

About this Part

It took me a while to write this article because the subject is vast and assume a lot of prior knowledge. What should I explain and what should I skip was kind of a hard line to trace. After a while, I ended up with a large Part 4 which was too long to read. So I decided to split it. Welcome, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6!

In this article try to make it as simple as possible for everybody. However, I cannot explain everything. I will assume that you know what derivatives and partial derivatives are. You are also expected to know what a matrix, the transpose of a matrix are and how to compute the determinant of a matrix.

During the last few months, I received a lot of comments and encouragements and several hundred people subscribed to be notified when this part is published. I wish to thank all of you, and I hope you will enjoy reading it.

Where we left.

In Part 3, we discovered that to maximize the margin we need to minimize the norm of \textbf{w}.

It means we need to solve the following optimization problem:

Minimize in (\textbf{w}, b)


subject to y_i(\mathbf{w}\cdot\mathbf{x_i} + b) \geq 1

(for any i = 1, \dots, n)

The first thing to notice about this optimization problem is that it has constraints. They are defined by the line which begins with "subject to".  You may think that there is only one constraint, but there is, in fact, n constraints. (this is because of the last line "for any"...)

"OK, How do I solve it? I have been waiting for this for one year !!!"


Before tackling such a complicated problem, let us start with a simpler one. We will first look at how to solve an unconstrained optimization problem, more specifically, we will study unconstrained minimization. That is the problem of finding which input makes a function return its minimum. (Note: in the SVM case,  we wish to minimize the function computing the norm of \textbf{w}, we could call it f and write it f(\textbf{w}) = \|\textbf{w}\|).

Unconstrained minimization

Let us consider a point  \mathbf x^* (you should read it "x star", we just add the star so that you know we are talking about a specific variable, and not about any \mathbf x).

How do we know if \mathbf x^* is a local minimum of a function f? Well, it is pretty simple, we just need to apply the following theorem:


Let f:\Omega \to\mathbb R be a continuously twice differentiable function at \mathbf x^*.

If \mathbf x^* satisfies \nabla f(\mathbf x^*) = 0 and \nabla^2f(\mathbf x^*) is positive definite then \mathbf x^* is a local minimum.

(Proof, at page 11)

The hard truth with such a theorem is that although being extremely concise, it is totally impossible to understand without some background information. What is \nabla f(\mathbf x^*) = 0 ? What is \nabla^2f(\mathbf x^*)?  What do we mean by positive definite?

Sometimes,  we will be given more informations, and the previous theorem can also be rephrased like this :

Theorem (with more details):

If \mathbf x^* satisfies:

  1. f has a zero gradient at \mathbf{x}^* :

    \nabla f(\mathbf x^*) = 0

  2. the Hessian of f at \mathbf{x}^* is positive definite:

\mathbf{z}^\intercal ((\nabla^2f(\mathbf x^*))\mathbf{z} data-recalc-dims=0, \forall \mathbf{z} \in \mathbb R^n" />


\nabla^2f(\mathbf x) = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x^2_1 } & \cdots & \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x_1 \partial x_n} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x_n \partial x_1} & \cdots & \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x^2_n}\end{pmatrix}

then \mathbf x^* is a local minimum.

What does this all mean?

Let us examine this definition step by step.

Step 1:

Let f:\Omega \to\mathbb R be a continuously twice differentiable function at \mathbf x^*.

First, we introduce a function which we call f, this function takes its values from a set \Omega (omega) and returns a real number. There is a first difficulty here because we do not state what  \Omega is, but we will be able to guess it in the next line. This function f should be continuous and twice differentiable, or the rest of the definition will not be true.

Step 2:

\mathbf x^* is a local minimum of f(\mathbf x) if and only if:

We want to find a value to give to f for it to produce its minimum. We simply name this value \mathbf x^*.

From the notation we can tell two things:

  1. \mathbf x^* is written in bold, so it is a vector. It means that f is a multivariate function.
  2. As a result, the set \Omega we saw earlier is the set from which we pick values to give to f. It means that the set \Omega is a set of vectors and \mathbf x^* \in \Omega ("x stars belongs to Omega")

Step 3:

f has a zero gradient at \mathbf{x}^*

This one is the first condition which must hold if we want \mathbf x^* to be a local minimum of f(\mathbf x). We must check that the gradient of the function f at \mathbf x^* is equal to zero. What is the gradient? Just think of it as a derivative on steroids.

Definition:  "the gradient is a generalization of the usual concept of derivative of a function in one dimension to a function in several dimensions" (Wikipedia)

This definition gives us more pieces of information. A gradient is, in fact, the same thing as a derivative, but for functions like f which take vectors as input. That is why we wanted f to be a differentiable function in the first place, if it is not the case we cannot compute the gradient, and we are stuck.

In calculus, when we want to study a function, we often study the sign of its derivative. It allows you to determine if the function is increasing or decreasing and to identify minimum and maximum. By setting the derivative to zero, we can find the "critical points" of the function at which it reaches a maximum or a minimum. (You can read this excellent explanation if you want to refresh your memory). When we work with functions having more variable, we need to set each partial derivative to zero.

It turns out, the gradient of a function is a vector containing each of its partial derivatives. By studying the sign of the gradient, we can gather important pieces of information about the function. In this case, checking if the gradient equals zero for \mathbf{x}^* allow us to determine if \mathbf{x}^* is a critical point (and that the function f possibly has a minimum at this point). (Note: Checking if the gradient equals zero at a point means checking that each partial derivative equals zero for this point)

The gradient of a function is denoted by the symbol \nabla (nabla).
The line

\nabla f(\mathbf x^*) = 0

is just a repetition of "f has a zero gradient at \mathbf{x}^* " in mathematical notation.

For a vector \mathbf x^*(x_1,x_2,x_3),  \nabla f(\mathbf x^*) = 0 means:

\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(\mathbf x^*)=0

\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_2}(\mathbf x^*)=0

\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_3}(\mathbf x^*)=0

Step 4:

the Hessian of f at \mathbf{x}^* is positive definite

That is where most people get lost. This single sentence requires a lot of backgrounds. You need to know:

  1. that the Hessian is a matrix of second-order partial derivatives
  2. how we can tell if a matrix is positive definite

The Hessian matrix

The Hessian is a matrix, and we give it a name. We could call it H but instead we call it \nabla^2f(\mathbf x)  which is more explicit.  We keep the symbol \nabla used for the gradient, and add a ^2 to denote we the fact that this time we are talking about second-order partial derivative. Then we specify the name of the function (f) from which we will compute these derivates. By writing f(\mathbf x) we know that f takes a vector \mathbf x as input and that the Hessian is computed for a given \mathbf x.

To sum up, we need to compute a matrix called the Hessian matrix for  \mathbf{x}^* .
So we take the function f, we take the value of  \mathbf{x}^* and we compute the value for each cell of the matrix using the following formula:

\nabla^2f(\mathbf x) = \begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x^2_1}& \cdots & \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x_1 \partial x_n}\\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x_n \partial x_1}& \cdots & \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x^2_n}\end{pmatrix}

Eventually we get the Hessian matrix and it contains all the numbers we have computed.

Let us look at the definition to see if we understand it well:

Definition: In mathematics, the Hessian matrix or Hessian is a square matrix of second-order partial derivatives of a scalar-valued function. It describes the local curvature of a function of many variables. (Wikipedia)

(Note: A scalar valued function is a function that takes one or more values but returns a single value. In our case f is a scalar valued function.)

Positive definite

Now that we have the Hessian matrix, we want to know if it is positive definite at  \mathbf{x}^* .

Definition: A symmetric matrix A  is called positive definite if \mathbf {x}^\intercal A\mathbf {x}  data-recalc-dims=0" />, for all \mathbf {x} \in \mathbb{R}^n. (Source)

This time, we note that once again we were given the definition in the first place. It was just a little bit harder to read because of our notational choice. If we replace A by \nabla^2f(\mathbf x^*) and \mathbf {x} by \mathbf {z} we get exactly the formula written in the part 2. of the detailed theorem:

\mathbf{z}^\intercal ((\nabla^2f(\mathbf x^*))\mathbf{z} data-recalc-dims=0, \forall \mathbf{z} \in \mathbb R^n" />

The problem with this definition is that it is talking about a symmetric matrix.  A symmetric matrix is a square matrix this is equal to its transpose.

The Hessian matrix is square, but is it symmetric?

Luckily for us yes!

"if the second derivatives of f are all continuous in a neighborhood D, then the Hessian of f is a symmetric matrix throughout D" (Wikipedia)

But even with the definition, we still don't know how to check that the Hessian is positive definite.  That is because the formula \mathbf{z}^\intercal ((\nabla^2f(\mathbf x^*))\mathbf{z}\geq0 is for all \mathbf{z} in \mathbb R^n.

We can't try this formula for all \mathbf{z} in \mathbb R^n!
That is why we will use the following theorem:

The following statements are equivalent:

  • The symmetric matrix A is positive definite.
  • All eigenvalues of A are positive.
  • All the leading principal minors of A are positive.
  • There exists nonsingular square matrix B such that A = B^\intercal B

So we have three ways of checking that a matrix is positive definite:

Let's pick the second method and look at it in more details.

Computing the leading principal minors


To compute the minor M_{ij} of a matrix we remove the i^{th} line and the j^{th} column, and compute the determinant of the remaining matrix.

Let us consider the following 3 by 3 matrix:


To compute the minor M_{12} of this matrix we remove the line number 1 and the column number 2.  We get:


so we compute the determinant of:


which is : di-fg

Principal minors

A minor M_{ij} is called a principal minor when i=j.

For our 3x3 matrix, the principal minors are :

  • M_{11} = ei-fh ,
  • M_{22} = ai-cg
  • M_{33}=ae-bd

But that is not all ! Indeed, minors also have what we call an order.

A minor of A of order k is principal if it is obtained by deleting n-k rows and the n-k columns with the same numbers. (Source)

In our previous example, the matrix is 3\times3 so n=3 and we deleted 1 line, so we computed principal minors of order 2.

There are \dbinom{n}{k}  principal minors of order k, and we write \Delta{k} for any of the principal minors of order k.

To sum-up:

\Delta_0: does not exist because if we remove three lines and three columns we have deleted our matrix!

\Delta_1: We delete (3-1) = 2 lines and 2 columns with the same number.
So we remove lines 1 and 2 and column 1 and 2.


It means that one of the principal minors of order 1 is i. Let us find the others:

We delete lines 2 and 3 and column 2 and 3 and we get a.
We delete lines 1 and 3 and column 1 and 3 and we get  e

\Delta_2: is what we have seen before:

  • M_{11} = ei-fh ,
  • M_{22} = ai-cg
  • M_{33}= ae-bd

\Delta_3: We delete nothing. So it is the determinant of the matrix :  aei+bfg+cdh-ceg-bdi-afh.

Leading principal minor

The leading principal minor of A of order k is the minor of order k obtained by deleting the last n-k rows and columns.

So it turns out leading principal minors are simpler to get. If we write D_k for the leading principal minor of order k we find that:

D_1 = a (we deleted the last two lines and column)

D_2 =ae-bd (we removed the last line and the last column)


Now that we can compute all the leading principal minors of a matrix, we can compute them for the Hessian matrix at \mathbf{x^*} and if they are all positive, we will know that the matrix is positive definite.

We now have fully examined what we have to know, and you should be able to understand how to solve an unconstrained minimization problem. Let us check that everything is clear with an example.


In this example we will try to find the minimum of the function: f(x,y) = (2-x)^2+100(y-x^2)^2 which is known as the Rosenbrock's banana function.

Rosenbrock function

The Rosenbrock function for a = 2 and b = 100

First, we will search for which points its gradient \nabla f(x,y) equals zero.

\nabla f(x,y)=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} \\\frac{\partial f}{\partial y} \end{pmatrix}

So we compute the partial derivatives and we find:

\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = 2(200x^3-200xy+x-2)

\frac{\partial f}{\partial y} = 200(y-x^2)

(Tip: if you want to check your calculation you can use Wolfram alpha)

Our goal is to find when they are both at zero, so we need to solve the following system of equations:

\begin{eqnarray} 2(200x^3-200xy+x-2) &=&0 \\ 200(y-x^2) &=&0\end{eqnarray}

We distribute to get:

\begin{eqnarray}400x^3-400xy+2x-4&=&0 \\200y-200x^2 &=&0\end{eqnarray}

We multiply (2) by 2x to obtain:

\begin{equation}400xy-400x^3=0 \end{equation}

We now add (3) and (5) to get:

\begin{equation}400x^3-400xy+2x-4+400xy-400x^3=0 \end{equation}

which simplifies into:



We substitute x in (4)





It looks like we have found the point (x,y) = (2,4) for which \nabla f(x,y)=0 . But is this a minimum?

The Hessian matrix is :

\nabla^2f(x,y)=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}&\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial xy}\\\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial yx}&\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial y^2}\\\end{pmatrix}

\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x^2}=1200x^2-400y+1

\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial xy}=-400x

\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial yx}=-400x

\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial y^2}=200

Let us now compute the Hessian for (x,y) = (2,4)


The matrix is symetric, we can check its leading principal minors:

Minors of rang 1:

If we remove the last line and last column the minor M_{11}  is 4801.

Minor of rang 2:

This is the determinant of the Hessian:


All the leading principal minors of the Hessian are positives. It means that the Hessian is positive definite.

The two conditions we needed are met, and we can say that the point (2,4) is a local minimum.

LOCAL minimum?

A point is called a local minimum when it is the smallest value within a range. More formally:

Given a function f defined on a domain X, a point x^* is said to be a local minimum if there exists some \epsilon  data-recalc-dims= 0" /> such that f(x^*) \leq f(x)\;\text{for all}\;x\;\text{in}\;X  within distance \epsilon\ of x^*. This is illustrated in the figure below:

Global minimum vs local minimum

A global minimum, however, is true for the whole domain of the function:

Given a function f defined on a domain X, a point x^* is said to be a global minimum if f(x^*) \leq f(x)\quad \text{for all}\;x\;\text{in}\;X

So all our hard work was just to find a local minimum, but in real life, we often want to find the global minimum...

How can we find a global minimum?

There is one simple way to find the global minimum:

  1. Find all the local minima
  2. Take the smallest one; it is the global minimum.

Another approach is to study the function we are trying to minimize. If this function is convex, then we are sure its local minimum is a global minimum.


We discovered that finding the minimum of a function is not so simple, and it was not even a global minimum. However, some functions, called convex functions are easier to work with. What is a convex function? Read the Part 5 of this tutorial series to find out! Thanks for reading.

I am passionate about machine learning and Support Vector Machine. When I am not writing this blog, you can find me on Kaggle participating in some competition.

15 thoughts on “SVM Understanding the math - Unconstrained minimization

  1. Eric L

    Thank you for the attention you pay for explaining every details. It's really helpfull. By the way, I'm not sure but is it normal that f partial derivative relative to x is exactly equal to f(x,y) ?

  2. lcmosasohi

    Sorry I do not understand why we compute M22 in the given example if "minor of order kk obtained by deleting the last n−kn−k rows and columns." It seemed it just needed to compute M11 when delete the last 1 raw and columb ...

    1. Alexandre KOWALCZYK Post author

      Hello. You are right, we do not need to calculate M22 as it is not a leading principal minor. I updated the article to avoid the confusion. Thank you for your comment 🙂

  3. Yixin Chen

    Hi, thanks for the article. It's pretty clear and thorough. Just on confusion I thought in your example of Rosenbrock's banana function, should M11 be 4801 instead of 200 because your try to remove the last line and column. Actually I think this is the same question as lcmosasohi put. Thanks.

    1. Alexandre KOWALCZYK Post author

      Hello Yixin,

      Yes indeed, you are correct. I updated the article.

      Thank your for your comment.

  4. Igor Petrovski

    Man, this is amazing!
    I am doing my master studies at ETH Zürich and this helps me a lot!
    Do you have any other tutorials on some other models (Linear Regression, Logistic Regression, etc) ?

    Cheers and thank you!

    1. Alexandre KOWALCZYK Post author

      Hello Igor. Thank you for your comment. For the moment I only have tutorials about SVM. 🙂

      1. gsk

        Dear Alex, you're doing great job here.Please continue the same.

        If possible, Please make tutorials on Math behind on other machine learning algorithms as well. You're going to be life savior to many.

        Thank you in advance.


Leave a Reply