How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Exp4 with unbiased estimated rewards
Definition
Given integers , , , a learning rate , and an instance from the contextual bandit protocol with finite expert advice, initialize for . For rounds , perform the following operations:
-
Receive the advice matrix , whose th row is .
-
Form the action distribution
-
Draw a measurable action with conditional probabilities and observe only .
-
For each , form
When , the action is impossible; in this case the quotient term is defined to be zero on every possible outcome.
- For each expert , form its estimated reward
and update the expert distribution by
The output is and . All arithmetic is over exact real numbers, and the procedure assumes a probability space carrying the stated finite-valued measurable draws. This is the Exp4 update; no regret guarantee for bounded-loss Hedge is part of the algorithm.
Definition references
Contextual bandit protocol: the fixed oblivious reward/advice instance, action set, observed reward, and pre-action history used here.
Normalized exponential weights: the full-information algorithm uses normalized exponential weights; this is notation only, not a regret result for the present unbounded estimates.
Importance-weighted loss estimate: on coordinates with positive sampling probability, the quotient term is the standard estimate of loss ; the zero-probability convention is handled locally here.
Measurable finite actions: each action draw is a measurable finite-valued random element.
Real exponential: the update uses the real exponential function.
Exponential positivity: exponential weights are positive for every finite real input.
Exp4 well-definedness ↗: the separate result proves finite estimates, simplex mixtures, positive expert weights and finite-horizon completion, including zero-probability actions.
Depends on
Used by
- A context-specific expert class with no shared policy structure Example
- A finite two-expert Exp4 instance Example
- Duplicated experts change Exp4's uniform prior mass Example
- Exp4 expert reward estimates are conditionally unbiased Lemma
- Exp4 exponential-weights potential inequality Lemma
- Exp4 updates are well-defined, including zero-probability actions Lemma
- Exp4 weighted estimated loss has conditional second moment at most k Lemma
- Exp4 expected regret against the best fixed expert Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
23 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Tor Lattimore and Csaba Szepesvári, Bandit Algorithms (standard reference, not scraped)
- Peter Auer, Nicolò Cesa-Bianchi, Yoav Freund, and Robert Schapire, The Nonstochastic Multiarmed Bandit Problem (standard reference, not scraped)