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.
Finite-horizon offline reinforcement-learning dataset and coverage
Definition
Assume the Axiom of Choice for the policy-induced path laws below. Let be a nonempty finite state set, let be a finite nonempty action set for each , and let be a finite nonempty reward set. A finite Markov decision process here consists of these sets and a joint next-state/reward probability mass , defined for , , and , with for every . A stationary Markov policy assigns probabilities with at every state.
Fix a horizon , a discount , and an initial state . A trajectory is a tuple with , , and for each . Write for the finite set of all such tuples. For each stationary policy , let be the probability law on whose atom masses are
For a trajectory , its finite-horizon return is , and the value of target policy from is . A fixed logged dataset of size consists of independent trajectories , each with law for a behavior policy ; the true behavior propensities used to generate the data are known. Full horizon coverage means , so every behavior-null trajectory event is also target-null. In this finite setting, the condition at every state-action pair reachable under before time is sufficient for full horizon coverage. A trajectory function is integrable under a law when . All returns are integrable in this finite-horizon finite-reward setting; importance-weighted return expressions below are used only when they are integrable.
Definition references
Under AC, a stationary policy on a finite MDP has the stated finite-prefix action-state-reward law.
Independent sample trajectories are random elements with independent generated sigma-algebras.
Absolute continuity means every null set for the behavior law is null for the target law.
A probability measure is a measure of total mass one.
Expectation is the Lebesgue integral under the trajectory law.
A real trajectory function is integrable when its absolute value has finite integral.
Remarks
The stated state-action support condition implies full horizon coverage. Here a state-action pair is reachable under before time when for some . Suppose a trajectory atom has . Its atom mass is a product of nonnegative factors, so every target action probability and every shared transition/reward factor along is positive. Each state-action pair on is therefore reachable under , and the support condition gives at every time. The same initial state and transition/reward factors then give . Since is finite, every event is a finite union of atoms; thus every -null event is also -null, proving .
Depends on
- Absolute continuity of a signed or complex measure with respect to a positive measure
- The Axiom of Choice
- Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable
- Independent random elements
- Integrable real and complex functions, and their integrals
- Probability measures and probability spaces
- A finite MDP policy generates action-state-reward trajectories
Used by
- Finite-horizon doubly robust off-policy value evaluation Algorithm
- Ordinary, per-decision, and weighted trajectory importance sampling Algorithm
- Correct ratios and a correct value model give separate DR identities Example
- Full action support permits reweighting while missing support does not Example
- Self-normalization and clipping can introduce finite-sample bias Example
- Trajectory importance weights can grow exponentially with horizon Example
- Finite-horizon policy ratios are trajectory Radon-Nikodym derivatives Lemma
- Off-policy estimates do not guarantee offline policy safety Remark
- Reasoning-training evidence and evaluation targets Remark
- Doubly robust evaluation is unbiased under either exact component Theorem
- Trajectory and per-decision importance sampling are unbiased under coverage Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
29 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
- Richard S. Sutton and Andrew G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (standard reference, not scraped)
- Nan Jiang and Lihong Li, Doubly Robust Off-policy Value Evaluation for Reinforcement Learning (standard reference, not scraped)
- Sergey Levine, Aviral Kumar, George Tucker, and Justin Fu, Offline Reinforcement Learning: Tutorial, Review, and Perspectives on Open Problems (standard reference, not scraped)