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 weighted estimated loss has conditional second moment at most k
Statement
At every round in Exp4, define the estimated action loss by and the estimated loss of expert by . Then
This bound includes actions with zero sampling probability under the zero-quotient convention.
Statement references
Exp4 expert weights and estimated losses: the action distribution, arm reward estimates, and expert weights define the random variables in the statement.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A contextual bandit instance, a round , and the Exp4 algorithm with finite action and expert sets.
Exp4 with unbiased estimated rewards: , , , and the quotient for is zero when .
Contextual bandit protocol with finite expert advice: each advice row is a probability vector, , and the learner's action has conditional probability .
Exp4 with unbiased estimated rewards: , and when , .
Conditional expectation given a sigma algebra: a conditional-expectation version is a measurable integrable function with the same integrals as the original variable on every event in the conditioning sigma-algebra.
Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable: expectation is the Lebesgue integral; a measurable finite-range real random variable on a probability space is integrable.
Proof
For the fixed instance, weights and finite estimates are functions of finitely many action histories; they and their squares are measurable with finite ranges, hence integrable. Fix a positive-probability pre-action history. If , then with all terms nonnegative and every , so for every expert . Thus these coordinates contribute zero. For each realized action, at most one arm loss estimate is nonzero, and hence .
On this history, for , the square equals when and zero otherwise. By [F2], its conditional mean is therefore . These finite conditional sums on the history atoms satisfy [F4]; null histories do not affect the identities. Applying this calculation to step 1.1 gives , because , whose square is at most itself.
Multiply step 2.1 by and sum over experts. For every supported , , so the result is at most . This proves the conditional bound.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
16 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)