Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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 t in Exp4, define the estimated action loss by L^t,i=1−X^t,i and the estimated loss of expert m by L~t,m=1−X~t,m. Then

E[∑m=1MQt,mL~t,m2 | Ft−1]≤k.

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 t, and the Exp4 algorithm with finite action and expert sets.

[F1]

Exp4 with unbiased estimated rewards: Pt,i=∑mQt,mE(t)m,i, Qt,m>0, L~t,m=∑iE(t)m,iL^t,i, and the quotient for L^t,i is zero when Pt,i=0.

[F2]

Contextual bandit protocol with finite expert advice: each advice row is a probability vector, 0≤xt,i≤1, and the learner's action has conditional probability Pt,i.

[F3]

Exp4 with unbiased estimated rewards: Xt=xt,At, and when Pt,i>0, L^t,i=1{At=i}(1−Xt)/Pt,i.

[F4]

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.

[F5]

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

1.1F1F2F3F5algebra

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 Pt,i=0, then 0=∑mQt,mE(t)m,i with all terms nonnegative and every Qt,m>0, so E(t)m,i=0 for every expert m. Thus these coordinates contribute zero. For each realized action, at most one arm loss estimate L^t,i is nonzero, and hence L~t,m2=∑i:Pt,i>0E(t)m,i2L^t,i2.

2.1F2F3F4step 1.1algebra

On this history, for Pt,i>0, the square L^t,i2 equals (1−xt,i)2/Pt,i2 when At=i and zero otherwise. By [F2], its conditional mean is therefore Pt,i(1−xt,i)2/Pt,i2=(1−xt,i)2/Pt,i. 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 E[L~t,m2∣Ft−1]=∑i:Pt,i>0E(t)m,i2(1−xt,i)2/Pt,i≤∑i:Pt,i>0E(t)m,i(1−xt,i)/Pt,i, because 0≤E(t)m,i(1−xt,i)≤1, whose square is at most itself.

3.1F1F2step 2.1algebra∎

Multiply step 2.1 by Qt,m and sum over experts. For every supported i, ∑mQt,mE(t)m,i=Pt,i, so the result is at most ∑i:Pt,i>0(1−xt,i)≤k. 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