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-action average total variation is bounded by average KL
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be a finite nonempty set, let be a probability distribution on , and for each let be a finite nonempty set with probability distributions and . On the power-set sigma-algebra of , define
Use the directional Kullback–Leibler divergence with natural logarithms, defined by
and the convention . Put
Then
where the right side is when .
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a finite nonempty state set, probability weights , and finite nonempty action sets with probability distributions .
The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; AC is invoked only to apply the published Pinsker theorem [F3]. The finite sums and weighting arguments are choice-free.
Kullback–Leibler divergence: directional KL is when the first probability law is not absolutely continuous with respect to the second; under absolute continuity it uses the natural logarithm and the convention .
Total variation distance for probability laws: event-supremum total variation is and has no factor ; on a finite power-set space it must be identified with the displayed half- convention.
Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under AC, event-supremum total variation between probability laws is at most ; the result is immediate if the KL divergence is infinite.
Proof
Fix one state . Write ; since both distributions have mass one, . The set consists of the nonnegative differences. The positive and negative parts of therefore have equal sum, each equal to . For every subset , is at most this common sum, and attains it. Thus the event-supremum total variation in [F2] equals .
Apply [F3] to the probability measures and on the finite power-set space, and use step 1.1. This gives , including the infinite-divergence case.
If , the asserted inequality holds because each total-variation term is at most one. Suppose and put . When , step 2.1 gives for every state. Since their -weighted sum is zero, every state with has zero divergence, so step 2.1 also gives zero total variation there. When , for every the square gives . Apply this with for states with , multiply by , and sum. Since and , the result is . Step 2.1 now yields the claimed bound.
Remarks
The finite-action equality in step 1.1 uses the event-supremum convention, not the total-variation norm of a signed measure. AC enters only in the KL/Pinsker branch; the finite-sum and weighted square-root arguments are choice-free.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
27 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
- Joshua Achiam, David Held, Aviv Tamar, and Pieter Abbeel, Constrained Policy Optimization, PMLR 70 (2017) (standard reference, not scraped)