Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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 S be a finite nonempty set, let d be a probability distribution on S, and for each s∈S let A(s) be a finite nonempty set with probability distributions qs and ps. On the power-set sigma-algebra of A(s), define

TV⁡A(s)(qs,ps):=12∑a∈A(s)∣qs(a)−ps(a)∣.

Use the directional Kullback–Leibler divergence with natural logarithms, defined by

DKL(qs∥ps):={∑a:qs(a)>0qs(a)log⁡qs(a)ps(a),qs(a)>0⇒ps(a)>0,+∞,otherwise,

and the convention 0log⁡0=0. Put

K:=∑s:d(s)>0d(s)DKL(qs∥ps)∈[0,+∞].

Then

∑s∈Sd(s)TV⁡A(s)(qs,ps)≤K/2,

where the right side is +∞ when K=+∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, a finite nonempty state set, probability weights d(s), and finite nonempty action sets with probability distributions qs,ps.

[A1]

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.

[F1]

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 0log⁡0=0.

[F2]

Total variation distance for probability laws: event-supremum total variation is sup⁡B∣q(B)−p(B)∣ and has no factor 1/2; on a finite power-set space it must be identified with the displayed half-ℓ1 convention.

[F3]

Pinsker’s inequality with event-supremum total variation: under AC, event-supremum total variation between probability laws is at most DKL(q∥p)/2; the result is immediate if the KL divergence is infinite.

Proof

1.1F2algebraconstruct

Fix one state s. Write Δa=qs(a)−ps(a); since both distributions have mass one, ∑aΔa=0. The set B={a:Δa≥0} consists of the nonnegative differences. The positive and negative parts of Δ therefore have equal sum, each equal to 12∑a∣Δa∣. For every subset C⊆A(s), ∣∑a∈CΔa∣ is at most this common sum, and C=B attains it. Thus the event-supremum total variation in [F2] equals TV⁡A(s)(qs,ps).

2.1A1F1F3step 1.1given

Apply [F3] to the probability measures qs and ps on the finite power-set space, and use step 1.1. This gives TV⁡A(s)(qs,ps)≤DKL(qs∥ps)/2, including the infinite-divergence case.

3.1step 2.1givenalgebra∎

If K=+∞, the asserted inequality holds because each total-variation term is at most one. Suppose K<∞ and put m=K/2. When m=0, step 2.1 gives DKL(qs∥ps)≥2TV⁡A(s)(qs,ps)2≥0 for every state. Since their d-weighted sum is zero, every state with d(s)>0 has zero divergence, so step 2.1 also gives zero total variation there. When m>0, for every x≥0 the square (x−m)2≥0 gives x≤(m+x/m)/2. Apply this with x=DKL(qs∥ps)/2 for states with d(s)>0, multiply by d(s), and sum. Since ∑sd(s)=1 and ∑sd(s)xs=m, the result is ∑sd(s)xs≤m. 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