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-episode importance sampling has the target-policy mean under support
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let a finite MDP with terminal set have , and let and be stationary target and behavior policies. Suppose implies for every nonterminal state and action , and episodes reach in finite time almost surely from every state under both policies. For any starting state , a behavior-generated episode has first terminal time and ratio
where the empty product for is . For every bounded measurable real function of the finite episode,
The identity therefore applies to every episode suffix starting at a state that can be reached by a finite behavior history. Fix an initial state . If is a positive-probability finite behavior history from that first visits at time and ends immediately upon observing , before the action is sampled (when is terminal, no action is sampled and the suffix is empty), let
be the suffix return. Then
Thus the ordinary first-visit importance-sampling return has mean conditional on each pre-action first-visit history.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, a finite MDP and discount, target and behavior policies, target support, almost-sure episode termination from every state under both policies, and the bounded measurable function in the Statement.
The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; AC is used for the policy path laws.
Finite Markov decision process with joint reward-transition law: conditional on a state-action pair, the same finite joint next-state/reward law is used under both policies.
A finite MDP policy generates action-state-reward trajectories: for every feasible finite state-action-reward trajectory, its probability under policy is the product of over its steps.
Episodic returns, temporal-difference errors, and policy support: is the product of action-probability ratios along the finite episode, and the support condition makes its denominators positive on behavior-observed paths.
Discounted returns and policy values in a finite MDP: under the absorbing zero-reward extension, the target return is the discounted path return and is bounded by .
Probability measures and probability spaces and Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable: path probabilities are countably additive and expectations are Lebesgue integrals.
Monotone convergence for the integral: expectations of increasing nonnegative measurable functions converge to the expectation of their pointwise limit.
Proof
Given: The hypotheses and conventions in the Statement and [A1], [F1]–[F6].
Fix a finite terminal trajectory with and . By [F2], If , every transition-reward factor and every target action factor is positive. Target support then makes every corresponding behavior action factor positive, so . On each behavior-positive trajectory, canceling the shared transition-reward factors gives ; if its target probability is zero, the ratio is zero.
For each episode length , there are finitely many terminal trajectories because the state, action, and reward alphabets are finite. These terminal-path events are disjoint over all lengths and cover probability one under both policies by the termination hypothesis. Enumerate them by increasing length and, within each length, any finite enumeration. For any finite initial collection of these paths, step 1.1 gives As the collections increase to all terminal paths, [F6] passes both nonnegative sums to their expectations. Thus , so is integrable.
Apply the same finite-path identity separately to the nonnegative functions and ; step 2.1 makes both weighted expectations finite. Subtracting the two equalities by linearity of the integral gives . For , the target expectation is by [F4].
Let be one finite behavior history ending at a first visit to at time , with . For every finite terminal suffix starting at , the product formula [F2] factors the joint probability as . The suffix likelihood ratio contains only action factors from time onward, so step 1.1 gives the target-to-behavior ratio for that suffix. Since is the bounded discounted suffix return and target termination holds from , step 3.1 gives . Summing over suffixes therefore yields . Dividing by the positive proves the conditional first-visit assertion.
Depends on
- Episodic returns, temporal-difference errors, and policy support
- Finite Markov decision process with joint reward-transition law
- A finite MDP policy generates action-state-reward trajectories
- Discounted returns and policy values in a finite MDP
- Probability measures and probability spaces
- Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable
- Monotone convergence for the integral
- The Axiom of Choice
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
46 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)
- Han-Dong Yang, Optimal Control and Reinforcement Learning, Chapter 2: Value-based Reinforcement Learning (standard reference, not scraped)