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.
A finite MDP policy generates action-state-reward trajectories
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let a finite MDP have nonempty state set , and let be a stationary Markov policy. Fix an initial state and let
with its discrete sigma-algebra. There is a probability law on whose first state is and whose subsequent coordinates are . For every and every feasible finite trajectory , its probability is
where the empty product for is .
Its state-reward marginal also has the finite-prefix probabilities
for each feasible finite state-reward path .
Statement references
A probability law with prescribed iterated finite-prefix kernel laws exists under Choice.
A finite union of pairwise-disjoint finite sets is finite.
A finite product of finite sets is finite.
Sutton and Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction.
Kaelbling, Littman, and Cassandra, Brown Technical Report CS-96-08.
The policy-mixture reward-state path law with the same marginal probabilities.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, a finite MDP with , a stationary Markov policy , and an initial state .
The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function.
Finite Markov decision process with joint reward-transition law: , , and each are finite; and ; is a probability distribution on .
Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable: a finite set is in bijection with a natural number.
The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition and The product rule: , and : a family of pairwise-disjoint finite sets indexed by a finite set has finite union, and a finite Cartesian product of finite sets is finite.
Measure kernel and probability kernel: a probability kernel assigns a probability measure at each input and has measurable event sections.
The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates: finite product sigma-algebras make coordinate projections measurable.
The well-ordering principle: every nonempty subset of has a least element.
Ionescu-Tulcea construction of a Markov chain: under AC, an initial probability and a sequence of probability kernels determine a probability law with the prescribed iterated finite-prefix laws.
A finite MDP and stationary policy generate a reward-state Markov chain: the reward-state marginal under has the finite-prefix laws obtained by mixing the joint law with .
for finite index sets and and Laws of finite sums and finite products: the finite action sums can be regrouped and distributed across successive time indices.
Ionescu-Tulcea construction of a Markov chain: a probability law with prescribed consistent finite-prefix laws is unique.
Proof
Given: The hypotheses and conventions in the Statement.
The blocks are finite by [F3] and pairwise disjoint because distinct blocks have different first coordinates. Since is finite, [F3] makes finite. Its product with the finite reward and state sets is finite by [F3], so is finite. For each and , define Every term is nonnegative, and [F1] gives . If is a disjoint sequence of subsets of finite , only finitely many are nonempty: enumerate and assign each nonempty its least element in that enumeration; disjointness makes these assigned elements distinct. Therefore finite additivity of the displayed finite sums gives countable additivity. Since and have discrete sigma-algebras, is a probability measure and is measurable; hence is a probability kernel by [F4].
Set and for , with initial measure . For each , let from to be , where when and is the final next-state coordinate of the last trajectory record in when . That coordinate projection is measurable by [F5], so each is measurable in ; its sections are probability measures by step 1.1. Thus the hypotheses of [F7] hold.
Apply [F7] to obtain the probability law with these finite-prefix kernels. For a feasible atom , its iterated prefix mass is the product over of the atom masses . The definition of makes each such mass , giving the displayed formula. For , the initial point mass is .
Fix a finite state-reward path . Summing the action-path formula from step 3.1 over its finitely many action sequences and regrouping the finite sums by time gives the displayed state-reward marginal formula by [F9]. These are the finite-prefix probabilities in [F8]. The initial state is the same point mass, so uniqueness [F10] identifies the state-reward marginal with the stationary-policy path law.
Depends on
- Finite Markov decision process with joint reward-transition law
- Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable
- The Axiom of Choice
- Measure kernel and probability kernel
- The product sigma-algebra and its finite iterates
- The product rule: $\lvert A \times B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert\,\lvert B\rvert$, and $\big\lvert\prod_{i<m} A_i\big\rvert = \prod_{i<m}\lvert A_i\rvert$
- The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with $\lvert A \cup B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert$ and $\lvert\bigcup_{i \in I} A_i\rvert = \sum_{i \in I}\lvert A_i\rvert$, and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition
- The well-ordering principle
- Ionescu-Tulcea construction of a Markov chain
- A finite MDP and stationary policy generate a reward-state Markov chain
- $\sum_{i \in S}\sum_{j \in T} a_{ij} = \sum_{(i,j) \in S \times T} a_{ij} = \sum_{j \in T}\sum_{i \in S} a_{ij}$ for finite index sets $S$ and $T$
- Laws of finite sums and finite products
Used by
- Episodic REINFORCE with a frozen episode policy Algorithm
- Episodic returns, temporal-difference errors, and policy support Definition
- Finite-horizon offline reinforcement-learning dataset and coverage Definition
- A constant Q-learning step size can preserve persistent reward noise Example
- One-step Bernoulli REINFORCE has the exact expected gradient Example
- Ordinary importance sampling can have infinite variance under full support Example
- A policy score has zero conditional mean before the action Lemma
- Finite-episode importance sampling has the target-policy mean under support Lemma
- Finite-horizon policy ratios are trajectory Radon-Nikodym derivatives Lemma
- The optimal action value is attained by a greedy stationary policy Lemma
- Discounted episodic policy gradients from trajectory likelihoods Theorem
- Doubly robust evaluation is unbiased under either exact component Theorem
Dependency tree · two levels
67 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)
- Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L. Littman, and Anthony R. Cassandra, Planning and Acting in Partially Observable Stochastic Domains, Brown Technical Report CS-96-08 (standard reference, not scraped)