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.
Adaptive empirical-model accuracy for R-MAX
Statement
Let be a bounded-reward finite discounted MDP, let and , and let be an admissible heuristic with . Put where and . Run R-MAX with this sample threshold and approximation tolerance. For the current known set, let use its empirical laws on and the heuristic absorbing states elsewhere, and let use the true laws on . Define . With probability at least , simultaneously at all times: every stationary-policy value in differs from its value in by at most ; the current action values satisfy and ; the greedy value obeys ; and for every state. On this event, the total number of value-table rebuilds plus selections of pairs outside is at most .
Statement references
R-MAX stores its initial empirical batch and performs the specified finite Bellman sweeps.
The admissible value cap and componentwise optimism condition.
The true and empirical known-state/action models.
Adaptive reward and transition estimates for each potential stream.
The policy-value perturbation bound.
Bellman contraction, value iteration, and optimal values.
Strehl, Li, and Littman, Reinforcement Learning in Finite MDPs: PAC Analysis.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The MDP, admissible heuristic, parameters, R-MAX algorithm, and notation in the Statement.
Concentration for adaptively sampled MDP observations: for each pair's first potential outcomes, the reward mean and transition error obey the displayed concentration bounds, simultaneously under adaptive visits.
Value stability under empirical model error: if the true trap model values are bounded by , the empirical model has rewards in , and , then reward and transition errors at most give value error at most for every policy and for the optimal values.
Well-defined discounted values and optimal Bellman fixed points: the Bellman optimality operator is a contraction; its value-iteration iterates converge to its fixed point, and an admissible action value is bounded by .
Admissible upper heuristic for a discounted MDP and Known-state/action MDP with prescribed absorbing values: , and the dedicated sink for an unknown pair in has value .
R-MAX with an admissible heuristic: each newly known pair triggers one rebuild; a pair remains outside the known set for at most its first selections.
The finite union bound: the probability of a finite union of events is at most the sum of their probabilities.
Proof
Apply [F1] to each pair with reward and transition tolerance . For , the transition threshold is : its squared numerator is at most , while . The reward failure is at most because . By [F6], the finite union over reward and transition events for at most pairs has failure probability at most .
The Bellman operator of is exactly the operator in [F5], with unknown backup . Its fixed point and zero-initialized sweeps lie in . The contraction estimate in [F3] gives error at most . For , , so the stated makes this error at most ; when , one sweep is exact. The initial table is the exact fixed point for the empty known set. Thus the action-value approximation bound holds after every rebuild.
For a fixed known set , the true trap model has every stationary-policy and optimal value at most . Indeed, until the first outside- pair its path is a true-MDP path, whose expected nonnegative prefix is at most ; after that pair its absorbing continuation is at most . The empirical trap model has all rewards in . Also , since . Apply the trap-model form of [F2] with and . The value error for each policy and the optimum is at most .
Let and denote the trap-model optima. For every state, the true Bellman backup at on a known pair is , and on an unknown pair the trap backup is . Hence . The operator preserves coordinatewise order because its transition weights are nonnegative; its iterates from therefore increase. Contraction makes these iterates converge to the unique fixed point, so . Step 2.1 gives . Since , .
For each state , the action chosen by satisfies : its optimal action value is at least its estimated value minus , while the estimated maximum is at least the optimal maximum minus . Thus . Subtracting the policy Bellman equation and taking the maximum positive difference yields . Comparing the same policy in by step 2.1 and using gives , because .
On the event just proved, an outside- pair with cannot be selected: its current value is still , whereas . Thus every escape pair lies in . By [F5], each such pair is selected outside the known set at most times and causes one rebuild. Summing over proves the complexity bound.
Depends on
- R-MAX with an admissible heuristic
- Admissible upper heuristic for a discounted MDP
- Known-state/action MDP with prescribed absorbing values
- Concentration for adaptively sampled MDP observations
- Value stability under empirical model error
- Well-defined discounted values and optimal Bellman fixed points
- The finite union bound
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
38 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
- Alexander L. Strehl, Lihong Li, and Michael L. Littman, Reinforcement Learning in Finite MDPs: PAC Analysis (standard reference, not scraped)