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 positive-cost stochastic shortest-path value
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice and let a finite positive-cost stochastic shortest-path problem have at least one proper stationary policy. For any policy whose action distribution may depend on the entire finite history, use its trajectory law from the initial state and define
where off the absorbing goal set and at goals. The optimal total cost is finite for every state. It is the unique finite nonnegative function satisfying
The minimum is attained by a deterministic stationary policy that is proper and has total cost from every initial state.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC, a finite SSP with nonempty finite state and action sets, absorbing zero-cost goals, nonglobal costs , and a proper stationary policy.
The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. It is used only through the history-dependent path-law construction in [F2].
Finite stochastic shortest-path problems: is a probability row; every nonglobal expected cost is at least ; properness means the finite-step survival probabilities tend to zero from each state.
Ionescu-Tulcea construction of a Markov chain: under AC, an initial law and a sequence of probability kernels depending on finite histories determine a trajectory law with the prescribed finite-prefix probabilities.
Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum: every nonempty finite list of real numbers has an attained minimum as well as a maximum.
A nondecreasing sequence bounded above converges to the supremum of its range, and a nonincreasing sequence bounded below to the infimum: a nondecreasing real sequence bounded above converges to a finite real limit.
Proof
Given: The SSP, a proper stationary policy, and AC as stated.
If , all costs and values are zero, and the theorem follows. Otherwise let . For any history-dependent policy, finite state/action histories form finite discrete spaces at each time, so the conditional action and transition rules are probability kernels. By [A1] and [F2], the corresponding trajectory law exists with the specified finite-prefix probabilities; this justifies the expectations in the Statement.
Define the Bellman map by on goals and off goals. Set and . The minimum is attained by [F3]. These are finite-horizon optimal costs: for the continuation cost is zero; if the claim holds at horizon , conditioning on the first action and next state gives the displayed recursion at horizon . Any randomized first action gives a convex combination of action costs, which is at least their minimum; a minimizing pure action attains that minimum, so the finite-horizon optimum is the displayed value.
The recursion is monotone in its value argument because all transition weights are nonnegative, and ; induction gives . For any stationary policy , let and define the substochastic matrix on by . The properness recursion gives and , so ; since , these survival probabilities are nonincreasing. For the proper stationary policy in the Given assumptions, choose with for each state. Since is finite, and satisfy . Also for , and . Thus induction gives for every state and . The finite maximum exists by [F3]. During block , each stage cost has expectation at most , because survival decreases in time. Hence . Since is the -step optimum, ; thus each increasing sequence is bounded above, and [F4] gives a finite limit .
Passing to the limit in the finite sums and finite minima in step 1.2 is valid coordinatewise; the minimum of finitely many convergent real sequences converges to the minimum of their limits. Hence on and off . Therefore is a finite nonnegative Bellman fixed point.
Enumerate the finite state set as . For each nonglobal state, [F3] gives a nonempty finite set of actions minimizing the fixed-point expression in step 3.1. Inductively along this finite list, select one minimizer at each state; at each successor stage one nonempty finite set is added to the already chosen finite tuple, so this finite construction uses no arbitrary-index choice. The selected actions define a deterministic stationary policy . For the identity is . If it holds at , condition on the next state and apply the Bellman equality at the current state to obtain it at ; hence induction gives for every . By step 2.1 and [F4], the survival probabilities under have a limit; if that limit were , the partial cost expectation would be at least , contradicting the finite left side and nonnegative terminal term. Thus is proper. Since is bounded on finite and on , properness gives ; letting in the identity yields .
Fix an initial state and any policy . The fixed-point equation gives for each nonglobal and every action , with equality at goals. Averaging over each history-dependent action distribution gives the one-step inequality; conditioning successively on the finite-prefix laws and inducting on gives . Under , the events decrease because goals are absorbing. If their probabilities tend to zero, boundedness of the terminal term makes . If they do not tend to zero, their limit is positive, and the positive cost lower bound makes ; again . Thus is a lower bound for every policy cost, while step 4.1 exhibits a policy attaining it. Consequently .
Let be any finite nonnegative solution of the same Bellman equations. Since , the monotonicity of from step 2.1 gives for every , hence . The Bellman minimum for is no larger than any action value, so for every nonglobal and action . Average this inequality along the proper policy from step 4.1 and iterate over steps to obtain . The terminal term tends to zero because is bounded and is proper, so . Therefore , proving uniqueness.
Depends on
- Finite stochastic shortest-path problems
- The Axiom of Choice
- Ionescu-Tulcea construction of a Markov chain
- Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum
- A nondecreasing sequence bounded above converges to the supremum of its range, and a nonincreasing sequence bounded below to the infimum
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
32 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
- Andrew G. Barto, Steven J. Bradtke, and Satinder P. Singh, Learning to Act Using Real-Time Dynamic Programming (standard reference, not scraped)