Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pendingjudge 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 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 σ whose action distribution may depend on the entire finite history, use its trajectory law from the initial state s and define

Jσ(s)=∑t=0∞Esσ ⁣[c(St,At) 1{St∉G}],

where c(s,a)=−r(s,a)>0 off the absorbing goal set G and c(g,a)=0 at goals. The optimal total cost f∗(s)=inf⁡σJσ(s) is finite for every state. It is the unique finite nonnegative function satisfying

f∗(g)=0(g∈G),f∗(s)=min⁡a∈A(s)[c(s,a)+∑s′∈SP(s′∣s,a)f∗(s′)](s∉G).

The minimum is attained by a deterministic stationary policy that is proper and has total cost f∗ from every initial state.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, a finite SSP with nonempty finite state and action sets, absorbing zero-cost goals, nonglobal costs c(s,a)≥cmin⁡>0, and a proper stationary policy.

[A1]

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].

[F1]

Finite stochastic shortest-path problems: P(⋅∣s,a) is a probability row; every nonglobal expected cost is at least cmin⁡>0; properness means the finite-step survival probabilities tend to zero from each state.

[F2]

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.

[F3]

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.

Proof

Given: The SSP, a proper stationary policy, and AC as stated.

1.1givenA1F1F2construct

If S=G, all costs and values are zero, and the theorem follows. Otherwise let S∖G≠∅. 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.

1.2givenF1F3construct

Define the Bellman map T by (Tu)(g)=0 on goals and (Tu)(s)=min⁡a∈A(s)[c(s,a)+∑s′P(s′∣s,a)u(s′)] off goals. Set f0(s)=0 and fn+1=Tfn. The minimum is attained by [F3]. These are finite-horizon optimal costs: for n=0 the continuation cost is zero; if the claim holds at horizon n, conditioning on the first action and next state gives the displayed recursion at horizon n+1. 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.

2.1givenF1F3F4step 1.1step 1.2algebra

The recursion is monotone in its value argument because all transition weights are nonnegative, and f1≥f0=0; induction gives 0≤fn≤fn+1. For any stationary policy π, let U=S∖G and define the substochastic matrix Qπ on U by Qπ(s,t)=∑a∈A(s)π(a∣s)P(t∣s,a). The properness recursion gives q0π∣U=1 and qn+1π∣U=Qπqnπ∣U, so qnπ∣U=(Qπ)n1; since Qπ1≤1, these survival probabilities are nonincreasing. For the proper stationary policy πˉ in the Given assumptions, choose Ns≥1 with qNsπˉ(s)<1 for each state. Since S is finite, N=max⁡sNs and ρ=max⁡sqNπˉ(s) satisfy ρ<1. Also qNπˉ(s)=∑t∈U(Qπˉ)N(s,t) for s∈U, and q(k+1)Nπˉ=(Qπˉ)NqkNπˉ. Thus induction gives qkNπˉ(s)≤ρk for every state and k≥0. The finite maximum cmax⁡=max⁡{c(s,a):s∈U, a∈A(s)} exists by [F3]. During block k, each stage cost has expectation at most cmax⁡qkNπˉ(s)≤cmax⁡ρk, because survival decreases in time. Hence Jπˉ(s)≤Ncmax⁡∑k≥0ρk=Ncmax⁡/(1−ρ). Since fn is the n-step optimum, fn(s)≤Jπˉ(s); thus each increasing sequence fn(s) is bounded above, and [F4] gives a finite limit f(s).

3.1step 1.2step 2.1algebra

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 f(g)=0 on G and f(s)=min⁡a[c(s,a)+∑s′P(s′∣s,a)f(s′)] off G. Therefore f is a finite nonnegative Bellman fixed point.

4.1givenF1F3F4step 2.1step 3.1algebra

Enumerate the finite state set as s1,…,sm. 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 π∗. For n=0 the identity is f(s)=f(s). If it holds at n, condition on the next state and apply the Bellman equality at the current state to obtain it at n+1; hence induction gives f(s)=Esπ∗[∑t<nc(St,At)1{St∉G}+f(Sn)] for every n. By step 2.1 and [F4], the survival probabilities under π∗ have a limit; if that limit were q∞>0, the partial cost expectation would be at least ncmin⁡q∞, contradicting the finite left side and nonnegative terminal term. Thus π∗ is proper. Since f is bounded on finite S and f=0 on G, properness gives Esπ∗f(Sn)≤max⁡xf(x)qnπ∗(s)→0; letting n→∞ in the identity yields Jπ∗(s)=f(s).

5.1F1F2step 3.1step 4.1algebra

Fix an initial state s and any policy σ. The fixed-point equation gives f(x)≤c(x,a)+∑x′P(x′∣x,a)f(x′) for each nonglobal x and every action a, 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 n gives f(s)≤Esσ[∑t<nc(St,At)1{St∉G}+f(Sn)]. Under σ, the events {Sn∉G} decrease because goals are absorbing. If their probabilities tend to zero, boundedness of the terminal term makes f(s)≤Jσ(s). If they do not tend to zero, their limit is positive, and the positive cost lower bound makes Jσ(s)=+∞; again f(s)≤Jσ(s). Thus f is a lower bound for every policy cost, while step 4.1 exhibits a policy attaining it. Consequently f=f∗.

6.1givenF1F2step 1.2step 2.1step 4.1algebra∎

Let g be any finite nonnegative solution of the same Bellman equations. Since f0=0≤g, the monotonicity of T from step 2.1 gives fn=Tn0≤Tng=g for every n, hence f∗≤g. The Bellman minimum for g is no larger than any action value, so g(x)≤c(x,a)+∑x′P(x′∣x,a)g(x′) for every nonglobal x and action a. Average this inequality along the proper policy π∗ from step 4.1 and iterate over n steps to obtain g(s)≤Esπ∗[∑t<nc(St,At)1{St∉G}+g(Sn)]. The terminal term tends to zero because g is bounded and π∗ is proper, so g(s)≤Jπ∗(s)=f∗(s). Therefore g=f∗, proving uniqueness.

Depends on

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