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.
Greedy policy improvement and finite policy-iteration termination
Statement
Let a finite MDP and be fixed, and let denote the unique fixed point of . If , the statewise claims below are vacuous and the policy iteration procedure returns the unique empty policy after one evaluation, without Choice. If , assume the Axiom of Choice. For a stationary policy , let be its expected discounted state value. For a deterministic policy , define its associated stationary policy by if and otherwise, and interpret and as and .
If a deterministic policy chooses an action maximizing at every state, then for every . If at any state, the value inequality is strict at some state.
For exact finite policy iteration, supply an initial deterministic policy and a finite ordered list of the actions at each state; evaluate each policy at its exact Bellman fixed point; retain the current action whenever it is already greedy; otherwise choose the earliest maximizing action in the supplied list. Every changed policy then strictly improves the value at some state and weakly improves it at every state. The procedure makes at most changes, where is the finite number of deterministic policies, and terminates at a deterministic policy whose value is ; this value dominates the value of every stationary policy.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite MDP, , a stationary policy , and (for policy iteration) the stated exact-evaluation procedure and finite action listings. In the nonempty-state branch, assume the Axiom of Choice.
The Axiom of Choice: Choice is required by the path-space chain construction used for expected discounted values.
Finite Markov decision process with joint reward-transition law and Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable: and each are finite; and are probability distributions.
Discounted returns and policy values in a finite MDP: is the expected discounted return from initial state under Choice.
Policy Bellman operator and Bellman optimality operator: is the -weighted average of , while .
Finite-MDP Bellman operators are gamma contractions with unique fixed points: every and is a contraction with constant and has a unique fixed point.
Completeness of the sup metric on finite-state value functions: the metric on is complete.
A contraction of a nonempty complete metric space into itself has exactly one fixed point, the limit of the iterates from any starting point: iterates of each such contraction from any initial value converge to its unique fixed point.
Exact finite policy iteration with retained greedy actions: evaluation is exact, the current action is retained whenever it maximizes , and any other tie is resolved by the supplied finite action list.
Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum: every nonempty finite set of real action values has an attained maximum.
Limits preserve non-strict inequalities: an eventual non-strict inequality between convergent real sequences holds between their limits.
The principle of mathematical induction: a property true at the first index and preserved at each successor holds at all natural indices.
The product rule: , and : a finite Cartesian product of finite sets is finite, including the empty product.
Proof
If , all statewise inequalities are vacuous and the unique empty policy has no update; assume for the remaining steps that . [A1] supplies the choice assumption for the path-law value in [F2], and [F3] gives its Bellman fixed-point identity. For each state , [F3] and [F4] give The inequality holds because a probability-weighted average of finitely many real numbers is at most their attained maximum [F1, F9].
For every stationary policy , the operator is monotone: if for every , then each coefficient is nonnegative and , so for every .
If is greedy, its action attains that maximum at every state, so for all .
Define and . Step 2.1 gives pointwise; if then step 1.2 gives . By [F11], is pointwise nondecreasing.
The zero function belongs to , so is nonempty; [F6] makes it complete. By [F5], is a contraction, so Banach iteration [F7] makes converge in to its unique fixed point. By [F3] and uniqueness in [F5], that fixed point is . Since for every , the convergence is coordinatewise; from , [F10] yields pointwise. This proves the first value comparison.
If , then . Step 3.1 makes for every ; passing to the limit with [F10] gives .
Consider one update in the stated policy-iteration procedure. Exact evaluation returns because it is the unique fixed point of by [F3] and [F5]. At each state the updated action maximizes ; if the old action is already a maximizer it is retained, and otherwise its value is strictly below the attained maximum. Therefore at all states, with strict inequality wherever the policy changed. Steps 4.1–4.2 show that every changed policy weakly improves all state values and strictly improves at least one.
List the finite states as and each action set as . A deterministic policy is one tuple of indices with , so the set of such policies is a finite Cartesian product by [F12]; for it is the singleton empty product. By step 5.1, each changed iteration strictly increases some coordinate and never decreases any, so no policy can recur, since a repeated policy has the same unique exact value vector. Hence at most changes occur and the procedure terminates.
At termination, the update leaves every action unchanged, which by [F8] means the terminal deterministic policy is greedy with respect to its exact value . Thus by [F4]; with [F3], this says , so uniqueness in [F5] gives .
For any stationary policy , because the former is a probability-weighted average of the same action values. Iterating , , monotonicity as in step 1.2 makes nonincreasing. The domain is nonempty by step 4.1 and complete by [F6], so [F5]–[F7] make these iterates converge to the unique fixed point of , which equals by [F3]. Since for every , convergence is coordinatewise; [F10] gives . Therefore the terminal policy's value dominates every stationary policy.
Remarks
The path-law interpretation of carries the stated Choice assumption. The weighted-average inequalities, finite maxima, and finite policy iteration after action lists are supplied use no additional choice principle.
Depends on
- Finite Markov decision process with joint reward-transition law
- Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable
- Discounted returns and policy values in a finite MDP
- The Axiom of Choice
- Policy Bellman operator
- Bellman optimality operator
- Expected discounted policy value is a fixed point of its Bellman operator
- Finite-MDP Bellman operators are gamma contractions with unique fixed points
- Exact finite policy iteration with retained greedy actions
- Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum
- Completeness of the sup metric on finite-state value functions
- A contraction of a nonempty complete metric space into itself has exactly one fixed point, the limit of the iterates from any starting point
- Limits preserve non-strict inequalities
- The principle of mathematical induction
- The product rule: $\lvert A \times B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert\,\lvert B\rvert$, and $\big\lvert\prod_{i<m} A_i\big\rvert = \prod_{i<m}\lvert A_i\rvert$
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
78 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)