Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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.

Policy performance bound by average divergence

Statement

Let a finite discounted CMDP, a bounded transition signal g, a bounded function f:S→R, and stationary policies π,π′ be given. For each state define

δˉfg,σ(s):=∑a∈A(s)∑ρ∈R∑s′∈Sσ(a∣s)p(s′,ρ∣s,a)(g(s,a,ρ,s′)+γf(s′)−f(s)),σ∈{π,π′}.

Set ϵfg(π′):=max⁡s∈S∣δˉfg,π′(s)∣ and

Lπ,fg(π′):=∑s∈Sdπ(s)(δˉfg,π′(s)−δˉfg,π(s)),Dπ,f±,g(π′):=Lπ,fg(π′)1−γ±2γϵfg(π′)(1−γ)2∑s∈Sdπ(s)TV⁡s(π′,π),

where TV⁡s(π′,π):=12∑a∈A(s)∣π′(a∣s)−π(a∣s)∣. Then

Dπ,f−,g(π′)≤Jgπ′(μ)−Jgπ(μ)≤Dπ,f+,g(π′).

These total-variation bounds are choice-free. Under the additional Axiom of Choice, define

D‾KLπ(π′∥π):=∑s:dπ(s)>0dπ(s)DKL(π′(⋅∣s)∥π(⋅∣s)),

using natural logarithms and +∞ when the first action law is not absolutely continuous with respect to the second. The same inequalities hold after replacing ∑sdπ(s)TV⁡s(π′,π) by D‾KLπ(π′∥π)/2; when the average KL is infinite, these KL-form inequalities are interpreted as the trivial extended bounds −∞≤Jgπ′(μ)−Jgπ(μ)≤+∞. Taking g=r gives the reward bound, and taking g=ci gives the corresponding bound for each discounted cost.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite discounted CMDP, bounded transition signal g, bounded function f, stationary policies π,π′, and 0≤γ<1.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC is used only in the KL branch, through the Pinsker theorem and the directional KL definition; the total-variation proof below is choice-free.

[F1]

Finite discounted constrained Markov decision process: the state and action sets are finite and nonempty, the transition/reward mass is normalized, and g is bounded.

[F2]

Expected discounted-cost feasibility constraint: Jgσ(μ) is the expected discounted transition-signal series.

[F3]

Normalized discounted state occupancy and Normalized discounted occupancy is a probability distribution: dσ is the normalized discounted state occupancy and is a probability distribution.

[F4]

Performance-difference identity for an arbitrary bounded baseline: Jgπ′(μ)−Jgπ(μ)=Lπ,fg(π′)/(1−γ)+(1−γ)−1∑s(dπ′(s)−dπ(s))δˉfg,π′(s).

[F5]

Discounted occupancy change is bounded by average policy TV: ∥dπ′−dπ∥1≤2γ(1−γ)−1∑sdπ(s)TV⁡s(π′,π).

[F6]

Finite-action average total variation is bounded by average KL: under AC, the same weighted average of finite-action total variations is at most the square root of half the weighted directional KL.

Proof

1.1F1F2F3F4givenalgebra

By [F1] and [F3], S is finite, dπ,dπ′ are probability distributions, and each finite sum defining δˉfg,π′(s) is bounded by ∥g∥∞+(1+γ)∥f∥∞; hence ϵfg(π′) is finite. By [F2], the returns are the defined bounded-signal discounted sums. The identity [F4] writes their difference as Lπ,fg(π′)/(1−γ) plus the remainder (1−γ)−1∑s(dπ′(s)−dπ(s))δˉfg,π′(s). The triangle inequality gives ∣∑s(dπ′−dπ)δˉfg,π′∣≤∑s∣dπ′−dπ∣∣δˉfg,π′∣≤ϵfg(π′)∥dπ′−dπ∥1.

2.1F5step 1.1algebra

Substitute [F5] into the remainder bound in step 1.1. The resulting error is at most 2γϵfg(π′)(1−γ)−2∑sdπ(s)TV⁡s(π′,π), which gives the two total-variation inequalities.

3.1A1F6step 2.1algebra∎

Assume AC. If D‾KLπ(π′∥π)=+∞, the stated extended KL inequalities are immediate. Otherwise [F6] bounds the average total variation in step 2.1 by D‾KLπ(π′∥π)/2. Replacing the nonnegative error term by this upper bound gives the two KL-form inequalities. This step alone uses AC; steps 1.1–2.1 do not.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

17 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