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 , a bounded function , and stationary policies be given. For each state define
Set and
where . Then
These total-variation bounds are choice-free. Under the additional Axiom of Choice, define
using natural logarithms and when the first action law is not absolutely continuous with respect to the second. The same inequalities hold after replacing by ; when the average KL is infinite, these KL-form inequalities are interpreted as the trivial extended bounds . Taking gives the reward bound, and taking gives the corresponding bound for each discounted cost.
Statement references
The finite transition model, bounded signals, initial law, and discount.
Expected discounted-cost feasibility constraint: The expected discounted signal objective .
Normalized discounted state occupancy: The normalized occupancy .
The AC-conditional finite-action Pinsker/Jensen bound.
The resolvent estimate for the change of discounted state occupancy.
Performance-difference identity for an arbitrary bounded baseline: The exact performance-difference identity for arbitrary bounded .
Achiam et al., Constrained Policy Optimization, §5.1.
Achiam et al., Constrained Policy Optimization, supplementary material, Appendix 10.1.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite discounted CMDP, bounded transition signal , bounded function , stationary policies , and .
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.
Finite discounted constrained Markov decision process: the state and action sets are finite and nonempty, the transition/reward mass is normalized, and is bounded.
Expected discounted-cost feasibility constraint: is the expected discounted transition-signal series.
Normalized discounted state occupancy and Normalized discounted occupancy is a probability distribution: is the normalized discounted state occupancy and is a probability distribution.
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
By [F1] and [F3], is finite, are probability distributions, and each finite sum defining is bounded by ; hence is finite. By [F2], the returns are the defined bounded-signal discounted sums. The identity [F4] writes their difference as plus the remainder . The triangle inequality gives .
Substitute [F5] into the remainder bound in step 1.1. The resulting error is at most , which gives the two total-variation inequalities.
Assume AC. If , the stated extended KL inequalities are immediate. Otherwise [F6] bounds the average total variation in step 2.1 by . 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
- The Axiom of Choice
- Finite discounted constrained Markov decision process
- Expected discounted-cost feasibility constraint
- Normalized discounted state occupancy
- Discounted occupancy change is bounded by average policy TV
- Finite-action average total variation is bounded by average KL
- Performance-difference identity for an arbitrary bounded baseline
- Normalized discounted occupancy is a probability distribution
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
- Joshua Achiam, David Held, Aviv Tamar, and Pieter Abbeel, Constrained Policy Optimization, PMLR 70 (2017), main paper (standard reference, not scraped)
- Joshua Achiam, David Held, Aviv Tamar, and Pieter Abbeel, Constrained Policy Optimization, PMLR 70 (2017), supplementary material (standard reference, not scraped)