1
$\begingroup$

Suppose we are given a MDP and a policy $\pi$, where for simplicity we have exactly one possible start state $s_0$. Let $V^\pi(s)$ denote the expected return when being in a state s. Moreover, denote by $d^\pi(s)$ the occupancy frequency or on-policy distribution (see for instance http://incompleteideas.net/book/bookdraft2017nov5.pdf on page 163). My question is now: Does the following hold:

$V^\pi(s_0) = \sum_s d^\pi(s) \cdot V^\pi(s)$

where the sum runs over all possible states s. I assume there are just finitely many here. I cannot prove it somehow and I think it does not hold but I do not know of any example. Do you have a proof for that or give some counterexample? Any help appreciated!

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Is your equation complete, as you intended? You mention $d^{\pi}(s)$ but do not use it? Also could you clarify that this is for an episodic problem? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 14, 2019 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ Also, are you using the definition of return: $G_t = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \gamma^k R_{t+k+1}$ ? There are other options, but that is commonly used one in Sutton & Barto. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 14, 2019 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ Yes Neil Slater, I forgot the $d^\pi(s)$, I am so sorry! $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 15, 2019 at 18:57

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

For sure the formula that you state does not hold. Assume that the rewards are all positive and that there exists a state $s$ such that $V^\pi(s) > 0$ then

$$\text{RHS} = V^\pi(s_0) + V^\pi(s) + ... \geq V^\pi(s_0) + V^\pi(s) > V^\pi(s_0) = \text{LHS}$$

What you might mean is that

$$V^\pi(s) = \sum_{a} \pi(a|s) Q^\pi(s,a)$$

where $Q^\pi(s,a) = \left(E^\pi[R|S_t=s,A_t=a]\right)$ [here, $R = \sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma^t R_t$ is the reward variable] which is easily proved:

Assume that $X:\Omega \to \mathcal{X}, Y:\Omega \to \mathcal{Y}, Z : \Omega \to \mathcal{Z}$ are random variables and have a common density $p(x,y,z)$ and furthermore assume that $p(y)>0$ for all $y$, then one can show that $$E[X|Y=y] = \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot p(x|y) dx$$ and $$E[X|Y=y,Z=z] = \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot p(x|y,z) dx$$

(see https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/496608/formal-definition-of-conditional-probability/498338#498338).

Then \begin{align*} E[X|Y=y] &= \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot p(x|y) dx \\ &= \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot \frac{p(x,y)}{p(y)} dx \\ &= \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot \frac{\int_{\mathcal{Z}} p(x,y,z) dz}{p(y)} dx \\ &= \int_{\mathcal{Z}} \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot \frac{ p(x,y,z)p(y,z)}{p(y,z)p(y)} dx dz \\ &= \int_{\mathcal{Z}} \frac{p(z,y)}{p(y)} \int_{\mathcal{X}} x \cdot p(x|y,z) dx dz \\ &= \int_{\mathcal{Z}} p(z|y) E[X|Y=y,Z=z] dz \end{align*}

Applied to the situation above we have $X=R, Y=S_0, Z=A_0$ and $$V^\pi(s) = E[R|S_0=s] = E[X|Y=y] = \sum_{z \in A} p(z|y) E[X|Y=y,Z=z] = \sum_{a \in A} p(a|s) Q^\pi(s,a)$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your fast answer Fabian! I am so sorry that I forgot to weight each term in the same with its distribution probability. Otherwise it would be kinda obvious :D Do you still think the upper equation is wrong? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 15, 2019 at 18:58
  • $\begingroup$ Although I have not worked it out explicitly I am still convinced that I either do not understand the equation you have written down or it is wrong. Reason: the Bellman equation ( see stats.stackexchange.com/questions/243384/…) tells us that $v(s) = const + \sum_{s‘} p(s‘|s) v(s‘)$ which does not seem to match the one you want... so let me ask: what is the context? Is the Bellman equation sufficient for your purpose or do you explicitly need the equation in your form? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 16, 2019 at 11:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.