Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Step (e), p. 787 — ϕN(Π,Ts)→ϕ∞(Π,Ts)\phi_N(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)\to\phi_\infty(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)ϕN​(Π,Ts​)→ϕ∞​(Π,Ts​) at geometric rate ν\nuν

Proved
RobustMDP.Stationarity.stationaryUncertainty_value_converges

by mikedeng1 · Sep 27, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

markov-decision-processp2o-batch-p100bp2o-gran-per-chapterp2o-plan-paperp2o-v1robust-optimization

In a robust discounted MDP with discount factor 0<ν<10<\nu<10<ν<1 (finite states, finite nonempty action set, costs c≥0c\ge0c≥0, nonempty rectangular row sets in the simplex), for every horizon NNN

ϕN(Π,Ts)≤ϕ∞(Π,Ts)≤ϕN(Π,Ts)+εN,εN=νNcmax⁡1−ν,\phi_N(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)\le\phi_\infty(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)\le\phi_N(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)+\varepsilon_N,\qquad \varepsilon_N=\frac{\nu^N c_{\max}}{1-\nu},ϕN​(Π,Ts​)≤ϕ∞​(Π,Ts​)≤ϕN​(Π,Ts​)+εN​,εN​=1−ννNcmax​​,

where ϕN(Π,Ts)=inf⁡π∈Πsup⁡τ∈TsCN(π,τ)\phi_N(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)=\inf_{\pi\in\Pi}\sup_{\tau\in\mathcal T_s}C_N(\pi,\tau)ϕN​(Π,Ts​)=infπ∈Π​supτ∈Ts​​CN​(π,τ) is the robust value when nature must use the same transition matrices at every stage, and ϕ∞(Π,Ts)\phi_\infty(\Pi,\mathcal T_s)ϕ∞​(Π,Ts​) its infinite-horizon counterpart.

Together with Eq. (35) this bounds the gap between time-varying and stationary uncertainty in Theorem 4.

Preamble
import Mathlib
import Definitions.Def_RobustMDP_Stationarity_Model
import Definitions.Def_RobustMDP_Stationarity_gameValues
Formal statement
namespace RobustMDP.Stationarity

/-- Nilim–El Ghaoui 2005, p. 787, Step (e): for every `N`,
`φ_N(Π, 𝒯_s) ≤ φ_∞(Π, 𝒯_s) ≤ φ_N(Π, 𝒯_s) + ε_N`. -/
theorem stationaryUncertainty_value_converges {n : ℕ} {A : Type} [Fintype A] [Nonempty A]
    (M : Model n A) (ν : ℝ) (hν₀ : 0 < ν) (hν₁ : ν < 1) (i₀ : Fin n) (N : ℕ) :
    M.phiN_PTs ν i₀ N ≤ M.phiInf_PTs ν i₀ ∧
      M.phiInf_PTs ν i₀ ≤ M.phiN_PTs ν i₀ N + M.epsN ν N := by sorry

end RobustMDP.Stationarity
Source
Nilim and El Ghaoui, Robust Control of Markov Decision Processes with Uncertain Transition Matrices, Oper. Res. 53 (2005), p. 787, proof of Theorem 4, Step (e), first display
Read-back

What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-opus-5-5

Setting. Let n∈Nn\in\mathbb Nn∈N with states {0,…,n−1}\{0,\dots,n-1\}{0,…,n−1}, and let AAA be a finite, nonempty action set. The model gives:

  • costs c(i,a)≥0c(i,a)\ge0c(i,a)≥0;
  • nonempty sets Pia\mathcal P_i^aPia​ of probability vectors on the states. No convexity or closedness is assumed.

Let 0<ν<10<\nu<10<ν<1 and let i0i_0i0​ be an initial state.

  • A controller policy π=(πt)t∈N\pi=(\pi_t)_{t\in\mathbb N}π=(πt​)t∈N​ is a sequence of maps from states to actions.
  • A choice of nature P=(Pa)a∈AP=(P^a)_{a\in A}P=(Pa)a∈A​ is a family of matrices with rows Pa(i,⋅)∈PiaP^a(i,\cdot)\in\mathcal P_i^aPa(i,⋅)∈Pia​. It is used at every time step, as the constant nature policy (P,P,… )(P,P,\dots)(P,P,…).

The state distribution is μ0=ei0\mu_0=e_{i_0}μ0​=ei0​​, μt+1(j)=∑iμt(i)Pπt(i)(i,j)\mu_{t+1}(j)=\sum_i\mu_t(i)P^{\pi_t(i)}(i,j)μt+1​(j)=∑i​μt​(i)Pπt​(i)(i,j). The costs are

CN(π,P)=∑t=0N−1νt∑iμt(i)c(i,πt(i)),C_N(\pi,P)=\sum_{t=0}^{N-1}\nu^t\sum_i\mu_t(i)c(i,\pi_t(i)),CN​(π,P)=t=0∑N−1​νti∑​μt​(i)c(i,πt​(i)),

and C∞(π,P)C_\infty(\pi,P)C∞​(π,P) is the infinite sum, which is summable here.

The two values compared are

φN=inf⁡πsup⁡PCN(π,P),φ∞=inf⁡πsup⁡PC∞(π,P).\varphi_N=\inf_{\pi}\sup_{P}C_N(\pi,P),\qquad \varphi_\infty=\inf_{\pi}\sup_{P}C_\infty(\pi,P).φN​=πinf​Psup​CN​(π,P),φ∞​=πinf​Psup​C∞​(π,P).

The infima range over all (possibly time-varying) controller policies, and the suprema over single choices of nature held fixed through time. Finally εN=νNcmax⁡/(1−ν)\varepsilon_N=\nu^Nc_{\max}/(1-\nu)εN​=νNcmax​/(1−ν) with cmax⁡=max⁡i,ac(i,a)c_{\max}=\max_{i,a}c(i,a)cmax​=maxi,a​c(i,a).

Claim. For every N∈NN\in\mathbb NN∈N:

φN  ≤  φ∞  ≤  φN+εN.\varphi_N\;\le\;\varphi_\infty\;\le\;\varphi_N+\varepsilon_N.φN​≤φ∞​≤φN​+εN​.

Degenerate cases.

  • n=0n=0n=0: no initial state exists, so the statement is vacuous.
  • N=0N=0N=0: φ0=0\varphi_0=0φ0​=0, and the claim becomes 0≤φ∞≤cmax⁡/(1−ν)0\le\varphi_\infty\le c_{\max}/(1-\nu)0≤φ∞​≤cmax​/(1−ν).
  • Real conventions: all quantities are bounded in [0,cmax⁡/(1−ν)][0,c_{\max}/(1-\nu)][0,cmax​/(1−ν)] and all index sets are nonempty, so the real-supremum and real-infimum conventions for empty or unbounded families do not arise.
  • Single-element sets: if every Pia\mathcal P_i^aPia​ has one element, there is only one choice of nature, and the supremum is trivial.
Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Sep 27, 2026

    Confirmed by the moderator at approval.

  • Endorsed by mikedeng1 · Sep 27, 2026

    Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me