Lemma 10 —
ProvedStochLinOpt.UpperBound.det_designMatrix_succbanditslinear-algebralinear-banditsp2o-batch-p100ap2o-gran-per-chapterp2o-plan-paperp2o-v1
Let be any sequence, and . Then for every ,
This expresses the growth of the log-volume of the precision matrix through the widths of the chosen decisions; it is the first half of the potential argument behind Lemma 9.
Formalization Note The paper prints the factor as under ; the index is a typo and the proof gives , which is what is stated. The paper's "for every " places no restriction, so the statement is for every , including (empty product, ).
Preamble
import Mathlib import Definitions.Def_StochLinOpt_UpperBound_confidenceBall2 import Definitions.Def_StochLinOpt_UpperBound_analysisQuantities open Matrix
Formal statement
namespace StochLinOpt.UpperBound
theorem det_designMatrix_succ {n : ℕ} (x : ℕ → Fin n → ℝ) (t : ℕ) :
(designMatrix x (t + 1)).det = ∏ τ ∈ Finset.Icc 1 t, (1 + width x τ ^ 2) := by sorry
end StochLinOpt.UpperBound
Source
Dani, Hayes, Kakade, Stochastic Linear Optimization under Bandit Feedback, COLT 2008, PDF p. 8, Lemma 10
Read-back
What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-opus-5-5
Setting. , any sequence of vectors in , and . There are no other hypotheses. The notation is and .
Conclusion.
Degenerate cases.
- : both sides equal ( and the empty product).
- : the determinant of the empty matrix is , every , and both sides are .
- : it never appears.
Human review
Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).
Confirmed by the moderator at approval.