Certainty equivalence / separation theorem (§5.2)
ProvedBertsekasDP.lqg_certainty_equivalenceThe separation theorem / certainty equivalence principle (Bertsekas, Vol. I, §5.2). Consider the linear-quadratic problem with imperfect state information: dynamics , measurements , quadratic cost with and , and independent finitely supported zero-mean disturbances. Let be the gain matrices of the corresponding deterministic linear-quadratic problem, and let be the least-squares estimate of the state given the measurement history .
Suppose a policy satisfies, along its own closed-loop trajectories and at every stage ,
Then is optimal:
The optimal controller therefore separates into two independently designed parts: an estimator, which produces and is the solution of a pure estimation problem in which no control takes place, and an actuator, which multiplies that estimate by the gain that would be used if the state were observed exactly. Remove this theorem and the entire LQG design methodology — Kalman filter feeding an LQR gain — loses its warrant. Notably no Gaussian assumption is required: independence and zero mean suffice.
Formalization Note The hypothesis is imposed only on outcomes of positive probability, where the conditional expectation is genuine rather than the junk value ; on measurement histories that never occur, the policy is unconstrained and does not affect the cost. The competitor class is all functions from measurement lists to controls, with no linearity or measurability restriction. The inequality is not strict.
import Mathlib import Definitions.Def_BertsekasLQGModel open Matrix
namespace BertsekasDP
theorem lqg_certainty_equivalence {n m q : ℕ} {Ω₀ ΩW ΩV : Type}
[Fintype Ω₀] [Fintype ΩW] [Fintype ΩV]
(M : BertsekasLQGModel n m q Ω₀ ΩW ΩV)
(πstar : List (Fin q → ℝ) → Fin m → ℝ)
(hstar : ∀ k < M.N, ∀ ω : BertsekasLQGSample M,
BertsekasLQGProb M ω ≠ 0 →
πstar ((BertsekasLQGTraj M πstar k ω).2) =
BertsekasLQGGain M k *ᵥ BertsekasLQGEstimate M πstar k ω) :
∀ π : List (Fin q → ℝ) → Fin m → ℝ,
BertsekasLQGCost M πstar ≤ BertsekasLQGCost M π := by sorry
end BertsekasDPRead-back
What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-fable-5
This theorem (whose proof in the file is sorry, i.e., not supplied) asserts the following. Fix any dimensions , any finite types , any model of type BertsekasLQGModel (horizon ; matrices and cost matrices positive semidefinite, positive definite for all ; finitely supported zero-mean disturbance distributions as detailed in the structure's read-back), and any policy — an arbitrary function from finite lists of measurement vectors in to controls in . Assume the hypothesis: for every time and every sample (triple of initial outcome and -tuples of disturbance outcomes) whose product probability is nonzero,
where: is the measurement list produced by running the closed-loop trajectory recursion under itself (states , for ; measurements for and noiselessly); is the conditional-mean estimate of BertsekasLQGEstimate — the -weighted average of over all samples with , equal to the zero vector by the convention if all such samples have probability zero (which cannot occur here since and matches itself); and is the gain matrix of BertsekasLQGGain, i.e. with from the backward Riccati recursion , at , where the matrix inverses are the zero matrix whenever the matrix to be inverted is singular.
Under that hypothesis, the conclusion is: for every policy (again an arbitrary function from measurement lists to controls — the quantification imposes no structure whatsoever on the competitor),
where is the expected quadratic cost of BertsekasLQGCost: with the closed-loop states and controls under for sample . Points to note about the literal strength: the theorem does not assert that a policy satisfying the hypothesis exists — it only says that if satisfies the displayed fixed-point identity on all positive-probability samples at all times , then it is cost-minimal among all policies; the inequality is non-strict; the hypothesis constrains only on measurement lists actually realized by positive-probability samples under itself (its values elsewhere are unconstrained, though they do not affect the cost); and the hypothesis is stated only for , matching exactly the stages whose controls enter the cost.
Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).