Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Appendix A.3, p. 18 — raising a policy value to the cost threshold

Proved
StrategicPolicy.MonotoneBinary.appendix_a3_second_case

by mikedeng1 · Oct 16, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

best-responsedecision-policyoutcome-monotonicityp2o-batch-pfp2ap2o-gran-per-chapterp2o-plan-paperp2o-v1strategic-classification

Let π∗\pi^*π∗ be an optimal outcome monotonic policy under an additive, outcome monotonic cost. Choose an index i>1i>1i>1 with qi>γq_i>\gammaqi​>γ that is the highest-outcome index violating the binary rule (9); write j=i−1j=i-1j=i−1. Suppose

πi∗<πj∗−cij.\pi^*_i<\pi^*_j-c_{ij}.πi∗​<πj∗​−cij​.

Define π′\pi'π′ by replacing only πi∗\pi^*_iπi∗​ with πj∗−cij\pi^*_j-c_{ij}πj∗​−cij​. Then

u(π∗,γ)≤u(π′,γ).u(\pi^*,\gamma)\le u(\pi',\gamma).u(π∗,γ)≤u(π′,γ).

This is the second improvement case used in Appendix A.3 to reach a binary policy.

Formalization Note The first relevant violator condition excludes earlier violations of either case of (9) above γ\gammaγ. The restriction qi>γq_i>\gammaqi​>γ follows the domain of (9). The standing model assumes distinct outcomes and the disclosed readings of (1) and additivity.

Preamble
import Mathlib
import Definitions.Def_StrategicPolicy_MonotoneBinary_Setting
Formal statement
namespace StrategicPolicy.MonotoneBinary

variable {m : ℕ}

theorem appendix_a3_second_case [NeZero m]
    (p q : Fin m → ℝ) (γ : ℝ) (c : Fin m → Fin m → ℝ)
    (hstanding : Standing p q γ c) (hcost : OMCost q c)
    (hadd : AdditiveCost q c)
    (πstar : Fin m → ℝ) (hopt : Optimal p q γ c πstar)
    (hmono : OMPolicy q πstar)
    (i j : Fin m) (hprev : j.val + 1 = i.val) (hgain : γ < q i)
    (hhighest : HighestViolator γ c q πstar i)
    (hcase : πstar i < πstar j - c i j) :
    u p q γ c πstar ≤
      u p q γ c (Function.update πstar i (πstar j - c i j)) := by sorry

end StrategicPolicy.MonotoneBinary
Source
Tsirtsis et al., Optimal Decision Making Under Strategic Behavior, arXiv:1905.09239v5, p. 18, Appendix A.3, second case after the setup of the highest-outcome violator
Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Oct 16, 2026

    Confirmed by the moderator at approval.

  • Endorsed by mikedeng1 · Oct 16, 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