Index policies are asymptotically separable (Thm. 7)
ProvedMarkovEntanglement.rmab_index_policy_entanglement_le_sqrtConsider an -agent restless multi-armed bandit: homogeneous agents sharing a local state space and a pair of local kernels , each agent choosing between idle and activate, and a budget that activates the fraction of the agents at every step. Fix an injective priority index and let be the index policy it induces for the budget . Assume the two standard technical conditions, both stated for the explicit mean-field map of the configuration process at activation fraction — properties of the limit model, quantified before the constant and before :
- Uniform global attractor property (UGAP): the map admits a fixed point that attracts every initial configuration, uniformly in the initial point.
- Mean-field non-degeneracy: at the budget runs out strictly inside some state, , so the limiting policy genuinely randomises there.
Then there is a constant , independent of , such that for every stationary occupancy distribution of the induced chain and every agent , the measure of Markov entanglement of the joint chain, with respect to the occupancy-weighted agent-wise total variation distance, satisfies
Index policies are therefore asymptotically separable: their joint transition matrix approaches the separable ones as the system grows, at rate .
The proof assembles the preceding milestones. Lemma 8 reduces the entanglement to the expected deviation of the configuration from the mean-field fixed point under the stationary distribution. Lemma 9 gives the per-step fluctuation of the configuration, of order . Lemma 10 propagates it over a horizon, and Lemma 11 supplies both a uniform horizon at which every trajectory has entered a neighbourhood of and the contraction that stops the propagated error from compounding. What comes out is a stationary deviation of order with a constant built from the local kernels, the priority index, the activation fraction and the contraction rate — none of which involve .
Combined with the general decomposition bound of the companion mission, this yields Corollary 1: the value decomposition error of an index policy is sublinear in .
The stationary distribution is assumed exchangeable — invariant under permuting the agents. The source's proof exchanges agent indices and asserts the stationary distribution is unchanged, which is exactly exchangeability; it holds automatically for the unique stationary distribution of an ergodic symmetric chain, but a reducible chain also has non-exchangeable stationary distributions concentrated on asymmetric closed classes, for which the agent-averaging step (and with it the stated bound) is not available. The hypothesis records precisely the consequence of ergodicity the argument uses.
import Mathlib import Definitions.Def_markov_entanglement_meanfield open scoped BigOperators open MarkovEntanglement
namespace MarkovEntanglement
variable {S : Type*} [Fintype S] [DecidableEq S]
/-- Theorem 7 (Chen and Peng, Section 7.1, p. 24). For an index policy satisfying the uniform
global attractor property and non-degeneracy there is a constant `C`, independent of `N`, with
`Eᵢ(P^π_{1:N}) ≤ C / √N`
for every agent `i`: the measure of Markov entanglement of the `N`-agent chain vanishes as the
system grows, so index policies are asymptotically separable. The two technical conditions
are stated for the explicit mean-field map at the activation fraction `α` — properties of the
limit model, quantified before `C` and before `N`. This is Lemma 8 combined with the `1/√N`
concentration of the configuration around the mean-field fixed point. -/
theorem rmab_index_policy_entanglement_le_sqrt
(P0 P1 : Matrix S S ℝ) (hP0 : IsTransitionMatrix P0) (hP1 : IsTransitionMatrix P1)
(ν : S → ℝ) (hν : Function.Injective ν) (α : ℝ) (hα : 0 < α) (hα1 : α < 1)
(mstar : S → ℝ) (hmstar : IsConfiguration mstar)
(hUGAP : IsUniformGlobalAttractor (meanFieldMap P0 P1 ν α) mstar)
(hnd : IsNonDegenerateMeanField ν α mstar) :
∃ C : ℝ, 0 ≤ C ∧
∀ (N : ℕ), 0 < N →
∀ (π : (Fin N → S) → (Fin N → Bool) → ℝ),
IsIndexPolicy ν ⌊α * (N : ℝ)⌋₊ π →
∀ (μ : Joint (StateAction (fun _ : Fin N => S) (fun _ : Fin N => Bool)) → ℝ),
IsDist μ →
IsExchangeableDist μ →
IsStationary (inducedTransition
(fun s a s' => ∏ j, rmabKernel P0 P1 (s j) (a j) (s' j)) π) μ →
∀ i : Fin N,
entanglementN i μ (inducedTransition
(fun s a s' => ∏ j, rmabKernel P0 P1 (s j) (a j) (s' j)) π)
≤ C / Real.sqrt (N : ℝ) := by
sorry
end MarkovEntanglementRead-back
What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-opus-5
Fix a finite type with decidable equality (the per‑agent state space). The statement asserts, for every choice of the following data:
- two matrices , each assumed to be a transition matrix, i.e. for all and for every (for );
- a function (a priority index) assumed injective, so distinct states get distinct priorities;
- a real number with and ;
- a function assumed to be a configuration, i.e. for all and ;
subject to two further hypotheses spelled out below, the following conclusion.
Hypothesis (uniform global attractor). Write, for a vector and ,
and let be the map sending to the vector
(This is defined on all of , not just on the simplex, and does not involve .) Let denote ‑fold iteration, with , and let . The hypothesis is the conjunction of:
- (as functions on ), and
- for every there exists such that for every and every configuration (i.e. every with for all and ), .
Hypothesis (mean‑field non‑degeneracy). There exists a state with
Conclusion. There exists a real number with such that for every natural number with , every function
satisfying the index‑policy property at budget (natural‑number floor of ; since and this lies in and may be ), and every function on satisfying three further properties, and every index , the quantity defined below satisfies
The constant is chosen before , , and , so it is uniform in all of them (it may depend on , , , , , ).
Unfolding the four properties and the quantity:
- is an index policy at budget : (a) for all , , and for every ; (b) for all , if then exactly; and (c) for every and every ,
where, with and ,
and is truncated natural subtraction, equal to whenever .
-
is a distribution: for every and . (Strict positivity is not required.)
-
is exchangeable: for every permutation of and every , .
-
is stationary for the induced chain. The induced chain is the matrix on the state‑action product space given by
where a point of is read as the pair with , ; note the policy factor is evaluated at the destination pair , not the source. Stationarity is: for every , .
- The bounded quantity is the "agent‑ entanglement" of and : the infimum (in ) of the set
where is the marginal one‑step law of coordinate from , and " a transition matrix" means and for all . In words: the smallest ‑averaged total‑variation distance between agent 's true marginal transition law and any single Markov kernel on depending only on agent 's own state‑action pair.
Degenerate cases the quantifiers silently include. If is empty the configuration hypothesis and the non‑degeneracy hypothesis (which asserts the existence of a state) cannot hold, so the hypotheses force nonempty. For a given the inner statement is vacuous if no meets the index‑policy conditions at budget , or if no is simultaneously a distribution, exchangeable and stationary for ; in particular the case (all , e.g. ) is included, where the budget condition forces to be supported on the all‑false action profile. The bound is stated with , not , and asserts only , not . The infimum defining is the real infimum of the displayed set, taken over transition matrices on the full pair space (not on alone). Finally, is the real square root of , positive since , so the right‑hand side is an ordinary quotient.
Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).