I am working through Sutton and Barto's text on reinforcement learning (2nd edition), and am stuck on exercise 3.13 (p. 58). The exercise is to write $q_\pi$ in terms of $v_\pi$ and $p(s',r\mid s,a)$, where $q_\pi$ is the action-value function defined by $$q_\pi(s,a) := \mathbb E_\pi [G_t \mid S_t=s, A_t=a];$$ $v_\pi$ is the state-value function defined by $$v_\pi(s) := \mathbb E_\pi[G_t \mid S_t=s];$$ and $G_t$ is the discounted return $$G_t := \sum_{k=0}^\infty \gamma^k R_{t+k+1}.$$

My attempt so far is to write $G_t = R_{t+1} + \gamma G_{t+1}$ so that $$q_\pi(s,a) = \mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a] + \gamma \mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a].$$

Now $\mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a]$ becomes:

  • $\sum_g g \Pr(G_{t+1}=g\mid S_t=s,A_t=a)$ (definition of expected value)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{s'} \Pr(G_{t+1}=g, S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s,A_t=a)$ (law of total probability)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{s'} \Pr(G_{t+1}=g \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s') \Pr(S_{t+1}=s' \mid S_t=s,A_t=a)$
    • (definition of conditional probability; the expression was too long so I've placed this parenthetical on the line below)
  • $\sum_{s'} \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s,A_t=a) \sum_g g \Pr(G_{t+1}=g\mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s')$
    • (rearranging sums)
  • $\sum_{s'}\Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s,A_t=a) \mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s']$
    • (definition of expected value)

In turn, $\Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s,A_t=a)$ can be written as $\sum_r p(s',r\mid s,a)$ (this is equation 3.5 in the book).

Similarly $\mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a]$ can be written as $\sum_{s'} \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s,A_t=a) \mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s']$ where $\mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s']$ can be written in terms of $p(s',r\mid s,a)$ (using equation 3.6 in the book).

So the only problem left is the expression $\mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s']$. If I squint my eyes, it looks like $v_\pi(s')$, and indeed, looking around, I see formulas indicating that it should be $v_\pi(s')$ (e.g. PDF page 35 of these slides, page 13 of these slides, and the equation given in this section). But I don't see how to convince myself that this is the case. Sutton and Barto write that "the probability of each possible value for $S_t$ and $R_t$ depends only on the immediately preceding state and action, $S_{t-1}$ and $A_{t-1}$, and, given them, not at all on earlier states and actions" (p. 49). But here, we only have $S_{t+1}$ and not $A_{t+1}$, so we can't just ignore the "$S_t=s,A_t=a$" part. Given the policy $\pi$, the action $A_{t+1}$ is completely determined by $S_{t+1}$, so my attempt is to write:

  • $\mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s']$
  • $\sum_g g \Pr(G_{t+1}=g \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s')$ (definition of expected value)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{a'} \Pr(G_{t+1}=g,A_{t+1}=a' \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s')$ (law of total probability)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{a'} \Pr(G_{t+1}=g \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s',A_{t+1}=a')\pi(a'\mid s')$
    • (definition of conditional probability)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{a'} \Pr(G_{t+1}=g \mid S_{t+1}=s',A_{t+1}=a')\pi(a'\mid s')$ (Markov property)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{a'} \Pr(G_{t+1}=g,A_{t+1}=a' \mid S_{t+1}=s')$ (definition of conditional probability)
  • $\sum_g g \Pr(G_{t+1}=g\mid S_{t+1}=s')$ (law of total probability)
  • $\mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_{t+1}=s']$ (definition of expected value)

Is this reasoning valid?

My other confusion is that, supposing $\mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_{t+1}=s']$, it seems like we could also say that $\mathbb E_\pi[R_t\mid S_{t-1}=s,A_{t-1}=a,S_t=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[R_t \mid S_t=s']$. But if that's the case, I'm confused about why Sutton and Barto derive an expression for $r(s,a,s'):=\mathbb E_\pi[R_t\mid S_{t-1}=s,A_{t-1}=a,S_t=s']$ rather than one for $r(s')$ (which can be defined to equal $\mathbb E_\pi[R_t\mid S_t=s']$). In other words my question is something like "if the $s$ and $a$ in $r(s,a,s')$ don't matter, why include them in the notation?"


1 Answer 1


Is this reasoning valid?

I think this is correct.

My other confusion is that, supposing $\mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[G_{t+1} \mid S_{t+1}=s']$, it seems like we could also say that $\mathbb E_\pi[R_t\mid S_{t-1}=s,A_{t-1}=a,S_t=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[R_t \mid S_t=s']$.

I think my confusion was that I was forgetting that $G_{t+1}$ actually starts at $R_{t+2}$, i.e. $G_{t+1} = R_{t+2} + \gamma R_{t+3} + \cdots$. So I think we could say $\mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+2} \mid S_t=s,A_t=a,S_{t+1}=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+2} \mid S_{t+1}=s']$, which, shifting the time index down by one, is the same as $\mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} \mid S_{t-1}=s,A_{t-1}=a,S_t=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} \mid S_t=s']$. But we can't say $\mathbb E_\pi[R_t\mid S_{t-1}=s,A_{t-1}=a,S_t=s'] = \mathbb E_\pi[R_t \mid S_t=s']$ which is why Sutton and Barto want to derive the expression for $r(s,a,s')$.

If I was doing the exercise today, I would do it like this:

$q_\pi(s,a) := \mathbb E_\pi[G_t \mid S_t=s, A_t=a]$ becomes:

  • $\sum_g g \Pr(G_t = g\mid S_t=s, A_t=a)$ (definition of expectation)
  • $\sum_g g \sum_{s'} \Pr(G_t=g, S_{t+1}=s' \mid S_t=s, A_t=a)$ (law of total probability)
  • $\sum_{s'} \sum_g g \Pr(G_t=g, S_{t+1}=s' \mid S_t=s, A_t=a)$ (reorder sums)
  • $\sum_{s'} \sum_g g \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s, A_t=a) \Pr(G_t=g \mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s')$ (definition of conditional probability)
  • $\sum_{s'} \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s, A_t=a) \sum_g g \Pr(G_t=g \mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s')$ (factor)
  • $\sum_{s'} \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s, A_t=a) \mathbb E_\pi[G_t \mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s']$ (definition of expectation)
  • $\sum_{s'} \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s, A_t=a) \mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1} + \gamma G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s']$ (definition of return)
  • $\sum_{s'} \Pr(S_{t+1}=s'\mid S_t=s, A_t=a) (\mathbb E_\pi[R_{t+1}\mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s'] + \gamma\mathbb E_\pi[ G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s'])$
    • (linearity of expectation)
  • $\sum_{s'} p(s'\mid s,a) (r(s,a,s') + \gamma\mathbb E_\pi[ G_{t+1} \mid S_t=s, A_t=a, S_{t+1}=s'])$ (equations 3.4 and 3.6 in the book)
  • $\sum_{s'} p(s'\mid s,a) (r(s,a,s') + \gamma v_\pi(s'))$ (using reasoning given in the question)

This is probably the "simplest" form of $q_\pi$ which uses $v_\pi$, but the exercise actually says to use "the four-argument $p$", so we can expand $\sum_{s'} p(s'\mid s,a) (r(s,a,s') + \gamma v_\pi(s'))$ to $$\sum_{s'} \left(\sum_r p(s',r\mid s,a)\right) \left(\sum_r r \frac{p(s',r\mid s,a)}{\sum_{r'} p(s',r'\mid s,a)} + \gamma v_\pi(s')\right)$$ which can be simplified to $$\sum_{s',r} p(s',r\mid s,a) (r + \gamma v_\pi(s'))$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the derivation! I am curious about the 2nd to the last expression. Why do you need the denominator? And I think the $r$ expected reward in the 2nd parenthesis is not the $r$ in the 4-parameter $p$. Maybe some confusion there? $\endgroup$
    – Yo Hsiao
    Jan 18, 2021 at 7:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YoHsiao The way I did that was to first expand $r(s,a,s')$ using equation 3.6 in the book (2nd ed). That gives an expression with denominator $p(s'\mid s,a)$, so I used equation 3.4 to rewrite that in terms of the 4-parameter $p$. To avoid clobbering up the "$r$" in the inner and outer loops, I used a separate indexing variable $r'$. $\endgroup$
    – IssaRice
    Jan 31, 2021 at 1:27
  • $\begingroup$ @IssaRice What definition of markov property you used? For me $S_t$ is Markov if $p(S_t=s_t|S_{t-1}=s_{t-1}) = p(S_t=s_t|S_{t-1}=s_{t-1},...,S_{1}=s_1)$ $\endgroup$
    – piero
    Sep 22, 2023 at 0:49
  • $\begingroup$ @piero See equation 3.2 in the book. So something like $\Pr(S_t = s_t, R_t = r_t \mid S_{t-1}=s_{t-1}, A_{t-1}=a_{t-1}) = \Pr(S_t = s_t, R_t = r_t \mid S_{t-1}=s_{t-1}, A_{t-1}=a_{t-1}, \ldots, S_0=s_0, R_1=r_1, A_0=a_0)$. $\endgroup$
    – IssaRice
    Sep 23, 2023 at 7:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .