At the appendix A of paper "near-optimal representation learning for hierarchical reinforcement learning", the authors express the $\gamma$-discounted state visitation frequency $d$ of policy $\pi$ as
$$ d=(1-\gamma)A_\pi(I-\gamma^cP_\pi^c)^{-1}\mu\tag 1 $$
I've simplifed the notation for easy reading, hoping it does not introduce any error. In the above definition, $P_\pi^c$ the $c$-step transition matrix under the policy $\pi$, i.e., $P_{\pi}^c=P_\pi(s_{c}|s_0)$, $\mu$ a Dirac $\delta$ distribution centered at start state $s_0$ and $$ A_\pi=I+\sum_{k=1}^{c-1}\gamma^kP_\pi^k\tag 2 $$ They further give the every-$c$-steps $\gamma$-discounted state frequency of $\pi$ as $$ d^c_\pi=(1-\gamma^c)(I-\gamma^cP_\pi^c)^{-1}\mu\tag 3 $$ To my best knowledge, $A_\pi$ seems to be the unnormalized $\gamma$-discounted state frequency, but I cannot really make sense of the rest. I'm hoping that someone can shed some light on these definitions.
Update
Thank @Philip Raeisghasem for pointing out the paper CPO. Here's what I've gotten from that. Applying the sum of the geometric series to Eq.$(2)$, we have $$ A={(I-\gamma^cP_\pi^c)(I-\gamma P_\pi)^{-1}}\tag4 $$ Plugging Eq.$(4)$ back into Eq.$(1)$, we get the same result as Eq.$(18)$ in the CPO paper: $$ d=(1-\gamma)(I-\gamma P_\pi)^{-1}\mu\tag 5 $$ where $(1-\gamma)$ normalizes all weights introduced by $\gamma$ so that they are summed to one. However, I'm still confused. Here are the questions I have
- Eq.$(5)$ indicates Eq.$(1)$ is the state frequency in the infinite horizon. But I do not understand why we have it in the hierarchical policy. To my best knowledge, policies here are low-level, which means they are only valid in a short horizon ($c$ steps, for example). Computing state frequency in the infinite horizon here seems confusing.
- What should I make of $d_\pi^c$ defined in Eq.$(3)$, originally from Eqs.$(26)$ and $(27)$ in the paper? The authors define them as every-$c$-steps $\gamma$-discounted state frequencies of policy $\pi$. But I do not see why it is the case. To me, they are more like the consequence of Eq.$(30)$ in the paper.
Sorry if anyone feels that this update makes this question too broad. This is kept since I'm not so sure whether I can get a satisfactory answer without these questions. Any partial answer will be sincerely appreciated. Thanks in advance.