Reward maximization through discrete active inference
Open accessAbstract
Active inference is a probabilistic framework for modeling the behavior of biological and artificial agents, which derives from the principle of minimizing free energy. In recent years, this framework has been applied successfully to a variety of situations where the goal was to maximize reward, often offering comparable and sometimes superior performance to alternative approaches. In this article, we clarify the connection between reward maximization and active inference by demonstrating how and when active inference agents execute actions that are optimal for maximizing reward. Precisely, we show the conditions under which active inference produces the optimal solution to the Bellman equation, a formulation that underlies several approaches to model-based reinforcement learning and control. On partially observed Markov decision processes, the standard active inference scheme can produce Bellman optimal actions for planning horizons of 1 but not beyond. In contrast, a recently developed recursive active inference scheme (sophisticated inference) can produce Bellman optimal actions on any finite temporal horizon. We append the analysis with a discussion of the broader relationship between active inference and reinforcement learning.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Unlike the standard active inference objective, which is not Bellman-optimal for horizons longer than one step, the CHMM approach is Bellman-optimal and closely resembles sophisticated inference.
“Thus, in contrast to the standard active inference objective that is not Bellman-optimal for time horizons greater than one (Da Costa et al, 2023), our approach is Bellman-optimal and closely resembles sophisticated inference (Friston et al, 2020).”
From Deconstructing Deep Active Inference: A Contrarian Information Gatherer (2024) · cites this paper as Da Costa et al, 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 164 · Cited by 35
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Bellman, R. E. (1957). Dynamic programming. Princeton University Press.
- Fountas, Z., Sajid, N., Mediano, P. A. M. Deep active inference agents using Monte-Carlo methods. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.04176 · arXiv
- Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game theory. MIT Press.
- Mazzaglia, P., Verbelen, T., & Dhoedt, B. (2021). Contrastive active inference. https:// openreview.net/forum?id=5t5FPwzE6mq
- Parr, T., Pezzulo, G., & Friston, K. J. (2022, March 29). Active inference: The free energy principle in mind, brain, and behavior. MIT Press.
- Ross, S., Chaib-draa, B., & Pineau, J. (2008). Bayes-adaptive POMDPs. In J. C. Platt, D. Koller, Y. Singer, & S. T. Roweis (Eds.), Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems, 20 (pp. 1225-1232). Curran. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 3333-bayes-adaptive-pomdps.pdf
- Smith, R., Schwartenbeck, P., Parr, T., & Friston, K. J. (2019). An active inference model of concept learning. bioRxiv:633677. 10.1101/633677 · DOI
- Stone, J. V. (2019). Artificial intelligence engines: A tutorial introduction to the mathematics of deep learning. Sebtel Press.
- Authors
- Da Costa, L., Sajid, N., Parr, T., Friston, K., & Smith, R.
- Affiliations
- Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, U.K. l.da-costa@imperial.ac.uk
- Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
- Laureate Institute for Brain Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sajid, Noor
- Parr, Thomas
- Friston, Karl
- Smith, Ryan
- Venue
- Neural Computation
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 2023-04-18
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 807-852
- ISSN
- 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-888X
- OpenAlex
- W4328052356
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 164
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 5.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- William K. Warren Foundation
- Wellcome Trust (205103/Z/16/Z)
- European Commission
- Medical Research Council (MR/S502522/1)
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/T01279X/1)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH123691)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P20GM121312)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
- Keywords
- active inference, reward maximization, free energy principle, Bellman equation, partially observable Markov decision processes, model-based reinforcement learning, optimal action selection, planning horizon
- MeSH terms
- Choice Behavior, Learning, Reward
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review