PreprintCited by 32Embodied and Extended CognitionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIAction Observation and Synchronization

Active inference body perception and action for humanoid robots

Open access
Oliver, Guillermo, Lanillos, Pablo, Cheng, Gordon·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Providing artificial agents with the same computational models of biological systems is a way to understand how intelligent behaviours may emerge. We present an active inference body perception and action model working for the first time in a humanoid robot. The model relies on the free energy principle proposed for the brain, where both perception and action goal is to minimise the prediction error through gradient descent on the variational free energy bound. The body state (latent variable) is inferred by minimising the difference between the observed (visual and proprioceptive) sensor values and the predicted ones. Simultaneously, the action makes sensory data sampling to better correspond to the prediction made by the inner model. We formalised and implemented the algorithm on the iCub robot and tested in 2D and 3D visual spaces for online adaptation to visual changes, sensory noise and discrepancies between the model and the real robot. We also compared our approach with classical inverse kinematics in a reaching task, analysing the suitability of such a neuroscience-inspired approach for real-world interaction. The algorithm gave the robot adaptive body perception and upper body reaching with head object tracking (toddler-like), and was able to incorporate visual features online (in a closed-loop manner) without increasing the computational complexity. Moreover, our model predicted involuntary actions in the presence of sensorimotor conflicts showing the path for a potential proof of active inference in humans.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.03022

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The DAI_HR papers propose a free energy minimization scheme based on a single decoder network used to control Nao, TIAGo, and iCub robots.

    “Briefly, those papers propose a free energy minimization scheme based on a single decoder network, which is used to control Nao, TIAGo, and iCub robots, respectively.”

    From Deconstructing Deep Active Inference: A Contrarian Information Gatherer (2024) · cites this paper as Oliver et al (2019)

    The abstract (p. 1) says the paper implements free-energy-based active inference on the iCub, supporting the iCub part of the respectively ordered claim. The free-energy optimization section (p. 3) describes a forward model of the arm, not a single decoder network; the technical challenges section (p. 8) says learned generative functions could replace forward kinematics. This source therefore does not support the attributed decoder-network detail. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The DAI_HR approaches cannot be considered complete implementations of deep active inference because they are restricted to a single decoder and lack encoder, transition, and critic networks.

    “Since, Sancaktar et al (2020); Lanillos et al (2020); Oliver et al (2019) restricted themself to the context of a single decoder, this approach can not be considered as a complete implementation of deep active inference.More precisely, the encoder, transition and critic (or policy) networks are missing.”

    From Deconstructing Deep Active Inference: A Contrarian Information Gatherer (2024) · cites this paper as Oliver et al (2019)

    The Technical Challenges section (p. 8) describes generative functions computed from forward kinematics, but does not characterize the implementation as a single decoder. The passages on the computational model and conclusions (pp. 5, 8) do not address encoder, transition, or critic networks. I searched for those network terms and for deep active inference; our copy does not establish the architectural claim attributed to Oliver et al. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oliver, G., Lanillos, P., & Cheng, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2948283202
Cited by
30
References
30
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
Keywords
active inference, free energy principle, body perception, humanoid robots, iCub, inverse kinematics, reaching task, online adaptation

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