PreprintCited by 35Embodied and Extended CognitionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

Robot self/other distinction: active inference meets neural networks learning in a mirror

Open access
Lanillos, Pablo, Pages, Jordi, Cheng, Gordon·2020·arXiv

Abstract

Self/other distinction and self-recognition are important skills for interacting with the world, as it allows humans to differentiate own actions from others and be self-aware. However, only a selected group of animals, mainly high order mammals such as humans, has passed the mirror test, a behavioural experiment proposed to assess self-recognition abilities. In this paper, we describe self-recognition as a process that is built on top of body perception unconscious mechanisms. We present an algorithm that enables a robot to perform non-appearance self-recognition on a mirror and distinguish its simple actions from other entities, by answering the following question: am I generating these sensations? The algorithm combines active inference, a theoretical model of perception and action in the brain, with neural network learning. The robot learns the relation between its actions and its body with the effect produced in the visual field and its body sensors. The prediction error generated between the models and the real observations during the interaction is used to infer the body configuration through free energy minimization and to accumulate evidence for recognizing its body. Experimental results on a humanoid robot show the reliability of the algorithm for different initial conditions, such as mirror recognition in any perspective, robot-robot distinction and human-robot differentiation.

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.2004.05473

Cites

33 of 33 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 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 Lanillos et al (2020)

    Section 2.3.2 (p. 4) describes a learned visual generative model implemented with a Mixture Density Network, supporting the description of a single learned decoder-like network. Section 2.3.1 (p. 3) describes inference and dynamics, but the paper does not assess whether its approach is a complete implementation of deep active inference or state that encoder, transition, and critic networks are required. That assessment is the citing authors’ own characterization. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 Lanillos et al (2020)

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

6 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [21][21] Pablo Lanillos and Gordon Cheng, 'Active inference with function learning for robot body perception', International Workshop on Continual Unsupervised Sensorimotor Learning, IEEE Developmental Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL-Epirob) , (2018). -
  2. [28][28] Jordi Pages, Luca Marchionni, and Francesco Ferro, 'Tiago: the modular robot that adapts to different research needs', in Proc. of the IROS Workshop on Robot Modularity , (2016). -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lanillos, P., Pages, J., & Cheng, G.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
ISSN
0922-6389 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3090036336
Cited by
35
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6
FWCI
20.49
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
Keywords
active inference, artificial neural networks, self-other perception, embodied cognition

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