PreprintCited by 7Embodied and Extended CognitionReinforcement Learning in RoboticsPsychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience

Deconstructing deep active inference

Open access
Champion, Théophile, Grześ, Marek, Bonheme, Lisa, Bowman, Howard·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Active inference is a theory of perception, learning and decision making, which can be applied to neuroscience, robotics, and machine learning. Recently, reasearch has been taking place to scale up this framework using Monte-Carlo tree search and deep learning. The goal of this activity is to solve more complicated tasks using deep active inference. First, we review the existing literature, then, we progresively build a deep active inference agent. For two agents, we have experimented with five definitions of the expected free energy and three different action selection strategies. According to our experiments, the models able to solve the dSprites environment are the ones that maximise rewards. Finally, we compare the similarity of the representation learned by the layers of various agents using centered kernel alignment. Importantly, the agent maximising reward and the agent minimising expected free energy learn very similar representations except for the last layer of the critic network (reflecting the difference in learning objective), and the variance layers of the transition and encoder networks. We found that the reward maximising agent is a lot more certain than the agent minimising expected free energy. This is because the agent minimising expected free energy always picks the action down, and does not gather enough data for the other actions. In contrast, the agent maximising reward, keeps on selecting the actions left and right, enabling it to successfully solve the task. The only difference between those two agents is the epistemic value, which aims to make the outputs of the transition and encoder networks as close as possible. Thus, the agent minimising expected free energy picks a single action (down), and becomes an expert at predicting the future when selecting this action. This makes the KL divergence between the output of the transition and encoder networks small.

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.2303.01618

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.

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 expected free energy as stated in Equation (7) needs to be rearranged because it cannot be easily evaluated.

    “The EFE as stated in Equation (7) needs to be re-arranged because it cannot be easily evaluated.”

    From Deconstructing Deep Active Inference: A Contrarian Information Gatherer (2024) · cites this paper as Champion et al (2023)

    Section 2.2.3 (p. 9) says verbatim that the EFE needs to be rearranged because it cannot be easily evaluated. It identifies the expression as Equation (2), however, not Equation (7); our copy does not establish that the two equation numbers refer to the same expression. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Using this definition of expected free energy may also account for presentational uncertainties, such as minus sign additions, in the deep active inference literature.

    “may also explain some of the presentational uncertainties (e.g., additions of minus signs) found in the deep active inference literature, see Champion et al (2023) for details.”

    From Deconstructing Deep Active Inference: A Contrarian Information Gatherer (2024) · cites this paper as Champion et al (2023)

  • Using this definition of expected free energy in deep learning may account for why the CHMM minimizing EFE could not solve the task.

    “The use of this definition of the expected free energy in the deep learning context may explain why the CHMM minimizing EFE was unable to solve the task”

    From Deconstructing Deep Active Inference: A Contrarian Information Gatherer (2024) · cites this paper as Champion 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.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Bellman R (1952) On the theory of dynamic programming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 38(8):716-719
  2. Bonheme L, Grzes M (2022) How do Variational Autoencoders Learn? Insights from Representational Similarity. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2205.08399, 2205.08399 · arXiv
  3. Browne CB, Powley E, Whitehouse D, Lucas SM, Cowling PI, Rohlfshagen P, Tavener S, Perez D, Samothrakis S, Colton S (2012) A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 4(1):1-43
  4. Champion T, Grze´ s M, Bowman H (2021) Realizing Active Inference in Variational Message Passing: The Outcome-Blind Certainty Seeker. Neural Computation 33(10):2762-2826, DOI 10.1162/neco a 01422, URL https://doi.org/10.1162/neco\_a\_01422 , https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article-pdf/33/ 10/2762/1963368/neco\_a\_01422.pdf · DOI
  5. Champion T, Bowman H, Grze´ s M (2022a) Branching time active inference: Empirical study and complexity class analysis. Neural Networks 152:450-466, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2022.05.010, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608022001824 · DOI
  6. Champion T, Da Costa L, Bowman H, Grze´ s M (2022b) Branching time active inference: The theory and its generality. Neural Networks 151:295-316, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2022.03.036, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0893608022001149 · DOI
  7. Champion T, Grze´ s M, Bowman H (2022c) Branching Time Active Inference with Bayesian Filtering. Neural Computation 34(10):2132-2144, DOI 10.1162/neco a 01529, URL https://doi.org/10.1162/ neco\_a\_01529 , https://direct.mit.edu/neco/article-pdf/34/10/2132/2042425/neco\_a\_01529. pdf · DOI
  8. Champion T, Grze´ s M, Bowman H (2022d) Multi-modal and multi-factor branching time active inference. DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2206.12503, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.12503 · DOI
  9. Cortes C, Mohri M, Rostamizadeh A (2012) Algorithms for Learning Kernels Based on Centered Alignment. J Mach Learn Res 13(1):795-828
  10. Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J, Elisseeff A, Kandola JS (2002) On Kernel-Target Alignment. In: Dietterich TG, Becker S, Ghahramani Z (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol 14, MIT Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 367-373, URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper/ 1946-on-kernel-target-alignment.pdf
  11. Cullen M, Davey B, Friston KJ, Moran RJ (2018) Active inference in openai gym: A paradigm for computational investigations into psychiatric illness. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging 3(9):809 - 818, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2018.06.010, URL http://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451902218301617 , computational Methods and Modeling in Psychiatry · DOI
  12. FitzGerald THB, Dolan RJ, Friston K (2015) Dopamine, reward learning, and active inference. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 9:136, DOI 10.3389/fncom.2015.00136, URL https://www.frontiersin. org/article/10.3389/fncom.2015.00136 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Friston K, FitzGerald T, Rigoli F, Schwartenbeck P, Doherty JO, Pezzulo G (2016) Active inference and learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 68:862 - 879, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev. 2016.06.022 · DOI
  14. Gretton A, Bousquet O, Smola A, Sch¨ olkopf B (2005) Measuring Statistical Dependence with HilbertSchmidt Norms. In: Jain S, Simon HU, Tomita E (eds) Algorithmic Learning Theory, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 63-77
  15. van der Himst O, Lanillos P (2020) Deep active inference for partially observable mdps. CoRR abs/2009.03622, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.03622 , 2009.03622 · arXiv
  16. Itti L, Baldi P (2009) Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision Research 49(10):1295 - 1306, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.09.007, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0042698908004380 , visual Attention: Psychophysics, electrophysiology and neuroimaging · DOI · Paper page
  17. Kingma DP, Welling M (2014) Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. In: International Conference on Learning Representations, Banff, Canada, vol 2, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114 · arXiv
  18. Koller D, Friedman N (2009) Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. MIT press
  19. Kornblith S, Norouzi M, Lee H, Hinton G (2019) Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisited. In: Chaudhuri K, Salakhutdinov R (eds) Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, Long Beach, USA, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol 97, pp 3519-3529, URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/kornblith19a.html
  20. Lanillos P, Cheng G, et al (2020) Robot self/other distinction: active inference meets neural networks learning in a mirror. arXiv preprint arXiv:200405473
  21. Maheswaranathan N, Williams A, Golub M, Ganguli S, Sussillo D (2019) Universality and individuality in neural dynamics across large populations of recurrent networks. In: Wallach H, Larochelle H, Beygelzimer A, d ' Alch´ e-Buc F, Fox E, Garnett R (eds) Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Curran Associates, Inc., vol 32, URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/ file/5f5d472067f77b5c88f69f1bcfda1e08-Paper.pdf
  22. Millidge B (2019) Combining active inference and hierarchical predictive coding: A tutorial introduction and case study. URL https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/kf6wc · DOI
  23. Millidge B (2020) Deep active inference as variational policy gradients. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 96:102,348, DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2020.102348, URL http://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0022249620300298 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Oliver G, Lanillos P, Cheng G (2019) Active inference body perception and action for humanoid robots. arXiv preprint arXiv:190603022
  25. Parr T, Friston KJ (2019) Generalised free energy and active inference. Biological cybernetics 113(56):495-513
  26. Rezende DJ, Mohamed S, Wierstra D (2014) Stochastic Backpropagation and Approximate Inference in Deep Generative Models. In: Xing EP, Jebara T (eds) Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR, Bejing, China, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol 32, pp 1278-1286, URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v32/rezende14.html
  27. Robert P, Escoufier Y (1976) A Unifying Tool for Linear Multivariate Statistical Methods: The RVCoefficient. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) 25(3):257-265, URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2347233
  28. Rood T, van Gerven M, Lanillos P (2020) A deep active inference model of the rubber-hand illusion. In: Verbelen T, Lanillos P, Buckley CL, De Boom C (eds) Active Inference, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 84-91
  29. Schneider T, Belousov B, Abdulsamad H, Peters J (2022) Active inference for robotic manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:220610313
  30. Schwartenbeck P, Passecker J, Hauser TU, FitzGerald THB, Kronbichler M, Friston K (2018) Computational mechanisms of curiosity and goal-directed exploration. bioRxiv DOI 10.1101/411272, URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/09/07/411272 , https://www.biorxiv.org/ content/early/2018/09/07/411272.full.pdf · DOI
  31. Silver D, Huang A, Maddison CJ, Guez A, Sifre L, van den Driessche G, Schrittwieser J, Antonoglou I, Panneershelvam V, Lanctot M, Dieleman S, Grewe D, Nham J, Kalchbrenner N, Sutskever I, Lillicrap TP, Leach M, Kavukcuoglu K, Graepel T, Hassabis D (2016) Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529(7587):484-489, DOI 10.1038/nature16961, URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/nature16961 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Sutton RS, Barto AG, et al (1998) Introduction to reinforcement learning. MIT press Cambridge
  33. Ueltzh¨ offer K (2018) Deep active inference. Biol Cybern 112(6):547-573, DOI 10.1007/s00422-018-0785-7, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00422-018-0785-7 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Champion, T., Grześ, M., Bonheme, L., & Bowman, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Champion, Théophile
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4361802360
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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, free energy principle, variational autoencoder, kernel alignment, representational similarity, epistemic value, action selection, Monte Carlo tree search, deep reinforcement learning

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