MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945719718 · doi:10.1101/644807

A Bayesian account of generalist and specialist formation under the Active Inference framework

2019· preprint· en· W2945719718 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEmbodied and Extended Cognition
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersRosetrees Trust
KeywordsSurpriseInferenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBayesian inferencePartially observable Markov decision processProcess (computing)Machine learningMarkov decision processBayesian probabilityPsychologyMarkov chainMarkov processMarkov modelMathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper offers a formal account of policy learning, or habitual behavioural optimisation, under the framework of Active Inference. In this setting, habit formation becomes an autodidactic, experience-dependent process, based upon what the agent sees itself doing. We focus on the effect of environmental volatility on habit formation by simulating artificial agents operating in a partially observable Markov decision process. Specifically, we used a ‘two-step’ maze paradigm, in which the agent has to decide whether to go left or right to secure a reward. We observe that in volatile environments with numerous reward locations, the agents learn to adopt a generalist strategy, never forming a strong habitual behaviour for any preferred maze direction. Conversely, in conservative or static environments, agents adopt a specialist strategy; forming strong preferences for policies that result in approach to a small number of previously-observed reward locations. The pros and cons of the two strategies are tested and discussed. In general, specialization offers greater benefits, but only when contingencies are conserved over time. We consider the implications of this formal (Active Inference) account of policy learning for understanding the relationship between specialisation and habit formation. Author Summary Active inference is a theoretical framework that formalizes the behaviour of any organism in terms of a single imperative – to minimize surprise. Starting from this principle, we can construct simulations of simple “agents” (artificial organisms) that show the ability to infer causal relationships and learn. Here, we expand upon currently-existing implementations of Active Inference by enabling synthetic agents to optimise the space of behavioural policies that they can pursue. Our results show that by adapting the probabilities of certain action sequences (which may correspond biologically to the phenomenon of synaptic plasticity), and by rejecting improbable sequences (synaptic pruning), the agents can begin to form habits. Furthermore, we have shown our agent’s habit formation to be environment-dependent. Some agents become specialised to a constant environment, while other adopt a more general strategy, each with sensible pros and cons. This work has potential applications in computational psychiatry, including in behavioural phenotyping to better understand disorders.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it