Simulating homeostatic, allostatic and goal-directed forms of interoceptive control using Active Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The adaptive regulation of bodily and interoceptive parameters, such as body temperature, thirst and hunger is a central problem for any biological organism. Here, we present a series of simulations using the framework of Active Inference to formally characterize interoceptive control and some of its dysfunctions. We start from the premise that the goal of interoceptive control is to minimize a discrepancy between expected and actual interoceptive sensations (i.e., a prediction error or free energy). Importantly, living organisms can achieve this goal by using various forms of interoceptive control: homeostatic, allostatic and goal-directed. We provide a computationally-guided analysis of these different forms of interoceptive control, by showing that they correspond to distinct generative models within Active Inference. Furthermore, we illustrate how these generative models may support empirical research, by predicting physiological and brain signals that may accompany both adaptive and maladaptive interoceptive control. Highlights We use Active Inference to provide formal models of interoceptive control We model homeostatic, allostatic and goal-directed forms of interoceptive control Our simulations illustrate both adaptive interoceptive control and its dysfunctions We discuss how the models can aid empirical research on interoception
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".