Sustainability under Active Inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we explore the known connection among sustainability, resilience, and well-being within the framework of active inference. Initially, we revisit how the notions of well-being and resilience intersect within active inference before defining sustainability. We adopt a holistic concept of sustainability denoting the enduring capacity to meet needs over time without depleting crucial resources. It extends beyond material wealth to encompass community networks, labor, and knowledge. Using the Free Energy Principle, we can emphasize the role of fostering resource renewal, harmonious system-entity exchanges, and practices that encourage self-organization and resilience as pathways to achieving sustainability, both in an agent and in collectives. We start by connecting Active Inference with well-being, building on exsiting work. We then attempt to link resilience with sustainability, asserting that resilience alone is insufficient for sustainable outcomes. While crucial for absorbing shocks and stresses, resilience must be intrinsically linked with sustainability to ensure that adaptive capacities do not merely perpetuate existing vulnerabilities. Rather, it should facilitate transformative processes that address the root causes of unsustainability. Sustainability, therefore, must manifest across extended timescales and all system strata, from individual components to the broader system, to uphold ecological integrity, economic stability, and social well-being. We explain how sustainability manifests at the level of an agent, and then at the level of collectives and systems. To model and quantify the interdependencies between resources and their impact on overall system sustainability, we introduce the application of network theory and dynamical systems theory. We emphasize the optimization of precision or learning rates through the active inference framework, advocating for an approach that fosters the elastic and plastic resilience necessary for long-term sustainability and abundance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".