Active Inference and Reinforcement Learning: A Unified Inference on Continuous State and Action Spaces Under Partial Observability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement learning (RL) has garnered significant attention for developing decision-making agents that aim to maximize rewards, specified by an external supervisor, within fully observable environments. However, many real-world problems involve partial or noisy observations, where agents cannot access complete and accurate information about the environment. These problems are commonly formulated as partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs). Previous studies have tackled RL in POMDPs by either incorporating the memory of past actions and observations or by inferring the true state of the environment from observed data. Nevertheless, aggregating observations and actions over time becomes impractical in problems with large decision-making time horizons and high-dimensional spaces. Furthermore, inference-based RL approaches often require many environmental samples to perform well, as they focus solely on reward maximization and neglect uncertainty in the inferred state. Active inference (AIF) is a framework naturally formulated in POMDPs and directs agents to select actions by minimizing a function called expected free energy (EFE). This supplies reward-maximizing (or exploitative) behavior, as in RL, with information-seeking (or exploratory) behavior. Despite this exploratory behavior of AIF, its use is limited to problems with small time horizons and discrete spaces due to the computational challenges associated with EFE. In this article, we propose a unified principle that establishes a theoretical connection between AIF and RL, enabling seamless integration of these two approaches and overcoming their limitations in continuous space POMDP settings. We substantiate our findings with rigorous theoretical analysis, providing novel perspectives for using AIF in designing and implementing artificial agents. Experimental results demonstrate the superior learning capabilities of our method compared to other alternative RL approaches in solving partially observable tasks with continuous spaces. Notably, our approach harnesses information-seeking exploration, enabling it to effectively solve reward-free problems and rendering explicit task reward design by an external supervisor optional.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".