Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35455140›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Epistemic Communities under Active Inference.

Mahault Albarracin, Daphne Demekas, Maxwell J D Ramstead, Conor Heins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Transcultural psychiatry · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Collective behavior from surprise minimization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  11. Aesthetics and predictive processing: grounds and prospects of a fruitful encounter.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Federated inference and belief sharing.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The nature of beliefs and believing.Frontiers in psychology · 2022
    Article
  19. Resilience and active inference.Frontiers in psychology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mahault AlbarracinDepartment of Cognitive Computing, Université du Québec a Montreal, Montreal, QC H2K 4M1, Canada.
Daphne DemekasDepartment of Computing, Imperial College London, London SW7 5NH, UK.
Maxwell J D RamsteadVERSES Labs, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA.
Conor HeinsVERSES Labs, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA.

Funding

U.S. Office of Naval Research N00014-19-1-2556
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The spread of ideas is a fundamental concern of today's news ecology. Understanding the dynamics of the spread of information and its co-option by interested parties is of critical importance. Research on this topic has shown that individuals tend to cluster in echo-chambers and are driven by confirmation bias. In this paper, we leverage the active inference framework to provide an in silico model of confirmation bias and its effect on echo-chamber formation. We build a model based on active inference, where agents tend to sample information in order to justify their own view of reality, which eventually leads to them to have a high degree of certainty about their own beliefs. We show that, once agents have reached a certain level of certainty about their beliefs, it becomes very difficult to get them to change their views. This system of self-confirming beliefs is upheld and reinforced by the evolving relationship between an agent's beliefs and observations, which over time will continue to provide evidence for their ingrained ideas about the world. The epistemic communities that are consolidated by these shared beliefs, in turn, tend to produce perceptions of reality that reinforce those shared beliefs. We provide an active inference account of this community formation mechanism. We postulate that agents are driven by the epistemic value that they obtain from sampling or observing the behaviours of other agents. Inspired by digital social networks like Twitter, we build a generative model in which agents generate observable social claims or posts (e.g., 'tweets') while reading the socially observable claims of other agents that lend support to one of two mutually exclusive abstract topics. Agents can choose which other agent they pay attention to at each timestep, and crucially who they attend to and what they choose to read influences their beliefs about the world. Agents also assess their local network's perspective, influencing which kinds of posts they expect to see other agents making. The model was built and simulated using the freely available Python package pymdp. The proposed active inference model can reproduce the formation of echo-chambers over social networks, and gives us insight into the cognitive processes that lead to this phenomenon.

Indexed as

active inferenceepistemic communityopinion dynamicssocial media

Identifiers

PMID35455140
PMCPMC9027706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.