Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38056542›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2024

Federated inference and belief sharing.

Karl J Friston, Thomas Parr, Conor Heins, Axel Constant, Daniel Friedman, Takuya Isomura, Chris Fields, Tim Verbelen, Maxwell Ramstead, John Clippinger and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Deep Hybrid Models: Infer and Plan in a Dynamic World.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Shared Protentions in Multi-Agent Active Inference.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    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

11 authors.

Karl J FristonWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK; VERSES AI Research Lab, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA. Electronic address: k.friston@ucl.ac.uk.
Thomas ParrWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK.
Conor HeinsVERSES AI Research Lab, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA; Department of Collective Behaviour, Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, 78457 Konstanz, Germany; Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour, 78457 Konstanz, Germany; Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany.
Axel ConstantVERSES AI Research Lab, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA; School of Engineering and Informatics, The University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Daniel FriedmanDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA; Active Inference Institute, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Takuya IsomuraBrain Intelligence Theory Unit, RIKEN Center for Brain Science, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan.
Chris FieldsAllen Discovery Center at Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA.
Tim VerbelenVERSES AI Research Lab, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA.
Maxwell RamsteadWellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK; VERSES AI Research Lab, Los Angeles, CA 90016, USA.
John ClippingerBioform Labs, and MIT Media Lab, Boston, USA.
Christopher D FrithInstitute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Studies, University of London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper concerns the distributed intelligence or federated inference that emerges under belief-sharing among agents who share a common world-and world model. Imagine, for example, several animals keeping a lookout for predators. Their collective surveillance rests upon being able to communicate their beliefs-about what they see-among themselves. But, how is this possible? Here, we show how all the necessary components arise from minimising free energy. We use numerical studies to simulate the generation, acquisition and emergence of language in synthetic agents. Specifically, we consider inference, learning and selection as minimising the variational free energy of posterior (i.e., Bayesian) beliefs about the states, parameters and structure of generative models, respectively. The common theme-that attends these optimisation processes-is the selection of actions that minimise expected free energy, leading to active inference, learning and model selection (a.k.a., structure learning). We first illustrate the role of communication in resolving uncertainty about the latent states of a partially observed world, on which agents have complementary perspectives. We then consider the acquisition of the requisite language-entailed by a likelihood mapping from an agent's beliefs to their overt expression (e.g., speech)-showing that language can be transmitted across generations by active learning. Finally, we show that language is an emergent property of free energy minimisation, when agents operate within the same econiche. We conclude with a discussion of various perspectives on these phenomena; ranging from cultural niche construction, through federated learning, to the emergence of complexity in ensembles of self-organising systems.

Indexed as

CommunicationLanguageAnimalsBayes TheoremSpeechUncertaintyActive inferenceDistributed cognitionFederated learningMessage passingStructure learning

Identifiers

PMID38056542
PMCPMC11139662

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.