Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42778619›Full record

ArticleNature communications2026

Active inference and artificial reasoning.

Karl Friston, Lancelot Da Costa, Alexander Tschantz, Conor Heins, Christopher L Buckley, Tim Verbelen, Thomas Parr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Karl FristonQueen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-8909
Lancelot Da CostaVERSES, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alexander TschantzVERSES, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9751-5929
Conor HeinsMax Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, Department of Collective Behaviour, Konstanz, Germany.
Christopher L BuckleyVERSES, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Tim VerbelenVERSES, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2731-7262
Thomas ParrNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. thomas.parr@ndcn.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5108-5743

Funding

DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ACF-2023-13-013Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (Wellcome) 226793/Z/22/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper considers the sampling of outcomes that provide the greatest amount of information about the structure of underlying world models. This generalisation furnishes a principled approach to structure learning, and specifically rule discovery, under a plausible set of generative models or hypotheses. In active inference, policies-i.e., combinations of actions-are selected based on their expected free energy, which comprises expected information gain and value. Information gain corresponds to the Kullback-Leibler divergence between predictive posteriors with, and without, the consequences of action. Posteriors over models can be evaluated quickly and efficiently using Bayesian Model Reduction, based upon accumulated posterior beliefs about model parameters. The ensuing information gain can then be used to select actions that disambiguate among alternative models, in the spirit of optimal experimental design. We illustrate this kind of active selection or reasoning using partially observed discrete models; namely, a three-ball paradigm used previously to describe artificial insight and aha moments via (synthetic) introspection or sleep. We focus on the sample efficiency afforded by seeking outcomes that resolve the greatest uncertainty about the world model, under which outcomes are generated.

Identifiers

PMID42778619
PMCPMC13601584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.