BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Manuel Baltieri

Manuel Baltieri contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Neurons and CognitionArtificial Intelligenceeess.SYmath.OCSystems and Control

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
5topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

A Bayesian perspective on classical control

The connections between optimal control and Bayesian inference have long been recognised, with the field of stochastic (optimal) control combining these frameworks for the solution of partially observable control problems. In particular, for the linear case with quadratic functions and Gaussian noise, stochastic control has shown remarkable results in different fields, including robotics, reinforcement learning and neuroscience, especially thanks to the established duality of estimation and control processes. Following this idea we recently introduced a formulation of PID control, one of the most popular methods from classical control, based on active inference, a theory with roots in variational Bayesian methods, and applications in the biological and neural sciences. In this work, we highlight the advantages of our previous formulation and introduce new and more general ways to tackle some existing problems in current controller design procedures. In particular, we consider 1) a gradient-based tuning rule for the parameters (or gains) of a PID controller, 2) an implementation of multiple degrees of freedom for independent responses to different types of signals (e.g., two-degree-of-freedom PID), and 3) a novel time-domain formalisation of the performance-robustness trade-off in terms of tunable constraints (i.e., priors in a Bayesian model) of a single cost functional, variational free energy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On Kalman-Bucy filters, linear quadratic control and active inference

Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) control is a framework first introduced in control theory that provides an optimal solution to linear problems of regulation in the presence of uncertainty. This framework combines Kalman-Bucy filters for the estimation of hidden states with Linear Quadratic Regulators for the control of their dynamics. Nowadays, LQG is also a common paradigm in neuroscience, where it is used to characterise different approaches to sensorimotor control based on state estimators, forward and inverse models. According to this paradigm, perception can be seen as a process of Bayesian inference and action as a process of optimal control. Recently, active inference has been introduced as a process theory derived from a variational approximation of Bayesian inference problems that describes, among others, perception and action in terms of (variational and expected) free energy minimisation. Active inference relies on a mathematical formalism similar to LQG, but offers a rather different perspective on problems of sensorimotor control in biological systems based on a process of biased perception. In this note we compare the mathematical treatments of these two frameworks for linear systems, focusing on their respective assumptions and highlighting their commonalities and technical differences.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Predictions in the eye of the beholder: an active inference account of Watt governors

Active inference introduces a theory describing action-perception loops via the minimisation of variational (and expected) free energy or, under simplifying assumptions, (weighted) prediction error. Recently, active inference has been proposed as part of a new and unifying framework in the cognitive sciences: predictive processing. Predictive processing is often associated with traditional computational theories of the mind, strongly relying on internal representations presented in the form of generative models thought to explain different functions of living and cognitive systems. In this work, we introduce an active inference formulation of the Watt centrifugal governor, a system often portrayed as the canonical "anti-representational" metaphor for cognition. We identify a generative model of a steam engine for the governor, and derive a set of equations describing "perception" and "action" processes as a form of prediction error minimisation. In doing so, we firstly challenge the idea of generative models as explicit internal representations for cognitive systems, suggesting that such models serve only as implicit descriptions for an observer. Secondly, we consider current proposals of predictive processing as a theory of cognition, focusing on some of its potential shortcomings and in particular on the idea that virtually any system admits a description in terms of prediction error minimisation, suggesting that this theory may offer limited explanatory power for cognitive systems. Finally, as a silver lining we emphasise the instrumental role this framework can nonetheless play as a mathematical tool for modelling cognitive architectures interpreted in terms of Bayesian (active) inference.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Nonmodular architectures of cognitive systems based on active inference

In psychology and neuroscience it is common to describe cognitive systems as input/output devices where perceptual and motor functions are implemented in a purely feedforward, open-loop fashion. On this view, perception and action are often seen as encapsulated modules with limited interaction between them. While embodied and enactive approaches to cognitive science have challenged the idealisation of the brain as an input/output device, we argue that even the more recent attempts to model systems using closed-loop architectures still heavily rely on a strong separation between motor and perceptual functions. Previously, we have suggested that the mainstream notion of modularity strongly resonates with the separation principle of control theory. In this work we present a minimal model of a sensorimotor loop implementing an architecture based on the separation principle. We link this to popular formulations of perception and action in the cognitive sciences, and show its limitations when, for instance, external forces are not modelled by an agent. These forces can be seen as variables that an agent cannot directly control, i.e., a perturbation from the environment or an interference caused by other agents. As an alternative approach inspired by embodied cognitive science, we then propose a nonmodular architecture based on the active inference framework. We demonstrate the robustness of this architecture to unknown external inputs and show that the mechanism with which this is achieved in linear models is equivalent to integral control.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

The modularity of action and perception revisited using control theory and active inference

The assumption that action and perception can be investigated independently is entrenched in theories, models and experimental approaches across the brain and mind sciences. In cognitive science, this has been a central point of contention between computationalist and 4Es (enactive, embodied, extended and embedded) theories of cognition, with the former embracing the "classical sandwich", modular, architecture of the mind and the latter actively denying this separation can be made. In this work we suggest that the modular independence of action and perception strongly resonates with the separation principle of control theory and furthermore that this principle provides formal criteria within which to evaluate the implications of the modularity of action and perception. We will also see that real-time feedback with the environment, often considered necessary for the definition of 4Es ideas, is not however a sufficient condition to avoid the "classical sandwich". Finally, we argue that an emerging framework in the cognitive and brain sciences, active inference, extends ideas derived from control theory to the study of biological systems while disposing of the separation principle, describing non-modular models of behaviour strongly aligned with 4Es theories of cognition.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2017arXiv

An active inference implementation of phototaxis

Active inference is emerging as a possible unifying theory of perception and action in cognitive and computational neuroscience. On this theory, perception is a process of inferring the causes of sensory data by minimising the error between actual sensations and those predicted by an inner \emph{generative} (probabilistic) model. Action on the other hand is drawn as a process that modifies the world such that the consequent sensory input meets expectations encoded in the same internal model. These two processes, inferring properties of the world and inferring actions needed to meet expectations, close the sensory/motor loop and suggest a deep symmetry between action and perception. In this work we present a simple agent-based model inspired by this new theory that offers insights on some of its central ideas. Previous implementations of active inference have typically examined a "perception-oriented" view of this theory, assuming that agents are endowed with a detailed generative model of their surrounding environment. In contrast, we present an "action-oriented" solution showing how adaptive behaviour can emerge even when agents operate with a simple model which bears little resemblance to their environment. We examine how various parameters of this formulation allow phototaxis and present an example of a different, "pathological" behaviour.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access