mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Branching Time Active Inference: empirical study and complexity class analysis

arXiv 2111.11276 ↗First posted 22 Nov 2021cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Active inference is a state-of-the-art framework for modelling the brain that explains a wide range of mechanisms such as habit formation, dopaminergic discharge and curiosity. However, recent implementations suffer from an exponential complexity class when computing the prior over all the possible policies up to the time horizon. Fountas et al (2020) used Monte Carlo tree search to address this problem, leading to very good results in two different tasks. Additionally, Champion et al (2021a) proposed a tree search approach based on (temporal) structure learning. This was enabled by the development of a variational message passing approach to active inference, which enables compositional construction of Bayesian networks for active inference. However, this message passing tree search approach, which we call branching-time active inference (BTAI), has never been tested empirically. In this paper, we present an experimental study of BTAI in the context of a maze solving agent. In this context, we show that both improved prior preferences and deeper search help mitigate the vulnerability to local minima. Then, we compare BTAI to standard active inference (AcI) on a graph navigation task. We show that for small graphs, both BTAI and AcI successfully solve the task. For larger graphs, AcI exhibits an exponential (space) complexity class, making the approach intractable. However, BTAI explores the space of policies more efficiently, successfully scaling to larger graphs. Then, BTAI was compared to the POMCP algorithm on the frozen lake environment. The experiments suggest that BTAI and the POMCP algorithm accumulate a similar amount of reward. Also, we describe when BTAI receives more rewards than the POMCP agent, and when the opposite is true. Finally, we compared BTAI to the approach of Fountas et al (2020) on the dSprites dataset, and we discussed the pros and cons of each approach.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Nov 2021.

Builds on

20 of 57 references.

References · 20

  1. 2018Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actorcited by 4,635
  2. 2013Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 3,211
  3. 2015Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-learningcited by 1,704
  4. 2016OpenAI Gymcited by 1,684
  5. 2019Mastering Atari, Go, Chess and Shogi by Planning with a Learned Modelcited by 1,327
  6. 2016Tutorial on Variational Autoencoderscited by 404
  7. 2016Playing FPS Games with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 95
  8. 2020Active inference on discrete state-spaces: a synthesiscited by 91
  9. 2020Deep active inference agents using Monte-Carlo methodscited by 72
  10. 2020Sophisticated Inferencecited by 56
  11. 2019Deep Active Inference as Variational Policy Gradientscited by 52
  12. 2020Whence the Expected Free Energy?cited by 40
8 more
  1. 2019End-to-End Pixel-Based Deep Active Inference for Body Perception and Actioncited by 24
  2. 2020Active Inference and Behavior Trees for Reactive Action Planning and Execution in Roboticscited by 23
  3. 2018Bayesian model reductioncited by 19
  4. 2020Learning Perception and Planning with Deep Active Inferencecited by 19
  5. 2021Exploration and preference satisfaction trade-off in reward-free learningcited by 12
  6. 2018A Factor Graph Approach to Automated Design of Bayesian Signal Processing Algorithmscited by 11
  7. 2018Learning, Planning, and Control in a Monolithic Neural Event Inference Architecturecited by 8
  8. 2021Leading or Following? Dyadic Robot Imitative Interaction Using the Active Inference Frameworkcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 3; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

9 papers.