Active Inference Framework (AIF)

• Active Inference Framework (AIF) is a unifying Bayesian approach that integrates perception, learning, and control via variational free energy minimization.
• It utilizes probabilistic generative models to update beliefs and optimize actions, balancing exploration (information gain) and exploitation (goal achievement).
• AIF has practical applications in robotics, smart building management, and continual learning in dynamic environments.

Active Inference Framework (AIF) is a unifying Bayesian paradigm for perception, learning, and action under uncertainty, grounded in the variational free energy principle. Originally developed within theoretical neuroscience, AIF has evolved into a generalized inference-and-control formalism applicable to diverse domains, from robotics and cyber-physical systems to autonomous agents in engineered and natural environments. The key innovation is to formulate both state estimation (perception) and control as processes that minimize a variational bound—free energy—on the negative log-evidence (“surprise”) of an agent’s sensory data, given a generative probabilistic model encompassing hidden states, dynamics, and agent preferences. Decision-making arises from the minimization of expected free energy, embedding both exploration (epistemic/information gain) and exploitation (goal-seeking) in a single objective.

1. Generative Models and Free Energy Functionals

AIF depends on the agent maintaining a probabilistic generative model of how hidden states $\mathbf{s}$ generate observations $\mathbf{o}$ and how states evolve under actions $\mathbf{a}$: $$p(\mathbf{o}_{1:T}, \mathbf{s}_{1:T} | \mathbf{a}_{1:T-1}) = p(\mathbf{s}_1) \prod_{t=1}^T p(\mathbf{s}_t|\mathbf{s}_{t-1},\mathbf{a}_{t-1}) p(\mathbf{o}_t|\mathbf{s}_t,\mathbf{a}_{t-1}).$$ Here, $p(\mathbf{s}_1)$ is the prior over initial states, $p(\mathbf{s}_t|\mathbf{s}_{t-1},\mathbf{a}_{t-1})$ encodes state transitions, and $p(\mathbf{o}_t|\mathbf{s}_t,\mathbf{a}_{t-1})$ specifies the observation likelihood. The agent’s generative model may include discrete latent variables (as in community-level building management (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025)) or continuous latent states and controls (as in high-fidelity building-level thermodynamics (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025) and UAV flight (Pan et al., 17 Sep 2025)). Prior preferences over outcomes (goal specifications) are encoded as distributions over future observations $p(o)$, directly biasing planning toward preferred sensory states.

Variational Free Energy (VFE) is defined for any variational posterior $q(\mathbf{s})$ as

$$F[q](\mathbf{o}) = \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{s})}\left[ \ln q(\mathbf{s}) - \ln p(\mathbf{s},\mathbf{o}) \right] = D_{\mathrm{KL}}[q(\mathbf{s})\,\|\,p(\mathbf{s})] - \mathbb{E}_{q(\mathbf{s})}[\ln p(\mathbf{o}\mid\mathbf{s})],$$

which decomposes into a complexity penalty (divergence from prior) and an accuracy term (expected log-likelihood of observations). Action selection is formulated as minimization of the Expected Free Energy (EFE): $$\mathcal{G}(a) = \mathbb{E}_{q(o,s|a)}\left[\ln q(s|o,a) - \ln p(s,o)\right] = \mathbb{E}_{q(o|a)}\left[ D_{\mathrm{KL}}[q(s|o,a)\,\|\,p(s)] \right] - \mathbb{E}_{q(o|a)}\left[ \ln p(o) \right].$$ The first (epistemic) term quantifies information gain, while the second (extrinsic/pragmatic value) encodes the desirability of outcomes under $p(o)$ (Wen, 7 Aug 2025, Lanillos et al., 2021). Minimizing EFE allows agents to actively balance exploration and exploitation without external reward functions.

2. Inference, Learning, and Planning Algorithms

AIF unifies inference (state estimation and parameter learning) and action selection within a variational Bayesian process. Beliefs about hidden states (and parameters) are updated by minimization of VFE, typically via gradient descent: $$\dot{\mu} = -\kappa_\mu \frac{\partial F}{\partial \mu},$$ with state mean $\mu$ updated using prediction errors between observed and predicted sensory inputs and prior deviations (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025, Costa et al., 2020).

For action, the EFE is estimated over possible action sequences (“policies”) or control variables, yielding an optimal action as

$a^* = \arg\min_a \mathcal{G}(a).$

Policy search can use horizon-limited rollouts (myopic or multi-step), message passing on graphical models (Koudahl et al., 2023), or single-gradient steps via integrated world- and policy-model architectures (Yeganeh et al., 26 May 2025). Such frameworks support both discrete policy enumeration (e.g., belief propagation with $\sigma\{\cdot\}$ normalization (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025)) and scalable deep policy learning (e.g., diffusion policies (Yokozawa et al., 27 Oct 2025)).

Learning the model parameters is handled via online maximization of likelihoods or Bayesian updates (e.g., empirical Bayes for priors, Dirichlet updates for transition/likelihood matrices in discrete models (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025)). Continual learning is naturally supported, as parameters can be adapted sequentially and efficiently in light of new experience (Prakki, 30 Sep 2024).

3. Architectural Implementations and Applications

AIF has been realized across multiple timescales, state-action granularities, and real-world domains:

• Dual-layer/distributed architectures: Smart building energy management employs a continuous AIF agent for individual HVAC control and a discrete AIF agent for community-level coordination (ESS, market actions) (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025). The hierarchy allows for privacy-preserving aggregation, with all communication limited to abstracted load signals and high-level requests.
• Closed-loop robotic systems: UAVs use a joint generative model for state evolution, observation likelihood, and control/sensing costs. State estimation is performed via Kalman-style VFE updates; action and sensing allocation arise from EFE minimization, incorporating Pareto trade-offs between control and sensing cost parameters $\alpha, \beta$ (Pan et al., 17 Sep 2025).
• Deep learning-integrated AIF: Models such as neural lane-keeping controllers (Delavari et al., 3 Mar 2025), point-and-click human-computer interaction agents (Klar et al., 16 Oct 2025), and exploration/navigation robots (Yokozawa et al., 27 Oct 2025) integrate learned transition models (e.g., deep neural nets, diffusion policies, recurrent SSMs) with AIF’s variational free energy objectives, enabling high-dimensional, vision-based control, and robust adaptation to novel or aliased environments.
• Scalable inference on graphical models: Direct policy inference via message passing on constrained factor graphs enables linear-cost, horizon-wide planning that captures epistemic objectives without exhaustive tree search (Koudahl et al., 2023).

Domain-agnosticity is evidenced by applications to continual learning research agents in finance and healthcare (Prakki, 30 Sep 2024), as well as collective intelligence modeling via multiscale AIF agent ensembles (Kaufmann et al., 2021).

4. Epistemic-Extrinsic Decomposition and the Exploration–Exploitation Balance

The hallmark of AIF is its principled decomposition of action value into epistemic (information gain) and extrinsic (goal alignment) components, both subsumed within EFE minimization (Wen, 7 Aug 2025, Tschantz et al., 2020, Millidge et al., 2020). This yields inherent curiosity-driven exploration and adaptive exploitation, without recourse to handcrafted intrinsic bonuses or separate exploration schedules. Epistemic drives are dominant in ambiguous or unfamiliar regimes (e.g., map expansion, structure learning (Tinguy et al., 12 Aug 2024), high sensor uncertainty (Yokozawa et al., 27 Oct 2025)), while extrinsic drives dominate in well-known or reward-aligned contexts. The relative weighting is typically controlled by hyperparameters (e.g., $\alpha_{\text{amb}}$ (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025)).

5. Quantitative Evaluation and Comparative Results

Performance of AIF is benchmarked against deterministic optimization, reinforcement learning, and classical control:

• Smart buildings: Full-horizon AIF exactly reproduces optimization baselines; single-step AIF tracks comfort bands with $\text{RMSE} \approx 0.1^\circ$C, outperforming RL ($\text{RMSE} \approx 0.3^\circ$C), with $85\%$ occupancy classification accuracy (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025).
• UAV control: AIF jointly minimizes control and sensing cost, outperforming baselines in both metrics by one to two orders of magnitude. Adjusting the trade-off $\alpha$ traces a Pareto front between sensing and control effort (Pan et al., 17 Sep 2025).
• Deep navigation and motor tasks: Deep AIF with diffusion policies achieves $75-78\%$ success in high-exploration settings, far surpassing purely extrinsic (goal-directed) or shallow world-model baselines (Yokozawa et al., 27 Oct 2025). Lane-keeping AIF agents trained on tens of thousands of images (vs. millions for RL) generalize to novel towns without retraining and exceed behavioral cloning baselines (Delavari et al., 3 Mar 2025).
• Continual learning and adaptation: Discrete-time AIF agents demonstrate rapid adaptation to nonstationary transitions (e.g., post-regime-shift recovery in less than a dozen iterations) and near-maximal scores in dynamic environments (Prakki, 30 Sep 2024).

6. Data Privacy, Distributed Inference, and Interpretability

AIF supports inherently privacy-preserving and distributed control, as demonstrated in community energy management, where only abstracted load signals are communicated and no raw observational data is shared (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025). All agent–agent and agent–manager messages are low-bit, semantically abstract requests, with inference and control internal to each node. This aligns with the broader interpretable and explainable AI literature, as AIF’s generative model structure enables transparent encoding of prior preferences and reveals causally grounded action rationales.

7. Extensions, Open Challenges, and Theoretical Significance

AIF is being extended to:

• Scalable joint inference and planning for high-dimensional agents (deep AIF with world models, diffusion policies, amortized inference via neural networks) (Yeganeh et al., 26 May 2025, Yokozawa et al., 27 Oct 2025).
• Integration with LLMs as generative world models, exploiting LLMs to provide flexibly conditioned priors and amortized inference for complex policy spaces (Wen, 7 Aug 2025).
• Richer agent–agent social cognition (theory of mind, goal alignment) (Kaufmann et al., 2021).
• Continual learning and adaptation in nonstationary or partially observed environments (Prakki, 30 Sep 2024).
• Graphical model message passing and direct policy inference, circumventing scaling bottlenecks in classical AIF (Koudahl et al., 2023).

Outstanding challenges include computational tractability for very long horizons or large action/state spaces, robust parameter learning and calibration (notably in high-variance, low-sample regimes (Klar et al., 16 Oct 2025)), and extracting reliable, human-understandable posteriors or plans from neural or amortized inference engines (Wen, 7 Aug 2025).

---

In sum, the Active Inference Framework operationalizes the free energy principle as a unified statistical recipe for adaptive perception, learning, and control. It provides a mathematically rigorous, scalable alternative to ad-hoc reward engineering, supports robust uncertainty-aware decision-making, and offers privacy- and resource-efficient design for engineered and natural autonomous systems (Nazemi et al., 23 Mar 2025, Pan et al., 17 Sep 2025, Yeganeh et al., 26 May 2025, Prakki, 30 Sep 2024).