text: One of the biggest challenges in robotics systems is interacting under uncertainty. Unlike robots, humans learn, adapt and perceive their body as a unity when interacting with the world. We hypothesize that the nervous system counteracts sensor and motor uncertainties by unconscious processes that robustly fuse the available information for approximating their body and the world state. Being able to unite perception and action under a common principle has been sought for decades and active inference is one of the potential unification theories. In this work, we present a humanoid robot interacting with the world by means of a human brain-like inspired perception and control algorithm based on the free-energy principle. Until now, active inference was only tested in simulated examples. Their application on a real robot shows the advantages of such an algorithm for real world applications. The humanoid robot iCub was capable of performing robust reaching behaviors with both arms and active head object tracking in the visual field, despite the visual noise, the artificially introduced noise in the joint encoders (up to 40 degrees deviation), the differences between the model and the real robot and the misdetections of the hand.
  @cite_2: 
  @cite_11: Active inference is a general framework for perception and action that is gaining prominence in computational and systems neuroscience but is less known outside these fields. Here, we discuss a proof-of-principle implementation of the active inference scheme for the control or the 7-DoF arm of a (simulated) PR2 robot. By manipulating visual and proprioceptive noise levels, we show under which conditions robot control under the active inference scheme is accurate. Besides accurate control, our analysis of the internal system dynamics (e.g. the dynamics of the hidden states that are inferred during the inference) sheds light on key aspects of the framework such as the quintessentially multimodal nature of control and the differential roles of proprioception and vision. In the discussion, we consider the potential importance of being able to implement active inference in robots. In particular, we briefly review the opportunities for modelling psychophysiological phenomena such as sensory attenuation and related failures of gain control, of the sort seen in Parkinson's disease. We also consider the fundamental difference between active inference and optimal control formulations, showing that in the former the heavy lifting shifts from solving a dynamical inverse problem to creating deep forward or generative models with dynamics, whose attracting sets prescribe desired behaviours.
  @cite_10: Active inference is emerging as a possible unifying theory ofperception and action in cognitive and computational neuro-science. On this theory, perception is a process of inferringthe causes of sensory data by minimising the error betweenactual sensations and those predicted by an innergenerative(probabilistic) model. Action on the other hand is drawn as aprocess that modifies the world such that the consequent sen-sory input meets expectations encoded in the same internalmodel. These two processes, inferring properties of the worldand inferring actions needed to meet expectations, close thesensory motor loop and suggest a deep symmetry betweenaction and perception. In this work we present a simpleagent-based model inspired by this new theory that offers in-sights on some of its central ideas. Previous implementationsof active inference have typically examined a “perception-oriented” view of this theory, assuming that agents are en-dowed with a detailed generative model of their surround-ing environment. In contrast, we present an “action-oriented”solution showing how adaptive behaviour can emerge evenwhen agents operate with a simple model which bears littleresemblance to their environment. We examine how variousparameters of this formulation allow phototaxis and presentan example of a different, “pathological” behaviour.
  @cite_8: We have previously tried to explain perceptual inference and learning under a free-energy principle that pursues Helmholtz’s agenda to understand the brain in terms of energy minimization. It is fairly easy to show that making inferences about the causes of sensory data can be cast as the minimization of a free-energy bound on the likelihood of sensory inputs, given an internal model of how they were caused. In this article, we consider what would happen if the data themselves were sampled to minimize this bound. It transpires that the ensuing active sampling or inference is mandated by ergodic arguments based on the very existence of adaptive agents. Furthermore, it accounts for many aspects of motor behavior; from retinal stabilization to goal-seeking. In particular, it suggests that motor control can be understood as fulfilling prior expectations about proprioceptive sensations. This formulation can explain why adaptive behavior emerges in biological agents and suggests a simple alternative to optimal control theory. We illustrate these points using simulations of oculomotor control and then apply to same principles to cued and goal-directed movements. In short, the free-energy formulation may provide an alternative perspective on the motor control that places it in an intimate relationship with perception.
summary: Active inference (under the free-energy principle) includes action as a classical spinal reflex arc pathway triggered by perception prediction errors and has been mainly studied in theoretical or simulated conditions. Friston presented in @cite_8 a theoretical motor model with two degrees of freedom as an extension of the dynamic expectation maximization algorithm. It was recently studied in robot control of a simulated PR2 robot @cite_11 , one degree of freedom simulated vehicle @cite_10 and two degrees of freedom simulated robot arm @cite_2 .