Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Markov blanket

In probabilistic graphical models, particularly Bayesian networks, a Markov blanket for a node X is the set of X's parents, its direct children, and the other parents of those children (often termed spouses or co-parents), which renders X conditionally independent of all other nodes in the network given the states of the blanket.^[1] The concept, coined by Judea Pearl,^[2] formalizes local conditional independence and enables efficient probabilistic inference by isolating the relevant dependencies around a variable. The minimal such set is known as the Markov boundary. Markov blankets play a central role in the structure and learning of Bayesian networks, where identifying the blanket of a node simplifies the discovery of global network topology from data. In machine learning applications, they are leveraged for feature selection, as the Markov blanket of a class variable captures all predictors sufficient for classification, reducing dimensionality while preserving predictive power.^[3] This approach underpins algorithms like the Markov blanket Bayesian classifier, which constructs probabilistic models for tasks such as pattern recognition and decision-making by focusing on these local structures.^[4] Beyond traditional graphical models, the Markov blanket framework has been extended to fields like active inference and computational biology, where it delineates boundaries between a system's internal states and its environment, facilitating models of autonomy and adaptation.^[5] For instance, in the free energy principle, blankets partition sensory and active states, enabling agents to minimize surprise through predictive processing.^[6] These extensions highlight the blanket's versatility in modeling complex systems across statistics, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.

Fundamentals

Definition

In probabilistic graphical models, a Markov blanket for a random variable Y in a set of random variables S (with Y \in S) is defined as a subset \mathrm{MB}(Y) \subseteq S \setminus \{Y\} such that Y is conditionally independent of the remaining variables S \setminus \mathrm{MB}(Y) given \mathrm{MB}(Y). Formally, this conditional independence is denoted as Y \perp S \setminus \mathrm{MB}(Y) \mid \mathrm{MB}(Y), meaning that the states of variables outside the blanket provide no additional information about Y once the blanket is known.^[7] This concept arises in the context of joint probability distributions over S, where conditional independence implies that the conditional probability P(Y \mid \mathrm{MB}(Y), S \setminus \mathrm{MB}(Y)) = P(Y \mid \mathrm{MB}(Y)), effectively "shielding" Y from influences in the rest of the system.^[7] The term "Markov blanket" was coined by Judea Pearl in 1988, specifically within the framework of Bayesian networks to describe sets of variables that localize dependencies in belief updating.^[7] Markov blankets are generally not unique, as multiple subsets of S may satisfy the conditional independence condition for Y; however, every such blanket must contain the minimal subset known as the Markov boundary.^[8] In directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) representing Bayesian networks, the (minimal) Markov blanket of a node Y consists of its parents, its children, and the parents of its children (referred to as spouses).

Illustrative Example

To illustrate the concept of a Markov blanket in a Bayesian network, consider a simple three-node chain structure where node A points to node Y, and Y points to node B, denoted as A → Y → B.^[9] In this directed acyclic graph, Y is the target node of interest. The parents of Y are {A}, and its children are {B}, with no co-parents of children. Thus, the Markov blanket of Y, denoted MB(Y), consists of {A, B}. This set shields Y from any other nodes in the network, rendering Y conditionally independent of them given MB(Y). For instance, if additional nodes exist beyond this chain, such as a node D connected elsewhere, Y becomes independent of D once A and B are observed. Visually, the graph appears as a linear sequence: A directs an arrow to Y, and Y directs an arrow to B, with no other connections. Conditional independence in this structure can be verified using d-separation, a graphical criterion that blocks all paths from Y to other nodes when MB(Y) is conditioned upon.^[10] Specifically, the path A → Y → B is blocked at Y (a non-collider) when conditioning on Y itself, but more relevantly, observing A and B blocks paths through the chain, confirming Y ⊥⊥ (rest of network) | {A, B}. This demonstrates how the blanket encapsulates all probabilistic influences on Y. Extending to a V-structure, consider A → Y ← B, where both A and B are direct parents of Y, forming a collider at Y. Here, MB(Y) = {A, B}, comprising only the parents since Y has no children. A and B are marginally independent (A ⊥⊥ B), but conditioning on Y induces dependence (explaining away).^[9] The graph shows arrows from A and B converging on Y. d-Separation verifies the blanket: no active paths remain from Y to external nodes when conditioning on {A, B}, as the collider at Y is not opened without Y observed, and parents directly capture all incoming influences. In a larger network, such as A → Y → B → C, the Markov blanket of Y remains {A, B}, excluding C. Observing {A, B} shields Y from C, as the path Y → B → C is blocked by conditioning on B (a chain structure).^[9] This illustrates how non-immediate nodes like C become independent of Y given the blanket, preventing unnecessary dependencies and enabling efficient inference.

Theoretical Foundations

Markov Condition

The local Markov condition serves as the foundational independence principle for directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) in Bayesian networks, asserting that each variable is conditionally independent of its non-descendants given its parents. Formally, for a DAG G over variables \{X_1, \dots, X_n\}, the condition states that for every i, X_i \perp (\{X_j : j \neq i\} \setminus \text{Desc}(X_i)) \mid \text{Pa}(X_i), where \text{Pa}(X_i) denotes the parents of X_i and \text{Desc}(X_i) its descendants. This property ensures that the direct influences on a variable are fully captured by its immediate predecessors in the graph, blocking paths of dependence from earlier variables.^[11] In Bayesian networks, this condition underpins the factorization of the joint probability distribution. Specifically, a distribution P(X_1, \dots, X_n) satisfies the local Markov condition relative to G if it can be expressed as

P(X_1, \dots, X_n) = \prod_{i=1}^n P(X_i \mid \text{Pa}(X_i)),

where each conditional probability P(X_i \mid \text{Pa}(X_i)) is specified locally. This factorization directly implies the conditional independences encoded by the graph, allowing efficient representation and inference over complex joint distributions without enumerating all variables. To illustrate, consider the "screening-off" effect: just as parents in the graph shield a variable from upstream influences, analogous to a mediator blocking propagation in a causal chain, the position of a suspended object against gravity becomes independent of distant forces once the immediate supporting forces are accounted for.^[11]^[12] The local Markov condition extends to the global Markov condition, which asserts that for any partition of variables into disjoint sets A, B, and C where B d-separates A from C in the graph, A \perp C \mid B. Under the faithfulness assumption, the graph structure precisely reflects all conditional independencies in the distribution, with no extraneous or missing edges. This linkage is crucial for model validation, as violations of faithfulness indicate that the graph may not fully capture the underlying probabilistic structure.^[13] A sketch of the derivation from the local to broader independencies involves d-separation, a graphical test introduced to operationalize the Markov condition. For two variables X and Y, a path between them is d-separated (blocked) by a set Z if every path passes through a conditioned collider or a non-conditioned head-to-tail or tail-to-tail structure; otherwise, the path is active, implying potential dependence. Recursively applying the local condition along all paths yields the global independencies: if Z d-separates X from Y, then X \perp Y \mid Z, enabling direct reading of independencies from the graph without probabilistic computations. This criterion ensures the Markov condition's implications are efficiently verifiable in polynomial time for DAGs.^[12]

Markov Property in Graphical Models

In undirected graphical models, known as Markov random fields (MRFs), the Markov property states that each random variable is conditionally independent of all non-adjacent variables given its immediate neighbors in the graph.^[14] This local independence structure allows the joint probability distribution to be represented compactly by the graph's edges, capturing direct dependencies while implying broader conditional independences.^[15] A key distinction arises when comparing this property to directed graphical models, or Bayesian networks (BNs). In BNs, the Markov blanket of a node comprises its parents, children, and the other parents of its children (co-parents or spouses), rendering the node independent of the rest of the network given this set. By contrast, in MRFs, the blanket simplifies to the node's immediate neighbors, reflecting the absence of directional arrows and thus no explicit parental relationships.^[16] This difference highlights how undirected models emphasize symmetric interactions, while directed models encode causal or temporal ordering. Within MRFs, three interrelated Markov properties—pairwise, local, and global—provide equivalent characterizations of conditional independences under positivity assumptions (i.e., strictly positive probability distributions). The pairwise Markov property asserts that any two non-adjacent nodes X_i and X_j are conditionally independent given all other nodes: X_i \perp X_j \mid \{X_k : k \neq i,j\}.^[17] The local Markov property strengthens this by stating that each node X_i is conditionally independent of all non-neighbors given its neighbors: X_i \perp \{X_k : k \notin N(i) \cup \{i\}\} \mid N(i), where N(i) denotes the neighbors of i. The global Markov property is the most comprehensive, requiring that any two disjoint sets of nodes A and B, separated by a third set C (meaning every path from A to B passes through C), satisfy A \perp B \mid C. For distributions with positive densities, these properties are equivalent, ensuring that satisfying one implies the others and fully aligns the graph with the independence structure.^[17] These properties underpin efficient inference in graphical models by enabling factorization of the joint distribution. In BNs, the local Markov property yields the chain rule factorization: P(\mathbf{X}) = \prod_i P(X_i \mid \mathrm{Pa}(X_i)), where \mathrm{Pa}(X_i) are the parents, facilitating exact inference via algorithms like variable elimination.^[14] In MRFs, the global Markov property, combined with the Hammersley-Clifford theorem, implies that the joint distribution factors over the maximal cliques C of the graph: P(\mathbf{X}) = \frac{1}{Z} \prod_C \psi_C(\mathbf{X}_C), where \psi_C are positive potential functions and Z is the partition function; this supports approximate inference methods such as Gibbs sampling or belief propagation, though exact computation is generally harder due to the undirected structure. For graphs to accurately represent independences, the faithfulness condition must hold: a distribution is faithful to the graph if every conditional independence implied by the graph (via separation or d-separation) corresponds to a true independence in the distribution, and vice versa, with no extraneous independences.^[18] This assumption ensures embedding, where the graph is a minimal representation of the independence model, but it is a measure-zero condition in the space of distributions, making unfaithful cases rare yet possible (e.g., via fine-tuned cancellations).^[18] In undirected models, faithfulness aligns with the global Markov property, guaranteeing that graph separation precisely captures all independences.^[19]

Markov Boundary

Definition and Composition

The Markov boundary of a target variable Y, denoted \text{MB}(Y), is defined as the minimal Markov blanket, consisting of the smallest set of variables that renders Y conditionally independent of all remaining variables in the joint distribution. This set satisfies the Markov blanket condition while ensuring no proper subset does so, making it the most parsimonious structure for local independence. Under the faithfulness assumption—which posits that all conditional independencies in the distribution are faithfully reflected by the graphical structure—the Markov boundary is unique for each variable.^[20] In Bayesian networks, which are directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) representing causal or probabilistic dependencies, the composition of the Markov boundary \text{[MB](/page/MB)}(Y) is precisely the union of the parents of Y (direct causes), the children of Y (direct effects), and the other parents of those children (known as spouses or co-parents), excluding Y itself. This structure captures all variables directly influencing or influenced by Y, along with those sharing common effects with Y, thereby blocking all paths of dependence to the rest of the network via d-separation. For instance, in a simple DAG where Y has two parents P_1 and P_2, and one child C that also has parent S, the Markov boundary is \{P_1, P_2, C, S\}; computation involves tracing these incoming edges (parents), outgoing edges (children), and additional incoming edges to the children (spouses).^[1] In contrast, for Markov random fields—undirected graphical models that encode symmetric dependencies—the Markov boundary of Y coincides exactly with its full neighborhood, defined as the set of all nodes directly adjacent to Y in the graph. This adjacency set serves as the minimal separator, leveraging the local Markov property where conditioning on neighbors blocks influence from non-adjacent nodes. Unlike in directed models, there are no distinctions between parents, children, or spouses, as all edges are bidirectional.^[21] Algorithmically, the Markov boundary can be identified in known graphical structures by applying d-separation rules to determine the minimal set of variables that blocks all paths between Y and other nodes, effectively finding the smallest separator in the moralized graph for Bayesian networks or the direct neighbors in undirected models. This process is foundational to constraint-based structure learning algorithms, which iteratively test and prune potential boundary members using independence queries guided by d-separation.^[22]

Uniqueness Properties

Under the faithfulness assumption, which posits that a probability distribution exhibits no conditional independencies beyond those implied by the underlying graphical structure, the Markov boundary of a target variable is unique.^[23] This uniqueness theorem, established in the context of Bayesian networks, asserts that the minimal set conditioning on which the target is independent of all other variables consists precisely of its parents, children, and spouses (parents of its children).^[24] Faithfulness ensures that the graph faithfully captures all independencies, preventing extraneous ones that could yield multiple minimal conditioning sets.^[25] Counterexamples to uniqueness arise in non-faithful distributions, where embedded independencies—additional conditional independencies not reflected in the graph—can produce multiple distinct Markov boundaries. For instance, in distributions violating faithfulness due to specific parameter settings that induce extra independencies, several minimal conditioning sets may exist, each rendering the target independent of the remainder but differing in composition.^[26] Such violations often occur in simulated datasets designed to mimic real-world scenarios with hidden confounders or measurement errors, leading to non-unique boundaries that challenge structure learning algorithms.^[27] The uniqueness of the Markov boundary has significant implications for causal inference, as it delineates the direct causes (parents) and effects (children) of the target, along with necessary co-parents to block confounding paths, thereby facilitating the identification of causal mechanisms without extraneous variables.^[24] This property enables robust estimation of causal effects in faithful models by focusing inference on the boundary, avoiding overparameterization from irrelevant variables.^[25] A related concept is that the intersection of all possible Markov blankets of the target equals its Markov boundary, which holds under the intersection property—a condition satisfied by faithful distributions ensuring that conditional independence with respect to disjoint sets implies independence with their union.^[8] This intersection provides a canonical minimal set even in cases with multiple blankets, though uniqueness requires the stronger faithfulness assumption.^[26] The mathematical proof of uniqueness under faithfulness relies on d-separation in the graphical structure and the faithfulness assumption, which ensures that all conditional independencies are captured by the graph without additional ones. This shows that the set consisting of parents, children, and spouses is the unique minimal set that blocks all paths from the target to other nodes via d-separation.^[25]

Applications

Feature Selection in Machine Learning

In machine learning, the Markov boundary of a target variable serves as a minimal set of predictor features that captures all relevant information for classification or regression, thereby reducing dimensionality while preserving predictive power. This subset, consisting of the target's parents, children, and their parents in a Bayesian network, ensures conditional independence between the target and all other variables given the boundary, enabling efficient model training without redundant or irrelevant features. By identifying this boundary, feature selection algorithms can eliminate noise in high-dimensional datasets, improving generalization and computational efficiency.^[28] Key algorithms for discovering Markov boundaries include the Markov Blanket Filter (MBF), which uses conditional independence tests such as chi-squared statistics for discrete data or mutual information for continuous variables to iteratively build the boundary by adding and pruning candidate features.^[29] Variants like the Incremental Wrapper approach combine filter-based pre-selection with wrapper methods, where an initial Markov blanket approximation reduces the search space for subsequent evaluations using a classifier's performance, such as cross-validation accuracy. These methods, exemplified by the Interleaved Incremental Association Markov Blanket (inter-IAMB), leverage greedy search strategies to approximate the exact boundary, balancing accuracy and scalability in practice.^[30] Empirical studies demonstrate the advantages of Markov boundary-based selection in high-dimensional settings, such as gene expression analysis, where it outperforms traditional filters by identifying compact feature sets that enhance classifier accuracy compared to correlation-based selection.^[28] Recent hybrid methods, such as those using iterative approximation of Markov blankets, have further improved efficiency in large-scale datasets as of 2020.^[31] However, challenges persist due to the computational cost of exhaustive conditional independence testing, which scales poorly with feature count, often necessitating approximations like greedy forward-backward selection to mitigate exponential complexity. Integration of Markov boundaries with classifiers further amplifies their utility; for example, feeding the selected features into a naive Bayes model exploits the boundary's conditional independence properties to boost classification performance without violating model assumptions, while in support vector machines, it reduces the input dimensionality to focus on discriminative margins, as shown in benchmarks on benchmark UCI datasets.

Active Inference and Autonomous Systems

In active inference frameworks, Markov blankets delineate the boundaries of autonomous agents by partitioning their internal states from external states through sensory and active states, enabling the agent to perform Bayesian inference while maintaining conditional independence between internal and external dynamics. This structure arises within the free energy principle, where the existence of a Markov blanket implies that internal states minimize variational free energy—a bound on surprise or prediction error—facilitating adaptive behavior without direct access to the external world.^[32] Developed by Karl Friston from 2013 onward, this formulation posits that any system with a Markov blanket engages in active inference, updating beliefs about hidden external states based on sensory evidence and selecting actions to resolve uncertainty.^[33] In artificial intelligence applications, Markov blankets model autonomous agents that minimize surprise by generating predictions conditioned on their blanket states, allowing systems to infer optimal policies for exploration and exploitation in uncertain environments. For instance, environment-centric active inference reorients the Markov blanket definition from agent-centric to environment-based partitioning, enabling robots to adapt to dynamic surroundings by prioritizing environmental constraints in inference processes.^[34] Active inference, underpinned by Markov blankets, has been applied in robotic systems for robust performance in tasks like navigation and manipulation without predefined reward functions.^[35] Recent developments from 2020 to 2025 have extended Markov blankets to explainable AI, particularly in knowledge tracing models for educational systems, where blankets identify relevant features for predicting student mastery, enhancing interpretability by isolating causal influences on learning outcomes.^[36] In large language models (LLMs), discussions have explored perception boundaries via active inference, framing LLMs as atypical agents whose token predictions approximate blanket-mediated inference, though lacking true autonomy due to passive training objectives. For consciousness modeling, Markov blankets underpin theories positing that self-evidencing loops—where agents actively sample sensory data to confirm generative models—generate phenomenal experience, as seen in hierarchical blanket structures simulating nested selfhood.^[37] Critiques, such as the "Emperor's New Markov Blankets," argue that while blankets provide a statistical boundary for inference, their metaphysical extension to define life or mind risks overreach, as they do not inherently confer autonomy beyond mathematical partitioning.^[38] Looking ahead, Markov blankets offer a bridge between biological and AI systems by enabling self-modeling architectures, where agents construct internal representations of their boundaries to foster emergent behaviors like collective intelligence in multi-agent setups.^[39]

References

[1]
[PDF] The Representational Power of Discrete Bayesian Networks
Definition 3 The Markov blanket of a node A in a BN G is a set of nodes that are made up of A's parents and children, and the parents of A's children. For ...
[2]
Evaluation of the Performance of the Markov Blanket Bayesian ...
Nov 1, 2002 · Abstract: The Markov Blanket Bayesian Classifier is a recently-proposed algorithm for construction of probabilistic classifiers.
[3]
Markov blanket-based approach for learning multi-dimensional ...
In this paper, we propose a Markov blanket-based approach for learning MBCs from data. Basically, it consists of determining the Markov blanket around each ...Missing: machine | Show results with:machine
[4]
Markov Blankets: Autonomy, Active Inference, Free Energy Principle
Jan 17, 2018 · Formally, a Markov blanket renders a set of states, internal and external states, conditionally independent of one another. That is, for any ...
[5]
On Markov blankets and hierarchical self-organisation - PMC
The notion of a Markov blanket was originally proposed in the context of Bayesian networks or graphs (Pearl, 1988), where it refers to the parents of the set ...
[6]
Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems - Google Books
Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems is a complete and accessible account of the theoretical foundations and computational methods that underlie ...
[7]
https://books.google.com/books/about/Probabilistic_Reasoning_in_Intelligent_S.html?id=AvNID7LyMusC
[8]
[PDF] Lecture 8: Bayesian Networks - McGill School Of Computer Science
Implied independencies in Bayes nets: “Markov chain”. Y. X. Z. • Think of X ... children is called the Markov blanket of X. en is called the Markov blanket ...
[9]
[PDF] Identifying independence in Bayesian Networks - FTP Directory Listing
Independence in Bayesian networks is identified using d-separation, a graphical criterion, and a linear time algorithm. This helps with efficient inferencing.<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] BAYESIAN NETWORKS Judea Pearl Computer Science ...
The conditional probabilities P(xi|pai) can be updated continuously from observational data using gradient-based or EM methods that use just local information ...
[11]
[PDF] Chapter 1 Introduction to Probabilities, Graphs, and Causal odels ...
In practice, however, the ordered Markov condition is easier to use. Another important property that follows from „ -separation is a cri- terion for determining ...
[12]
[PDF] Markov property
Global Markov property: for any partition (A,B,C) where B separates A from C, µ(xA,xC|xB) = µ(xA|xB)µ(xC|xB). Local Markov property: µ(xi,xrest|x∂i) = µ(xi|x∂i ...
[13]
Unifying Markov properties for graphical models - Project Euclid
Note that in many papers about summary graphs, dashed undirected edges have been used in place of bidirected edges. ADMGs are summary graphs without lines.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[14]
[PDF] Lecture 11: Graphs and Networks 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Undirected ...
A distribution that satisfies the global Markov property is said to be a Markov random field or Markov network with respect to the graph. A more general ...
[15]
[PDF] Inference and Representation - People | MIT CSAIL
Markov blanket. A set U is a Markov blanket of X if X /∈ U and if U is a minimal set of nodes such that X ⊥ (X −{X} − U) | U. In undirected graphical ...
[16]
On Equivalence of Markov Properties over Undirected Graphs - jstor
The dependence of coincidence of the global, local and pairwise Markov proper- ties on the underlying undirected graph is examined. The pairs of these ...
[17]
[1701.08366] Faithfulness of Probability Distributions and Graphs
Jan 29, 2017 · The main goal of this paper is to provide a theoretical answer to this problem. We work with general independence models, which contain probabilistic ...
[18]
[PDF] Faithfulness of Probability Distributions and Graphs
Abstract. A main question in graphical models and causal inference is whether, given a probability distribution P (which is usually an underlying ...
[19]
[PDF] Causal Markov Boundaries
In distributions that satisfy the intersection property (including faithful distributions), the Markov boundary of a variable Y is unique [Pearl, 1988]. To ...
[20]
[PDF] 19 Undirected graphical models (Markov random fields)
Feb 8, 2013 · One can show that, in a UGM, a node's. Markov blanket is its set of immediate neighbors. This is called the undirected local Markov property ...
[21]
Analyzing Markov Boundary Discovery Algorithms in Ideal ... - MDPI
Mar 23, 2022 · This article proposes the usage of the d-separation criterion in Markov Boundary Discovery algorithms, instead of or alongside the statistical tests of ...
[22]
[PDF] Speculative Markov Blanket Discovery for Optimal Feature Selection
Theorem 1. If a Bayesian network B is faithful, then for every attribute T, B(T) is unique and is the set of parents, children and spouses of T. The goal of ...
[23]
Time and sample efficient discovery of Markov blankets and direct ...
Time and sample efficient discovery of Markov blankets and direct causal relations. Authors: Ioannis Tsamardinos.
[24]
[PDF] Local Causal and Markov Blanket Induction for Causal Discovery ...
Abstract. We present an algorithmic framework for learning local causal structure around target variables of interest in the form of direct causes/effects ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[25]
[PDF] Algorithms for Discovery of Multiple Markov Boundaries
Figure 2: Graph of a Bayesian network used to demonstrate that the number of Markov boundaries can be exponential in the number of variables in the network.
[26]
[PDF] An Artificially Simulated Dataset with Multiple Markov Boundaries
A related concept is a Markov boundary (or non-redundant Markov blanket) that is a Markov blanket such that no proper subset of it is a Markov blanket (Pearl, ...
[27]
Life as we know it | Journal of The Royal Society Interface
Sep 6, 2013 · Formally, every Markov blanket induces active (Bayesian) inference and there are probably an uncountable number of Markov blankets in the ...
[28]
The Markov blankets of life: autonomy, active inference and the free ...
Jan 17, 2018 · This work addresses the autonomous organization of biological systems. It does so by considering the boundaries of biological systems, from individual cells to ...
[29]
[2408.12777] Environment-Centric Active Inference - arXiv
Aug 23, 2024 · We propose an environment-centric active inference EC-AIF in which the Markov Blanket of active inference is defined starting from the environment.
[30]
[2112.01871] Active Inference in Robotics and Artificial Agents - arXiv
Dec 3, 2021 · Active Inference in Robotics and Artificial Agents: Survey and Challenges. Authors:Pablo Lanillos, Cristian Meo, Corrado Pezzato, Ajith Anil ...
[31]
Improving the performance and explainability of knowledge tracing ...
A knowledge tracing model using Markov blankets was proposed to improve the interpretability of knowledge tracing.
[32]
A beautiful loop: An active inference theory of consciousness
We will then briefly connect hyper-models to recent advances in self-supervised learning in large language models (LLMS). First, in ordinary hierarchical models ...2. Simulating A Reality... · 9. Meditation And Altered... · 10. Discussion
[33]
The Emperor's New Markov Blankets | Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Oct 22, 2021 · Active inference is a process theory derived from the application of variational inference to the study of biological and cognitive systems ( ...2. Probabilistic Reasoning... · 4. Friston Blankets As... · 6.1 Inference With A Model...<|control11|><|separator|>
[34]
As One and Many: Relating Individual and Emergent Group-Level ...
Active inference under the Free Energy Principle has been proposed as an across-scales compatible framework for understanding and modelling behaviour and ...1. Introduction · 3.2. Simulation Experiments · 4. DiscussionMissing: centric | Show results with:centric<|control11|><|separator|>