arXiv subjects

Ralf Haefner

Publications and source records attributed to Ralf Haefner.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

How Intrinsic Motivation Underlies Embodied Open-Ended Behavior

Although most theories posit that natural behavior can be explained as maximizing some form of extrinsic reward, often called utility, some behaviors appear to be reward independent. For instance, spontaneous motor babbling in human newborns and curiosity in little kids and other animals seem to elude a simple explanation in terms of extrinsic reward maximization. Rooted in these observations, intrinsic motivation has emerged as a potentially major driver of behavior. However, only recently have several quantitative and foundational theories of intrinsic motivation been put forward. We first provide a general framework to understand behavior as being organized hierarchically: objective--intrinsic reward, or motivation--drives, goals and extrinsic reward. We next review the main formalizations of intrinsic motivation, including empowerment, the free energy principle, information-gain maximization, and the maximum occupancy principle. These theories produce complex behavior by promoting, in various ways, entropic action-state paths. The presence of a single intrinsic motivation objective breaks infinite regress, as drives and goals act only temporarily to serve the objective. Extrinsic rewards, such as sugar or protein, are just a means to achieve the objective. Bounded cognition and embodiment impose constraints and boundary conditions for the intrinsic motivation objective. By virtue of their capability to generate complex behavior in a task-agnostic manner, theories of intrinsic motivation promise to become successful generative models of open-ended, embodied behavior.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2024

Generative Adversarial Collaborations: A practical guide for conference organizers and participating scientists

Generative adversarial collaborations (GACs) are a form of formal teamwork between groups of scientists with diverging views. The goal of GACs is to identify and ultimately resolve the most important challenges, controversies, and exciting theoretical and empirical debates in a given research field. A GAC team would develop specific, agreed-upon avenues to resolve debates in order to move a field of research forward in a collaborative way. Such adversarial collaborations have many benefits and opportunities but also come with challenges. Here, we use our experience from (1) creating and running the GAC program for the Cognitive Computational Neuroscience (CCN) conference and (2) implementing and leading GACs on particular scientific problems to provide a practical guide for future GAC program organizers and leaders of individual GACs.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2024

How does the primate brain combine generative and discriminative computations in vision?

Vision is widely understood as an inference problem. However, two contrasting conceptions of the inference process have each been influential in research on biological vision as well as the engineering of machine vision. The first emphasizes bottom-up signal flow, describing vision as a largely feedforward, discriminative inference process that filters and transforms the visual information to remove irrelevant variation and represent behaviorally relevant information in a format suitable for downstream functions of cognition and behavioral control. In this conception, vision is driven by the sensory data, and perception is direct because the processing proceeds from the data to the latent variables of interest. The notion of "inference" in this conception is that of the engineering literature on neural networks, where feedforward convolutional neural networks processing images are said to perform inference. The alternative conception is that of vision as an inference process in Helmholtz's sense, where the sensory evidence is evaluated in the context of a generative model of the causal processes giving rise to it. In this conception, vision inverts a generative model through an interrogation of the evidence in a process often thought to involve top-down predictions of sensory data to evaluate the likelihood of alternative hypotheses. The authors include scientists rooted in roughly equal numbers in each of the conceptions and motivated to overcome what might be a false dichotomy between them and engage the other perspective in the realm of theory and experiment. The primate brain employs an unknown algorithm that may combine the advantages of both conceptions. We explain and clarify the terminology, review the key empirical evidence, and propose an empirical research program that transcends the dichotomy and sets the stage for revealing the mysterious hybrid algorithm of primate vision.

q-bio.NC↗