Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 162 references

Active Inference and Human--Computer Interaction

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Active Inference offers HCI a unified, quantitative theory of the whole interaction loop.

desk verdict A clear and honest programmatic review that maps Active Inference onto HCI with a genuinely useful taxonomy; the untested human-model premise keeps it from being more than a research agenda, but it deserves serious engagement. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14741 v1 pith:GQCCZRSO submitted 2024-12-19 cs.HC cs.LG

Roderick Murray-Smith , John H. Williamson , Sebastian Stein This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.LG MSC 68T0568U35
keywords ActiveInferenceHuman-ComputerInteractionComputationalFreeEnergyPrincipleExpectedMarkovBlanketGenerativeModelsAgency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes that Active Inference, a computational theory in which agents act to minimize expected surprise using internal generative models, can serve as a coherent framework for human–computer interaction. The authors argue that modeling both the human user and the computer system as Active Inference agents makes the entire interaction loop—perception, action, adaptation, and even concepts like agency and engagement—explicit, probabilistic, and simulable. They present this as a response to HCI's long-standing need for theories with both high determinacy and broad scope, and they illustrate the proposal with worked vignettes in semi-autonomous driving, companion robots, and intelligent music playback. If the proposal is right, HCI would gain a single mathematical language for offline simulation, online real-time adaptation, and quantitative measures of concepts that have resisted formal treatment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Active Inference agent, defined by three components: a preference prior encoding goals as a probability distribution rather than a single target, a forward model predicting how the environment evolves under candidate actions, and an observation model predicting sensations from states. The mechanism that carries the argument is expected free energy (EFE), a single scalar that bounds future surprise and decomposes into a pragmatic term (agreement with preferences) and an information-gain term (expected learning), so action selection balances exploitation and exploration in one unified objective.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment in which a real user's interaction trajectories deviate systematically and reproducibly from the predictions of a calibrated Active Inference user model—for example, choices that consistently prefer higher expected surprise over lower expected surprise under the measured preference prior—would weaken the central premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the human–computer interaction loop can be productively reconceived as a dyad of mutually embedded Active Inference agents, each maintaining probabilistic beliefs about hidden states, each acting to minimize expected free energy, and each treating the other as part of its environment. From this move, the authors derive a family of concrete configurations: offline simulation of user behavior, offline simulation of mutual interaction, online construction of an Active Inference system, transduction by a mediating interface agent, and reflective systems that embed a model of the user within the system's forward model. They argue that this framework gives HCI predictive power, explanatory power for boundary phenomena via Markov blankets, and evaluation tools for measuring freedom, agency, and engagement.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proposal rests on treating real human users as if their perception, action, and preferences in interactive settings are governed by expected free energy minimization under a known internal generative model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • HCI research could simulate user behavior and joint user–system behavior before building systems, testing designs in silico across diverse users and contexts.
  • Interactive systems could adapt in real time by reasoning over predictive models, absorbing latency and uncertainty rather than reacting to raw sensor events.
  • Concepts such as agency, engagement, autonomy, and freedom could receive quantitative, counterfactual measures derived from the agent's distribution over future actions and its control over the interaction loop.
  • Machine-learned perception models could be integrated into interaction design through a principled Bayesian structure, replacing brittle input-specific heuristics.
  • The Markov blanket formalism could provide an objective way to analyze where the human–computer boundary lies and how it shifts with assistive or autonomous technology.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable near-term extension is the transduction configuration, where a mediating Active Inference agent sits between an existing user and system; the paper notes initial simulation results already exist, and this seems the most direct route to empirical validation.
  • If user behavior in interaction is well described by Active Inference, then interface designs could be ranked by the expected free energy they induce in a simulated user, turning design optimization into a search over models rather than a search over heuristics.
  • The framework implies that some seemingly irrational user behaviors—exploration, checking, hesitation—might be reinterpreted as rational information-gathering driven by the information-gain term, which could change how such behaviors are evaluated in usability studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a theory/position paper that proposes Active Inference (AIF) as a unifying computational framework for human–computer interaction. It reviews AIF for an HCI audience, presents a taxonomy of configurations for embedding AIF agents in the interaction loop (offline user simulation, mutual simulation, online construction, transduction, and reflective models), and discusses core elements such as Markov blankets, forward models, expected free energy, and preference priors. Three appendix vignettes (semi-autonomous driving, a soft companion robot, and an intelligent music speaker) illustrate how AIF could be applied. The central claim is that AIF provides a coherent model-based theory of interaction, supports offline design and online adaptation, and yields new quantitative measures of agency, engagement, and interaction freedom. The paper explicitly states in §1.1 that it is a theory paper without implementations, evaluations, or results.

Significance. If the framework were established, it would offer HCI a unified, quantitative, model-based account of the entire interaction loop, with potential benefits for simulation, adaptive interfaces, and formal analysis of agency and boundaries. The paper's strengths are its clear tutorial structure, the standard and apparently correct mathematical formulation in Appendix C, a useful taxonomy of interaction configurations in §2.6, a broad and relevant literature review, and an unusually explicit acknowledgment of its own open problems in §5. However, the load-bearing empirical premise—that human users can validly be modeled as AIF agents minimizing expected free energy—is asserted rather than tested. The paper is honest about this, but the honesty does not remove the gap between the programmatic claims and the evidence. As a conceptual proposal, the paper is valuable; as a demonstration of the claimed new measures, resilient systems, or predictive power, it is incomplete.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.4 and §1.1] The central claim that AIF gives a coherent model-based theory of interaction rests on the empirical premise stated in §2.4 ('AIF Human model') that a user's actions, perceptions and preferences are governed by expected free energy minimization under a known generative model. The paper states in §1.1 that it is 'a theory paper without implementations, evaluations or results,' and §5.2 lists preference elicitation and forward-model construction as open problems. Every downstream configuration—(U')S, (U')(S'), U(S), U(I)S, and U(S(U'))—inherits this premise, but no behavioral evidence or falsifiable prediction is provided; the vignettes in Appendix D are illustrative constructions rather than tests. I ask the authors to reframe this premise as an explicit hypothesis and to specify a minimal experiment that could distinguish an EFE-based user model from a bounded-rationality or utility-maximization baseline of the kind reviewed in §A.3.3.
  2. [§2.6.3 and §3.4.4] The reflective and mutual configurations nest each agent's generative model inside the other's. The paper does not specify how this recursion is defined: §3.4.4 mentions that prediction horizons help terminate mutual theories of mind, but it gives no termination rule, no proof that finite-depth truncation yields a consistent AIF construction, and no statement about what happens when the two agents' models disagree. Since §2.6.3 presents reflection as a distinctive contribution, this is a load-bearing gap. Please provide a formal recursion semantics (for example, define U(S(U')) as a finite-depth construction with a fixed depth parameter) or explicitly state that reflective AIF is currently only a conceptual schema.
  3. [§4.3] The abstract and §4.3 promise 'new tools to measure important concepts such as agency and engagement,' yet no operational definition is given. The statement that AIF agents 'are directly computing their freedom to act' is not a measurement procedure; no formula for an agency or engagement metric appears in the paper, and no validation against existing instruments (e.g., subjective sense-of-agency questionnaires) is proposed. Please provide formal definitions—for example, in terms of the entropy of the policy distribution or the divergence between actual and preferred state occupancy—and describe how these metrics would be validated.
  4. [§2.5 and §3.4.3] Section 2.5 asserts that AIF-powered interfaces will have 'superior qualities in remaining stable and controllable,' and §3.4.3 asserts that curiosity-driven exploration 'makes a system more resilient to inter-user variability, context or varying preferences.' These are empirical claims, but no implemented system or simulation is presented to support them. The authors should either mark these as hypotheses or cite existing empirical evidence; as written, the assertions outrun the evidence supplied in the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.6.1 and Figure 4] The second bullet in §2.6.1 is labelled '((U') S) Mutual interaction', which duplicates the first bullet's label; Figure 4 labels this configuration (U')(S'). Please correct the notation.
  2. [§3.1.3] The sentence 'agents will act to change the environment in future-oriented ways which maximise Expected Free Energy' should read 'minimise', since AIF agents select actions to minimize expected free energy.
  3. [§2.2] The phrase 'an agent being a entity distinct from its environment' contains an article error; it should be 'an entity'.
  4. [References] References [65] and [67] both cite Hornbæk and Oulasvirta's CHI 2017 paper 'What is Interaction?'; one duplicate should be removed.
  5. [§2.3] The sentence 'a one-page visual summary of the core computational elements of AIF is presented in Figure 2' would read more clearly as 'Figure 2 presents a one-page visual summary...'.
  6. [§3.2.5] In the sentence 'Markov blankets could bedetected;', there is a missing space between 'be' and 'detected'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: programmatic framework paper; no predictions reduce to fitted inputs, and self-citations are illustrative rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is explicit that it is a theory paper without implementations, evaluations or results (§1.1), so there are no fitted parameters, empirical predictions, or benchmark results that could reduce to their inputs. The load-bearing premise — that users can be modelled as AIF agents — is stated as an assumption in §2.4.1 ('AIF Human model: Our model of the human agent can predict what their senses will observe following actions they can make... pick actions which will reduce the surprise emanating from the computer'), not derived from the AIF equations. Appendix D introduces the vignettes as illustrative ('They are intended to make concrete some of the abstract concepts involved in Active Inference'), not as tests of the framework. The claimed explanatory and evaluation powers in §4 are programmatic consequences of adopting the AIF modelling assumptions, not empirical findings that are then re-imported as support. Self-citations such as [135] (§2.6.2, §5.3), [98], [154], and [147] are used as examples of prior implementations or background, and the paper's central claim — that AIF offers a coherent framework for HCI — does not rest on those citations. Whether the AIF human model is empirically valid is an important open question, but an untested assumption is not a circular derivation. No circular step meeting the evidentiary standard can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a theory/review paper: no numbers are fitted to data, and no new physical or metaphysical entities are posited. The load-bearing assumptions are the validity of Active Inference as a model of human behaviour and the feasibility of building its generative models; both are imported from the cited literature and acknowledged as open challenges.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Active Inference (minimising expected free energy) is a valid account of adaptive, goal-directed behaviour in humans and artificial agents.
    The entire proposal inherits this from the AIF literature, primarily Friston and collaborators; the paper does not test or defend it beyond citation. Invoked in Sections 2.2, 2.5 and throughout the vignettes.
  • domain assumption Human users in interaction can be represented as AIF agents with tractable preference priors and forward models.
    Section 2.4 defines the 'AIF Human model'; the paper acknowledges preference elicitation is an open problem but relies on it for the central framework.
  • domain assumption Markov blankets inferred from data can meaningfully quantify the shifting boundary between human and computer and support measures of agency and freedom.
    Section 3.2 proposes using Markov blankets as analytic instruments; the paper notes it is not yet clear how to represent or constrain them in interaction engineering.
  • standard math The standard AIF equations in Appendix C are accepted as given, including expected free energy as a bound on surprise.
    Equations (1)-(6) are quoted from the AIF literature; no derivation is needed for the review, but they form the mathematical basis of all proposals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Active Inference and Human--Computer Interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQCCZRSO

@misc{pith2026241214741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Active Inference and Human--Computer Interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQCCZRSO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14741}
}
read the original abstract

Active Inference is a closed-loop computational theoretical basis for understanding behaviour, based on agents with internal probabilistic generative models that encode their beliefs about how hidden states in their environment cause their sensations. We review Active Inference and how it could be applied to model the human-computer interaction loop. Active Inference provides a coherent framework for managing generative models of humans, their environments, sensors and interface components. It informs off-line design and supports real-time, online adaptation. It provides model-based explanations for behaviours observed in HCI, and new tools to measure important concepts such as agency and engagement. We discuss how Active Inference offers a new basis for a theory of interaction in HCI, tools for design of modern, complex sensor-based systems, and integration of artificial intelligence technologies, enabling it to cope with diversity in human users and contexts. We discuss the practical challenges in implementing such Active Inference-based systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14741 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overall structure of the paper. This is a theory paper without implementations, evaluations or results. Our contributions are: (1) An introduction to Active Inference theory for an HCI audience (§2), where a tutorial on the algorithms (§B) and mathematical detail (§C) is limited to the Appendix. This includes a review of the AIF literature and how Active Inference relates to other theories of interaction in (§A)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A schematic diagram of the Active Inference algorithm. An agents plans via a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Active Inference representation of the entire human–computer interaction loop as a dyad of mutually interacting agents. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different application modes of Active Inference. Active Inference can be used to simulate user behaviour, or joint user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The environment in an AIF–HCI loop can be a) Something which is jointly controlled by a human and AIF system. b) A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A Markov blanket statistically separates internal from external states; information flows exclusively via the active and sensory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Imagine detecting a cursor swipe gesture. Forward models (left) hypothesise what sensations (pointer trajectories, below) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of ill-posedness in sensing. A mobile mm-wave radar detects the proximity of a hand. Close to the device, it is easy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An Active Inference agent, embedded within its environment. Beliefs are recursively updated using prediction and Bayesian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The planning phase involves rolling out sequences of possible future actions, assigning them [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Rollout traverses the tree of future actions. Each future state has a free energy computed. The expected free energy for an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The free energy of a predicted future state is a combination of how well the hypothesised distribution over states corresponds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The information gain for a future hypothesised state is computed by synthesising an observation that might be observed, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adams, Stewart Shipp, and Karl J

    Rick A. Adams, Stewart Shipp, and Karl J. Friston. 2013. Predictions not commands: active inference in the motor system. Brain Structure and Function 218 (2013), 611–643

    2013

  2. [2]

    Stephen Adams, Tyler Cody, and Peter A Beling. 2022. A survey of inverse reinforcement learning. Artificial Intelligence Review 55, 6 (2022), 4307–4346

    2022

  3. [3]

    Christopher Alexander. 1964. Notes on the Synthesis of Form . Harvard University Press

    1964

  4. [4]

    Scott Alexander. 2018. God Help Us, Let’s Try To Understand Friston On Free Energy. https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/04/god-help-us-lets-try- to-understand-friston-on-free-energy/

    2018

  5. [5]

    Constantin F Aliferis, Alexander Statnikov, Ioannis Tsamardinos, Subramani Mani, and Xenofon D Koutsoukos. 2010. Local Causal and Markov Blanket induction for causal discovery and feature selection for classification. Part I: algorithms and empirical evaluation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11, 1 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Susan Amin, Maziar Gomrokchi, Harsh Satija, Herke van Hoof, and Doina Precup. 2021. A Survey of Exploration Methods in Reinforcement Learning. CoRR abs/2109.00157 (2021). arXiv:2109.00157 https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.00157

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Dmitry Bagaev, Albert Podusenko, and Bert de Vries. 2023. RxInfer: A Julia Package for Reactive Real-Time Bayesian Inference. Journal of Open Source Software 8, 84 (April 2023), 5161. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.05161

    doi:10.21105/joss.05161 2023

  8. [8]

    Lisa Feldman Barrett. 2017. The Theory of Constructed Emotion: An Active Inference Account of Interoception and Categorization. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 12, 1 (Jan. 2017), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw154

    doi:10.1093/scan/nsw154 2017

Show all 162 references
  1. [9]

    Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2004. Designing interaction, not interfaces. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces . 15–22

    2004

  2. [10]

    Dan Bennett, Oussama Metatla, Anne Roudaut, and Elisa D Mekler. 2023. How does HCI understand human agency and autonomy?. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  3. [11]

    Joanna Bergström and Kasper Hornbæk. 2025. DIRA: A model of the user interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 193 (2025), 103381

    2025

  4. [12]

    Joanna Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, David Coyle, Jarrod Knibbe, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2018. I really did that: Sense of agency with touchpad, keyboard, and on-skin interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

    2018

  5. [13]

    Martin Biehl, Christian Guckelsberger, Christoph Salge, Simón C Smith, and Daniel Polani. 2018. Expanding the active inference landscape: more intrinsic motivations in the perception-action loop. Frontiers in neurorobotics 12 (2018), 387187

    2018

  6. [14]

    Rafal Bogacz. 2017. A tutorial on the free-energy framework for modelling perception and learning. Journal of mathematical psychology 76 (2017), 198–211

    2017

  7. [15]

    Jelle Bruineberg, Erik Rietveld, Thomas Parr, Leendert van Maanen, and Karl J. Friston. 2018. Free-energy minimization in joint agent-environment systems: A niche construction perspective. Journal of Theoretical Biology 455 (2018), 161–178

    2018

  8. [16]

    Mario Bunge. 2017. Causality and modern science . Routledge

    2017

  9. [17]

    Daniel Buschek and Florian Alt. 2017. ProbUI: Generalising Touch Target Representations to Enable Declarative Gesture Definition for Probabilistic GUIs. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 4640–4653. https...

    2017

  10. [18]

    György Buzsáki. 2019. The Brain from Inside Out . Oxford University Press

    2019

  11. [19]

    Moran, and Allen Newell

    Stuart Card, Thomas P. Moran, and Allen Newell. 1986. The model human processor- An engineering model of human performance. Handbook of perception and human performance. 2, 45–1 (1986)

    1986

  12. [20]

    Card, Thomas P

    Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran, and Allen Newell. 1983. The psychology of human-computer interaction . Lawrence Erlbaum

    1983

  13. [21]

    Micah Carroll, Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Stuart Russell, and Anca Dragan. 2021. Estimating and penalizing preference shift in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 661–667

    2021

  14. [22]

    Stephen Casper, Xander Davies, Claudia Shi, Thomas Krendl Gilbert, Jérémy Scheurer, Javier Rando, Rachel Freedman, Tomasz Korbak, David Lindner, Pedro Freire, et al. 2023. Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint a...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Suyog Chandramouli, Danqing Shi, Aini Putkonen, Sebastiaan De Peuter, Shanshan Zhang, Jussi Jokinen, Andrew Howes, and Antti Oulasvirta

  16. [24]

    Nuttapong Chentanez, Andrew Barto, and Satinder Singh. 2004. Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 17 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    A Clark. 2003. Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford University Press

    2003

  18. [26]

    Andy Clark. 2008. Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension . OUP USA

    2008

  19. [27]

    Andy Clark. 2015. Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind . Oxford University Press

    2015

  20. [28]

    Andy Clark. 2017. How to knit your own Markov blanket: Resisting the second law with metamorphic minds. In Philosophy and predictive processing. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group., 3

    2017

  21. [29]

    Andy Clark. 2023. The Experience Machine: how our minds predict and shape reality . Pantheon

    2023

  22. [30]

    Patricia Cornelio, Patrick Haggard, Kasper Hornbaek, Orestis Georgiou, Joanna Bergström, Sriram Subramanian, and Marianna Obrist. 2022. The sense of agency in emerging technologies for human–computer integration: A review. Frontiers in Neuroscience 16 (2022), 949138. 24 Murray...

    2022

  23. [31]

    Rémi Coulom. 2006. Efficient Selectivity and Backup Operators in Monte-Carlo Tree Search. In Computers and Games. Vol. 4630. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75538-8_7

    2006 doi

  24. [32]

    David Coyle, James Moore, Per Ola Kristensson, Paul Fletcher, and Alan Blackwell. 2012. I did that! Measuring users’ experience of agency in their own actions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 2025–2034

    2012

  25. [33]

    Lancelot Da Costa, Pablo Lanillos, Noor Sajid, Karl Friston, and Shujhat Khan. 2022. How Active Inference Could Help Revolutionise Robotics. Entropy 24, 3 (2022), 361

    2022

  26. [34]

    Daniel Damböck, Martin Kienle, Klaus Bengler, and Heiner Bubb. 2011. The H-Metaphor as an Example for Cooperative Vehicle Driving. In Human-Computer Interaction. Towards Mobile and Intelligent Interaction Environments , Julie A. Jacko (Ed.). Vol. 6763. Springer Berlin Heidelbe...

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    Marc Deisenroth and Carl E Rasmussen. 2011. PILCO: A model-based and data-efficient approach to policy search. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on machine learning (ICML-11) . 465–472

    2011

  28. [36]

    Kaiser, and Daniel A

    Michelle Drouin, Daren H. Kaiser, and Daniel A. Miller. 2012. Phantom vibrations among undergraduates: Prevalence and associated psychological characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 4 (2012), 1490–1496

    2012

  29. [37]

    Yuqing Du, Stas Tiomkin, Emre Kiciman, Daniel Polani, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. 2020. AvE: Assistance via Empowerment. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 4560–4571

    2020

  30. [38]

    McDonald, Alfredo Garcia, Matthew O’Kelly, and Leif Johnson

    Johan Engström, Ran Wei, Anthony D. McDonald, Alfredo Garcia, Matthew O’Kelly, and Leif Johnson. 2024. Resolving Uncertainty on the Fly: Modeling Adaptive Driving Behavior as Active Inference. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 18 (March 2024). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2024.1341750

    2024

  31. [39]

    Jean-Daniel Fekete, Niklas Elmqvist, and Yves Guiard. 2009. Motion-pointing: target selection using elliptical motions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 289–298

    2009

  32. [40]

    Flemisch, Catherine A

    Frank O. Flemisch, Catherine A. Adams, Sheila R. Conway, Ken H. Goodrich, Michael T. Palmer, and Paul C. Schutte. 2003. The H-Metaphor as a Guideline for Vehicle Automation and Interaction . Technical Memorandum 20040031835. NASA

    2003

  33. [41]

    Karl Friston. 2009. The Free-Energy Principle: A Rough Guide to the Brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, 7 (July 2009), 293–301. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.005

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    I think therefore I am, if I am what I think

    Karl Friston. 2011. Embodied inference: or “I think therefore I am, if I am what I think ”. The implications of embodiment (Cognition and Communication) (2011), 89–125

    2011

  35. [43]

    Karl Friston. 2011. What Is Optimal about Motor Control? Neuron 72, 3 (2011), 488–498

    2011

  36. [44]

    Karl Friston. 2012. A free energy principle for biological systems. Entropy 14, 11 (2012), 2100–2121

    2012

  37. [45]

    Karl Friston. 2013. Life as we know it. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 10, 86 (2013), 20130475

    2013

  38. [46]

    Karl Friston, Lancelot Da Costa, Danijar Hafner, Casper Hesp, and Thomas Parr. 2021. Sophisticated inference. Neural Computation 33, 3 (2021), 713–763

    2021

  39. [47]

    Karl Friston, James Kilner, and Lee Harrison. 2006. A free energy principle for the brain. Journal of physiology-Paris 100, 1-3 (2006), 70–87

    2006

  40. [48]

    Karl Friston, Jérémie Mattout, and James Kilner. 2011. Action understanding and active inference. Biological cybernetics 104 (2011), 137–160

    2011

  41. [49]

    Karl Friston, Spyridon Samothrakis, and Read Montague. 2012. Active Inference and Agency: Optimal Control without Cost Functions. Biological Cybernetics 106, 8-9 (Oct. 2012), 523–541

    2012

  42. [50]

    Karl Friston, Spyridon Samothrakis, and Read Montague. 2012. Active inference and agency: optimal control without cost functions. Biological cybernetics 106, 8 (2012), 523–541

    2012

  43. [51]

    Karl Friston, Philipp Schwartenbeck, Thomas FitzGerald, Michael Moutoussis, Timothy Behrens, and Raymond J Dolan. 2014. The anatomy of choice: dopamine and decision-making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369, 1655 (2014), 20130481

    2014

  44. [52]

    Friston, Jean Daunizeau, and Stefan J

    Karl J. Friston, Jean Daunizeau, and Stefan J. Kiebel. 2009. Reinforcement learning or active inference? PloS one 4, 7 (2009), e6421

    2009

  45. [53]

    Andrew Gelman, Aki Vehtari, Daniel Simpson, Charles C Margossian, Bob Carpenter, Yuling Yao, Lauren Kennedy, Jonah Gabry, Paul-Christian Bürkner, and Martin Modrák. 2020. Bayesian workflow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01808 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Richard Langton Gregory. 1980. Perceptions as hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences 290, 1038 (1980), 181–197

    1980

  47. [55]

    Miriam Greis. 2017. A Systematic Exploration of Uncertainty in Interactive Systems . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Stuttgart

    2017

  48. [56]

    Griffiths, Nick Chater, and Joshua B

    Thomas L. Griffiths, Nick Chater, and Joshua B. Tenenbaum. 2024. Bayesian models of cognition: reverse engineering the mind . MIT Press

    2024

  49. [57]

    Russell, and Anca Dragan

    Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Smitha Milli, Pieter Abbeel, Stuart J. Russell, and Anca Dragan. 2017. Inverse reward design.Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Russell, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan

    Dylan Hadfield-Menell, Stuart J. Russell, Pieter Abbeel, and Anca Dragan. 2016. Cooperative inverse reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Per Christian Hansen. 2010. Discrete inverse problems: insight and algorithms . SIAM

    2010

  52. [60]

    Conor Heins, Beren Millidge, Daphne Demekas, Brennan Klein, Karl Friston, Iain Couzin, and Alexander Tschantz. 2022. Pymdp: A Python Library for Active Inference in Discrete State Spaces. Journal of Open Source Software 7, 73 (May 2022), 4098. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.040...

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Jakob Hohwy. 2013. The predictive mind. OUP Oxford

    2013

  54. [62]

    Erik Hollnagel. 1999. Modelling the controller of a process. Trans Inst MC 2, 4/5 (1999), 163–170. Active Inference and Human–Computer Interaction 25

    1999

  55. [63]

    Erik Hollnagel. 2017. The diminishing relevance of Human–Machine Interaction. In The Handbook of Human-Machine Interaction . CRC Press, 417–429

    2017

  56. [64]

    Erik Hollnagel and David D Woods. 2005. Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering . CRC press

    2005

  57. [65]

    Kasper Hornbæk and Antti Oulasvirta. 2017. What Is Interaction?. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2017

  58. [66]

    In press, 2024

    Kasper Hornbæk, Per Ola Kristensson, and Antti Oulasvirta. In press, 2024. Introduction to Human–Computer Interaction . Oxford University Press

    2024

  59. [67]

    Kasper Hornbæk and Antti Oulasvirta. 2017. What is interaction?. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 5040–5052

    2017

  60. [68]

    Andrew Howes, Jussi PP Jokinen, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2023. Towards machines that understand people. AI Magazine 44, 3 (2023), 312–327

    2023

  61. [69]

    Eugene Ie, Chih-wei Hsu, Martin Mladenov, Vihan Jain, Sanmit Narvekar, Jing Wang, Rui Wu, and Craig Boutilier. 2019. RecSim: A configurable simulation platform for recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.04847 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Aleksi Ikkala, Florian Fischer, Markus Klar, Miroslav Bachinski, Arthur Fleig, Andrew Howes, Perttu Hämäläinen, Jörg Müller, Roderick Murray- Smith, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2022. Breathing life into biomechanical user models. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Us...

    2022

  63. [71]

    Jadidinejad, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis

    Amir H. Jadidinejad, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2020. Using Exploration to Alleviate Closed Loop Effects in Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (Virtual Event, China) (SIG...

    2020

  64. [72]

    Amir Hossein Jadidinejad, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2022. The Simpson’s Paradox in the Offline Evaluation of Recommendation Systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 40, 1 (2022), 4:1–4:22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458509

    2022 doi

  65. [73]

    William James, Frederick Burkhardt, Fredson Bowers, and Ignas K Skrupskelis. 1890. The principles of psychology . Vol. 1. Macmillan London

  66. [74]

    Shunichi Kasahara, Jun Nishida, and Pedro Lopes. 2019. Preemptive action: Accelerating human reaction using electrical muscle stimulation without compromising agency. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–15

    2019

  67. [75]

    Shunichi Kasahara, Kazuma Takada, Jun Nishida, Kazuhisa Shibata, Shinsuke Shimojo, and Pedro Lopes. 2021. Preserving agency during electrical muscle stimulation training speeds up reaction time directly after removing EMS. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Fac...

    2021

  68. [76]

    Rafael Kaufmann, Pranav Gupta, and Jacob Taylor. 2021. An active inference model of collective intelligence. Entropy 23, 7 (2021), 830

    2021

  69. [77]

    Oskar Keurulainen, Gokhan Alcan, and Ville Kyrki. 2024. The Role of Higher-Order Cognitive Models in Active Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04397 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kingma and Max Welling

    Diederik P. Kingma and Max Welling. 2013. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013), 1–14. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.1312.6114

    2013 doi arXiv

  71. [79]

    Michael Kirchhoff, Thomas Parr, Ensor Palacios, Karl Friston, and Julian Kiverstein. 2018. The Markov blankets of life: autonomy, active inference and the free energy principle. Journal of The royal society interface 15, 138 (2018), 20170792

    2018

  72. [80]

    Michael D Kirchhoff and Julian Kiverstein. 2021. How to determine the boundaries of the mind: A Markov Blanket proposal. Synthese 198, 5 (2021), 4791–4810

    2021

  73. [81]

    Klyubin, D

    A.S. Klyubin, D. Polani, and C.L. Nehaniv. 2005. Empowerment: A Universal Agent-Centric Measure of Control. In 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 1. 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1109/CEC.2005.1554676

    2005

  74. [82]

    Knill and Alexandre Pouget

    David C. Knill and Alexandre Pouget. 2004. The Bayesian Brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation.TRENDS in Neurosciences 27, 12 (2004), 712–719

    2004

  75. [83]

    P. O. Kristensson and Th. Müllners. 2021. Design and Analysis of Intelligent Text Entry Systems with Function Structure Models and Envelope Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–12

    2021

  76. [84]

    Lake, Tomer D

    Brenden M. Lake, Tomer D. Ullman, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Samuel J Gershman. 2017. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and brain sciences 40 (2017), e253

    2017

  77. [85]

    Alexander Lavin, Hector Zenil, Brooks Paige, David Krakauer, Justin Gottschlich, Tim Mattson, Anima Anandkumar, Sanjay Choudry, Kamil Rocki, Atılım Güneş Baydin, et al. 2021. Simulation Intelligence: Towards a New Generation of Scientific Methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.032...

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Neil D Lawrence. 2024. The Atomic Human: Understanding ourselves in the age of AI . Random House

    2024

  79. [87]

    Hannah Limerick, David Coyle, and James W. Moore. 2014. The experience of agency in human-computer interactions: a review. Frontiers in human neuroscience 8 (2014), 643

    2014

  80. [88]

    Alianna J. Maren. 2017. How to Read Karl Friston (in the Original Greek). https://www.aliannajmaren.com/2017/07/27/how-to-read-karl-friston-in- the-original-greek/

    2017

  81. [89]

    D T McRuer and H R Jex. 1967. A review of quasi-linear pilot models. IEEE Trans. on Human Factors in Electronics 8, 3 (1967), 231–249

    1967

  82. [90]

    Beren Millidge, Anil Seth, and Christopher L Buckley. 2021. Predictive coding: a theoretical and experimental review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.12979 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Beren Millidge, Alexander Tschantz, and Christopher L. Buckley. 2021. Whence the Expected Free Energy? Neural Computation 33, 2 (Feb. 2021), 447–482. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco_a_01354

    2021 doi

  84. [92]

    Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A. Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G. Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, Andreas K. Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, Stig Petersen, Charles Beattie, Amir Sadik, Ioannis Antonoglou, Helen King, Dharshan Kumaran, Daan Wierstra, ...

    2015 doi

  85. [93]

    Hee-Seung Moon, Seungwon Do, Wonjae Kim, Jiwon Seo, Minsuk Chang, and Byungjoo Lee. 2022. Speeding up inference with user simulators through policy modulation. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–21

    2022

  86. [94]

    Hee-Seung Moon, Yi-Chi Liao, Chenyu Li, Byungjoo Lee, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2024. Real-time 3D Target Inference via Biomechanical Simulation. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2024

  87. [95]

    Hee-Seung Moon, Antti Oulasvirta, and Byungjoo Lee. 2023. Amortized inference with user simulations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2023

  88. [96]

    Masahiro Mori. 1970. Bukimi no tani [The Uncanny Valley]. Energy 7 (1970), 33–35

    1970

  89. [97]

    Roderick Murray-Smith, Antti Oulasvirta, Andrew Howes, Jörg Müller, Aleksi Ikkala, Miroslav Bachinski, Arthur Fleig, Florian Fischer, and Markus Klar. 2022. What simulation can do for HCI research. Interactions 29, 6 (2022), 48–53

    2022

  90. [98]

    Murray-Smith, J

    R. Murray-Smith, J. H. Williamson, and F. Tonolini. 2022. Human–Computer Interaction Design and Inverse problems. In Bayesian Methods for Interaction and Design, J. H. Williamson, A. Oulasvirta, P. O. Kristensson, and N. Banovic (Eds.). Cambridge University Press

    2022

  91. [99]

    Vivek Myers, Evan Ellis, Benjamin Eysenbach, Sergey Levine, and Anca Dragan. 2024. Learning to Assist Humans without Inferring Rewards. In ICML 2024 Workshop on Models of Human Feedback for AI Alignment

    2024

  92. [100]

    Ng and Stuart Russell

    Andrew Y. Ng and Stuart Russell. 2000. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning.. In ICML, Vol. 1. 2

    2000

  93. [101]

    John Odling-Smee. 2024. Niche Construction: How Life Contributes to Its Own Evolution . MIT Press

    2024

  94. [102]

    Antti Oulasvirta and Kasper Hornbæk. 2022. Counterfactual thinking: What theories do in design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 38, 1 (2022), 78–92

    2022

  95. [103]

    Jokinen, and Andrew Howes

    Antti Oulasvirta, Jussi P.P. Jokinen, and Andrew Howes. 2022. Computational rationality as a theory of interaction. In ACM CHI’22 Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2022

  96. [104]

    Antti Oulasvirta, Per Ola Kristensson, Xiaojun Bi, and Andrew Howes. 2018. Computational interaction. Oxford University Press

    2018

  97. [105]

    Thomas Parr, Giovanni Pezzulo, and Karl J. Friston. 2022. Active Inference. MIT Press

    2022

  98. [106]

    Pitliya, Alex B

    Candice Pattisapu, Tim Verbelen, Riddhi J. Pitliya, Alex B. Kiefer, and Mahault Albarracin. 2024. Free Energy in a Circumplex Model of Emotion. In International Workshop on Active Inference (IW AI)

    2024

  99. [107]

    Aswin Paul, Noor Sajid, Lancelot Da Costa, and Adeel Razi. 2024. On Efficient Computation in Active Inference. Expert Systems with Applications 253 (2024), 124315

    2024

  100. [108]

    Payne and Andrew Howes

    Stephen J. Payne and Andrew Howes. 2022. Adaptive interaction: A utility maximization approach to understanding human interaction with technology. Springer Nature

    2022

  101. [109]

    J Pearl. 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems . Morgan Kaufmann

    1988

  102. [110]

    Jean-Philippe Pellet and André Elisseeff. 2008. Using Markov Blankets for causal structure learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, 7 (2008)

    2008

  103. [111]

    Léo Pio-Lopez, Ange Nizard, Karl Friston, and Giovanni Pezzulo. 2016. Active inference and robot control: a case study. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 13, 122 (2016), 20160616

    2016

  104. [112]

    William T. Powers. 1973. Behavior: The Control of Perception . Aldine, Chicago

    1973

  105. [113]

    Deepak Ramachandran and Eyal Amir. 2007. Bayesian Inverse Reinforcement Learning.. In IJCAI, Vol. 7. 2586–2591

    2007

  106. [114]

    Rajesh PN Rao and Dana H Ballard. 1999. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature neuroscience 2, 1 (1999), 79–87

    1999

  107. [115]

    Rothberg, Ashish Arora, Jodie Hermann, Reva Kleppel, Peter St Marie, and Paul Visintainer

    Michael B. Rothberg, Ashish Arora, Jodie Hermann, Reva Kleppel, Peter St Marie, and Paul Visintainer. 2010. Phantom vibration syndrome among medical staff: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 341 (2010)

    2010

  108. [116]

    James A. Russell. 1980. A Circumplex Model of Affect. Journal of personality and social psychology 39, 6 (1980), 1161

    1980

  109. [117]

    Ball, Thomas Parr, and Karl J

    Noor Sajid, Philip J. Ball, Thomas Parr, and Karl J. Friston. 2021. Active inference: demystified and compared. Neural computation 33, 3 (2021), 674–712

    2021

  110. [118]

    Noor Sajid, Panagiotis Tigas, and Karl Friston. 2022. Active inference, preference learning and adaptive behaviour. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering , Vol. 1261. IOP Publishing, 012020

    2022

  111. [119]

    Noor Sajid, Panagiotis Tigas, Alexey Zakharov, Zafeirios Fountas, and Karl Friston. 2021. Exploration and preference satisfaction trade-off in reward-free learning. In ICML 2021 Workshop on Unsupervised Reinforcement Learning

    2021

  112. [120]

    Arvind Satyanarayan and Graham M. Jones. 2024. Intelligence as Agency: Evaluating the Capacity of Generative AI to Empower or Constrain Human Action. An MIT Exploration of Generative AI (2024). https://doi.org/10.21428/e4baedd9.2d7598a2

    2024 doi

  113. [121]

    Sauer, Sabrina C

    Vera J. Sauer, Sabrina C. Eimler, Sanaz Maafi, Michael Pietrek, and Nicole C. Krämer. 2015. The phantom in my pocket: Determinants of phantom phone sensations. Mobile Media & Communication 3, 3 (2015), 293–316

    2015

  114. [122]

    Felix Schoeller, Mark Miller, Roy Salomon, and Karl J Friston. 2021. Trust as Extended Control: Human-Machine Interactions as Active Inference. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience (2021), 93

    2021

  115. [123]

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. CoRR abs/1707.06347 (2017). arXiv:1707.06347 http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347

    2017 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Philipp Schwartenbeck, Johannes Passecker, Tobias U Hauser, Thomas HB FitzGerald, Martin Kronbichler, and Karl J Friston. 2019. Computational mechanisms of curiosity and goal-directed exploration. Elife 8 (2019), e41703. Active Inference and Human–Computer Interaction 27

    2019

  117. [125]

    Julia Schwarz, Scott Hudson, Jennifer Mankoff, and Andrew D. Wilson. 2010. A Framework for Robust and Flexible Handling of Inputs with Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 23nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, New York New York USA, 47–56

    2010

  118. [126]

    Julia Schwarz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Scott Hudson. 2011. Monte Carlo Methods for Managing Interactive State, Action and Feedback under Uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, Santa Barbara California USA, 235–244

    2011

  119. [127]

    Julia Schwarz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Scott E. Hudson. 2015. An Architecture for Generating Interactive Feedback in Probabilistic User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 2545–2554

    2015

  120. [128]

    Anil Seth. 2021. Being you: A new science of consciousness . Penguin

    2021

  121. [129]

    Reinbolt, and Scott L

    Ajay Seth, Michael Sherman, Jeffrey A. Reinbolt, and Scott L. Delp. 2011. OpenSim: a musculoskeletal modeling and simulation framework for in silico investigations and exchange. Procedia Iutam 2 (2011), 212–232

    2011

  122. [130]

    Anil K Seth. 2015. The Cybernetic Bayesian Brain. In Open MIND, T. Metzinger & J. M. Windt (Ed.). Open MIND. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group

    2015

  123. [131]

    Anil K Seth and Karl J Friston. 2016. Active interoceptive inference and the emotional brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371, 1708 (2016), 20160007

    2016

  124. [132]

    Sheridan

    Thomas B. Sheridan. 2016. Modeling Human–System Interaction: Philosophical and Methodological Considerations, with Examples . John Wiley & Sons

    2016

  125. [133]

    Jin Young Shin, Cheolhyeong Kim, and Hyung Ju Hwang. 2022. Prior preference learning from experts: Designing a reward with active inference. Neurocomputing 492 (2022), 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.12.042

    2022 doi

  126. [134]

    Joar Skalse, Nikolaus Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. 2022. Defining and characterizing reward gaming. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022), 9460–9471

    2022

  127. [135]

    Williamson, and Roderick Murray-Smith

    Sebastian Stein, John H. Williamson, and Roderick Murray-Smith. 2024. Towards Interaction Design with Active Inference: A Case Study on Noisy Ordinal Selection. In 5th International Workshop on Active Inference (IW AI 24)

    2024

  128. [136]

    Richard S Sutton and Andrew G Barto. 2018. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. MIT press

    2018

  129. [137]

    Daisuke Tajima, Jun Nishida, Pedro Lopes, and Shunichi Kasahara. 2022. Whose touch is this?: understanding the agency trade-off between user-driven touch vs. computer-driven touch. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 29, 3 (2022), 1–27

    2022

  130. [138]

    Albert Tarantola. 2005. Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation . Vol. 89. SIAM

    2005

  131. [139]

    Alex Taylor. 2015. After interaction. interactions 22, 5 (2015), 48–53

    2015

  132. [140]

    Guy Theraulaz and Eric Bonabeau. 1999. A Brief History of Stigmergy. Artificial life 5, 2 (1999), 97–116

    1999

  133. [141]

    A N Tikhonov and V Y Arsenin. 1977. Solutions of Ill-posed problems . Winston, Washington DC

    1977

  134. [142]

    Emanuel Todorov. 2004. Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nature neuroscience 7, 9 (2004), 907–915

    2004

  135. [143]

    Emanuel Todorov and Michael I Jordan. 2002. Optimal feedback control as a theory of motor coordination. Nature neuroscience 5, 11 (2002), 1226–1235

    2002

  136. [144]

    Dari Trendafilov. 2017. An information-theoretic account of human–computer interaction . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Glasgow

    2017

  137. [145]

    Dari Trendafilov and Roderick Murray-Smith. 2013. Information-theoretic characterization of uncertainty in manual control. Proceedings - 2013 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2013 March (2013), 4913–4918. https://doi.org/10.1109/SMC.2013.835

    2013 doi

  138. [146]

    Alexander Matt Turner, Logan Smith, Rohin Shah, Andrew Critch, and Prasad Tadepalli. 2021. Optimal policies tend to seek power. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . 23063–23074

    2021

  139. [147]

    Beatrix Vad, Daniel Boland, John Williamson, Roderick Murray-Smith, and Peter Berg Steffensen. 2015. Design and Evaluation of a Probabilistic Music Projection Interface. In 16th Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR) . 134–140

    2015

  140. [148]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  141. [149]

    John P Veillette, Pedro Lopes, and Howard C Nusbaum. 2023. Temporal Dynamics of Brain Activity Predicting Sense of Agency over Muscle Movements. Journal of Neuroscience 43, 46 (2023), 7842–7852

    2023

  142. [150]

    Eduardo Velloso, Marcus Carter, Joshua Newn, Augusto Esteves, Christopher Clarke, and Hans Gellersen. 2017. Motion correlation: Selecting objects by matching their movement. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 24, 3 (2017), 1–35

    2017

  143. [151]

    Morimoto

    Eduardo Velloso and Carlos H. Morimoto. 2021. A probabilistic interpretation of motion correlation selection techniques. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2021

  144. [152]

    Kazuyoshi Wada and Takanori Shibata. 2007. Living with seal robots–its sociopsychological and physiological influences on the elderly at a care house. IEEE transactions on robotics 23, 5 (2007), 972–980

    2007

  145. [153]

    Daryl Weir. 2014. Modelling Uncertainty in Touch Interaction . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Glasgow

    2014

  146. [154]

    Williamson and R

    J. Williamson and R. Murray-Smith. 2004. Pointing without a pointer. In ACM SIG CHI. ACM, 1407–1410

    2004

  147. [155]

    Williamson

    John H. Williamson. 2022. An Introduction to Bayesian Methods for Interaction Design. In Bayesian Methods for Interaction and Design . Cambridge University Press

    2022

  148. [156]

    the free energy principle

    Yaxiong Wu, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis. 2023. Goal-oriented multi-modal interactive recommendation with verbal and non-verbal relevance feedback. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems . 362–373. 28 Murray-Smith, Williamson, Stein A Related work ...

    2023

  149. [158]

    surprise

    in HCI. The term Simulation Intelligence, as proposed in [ 85] involves the development and integration of the key algorithms necessary for a merger of scientific computing, scientific simulation, and artificial intelligence. The original paper focused on other areas of scienc...

  150. [159]

    Hand proximity is used to control the state of the input device, and the finger spread can indicate uncertainty or vagueness

    System Forward Model – sensing: We need forward models of the sensor system, in order to infer the user’s actual physical movement, as described in 3.3, so that the basic low-dimensional input can work as expected by the user. Hand proximity is used to control the state of the...

  151. [160]

    User Forward Model – intermediate display: The state of the low-dimensional input device will be fed into the music state space transition dynamics, and will change the state in music space in a deterministic manner. The user model will have a probabilistic forward model which...

  152. [161]

    Particular intermediate display settings should lead to a predictable musical experience for the user

    User Forward Model – human subjective music experience: The features of the music space correspond to an implicit model of how the user will subjectively experience those tracks. Particular intermediate display settings should lead to a predictable musical experience for the user. 31

  153. [162]

    should work

    User Forward Model – human control of music space: Once the human has perceived the nature of the current track playing, they may be satisfied, and not make further action, or might want to change, and must decide where to move to in music space. This will require the user to ...

  154. [2024]

    Computational Brain & Behavior (2024)

    A Workflow for building Computationally Rational Models of Human Behavior. Computational Brain & Behavior (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.