Reference. A Bayesian Interpretation of the Internal Model Principle

The internal model principle, originally proposed in the theory of control of linear systems, nowadays represents a more general class of results in control theory and cybernetics. The central claim of these results is that, under suitable assumptions, if a system (a controller) can regulate against a class of external inputs (from the environment), it is because the system contains a model of the system causing these inputs, which can be used to generate signals counteracting them. Similar claims on the role of internal models appear also in cognitive science, especially in modern Bayesian treatments of cognitive agents, often suggesting that a system (a human subject, or some other agent) models its environment to adapt against disturbances and perform goal-directed behaviour. It is however unclear whether the Bayesian internal models discussed in cognitive science bear any formal relation to the internal models invoked in standard treatments of control theory. Here, we first review the internal model principle and present a precise formulation of it using concepts inspired by categorical systems theory. This leads to a formal definition of “model” generalising its use in the internal model principle. Although this notion of model is not a priori related to the notion of Bayesian reasoning, we show that it can be seen as a special case of possibilistic Bayesian filtering. This result is based on a recent line of work formalising, using Markov categories, a notion of “interpretation”, describing when a system can be interpreted as performing Bayesian filtering on an outside world in a consistent way.

Cite

Cite as @baltieri-2025-a (helia, typst) · \cite{baltieri-2025-a} (LaTeX)
BibTeX
bibtex · 10 lines
@misc{baltieri-2025-a,
  doi = {10.48550/ARXIV.2503.00511},
  url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00511},
  author = {Baltieri, Manuel and Biehl, Martin and Capucci, Matteo and Virgo, Nathaniel},
  keywords = {Optimization and Control (math.OC), Systems and Control (eess.SY), Category Theory (math.CT), FOS: Mathematics, FOS: Mathematics, FOS: Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering, FOS: Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering},
  title = {A Bayesian Interpretation of the Internal Model Principle},
  publisher = {arXiv},
  year = {2025},
  copyright = {arXiv.org perpetual, non-exclusive license}
}
hayagriva YAML (typst)
yaml · 13 lines
baltieri-2025-a:
  type: misc
  title: A Bayesian Interpretation of the Internal Model Principle
  author:
  - Baltieri, Manuel
  - Biehl, Martin
  - Capucci, Matteo
  - Virgo, Nathaniel
  date: 2025
  publisher: arXiv
  url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00511
  serial-number:
    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2503.00511
Cited by (1)

A “good regulator theorem” for embodied agents virgo-2025-a

In a classic paper, Conant and Ashby claimed that “every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system.” Artificial Life has produced many examples of systems that perform tasks with apparently no model in sight; these suggest Conant and Ashby’s theorem doesn’t easily generalise beyond its restricted setup. Nevertheless, here we show that a similar intuition can be fleshed out in a different way: whenever an agent is able to perform a regulation task, it is possible for an observer to interpret it as having “beliefs” about its environment, which it “updates” in response to sensory input. This notion of belief updating provides a notion of model that is more sophisticated than Conant and Ashby’s, as well as a theorem that is more broadly applicable. However, it necessitates a change in perspective, in that the observer plays an essential role in the theory: models are not a mere property of the system but are imposed on it from outside. Our theorem holds regardless of whether the system is regulating its environment in a classic control theory setup, or whether it’s regulating its own internal state; the model is of its environment either way. The model might be trivial, however, and this is how the apparent counterexamples are resolved.
DOI · arXiv
Cites 67 works (2 here)
With notes (2)

Towards Foundations of Categorical Cybernetics capucci-2022-towards

DOI · arXiv

Finite Automata and Their Decision Problems rabinFiniteAutomataTheir1959

Finite automata are considered in this paper as instruments for classifying finite tapes. Each onetape automaton defines a set of tapes, a two-tape automaton defines a set of pairs of tapes, et cetera. The structure of the defined sets is studied. Various generalizations of the notion of an automaton are introduced and their relation to the classical automata is determined. Some decision problems concerning automata are shown to be solvable by effective algorithms; others turn out to be unsolvable by algorithms.
DOI
External (65)
baltieri-2025-a reference entries/refs/baltieri-2025-a/baltieri-2025-a.hel