Key Points

Adaptive agents must occupy a limited repertoire of states and therefore minimize the longterm average of surprise associated with sensory exchanges with the world.
Minimizing surprise enables them to resist a natural tendency to disorder. 
Surprise rests on predictions about sensations, which depend on an internal generative model of the world.
惊讶基于对感觉的预测，而感觉依赖于世界的内在生成模型。
Although surprise cannot be measured directly, a freeenergy bound on surprise can be, suggesting that agents minimize free energy by changing their predictions (perception) or by changing the predicted sensory inputs (action).
虽然惊喜不能直接测量，但与惊喜绑定的自由能可以直接测量，这表明代理人通过改变他们的预测（感知）或通过改变预测的感觉输入（动作）来最小化自由能。 
Perception optimizes predictions by minimizing free energy with respect to synaptic activity (perceptual inference), efficacy (learning and memory) and gain (attention and salience). This furnishes Bayesoptimal (probabilistic) representations of what caused sensations (providing a link to the Bayesian brain hypothesis).

Bayesoptimal perception is mathematically equivalent to predictive coding and maximizing the mutual information between sensations and the representations of their causes. This is a probabilistic generalization of the principle of efficient coding (the infomax principle) or the minimumredundancy principle.

Learning under the freeenergy principle can be formulated in terms of optimizing the connection strengths in hierarchical models of the sensorium. This rests on associative plasticity to encode causal regularities and appeals to the same synaptic mechanisms as those underlying cell assembly formation.

Action under the freeenergy principle reduces to suppressing sensory prediction errors that depend on predicted (expected or desired) movement trajectories. This provides a simple account of motor control, in which action is enslaved by perceptual (proprioceptive) predictions.

Perceptual predictions rest on prior expectations about the trajectory or movement through the agent's state space. These priors can be acquired (as empirical priors during hierarchical inference) or they can be innate (epigenetic) and therefore subject to selective pressure.

Predicted motion or state transitions realized by action correspond to policies in optimal control theory and reinforcement learning. In this context, value is inversely proportional to surprise (and implicitly free energy), and rewards correspond to innate priors that constrain policies.
Abstract
A freeenergy principle has been proposed recently that accounts for action, perception and learning. This Review looks at some key brain theories in the biological (for example, neural Darwinism) and physical (for example, information theory and optimal control theory) sciences from the freeenergy perspective. Crucially, one key theme runs through each of these theories — optimization. Furthermore, if we look closely at what is optimized, the same quantity keeps emerging, namely value (expected reward, expected utility) or its complement, surprise (prediction error, expected cost). This is the quantity that is optimized under the freeenergy principle, which suggests that several global brain theories might be unified within a freeenergy framework.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Despite the wealth of empirical data in neuroscience, there are relatively few global theories about how the brain works. A recently proposed freeenergy principle for adaptive systems tries to provide a unified account of action, perception and learning. Although this principle has been portrayed as a unified brain theory^{1}, its capacity to unify different perspectives on brain function has yet to be established. This Review attempts to place some key theories within the freeenergy framework, in the hope of identifying common themes. I first review the freeenergy principle and then deconstruct several global brain theories to show how they all speak to the same underlying idea.
The freeenergy principle
The freeenergy principle (Box 1) says that any selforganizing system that is at equilibrium with its environment must minimize its free energy^{2}. The principle is essentially a mathematical formulation of how adaptive systems (that is, biological agents, like animals or brains) resist a natural tendency to disorder^{3,4,5,6}. What follows is a nonmathematical treatment of the motivation and implications of the principle. We will see that although the motivation is quite straightforward, the implications are complicated and diverse. This diversity allows the principle to account for many aspects of brain structure and function and lends it the potential to unify different perspectives on how the brain works. In subsequent sections, I discuss how the principle can be applied to neuronal systems as viewed from these perspectives. This Review starts in a rather abstract and technical way but then tries to unpack the basic idea in more familiar terms.
Motivation: resisting a tendency to disorder. The defining characteristic of biological systems is that they maintain their states and form in the face of a constantly changing environment^{3,4,5,6}. From the point of view of the brain, the environment includes both the external and the internal milieu. This maintenance of order is seen at many levels and distinguishes biological from other selforganizing systems; indeed, the physiology of biological systems can be reduced almost entirely to their homeostasis^{7}. More precisely, the repertoire of physiological and sensory states in which an organism can be is limited, and these states define the organism's phenotype. Mathematically, this means that the probability of these (interoceptive and exteroceptive) sensory states must have low entropy; in other words, there is a high probability that a system will be in any of a small number of states, and a low probability that it will be in the remaining states. Entropy is also the average self information or 'surprise'^{8} (more formally, it is the negative logprobability of an outcome). Here, 'a fish out of water' would be in a surprising state (both emotionally and mathematically). A fish that frequently forsook water would have high entropy. Note that both surprise and entropy depend on the agent: what is surprising for one agent (for example, being out of water) may not be surprising for another. Biological agents must therefore minimize the longterm average of surprise to ensure that their sensory entropy remains low. In other words, biological systems somehow manage to violate the fluctuation theorem, which generalizes the second law of thermodynamics^{9}.
In short, the longterm (distal) imperative — of maintaining states within physiological bounds — translates into a shortterm (proximal) avoidance of surprise. Surprise here relates not just to the current state, which cannot be changed, but also to movement from one state to another, which can change. This motion can be complicated and itinerant (wandering) provided that it revisits a small set of states, called a global random attractor^{10}, that are compatible with survival (for example, driving a car within a small margin of error). It is this motion that the freeenergy principle optimizes.
So far, all we have said is that biological agents must avoid surprises to ensure that their states remain within physiological bounds (see Supplementary information S1 (box) for a more formal argument). But how do they do this? A system cannot know whether its sensations are surprising and could not avoid them even if it did know. This is where free energy comes in: free energy is an upper bound on surprise, which means that if agents minimize free energy, they implicitly minimize surprise. Crucially, free energy can be evaluated because it is a function of two things to which the agent has access: its sensory states and a recognition density that is encoded by its internal states (for example, neuronal activity and connection strengths). The recognition density is a probabilistic representation of what caused a particular sensation.
This (variational) freeenergy construct was introduced into statistical physics to convert difficult probabilitydensity integration problems into easier optimization problems^{11}. It is an information theoretic quantity (like surprise), as opposed to a thermodynamic quantity. Variational free energy has been exploited in machine learning and statistics to solve many inference and learning problems^{12,13,14}. In this setting, surprise is called the (negative) model evidence. This means that minimizing surprise is the same as maximizing the sensory evidence for an agent's existence, if we regard the agent as a model of its world. In the present context, free energy provides the answer to a fundamental question: how do selforganizing adaptive systems avoid surprising states? They can do this by minimizing their free energy. So what does this involve?
Implications: action and perception. Agents can suppress free energy by changing the two things it depends on: they can change sensory input by acting on the world or they can change their recognition density by changing their internal states. This distinction maps nicely onto action and perception (Box 1). One can see what this means in more detail by considering three mathematically equivalent formulations of free energy (see Supplementary information S2 (box) for a mathematical treatment).
The first formulation expresses free energy as energy minus entropy. This formulation is important for three reasons. First, it connects the concept of free energy as used in information theory with concepts used in statistical thermodynamics. Second, it shows that the free energy can be evaluated by an agent because the energy is the surprise about the joint occurrence of sensations and their perceived causes, whereas the entropy is simply that of the agent's own recognition density. Third, it shows that free energy rests on a generative model of the world, which is expressed in terms of the probability of a sensation and its causes occurring together. This means that an agent must have an implicit generative model of how causes conspire to produce sensory data. It is this model that defines both the nature of the agent and the quality of the freeenergy bound on surprise.
The second formulation expresses free energy as surprise plus a divergence term. The (perceptual) divergence is just the difference between the recognition density and the conditional density (or posterior density) of the causes of a sensation, given the sensory signals. This conditional density represents the best possible guess about the true causes. The difference between the two densities is always nonnegative and free energy is therefore an upper bound on surprise. Thus, minimizing free energy by changing the recognition density (without changing sensory data) reduces the perceptual divergence, so that the recognition density becomes the conditional density and the free energy becomes surprise.
The third formulation expresses free energy as complexity minus accuracy, using terms from the model comparison literature. Complexity is the difference between the recognition density and the prior density on causes; it is also known as Bayesian surprise^{15} and is the difference between the prior density — which encodes beliefs about the state of the world before sensory data are assimilated — and posterior beliefs, which are encoded by the recognition density. Accuracy is simply the surprise about sensations that are expected under the recognition density. This formulation shows that minimizing free energy by changing sensory data (without changing the recognition density) must increase the accuracy of an agent's predictions. In short, the agent will selectively sample the sensory inputs that it expects. This is known as active inference^{16}. An intuitive example of this process (when it is raised into consciousness) would be feeling our way in darkness: we anticipate what we might touch next and then try to confirm those expectations.
In summary, the free energy rests on a model of how sensory data are generated and on a recognition density on the model's parameters (that is, sensory causes). Free energy can be reduced only by changing the recognition density to change conditional expectations about what is sampled or by changing sensory samples (that is, sensory input) so that they conform to expectations. In what follows, I consider these implications in light of some key theories about the brain.
The Bayesian brain hypothesis
The Bayesian brain hypothesis^{17} uses Bayesian probability theory to formulate perception as a constructive process based on internal or generative models. The underlying idea is that the brain has a model of the world^{18,19,20,21,22} that it tries to optimize using sensory inputs^{23,24,25,26,27,28}. This idea is related to analysis by synthesis^{20} and epistemological automata^{19}. In this view, the brain is an inference machine that actively predicts and explains its sensations^{18,22,25}. Central to this hypothesis is a probabilistic model that can generate predictions, against which sensory samples are tested to update beliefs about their causes. This generative model is decomposed into a likelihood (the probability of sensory data, given their causes) and a prior (the a priori probability of those causes). Perception then becomes the process of inverting the likelihood model (mapping from causes to sensations) to access the posterior probability of the causes, given sensory data (mapping from sensations to causes). This inversion is the same as minimizing the difference between the recognition and posterior densities to suppress free energy. Indeed, the freeenergy formulation was developed to finesse the difficult problem of exact inference by converting it into an easier optimization problem^{11,12,13,14}. This has furnished some powerful approximation techniques for model identification and comparison (for example, variational Bayes or ensemble learning^{29}). There are many interesting issues that attend the Bayesian brain hypothesis, which can be illuminated by the freeenergy principle; we will focus on two.
The first is the form of the generative model and how it manifests in the brain. One criticism of Bayesian treatments is that they ignore the question of how prior beliefs, which are necessary for inference, are formed^{27}. However, this criticism dissolves with hierarchical generative models, in which the priors themselves are optimized^{26,28}. In hierarchical models, causes in one level generate subordinate causes in a lower level; sensory data per se are generated at the lowest level (Box 2). Minimizing the free energy effectively optimizes empirical priors (that is, the probability of causes at one level, given those in the level above). Crucially, because empirical priors are linked hierarchically, they are informed by sensory data, enabling the brain to optimize its prior expectations online. This optimization makes every level in the hierarchy accountable to the others, furnishing an internally consistent representation of sensory causes at multiple levels of description. Not only do hierarchical models have a key role in statistics (for example, random effects and parametric empirical Bayes models^{30,31}), they may also be used by the brain, given the hierarchical arrangement of cortical sensory areas^{32,33,34}.
The second issue is the form of the recognition density that is encoded by physical attributes of the brain, such as synaptic activity, efficacy and gain. In general, any density is encoded by its sufficient statistics (for example, the mean and variance of a Gaussian form). The way the brain encodes these statistics places important constraints on the sorts of schemes that underlie recognition: they range from freeform schemes (for example, particle filtering^{26} and probabilistic population codes^{35,36,37,38}), which use a vast number of sufficient statistics, to simpler forms, which make stronger assumptions about the shape of the recognition density, so that it can be encoded with a small number of sufficient statistics. The simplest assumed form is Gaussian, which requires only the conditional mean or expectation — this is known as the Laplace assumption^{39}, under which the free energy is just the difference between the model's predictions and the sensations or representations that are predicted. Minimizing free energy then corresponds to explaining away prediction errors. This is known as predictive coding and has become a popular framework for understanding neuronal message passing among different levels of cortical hierarchies^{40}. In this scheme, prediction error units compare conditional expectations with topdown predictions to elaborate a prediction error. This prediction error is passed forward to drive the units in the level above that encode conditional expectations which optimize topdown predictions to explain away (reduce) prediction error in the level below. Here, explaining away just means countering excitatory bottomup inputs to a prediction error neuron with inhibitory synaptic inputs that are driven by topdown predictions (see Box 2 and Refs 41, 42 for detailed discussion). The reciprocal exchange of bottomup prediction errors and topdown predictions proceeds until prediction error is minimized at all levels and conditional expectations are optimized. This scheme has been invoked to explain many features of early visual responses^{40,43} and provides a plausible account of repetition suppression and mismatch responses in electrophysiology^{44}. Figure 1 provides an example of perceptual categorization that uses this scheme.
Message passing of this sort is consistent with functional asymmetries in real cortical hierarchies^{45}, where forward connections (which convey prediction errors) are driving and backwards connections (which model the nonlinear generation of sensory input) have both driving and modulatory characteristics^{46}. This asymmetrical message passing is also a characteristic feature of adaptive resonance theory^{47,48}, which has formal similarities to predictive coding.
In summary, the theme underlying the Bayesian brain and predictive coding is that the brain is an inference engine that is trying to optimize probabilistic representations of what caused its sensory input. This optimization can be finessed using a (variational freeenergy) bound on surprise. In short, the freeenergy principle entails the Bayesian brain hypothesis and can be implemented by the many schemes considered in this field. Almost invariably, these involve some form of message passing or belief propagation among brain areas or units. This allows us to connect the freeenergy principle to another principled approach to sensory processing, namely information theory.
The principle of efficient coding
The principle of efficient coding suggests that the brain optimizes the mutual information (that is, the mutual predictability) between the sensorium and its internal representation, under constraints on the efficiency of those representations. This line of thinking was articulated by Barlow^{49} in terms of a redundancy reduction principle (or principle of efficient coding) and formalized later in terms of the infomax principle^{50}. It has been applied in machine learning^{51}, leading to methods like independent component analysis^{52}, and in neurobiology, contributing to an understanding of the nature of neuronal responses^{53,54,55,56}. This principle is extremely effective in predicting the empirical characteristics of classical receptive fields^{53} and provides a principled explanation for sparse coding^{55} and the segregation of processing streams in visual hierarchies^{57}. It has been extended to cover dynamics and motion trajectories^{58,59} and even used to infer the metabolic constraints on neuronal processing^{60}.
At its simplest, the infomax principle says that neuronal activity should encode sensory information in an efficient and parsimonious fashion. It considers the mapping between one set of variables (sensory states) and another (variables representing those states). At first glance, this seems to preclude a probabilistic representation, because this would involve mapping between sensory states and a probability density. However, the infomax principle can be applied to the sufficient statistics of a recognition density. In this context, the infomax principle becomes a special case of the freeenergy principle, which arises when we ignore uncertainty in probabilistic representations (and when there is no action); see Supplementary information S3 (box) for mathematical details). This is easy to see by noting that sensory signals are generated by causes. This means that it is sufficient to represent the causes to predict these signals. More formally, the infomax principle can be understood in terms of the decomposition of free energy into complexity and accuracy: mutual information is optimized when conditional expectations maximize accuracy (or minimize prediction error), and efficiency is assured by minimizing complexity. This ensures that no excessive parameters are applied in the generative model and leads to a parsimonious representation of sensory data that conforms to prior constraints on their causes. Interestingly, advanced modeloptimization techniques use freeenergy optimization to eliminate redundant model parameters^{61}, suggesting that freeenergy optimization might provide a nice explanation for the synaptic pruning and homeostasis that take place in the brain during neurodevelopment^{62} and sleep^{63}.
The infomax principle pertains to a forward mapping from sensory input to representations. How does this square with optimizing generative models, which map from causes to sensory inputs? These perspectives can be reconciled by noting that all recognition schemes based on infomax can be cast as optimizing the parameters of a generative model^{64}. For example, in sparse coding models^{55}, the implicit priors posit independent causes that are sampled from a heavytailed or sparse distribution^{42}. The fact that these models predict empirically observed receptive fields so well suggests that we are endowed with (or acquire) prior expectations that the causes of our sensations are largely independent and sparse.
In summary, the principle of efficient coding says that the brain should optimize the mutual information between its sensory signals and some parsimonious neuronal representations. This is the same as optimizing the parameters of a generative model to maximize the accuracy of predictions, under complexity constraints. Both are mandated by the freeenergy principle, which can be regarded as a probabilistic generalization of the infomax principle. We now turn to more biologically inspired ideas about brain function that focus on neuronal dynamics and plasticity. This takes us deeper into neurobiological mechanisms and the implementation of the theoretical principles outlined above.
The cell assembly and correlation theory
The cell assembly theory was proposed by Hebb^{65} and entails Hebbian — or associative — plasticity, which is a cornerstone of usedependent or experiencedependent plasticity^{66}, the correlation theory of von de Malsburg^{67,68}and other formal refinements to Hebbian plasticity per se^{69}. The cell assembly theory posits that groups of interconnected neurons are formed through a strengthening of synaptic connections that depends on correlated pre and postsynaptic activity; that is, 'cells that fire together wire together'. This enables the brain to distil statistical regularities from the sensorium. The correlation theory considers the selective enabling of synaptic efficacy and its plasticity (also known as metaplasticity^{70}) by fast synchronous activity induced by different perceptual attributes of the same object (for example, a red bus in motion). This resolves a putative deficiency of classical plasticity, which cannot ascribe a presynaptic input to a particular cause (for example, redness) in the world^{67}. The correlation theory underpins theoretical treatments of synchronized brain activity and its role in associating or binding attributes to specific objects or causes^{68,71}. Another important field that rests on associative plasticity is the use of attractor networks as models of memory formation and retrieval^{72,73,74}. So how do correlations and associative plasticity figure in the freeenergy formulation?
Hitherto, we have considered only inference on states of the world that cause sensory signals, whereby conditional expectations about states are encoded by synaptic activity. However, the causes covered by the recognition density are not restricted to timevarying states (for example, the motion of an object in the visual field): they also include timeinvariant regularities that endow the world with causal structure (for example, objects fall with constant acceleration). These regularities are parameters of the generative model and have to be inferred by the brain — in other words, the conditional expectations of these parameters that may be encoded by synaptic efficacy (these are μ_{θ} in Box 2) have to be optimized. This corresponds to optimizing connection strengths in the brain — that is, plasticity that underlines learning. So what form would this learning take? It transpires that a gradient descent on free energy (that is, changing connections to reduce free energy) is formally identical to Hebbian plasticity^{28,42} (Box 2). This is because the parameters of the generative model determine how expected states (synaptic activity) are mixed to form predictions. Put simply, when the presynaptic predictions and postsynaptic prediction errors are highly correlated, the connection strength increases, so that predictions can suppress prediction errors more efficiently.
In short, the formation of cell assemblies reflects the encoding of causal regularities. This is just a restatement of cell assembly theory in the context of a specific implementation (predictive coding) of the freeenergy principle. It should be acknowledged that the learning rule in predictive coding is really a delta rule, which rests on Hebbian mechanisms; however, Hebb's wider notions of cell assemblies were formulated from a nonstatistical perspective. Modern reformulations suggest that both inference on states (that is, perception) and inference on parameters (that is, learning) minimize free energy (that is, minimize prediction error) and serve to bound surprising exchanges with the world. So what about synchronization and the selective enabling of synapses?
Biased competition and attention
Causal regularities encoded by synaptic efficacy control the deterministic evolution of states in the world. However, stochastic (that is, random) fluctuations in these states play an important part in generating sensory data. Their amplitude is usually represented as precision (or inverse variance), which encodes the reliability of prediction errors. Precision is important, especially in hierarchical schemes, because it controls the relative influence of bottomup prediction errors and topdown predictions. So how is precision encoded in the brain? In predictive coding, precision modulates the amplitude of prediction errors (these are μ_{γ} in Box 2), so that prediction errors with high precision have a greater impact on units that encode conditional expectations. This means that precision corresponds to the synaptic gain of prediction error units. The most obvious candidates for controlling gain (and implicitly encoding precision) are classical neuromodulators like dopamine and acetylcholine, which provides a nice link to theories of attention and uncertainty^{75,76,77}. Another candidate is fast synchronized presynaptic input that lowers effective postsynaptic membrane time constants and increases synchronous gain^{78}. This fits comfortably with the correlation theory and speaks to recent ideas about the role of synchronous activity in mediating attentional gain^{79,80}.
In summary, the optimization of expected precision in terms of synaptic gain links attention to synaptic gain and synchronization. This link is central to theories of attentional gain and biased competition^{80,81,82,83,84,85}, particularly in the context of neuromodulation^{86,87}. The theories considered so far have dealt only with perception. However, from the point of view of the freeenergy principle, perception just makes free energy a good proxy for surprise. To actually reduce surprise we need to act. In the next section, we retain a focus on cell assemblies but move to the selection and reinforcement of stimulus–response links.
Neural Darwinism and value learning
In the theory of neuronal group selection^{88}, the emergence of neuronal assemblies is considered in the light of selective pressure. The theory has four elements: epigenetic mechanisms create a primary repertoire of neuronal connections, which are refined by experiencedependent plasticity to produce a secondary repertoire of neuronal groups. These are selected and maintained through reentrant signalling among neuronal groups. As in cell assembly theory, plasticity rests on correlated pre and postsynaptic activity, but here it is modulated by value. Value is signalled by ascending neuromodulatory transmitter systems and controls which neuronal groups are selected and which are not. The beauty of neural Darwinism is that it nests distinct selective processes within each other. In other words, it eschews a single unit of selection and exploits the notion of metaselection (the selection of selective mechanisms; for example, see Ref. 89). In this context, (neuronal) value confers evolutionary value (that is, adaptive fitness) by selecting neuronal groups that meditate adaptive stimulus–stimulus associations and stimulus–response links. The capacity of value to do this is assured by natural selection, in the sense that neuronal value systems are themselves subject to selective pressure.
This theory, particularly valuedependent learning^{90}, has deep connections with reinforcement learning and related approaches in engineering (see below), such as dynamic programming and temporal difference models^{91,92}. This is because neuronal value systems reinforce connections to themselves, thereby enabling the brain to label a sensory state as valuable if, and only if, it leads to another valuable state. This ensures that agents move through a succession of states that have acquired value to access states (rewards) with genetically specified innate value. In short, the brain maximizes value, which may be reflected in the discharge of value systems (for example, dopaminergic systems^{92,93,94,95,96}). So how does this relate to the optimization of free energy?
The answer is simple: value is inversely proportional to surprise, in the sense that the probability of a phenotype being in a particular state increases with the value of that state. Furthermore, the evolutionary value of a phenotype is the negative surprise averaged over all the states it experiences, which is simply its negative entropy. Indeed, the whole point of minimizing free energy (and implicitly entropy) is to ensure that agents spend most of their time in a small number of valuable states. This means that free energy is the complement of value, and its longterm average is the complement of adaptive fitness (also known as free fitness in evolutionary biology^{97}). But how do agents know what is valuable? In other words, how does one generation tell the next which states have value (that is, are unsurprising)? Value or surprise is determined by the form of an agent's generative model and its implicit priors — these specify the value of sensory states and, crucially, are heritable through genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. This means that prior expectations (that is, the primary repertoire) can prescribe a small number of attractive states with innate value. In turn, this enables natural selection to optimize prior expectations and ensure they are consistent with the agent's phenotype. Put simply, valuable states are just the states that the agent expects to frequent. These expectations are constrained by the form of its generative model, which is specified genetically and fulfilled behaviourally, under active inference.
It is important to appreciate that prior expectations include not just what will be sampled from the world but also how the world is sampled. This means that natural selection may equip agents with the prior expectation that they will explore their environment until states with innate value are encountered. We will look at this more closely in the next section, where priors on motion through state space are cast in terms of policies in reinforcement learning.
Both neural Darwinism and the freeenergy principle try to understand somatic changes in an individual in the context of evolution: neural Darwinism appeals to selective processes, whereas the free energy formulation considers the optimization of ensemble or population dynamics in terms of entropy and surprise. The key theme that emerges here is that (heritable) prior expectations can label things as innately valuable (unsurprising); but how can simply labelling states engender adaptive behaviour? In the next section, we return to reinforcement learning and related formulations of action that try to explain adaptive behaviour purely in terms of labels or cost functions.
Optimal control theory and game theory
Value is central to theories of brain function that are based on reinforcement learning and optimum control. The basic notion that underpins these treatments is that the brain optimizes value, which is expected reward or utility (or its complement — expected loss or cost). This is seen in behavioural psychology as reinforcement learning^{98}, in computational neuroscience and machine learning as variants of dynamic programming such as temporal difference learning^{99,100,101}, and in economics as expected utility theory^{102}. The notion of an expected reward or cost is crucial here; this is the cost expected over future states, given a particular policy that prescribes action or choices. A policy specifies the states to which an agent will move from any given state ('motion through state space in continuous time'). This policy has to access sparse rewarding states using a cost function, which only labels states as costly or not. The problem of how the policy is optimized is formalized in optimal control theory as the Bellman equation and its variants^{99} (see Supplementary information S4 (box)), which express value as a function of the optimal policy and a cost function. If one can solve the Bellman equation, one can associate each sensory state with a value and optimize the policy by ensuring that the next state is the most valuable of the available states. In general, it is impossible to solve the Bellman equation exactly, but several approximations exist, ranging from simple Rescorla–Wagner models^{98} to more comprehensive formulations like Qlearning^{100}. Cost also has a key role in Bayesian decision theory, in which optimal decisions minimize expected cost in the context of uncertainty about outcomes; this is central to optimal decision theory (game theory) and behavioural economics^{102,103,104}.
So what does free energy bring to the table? If one assumes that the optimal policy performs a gradient ascent on value, then it is easy to show that value is inversely proportional to surprise (see Supplementary information S4 (box)). This means that free energy is (an upper bound on) expected cost, which makes sense as optimal control theory assumes that action minimizes expected cost, whereas the freeenergy principle states that it minimizes free energy. This is important because it explains why agents must minimize expected cost. Furthermore, free energy provides a quantitative and seamless connection between the cost functions of reinforcement learning and value in evolutionary biology. Finally, the dynamical perspective provides a mechanistic insight into how policies are specified in the brain: according to the principle of optimality^{99} cost is the rate of change of value (see Supplementary information S4 (box)), which depends on changes in sensory states. This suggests that optimal policies can be prescribed by prior expectations about the motion of sensory states. Put simply, priors induce a fixedpoint attractor, and when the states arrive at the fixed point, value will stop changing and cost will be minimized. A simple example is shown in Fig. 2, in which a cued arm movement is simulated using only prior expectations that the arm will be drawn to a fixed point (the target). This figure illustrates how computational motor control^{105,106,107,108,109} can be formulated in terms of priors and the suppression of sensory prediction errors (K.J.F., J. Daunizeau, J. Kilner and S.J. Kiebel, unpublished observations). More generally, it shows how rewards and goals can be considered as prior expectations that an action is obliged to fulfil^{16} (see also Ref. 110). It also suggests how natural selection could optimize behaviour through the genetic specification of inheritable or innate priors that constrain the learning of empirical priors (Box 2) and subsequent goaldirected action.
It should be noted that just expecting to be attracted to some states may not be sufficient to attain those states. This is because one may have to approach attractors vicariously through other states (for example, to avoid obstacles) or conform to physical constraints on action. These are some of the more difficult problems of accessing distal rewards that reinforcement learning and optimum control contend with. In these circumstances, an examination of the density dynamics, on which the freeenergy principle is based, suggests that it is sufficient to keep moving until an a priori attractor is encountered (see Supplementary information S5 (box)). This entails destroying unexpected (costly) fixed points in the environment by making them unstable (like shifting to a new position when sitting uncomfortably). Mathematically, this means adopting a policy that ensures a positive divergence in costly states (intuitively, this is like being pushed through a liquid with negative viscosity or friction). See Fig. 3 for a solution to the classical mountain car problem using a simple prior that induces this sort of policy. This prior is on motion through state space (that is, changes in states) and enforces exploration until an attractive state is found. Priors of this sort may provide a principled way to understand the exploration–exploitation tradeoff^{111,112,113} and related issues in evolutionary biology^{114}. The implicit use of priors to induce dynamical instability also provides a key connection to dynamical systems theory approaches to the brain that emphasize the importance of itinerant dynamics, metastability, selforganized criticality and winnerless competition^{115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123}. These dynamical phenomena have a key role in synergetic and autopoietic accounts of adaptive behaviour^{5,124,125}.
In summary, optimal control and decision (game) theory start with the notion of cost or utility and try to construct value functions of states, which subsequently guide action. The freeenergy formulation starts with a freeenergy bound on the value of states, which is specified by priors on the motion of hidden environmental states. These priors can incorporate any cost function to ensure that costly states are avoided. States with minimum cost can be set (by learning or evolution) in terms of prior expectations about motion and the attractors that ensue. In this view, the problem of finding sparse rewards in the environment is nature's solution to the problem of how to minimize the entropy (average surprise or free energy) of an agent's states: by ensuring they occupy a small set of attracting (that is, rewarding) states.
Conclusions and future directions
Although contrived to highlight commonalities, this Review suggests that many global theories of brain function can be united under a Helmholtzian perceptive of the brain as a generative model of the world it inhabits^{18,20,21,25} (Fig. 4); notable examples include the integration of the Bayesian brain and computational motor control theory, the objective functions shared by predictive coding and the infomax principle, hierarchical inference and theories of attention, the embedding of perception in natural selection and the link between optimum control and more exotic phenomena in dynamical systems theory. The constant theme in all these theories is that the brain optimizes a (freeenergy) bound on surprise or its complement, value. This manifests as perception (so as to change predictions) or action (so as to change the sensations that are predicted). Crucially, these predictions depend on prior expectations (that furnish policies), which are optimized at different (somatic and evolutionary) timescales and define what is valuable.
What does the freeenergy principle portend for the future? If its main contribution is to integrate established theories, then the answer is probably 'not a lot'. Conversely, it may provide a framework in which current debates could be resolved, for example whether dopamine encodes reward prediction error or surprise^{126,127} — this is particularly important for understanding conditions like addiction, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. Indeed, the freeenergy formulation has already been used to explain the positive symptoms of schizophrenia in terms of false inference^{128}. The freeenergy formulation could also provide new approaches to old problems that might call for a reappraisal of conventional notions, particularly in reinforcement learning and motor control.
If the arguments underlying the freeenergy principle hold, then the real challenge is to understand how it manifests in the brain. This speaks to a greater appreciation of hierarchical message passing^{41}, the functional role of specific neurons and microcircuits and the dynamics they support (for example, what is the relationship between predictive coding, attention and dynamic coordination in the brain?^{129}). Beyond neuroscience, many exciting applications in engineering, robotics, embodied cognition and evolutionary biology suggest themselves; although fanciful, it is not difficult to imagine building little freeenergy machines that garner and model sensory information (like our children) to maximize the evidence for their own existence.
References
Huang, G. Is this a unified theory of the brain? New Scientist 2658, 30–33 (2008).
Friston K., Kilner, J. & Harrison, L. A free energy principle for the brain. J. Physiol. Paris 100, 70–87 (2006). An overview of the freeenergy principle that describes its motivation and relationship to generative models and predictive coding. This paper focuses on perception and the neurobiological infrastructures involved.
Ashby, W. R. Principles of the selforganising dynamic system. J. Gen. Psychol. 37, 125–128 (1947).
Nicolis, G. & Prigogine, I. SelfOrganisation in NonEquilibrium Systems (Wiley, New York, 1977).
Haken, H. Synergistics: an Introduction. NonEquilibrium Phase Transition and SelfOrganisation in Physics, Chemistry and Biology 3rd edn (Springer, New York, 1983).
Kauffman, S. The Origins of Order: SelfOrganization and Selection in Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1993).
Bernard, C. Lectures on the Phenomena Common to Animals and Plants (Thomas, Springfield, 1974).
Applebaum, D. Probability and Information: an Integrated Approach (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008).
Evans, D. J. A nonequilibrium free energy theorem for deterministic systems. Mol. Physics 101, 15551–11554 (2003).
Crauel, H. & Flandoli, F. Attractors for random dynamical systems. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 100, 365–393 (1994).
Feynman, R. P. Statistical Mechanics: a Set of Lectures (Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1972).
Hinton, G. E. & von Cramp, D. Keeping neural networks simple by minimising the description length of weights. Proc. 6th Annu. ACM Conf. Computational Learning Theory 5–13 (1993).
MacKay. D. J. C. Freeenergy minimisation algorithm for decoding and cryptoanalysis. Electron. Lett. 31, 445–447 (1995).
Neal, R. M. & Hinton, G. E. in Learning in Graphical Models (ed. Jordan, M. I.) 355–368 (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1998).
Itti, L. & Baldi, P. Bayesian surprise attracts human attention. Vision Res. 49, 1295–1306 (2009).
Friston, K., Daunizeau, J. & Kiebel, S. Active inference or reinforcement learning? PLoS ONE 4, e6421 (2009).
Knill, D. C. & Pouget, A. The Bayesian brain: the role of uncertainty in neural coding and computation. Trends Neurosci. 27, 712–719 (2004). A nice review of Bayesian theories of perception and sensorimotor control. Its focus is on Bayes optimality in the brain and the implicit nature of neuronal representations.
von Helmholtz, H. in Treatise on Physiological Optics Vol. III 3rd edn (Voss, Hamburg, 1909).
MacKay, D. M. in Automata Studies (eds Shannon, C. E. & McCarthy, J.) 235–251 (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1956).
Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology (AppletonCenturyCrofts, New York, 1967).
Gregory, R. L. Perceptual illusions and brain models. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 171, 179–196 (1968).
Gregory, R. L. Perceptions as hypotheses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 290, 181–197 (1980).
Ballard, D. H., Hinton, G. E. & Sejnowski, T. J. Parallel visual computation. Nature 306, 21–26 (1983).
Kawato, M., Hayakawa, H. & Inui, T. A forwardinverse optics model of reciprocal connections between visual areas. Network: Computation in Neural Systems 4, 415–422 (1993).
Dayan, P., Hinton, G. E. & Neal, R. M. The Helmholtz machine. Neural Comput. 7, 889–904 (1995). This paper introduces the central role of generative models and variational approaches to hierarchical selfsupervised learning and relates this to the function of bottomup and topdown cortical processing pathways.
Lee, T. S. & Mumford, D. Hierarchical Bayesian inference in the visual cortex. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt. Image Sci. Vis. 20, 1434–1448 (2003).
Kersten, D., Mamassian, P. & Yuille, A. Object perception as Bayesian inference. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 271–304 (2004).
Friston, K. J. A theory of cortical responses. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 815–836 (2005).
Beal, M. J. Variational Algorithms for Approximate Bayesian Inference. Thesis, University College London (2003).
Efron, B. & Morris, C. Stein's estimation rule and its competitors – an empirical Bayes approach. J. Am. Stats. Assoc. 68, 117–130 (1973).
Kass, R. E. & Steffey, D. Approximate Bayesian inference in conditionally independent hierarchical models (parametric empirical Bayes models). J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 407, 717–726 (1989).
Zeki, S. & Shipp, S. The functional logic of cortical connections. Nature 335, 311–317 (1988). Describes the functional architecture of cortical hierarchies with a focus on patterns of anatomical connections in the visual cortex. It emphasizes the role of functional segregation and integration (that is, message passing among cortical areas).
Felleman, D. J. & Van Essen, D. C. Distributed hierarchical processing in the primate cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 1, 1–47 (1991).
Mesulam, M. M. From sensation to cognition. Brain 121, 1013–1052 (1998).
Sanger, T. Probability density estimation for the interpretation of neural population codes. J. Neurophysiol. 76, 2790–2793 (1996).
Zemel, R., Dayan, P. & Pouget, A. Probabilistic interpretation of population code. Neural Comput. 10, 403–430 (1998).
Paulin, M. G. Evolution of the cerebellum as a neuronal machine for Bayesian state estimation. J. Neural Eng. 2, S219–S234 (2005).
Ma, W. J., Beck, J. M., Latham, P. E. & Pouget, A. Bayesian inference with probabilistic population codes. Nature Neurosci. 9, 1432–1438 (2006).
Friston, K., Mattout, J., TrujilloBarreto, N., Ashburner, J. & Penny, W. Variational free energy and the Laplace approximation. Neuroimage 34, 220–234 (2007).
Rao, R. P. & Ballard, D. H. Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extraclassical receptive field effects. Nature Neurosci. 2, 79–87 (1998). Applies predictive coding to cortical processing to provide a compelling account of extraclassical receptive fields in the visual system. It emphasizes the importance of topdown projections in providing predictions, by modelling perceptual inference.
Mumford, D. On the computational architecture of the neocortex. II. The role of corticocortical loops. Biol. Cybern. 66, 241–251 (1992).
Friston, K. Hierarchical models in the brain. PLoS Comput. Biol. 4, e1000211 (2008).
Murray, S. O., Kersten, D., Olshausen, B. A., Schrater, P. & Woods, D. L. Shape perception reduces activity in human primary visual cortex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 15164–15169 (2002).
Garrido, M. I., Kilner, J. M., Kiebel, S. J. & Friston, K. J. Dynamic causal modeling of the response to frequency deviants. J. Neurophysiol. 101, 2620–2631 (2009).
Sherman, S. M. & Guillery, R. W. On the actions that one nerve cell can have on another: distinguishing “drivers” from “modulators”. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 7121–7126 (1998).
Angelucci, A. & Bressloff, P. C. Contribution of feedforward, lateral and feedback connections to the classical receptive field center and extraclassical receptive field surround of primate V1 neurons. Prog. Brain Res. 154, 93–120 (2006).
Grossberg, S. Towards a unified theory of neocortex: laminar cortical circuits for vision and cognition. Prog. Brain Res. 165, 79–104 (2007).
Grossberg, S. & Versace, M. Spikes, synchrony, and attentive learning by laminar thalamocortical circuits. Brain Res. 1218, 278–312 (2008).
Barlow, H. in Sensory Communication (ed. Rosenblith, W.) 217–234 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1961).
Linsker, R. Perceptual neural organisation: some approaches based on network models and information theory. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 257–281 (1990).
Oja, E. Neural networks, principal components, and subspaces. Int. J. Neural Syst. 1, 61–68 (1989).
Bell, A. J. & Sejnowski, T. J. An information maximisation approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Neural Comput. 7, 1129–1159 (1995).
Atick, J. J. & Redlich, A. N. What does the retina know about natural scenes? Neural Comput. 4, 196–210 (1992).
Optican, L. & Richmond, B. J. Temporal encoding of twodimensional patterns by single units in primate inferior cortex. III Information theoretic analysis. J. Neurophysiol. 57, 132–146 (1987).
Olshausen, B. A. & Field, D. J. Emergence of simplecell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381, 607–609 (1996).
Simoncelli, E. P. & Olshausen, B. A. Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 1193–1216 (2001). A nice review of information theory in visual processing. It covers natural scene statistics and empirical tests of the efficient coding hypothesis in individual neurons and populations of neurons.
Friston, K. J. The labile brain. III. Transients and spatiotemporal receptive fields. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 355, 253–265 (2000).
Bialek, W., Nemenman, I. & Tishby, N. Predictability, complexity, and learning. Neural Comput. 13, 2409–2463 (2001).
Lewen, G. D., Bialek, W. & de Ruyter van Steveninck, R. R. Neural coding of naturalistic motion stimuli. Network 12, 317–329 (2001).
Laughlin, S. B. Efficiency and complexity in neural coding. Novartis Found. Symp. 239, 177–187 (2001).
Tipping, M. E. Sparse Bayesian learning and the Relevance Vector Machine. J. Machine Learn. Res. 1, 211–244 (2001).
Paus, T., Keshavan, M. & Giedd, J. N. Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 9, 947–957 (2008).
Gilestro, G. F., Tononi, G. & Cirelli, C. Widespread changes in synaptic markers as a function of sleep and wakefulness in Drosophila. Science 324, 109–112 (2009).
Roweis, S. & Ghahramani, Z. A unifying review of linear Gaussian models. Neural Comput. 11, 305–345 (1999).
Hebb, D. O. The Organization of Behaviour (Wiley, New York, 1949).
Paulsen, O. & Sejnowski, T. J. Natural patterns of activity and longterm synaptic plasticity. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 10, 172–179 (2000).
von der Malsburg, C. The Correlation Theory of Brain Function. Internal Report 81–82, Dept. Neurobiology, MaxPlanckInstitute for Biophysical Chemistry (1981).
Singer, W. & Gray, C. M. Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 18, 555–586 (1995).
Bienenstock, E. L., Cooper, L. N. & Munro, P. W. Theory for the development of neuron selectivity: orientation specificity and binocular interaction in visual cortex. J. Neurosci. 2, 32–48 (1982).
Abraham, W. C. & Bear, M. F. Metaplasticity: the plasticity of synaptic plasticity. Trends Neurosci. 19, 126–130 (1996).
Pareti, G. & De Palma, A. Does the brain oscillate? The dispute on neuronal synchronization. Neurol. Sci. 25, 41–47 (2004).
Leutgeb, S., Leutgeb, J. K., Moser, M. B. & Moser, E. I. Place cells, spatial maps and the population code for memory. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 15, 738–746 (2005).
Durstewitz, D. & Seamans, J. K. Beyond bistability: biophysics and temporal dynamics of working memory. Neuroscience 139, 119–133 (2006).
Anishchenko, A. & Treves, A. Autoassociative memory retrieval and spontaneous activity bumps in smallworld networks of integrateandfire neurons. J. Physiol. Paris 100, 225–236 (2006).
Abbott, L. F., Varela, J. A., Sen, K. & Nelson, S. B. Synaptic depression and cortical gain control. Science 275, 220–224 (1997).
Yu, A. J. & Dayan, P. Uncertainty, neuromodulation and attention. Neuron 46, 681–692 (2005).
Doya, K. Metalearning and neuromodulation. Neural Netw. 15, 495–506 (2002).
Chawla, D., Lumer, E. D. & Friston, K. J. The relationship between synchronization among neuronal populations and their mean activity levels. Neural Comput. 11, 1389–1411 (1999).
Fries, P., Womelsdorf, T., Oostenveld, R. & Desimone, R. The effects of visual stimulation and selective visual attention on rhythmic neuronal synchronization in macaque area V4. J. Neurosci. 28, 4823–4835 (2008).
Womelsdorf, T. & Fries, P. Neuronal coherence during selective attentional processing and sensorymotor integration. J. Physiol. Paris 100, 182–193 (2006).
Desimone, R. Neural mechanisms for visual memory and their role in attention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 13494–13499 (1996). A nice review of mnemonic effects (such as repetition suppression) on neuronal responses and how they bias the competitive interactions between stimulus representations in the cortex. It provides a good perspective on attentional mechanisms in the visual system that is empirically grounded.
Treisman, A. Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 353, 1295–1306 (1998).
Maunsell, J. H. & Treue, S. Featurebased attention in visual cortex. Trends Neurosci. 29, 317–322 (2006).
Spratling, M. W. Predictivecoding as a model of biased competition in visual attention. Vision Res. 48, 1391–1408 (2008).
Reynolds, J. H. & Heeger, D. J. The normalization model of attention. Neuron 61, 168–185 (2009).
Schroeder, C. E., Mehta, A. D. & Foxe, J. J. Determinants and mechanisms of attentional modulation of neural processing. Front. Biosci. 6, D672–D684 (2001).
Hirayama, J., Yoshimoto, J. & Ishii, S. Bayesian representation learning in the cortex regulated by acetylcholine. Neural Netw. 17, 1391–1400 (2004).
Edelman, G. M. Neural Darwinism: selection and reentrant signaling in higher brain function. Neuron 10, 115–125 (1993).
Knobloch, F. Altruism and the hypothesis of metaselection in human evolution. J. Am. Acad. Psychoanal. 29, 339–354 (2001).
Friston, K. J., Tononi, G., Reeke, G. N. Jr, Sporns, O. & Edelman, G. M. Valuedependent selection in the brain: simulation in a synthetic neural model. Neuroscience 59, 229–243 (1994).
Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Toward a modern theory of adaptive networks: expectation and prediction. Psychol. Rev. 88, 135–170 (1981).
Montague, P. R., Dayan, P., Person, C. & Sejnowski, T. J. Bee foraging in uncertain environments using predictive Hebbian learning. Nature 377, 725–728 (1995). A computational treatment of behaviour that combines ideas from optimal control theory and dynamic programming with the neurobiology of reward. This provided an early example of value learning in the brain.
Schultz, W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 80, 1–27 (1998).
Daw, N. D. & Doya, K. The computational neurobiology of learning and reward. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 16, 199–204 (2006).
Redgrave, P. & Gurney, K. The shortlatency dopamine signal: a role in discovering novel actions? Nature Rev. Neurosci. 7, 967–975 (2006).
Berridge, K. C. The debate over dopamine's role in reward: the case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 191, 391–431 (2007).
Sella, G. & Hirsh, A. E. The application of statistical physics to evolutionary biology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9541–9546 (2005).
Rescorla, R. A. & Wagner, A. R. in Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory (eds Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F.) 64–99 (Appleton Century Crofts, New York, 1972).
Bellman, R. On the Theory of Dynamic Programming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 38, 716–719 (1952).
Watkins, C. J. C. H. & Dayan, P. Qlearning. Mach. Learn. 8, 279–292 (1992).
Todorov, E. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Scholkopf, B., Platt, J. & Hofmann T.) 19, 1369–1376 (MIT Press, 2006).
Camerer, C. F. Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in games. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 225–231 (2003).
Smith, J. M. & Price, G. R. The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246, 15–18 (1973).
Nash, J. Equilibrium points in nperson games. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 36, 48–49 (1950).
Wolpert, D. M. & Miall, R. C. Forward models for physiological motor control. Neural Netw. 9, 1265–1279 (1996).
Todorov, E. & Jordan, M. I. Smoothness maximization along a predefined path accurately predicts the speed profiles of complex arm movements. J. Neurophysiol. 80, 696–714 (1998).
Tseng, Y. W., Diedrichsen, J., Krakauer, J. W., Shadmehr, R. & Bastian, A. J. Sensory predictionerrors drive cerebellumdependent adaptation of reaching. J. Neurophysiol. 98, 54–62 (2007).
Bays, P. M. & Wolpert, D. M. Computational principles of sensorimotor control that minimize uncertainty and variability. J. Physiol. 578, 387–396 (2007). A nice overview of computational principles in motor control. Its focus is on representing uncertainty and optimal estimation when extracting the sensory information required for motor planning.
Shadmehr, R. & Krakauer, J. W. A computational neuroanatomy for motor control. Exp. Brain Res. 185, 359–381 (2008).
Verschure, P. F., Voegtlin, T. & Douglas, R. J. Environmentally mediated synergy between perception and behaviour in mobile robots. Nature 425, 620–624 (2003).
Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M. & Yu, A. J. Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the tradeoff between exploitation and exploration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 362, 933–942 (2007).
Ishii, S., Yoshida, W. & Yoshimoto, J. Control of exploitationexploration metaparameter in reinforcement learning. Neural Netw. 15, 665–687 (2002).
Usher, M., Cohen, J. D., ServanSchreiber, D., Rajkowski, J. & AstonJones, G. The role of locus coeruleus in the regulation of cognitive performance. Science 283, 549–554 (1999).
Voigt, C. A., Kauffman, S. & Wang, Z. G. Rational evolutionary design: the theory of in vitro protein evolution. Adv. Protein Chem. 55, 79–160 (2000).
Freeman, W. J. Characterization of state transitions in spatially distributed, chaotic, nonlinear, dynamical systems in cerebral cortex. Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 29, 294–306 (1994).
Tsuda, I. Toward an interpretation of dynamic neural activity in terms of chaotic dynamical systems. Behav. Brain Sci. 24, 793–810 (2001).
Jirsa, V. K., Friedrich, R., Haken, H. & Kelso, J. A. A theoretical model of phase transitions in the human brain. Biol. Cybern. 71, 27–35 (1994). This paper develops a theoretical model (based on synergetics and nonlinear oscillator theory) that reproduces observed dynamics and suggests a formulation of biophysical coupling among brain systems.
Breakspear, M. & Stam, C. J. Dynamics of a neural system with a multiscale architecture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 360, 1051–1074 (2005).
Bressler, S. L. & Tognoli, E. Operational principles of neurocognitive networks. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 60, 139–148 (2006).
Werner, G. Brain dynamics across levels of organization. J. Physiol. Paris 101, 273–279 (2007).
Pasquale, V., Massobrio, P., Bologna, L. L., Chiappalone, M. & Martinoia, S. Selforganization and neuronal avalanches in networks of dissociated cortical neurons. Neuroscience 153, 1354–1369 (2008).
Kitzbichler, M. G., Smith, M. L., Christensen, S. R. & Bullmore, E. Broadband criticality of human brain network synchronization. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000314 (2009).
Rabinovich, M., Huerta, R. & Laurent, G. Transient dynamics for neural processing. Science 321 48–50 (2008).
Tschacher, W. & Hake, H. Intentionality in nonequilibrium systems? The functional aspects of selforganised pattern formation. New Ideas Psychol. 25, 1–15 (2007).
Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. De máquinas y seres vivos (Editorial Universitaria, Santiago, 1972). English translation available in Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. in Autopoiesis and Cognition (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1980).
Fiorillo, C. D., Tobler, P. N. & Schultz, W. Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science 299, 1898–1902 (2003).
Niv, Y., Duff, M. O. & Dayan, P. Dopamine, uncertainty and TD learning. Behav. Brain Funct. 1, 6 (2005).
Fletcher, P. C. & Frith, C. D. Perceiving is believing: a Bayesian approach to explaining the positive symptoms of schizophrenia. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 10, 48–58 (2009).
Phillips, W. A. & Silverstein, S. M. Convergence of biological and psychological perspectives on cognitive coordination in schizophrenia. Behav. Brain Sci. 26, 65–82 (2003).
Friston, K. & Kiebel, S. Cortical circuits for perceptual inference. Neural Netw. 22, 1093–1104 (2009).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust. I would like to thank my colleagues at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and the Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit for collaborations and discussions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information S1 (box)
The entropy of sensory states and their causes (PDF 522 kb)
Supplementary information S2 (box)
Variational free energy (PDF 576 kb)
Supplementary information S3 (box)
The freeenergy principle and infomax (PDF 422 kb)
Supplementary information S4 (box)
Value and surprise (PDF 572 kb)
Supplementary information S5 (box)
Policies and cost (PDF 561 kb)
Glossary
 Free energy

An information theory measure that bounds or limits (by being greater than) the surprise on sampling some data, given a generative model.
 Homeostasis

The process whereby an open or closed system regulates its internal environment to maintain its states within bounds.
 Entropy

The average surprise of outcomes sampled from a probability distribution or density. A density with low entropy means that, on average, the outcome is relatively predictable. Entropy is therefore a measure of uncertainty.
 Surprise

(Surprisal or self information.) The negative logprobability of an outcome. An improbable outcome (for example, water flowing uphill) is therefore surprising.
 Fluctuation theorem

(A term from statistical mechanics.) Deals with the probability that the entropy of a system that is far from the thermodynamic equilibrium will increase or decrease over a given amount of time. It states that the probability of the entropy decreasing becomes exponentially smaller with time.
 Attractor

A set to which a dynamical system evolves after a long enough time. Points that get close to the attractor remain close, even under small perturbations.
 KullbackLeibler divergence

(Or information divergence, information gain or cross entropy.) A noncommutative measure of the nonnegative difference between two probability distributions.
 Recognition density

(Or 'approximating conditional density'.) An approximate probability distribution of the causes of data (for example, sensory input). It is the product of inference or inverting a generative model.
 Generative model

A probabilistic model (joint density) of the dependencies between causes and consequences (data), from which samples can be generated. It is usually specified in terms of the likelihood of data, given their causes (parameters of a model) and priors on the causes.
 Conditional density

(Or posterior density.) The probability distribution of causes or model parameters, given some data; that is, a probabilistic mapping from observed data to causes.
 Prior

The probability distribution or density of the causes of data that encodes beliefs about those causes before observing the data.
 Bayesian surprise

A measure of salience based on the KullbackLeibler divergence between the recognition density (which encodes posterior beliefs) and the prior density. It measures the information that can be recognized in the data.
 Bayesian brain hypothesis

The idea that the brain uses internal probabilistic (generative) models to update posterior beliefs, using sensory information, in an (approximately) Bayesoptimal fashion.
 Analysis by synthesis

Any strategy (in speech coding) in which the parameters of a signal coder are evaluated by decoding (synthesizing) the signal and comparing it with the original input signal.
 Epistemological automata

Possibly the first theory for why topdown influences (mediated by backward connections in the brain) might be important in perception and cognition.
 Empirical prior

A prior induced by hierarchical models; empirical priors provide constraints on the recognition density in the usual way but depend on the data.
 Sufficient statistics

Quantities that are sufficient to parameterize a probability density (for example, mean and covariance of a Gaussian density).
 Laplace assumption

(Or Laplace approximation or method.) A saddlepoint approximation of the integral of an exponential function, that uses a secondorder Taylor expansion. When the function is a probability density, the implicit assumption is that the density is approximately Gaussian.
 Predictive coding

A tool used in signal processing for representing a signal using a linear predictive (generative) model. It is a powerful speech analysis technique and was first considered in vision to explain lateral interactions in the retina.
 Infomax

An optimization principle for neural networks (or functions) that map inputs to outputs. It says that the mapping should maximize the Shannon mutual information between the inputs and outputs, subject to constraints and/or noise processes.
 Stochastic

Governed by random effects.
 Biased competition

An attentional effect mediated by competitive interactions among neurons representing visual stimuli; these interactions can be biased in favour of behaviourally relevant stimuli by both spatial and nonspatial and both bottomup and topdown processes.
 Reentrant signalling

Reciprocal message passing among neuronal groups.
 Reinforcement learning

An area of machine learning concerned with how an agent maximizes longterm reward. Reinforcement learning algorithms attempt to find a policy that maps states of the world to actions performed by the agent.
 Optimal control theory

An optimization method (based on the calculus of variations) for deriving an optimal control law in a dynamical system. A control problem includes a cost function that is a function of state and control variables.
 Bellman equation

(Or dynamic programming equation.) Named after Richard Bellman, it is a necessary condition for optimality associated with dynamic programming in optimal control theory.
 Optimal decision theory

(Or game theory.) An area of applied mathematics concerned with identifying the values, uncertainties and other constraints that determine an optimal decision.
 Gradient ascent

(Or method of steepest ascent.) A firstorder optimization scheme that finds a maximum of a function by changing its arguments in proportion to the gradient of the function at the current value. In short, a hillclimbing scheme. The opposite scheme is a gradient descent.
 Principle of optimality

An optimal policy has the property that whatever the initial state and initial decision, the remaining decisions must constitute an optimal policy with regard to the state resulting from the first decision.
 Exploration–exploitation tradeoff

Involves a balance between exploration (of uncharted territory) and exploitation (of current knowledge). In reinforcement learning, it has been studied mainly through the multiarmed bandit problem.
 Dynamical systems theory

An area of applied mathematics that describes the behaviour of complex (possibly chaotic) dynamical systems as described by differential or difference equations.
 Synergetics

Concerns the selforganization of patterns and structures in open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium. It rests on the order parameter concept, which was generalized by Haken to the enslaving principle: that is, the dynamics of fastrelaxing (stable) modes are completely determined by the 'slow' dynamics of order parameters (the amplitudes of unstable modes).
 Autopoietic

Referring to the fundamental dialectic between structure and function.
 Helmholtzian

Refers to a device or scheme that uses a generative model to furnish a recognition density and learns hidden structures in data by optimizing the parameters of generative models.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Friston, K. The freeenergy principle: a unified brain theory?. Nat Rev Neurosci 11, 127–138 (2010). https://doiorg.2730.top/10.1038/nrn2787
Subjects
This article is cited by

A generative model of memory construction and consolidation
Nature Human Behaviour (2024)

Sex modulation of faces prediction error in the autistic brain
Communications Biology (2024)

The generative grammar of the brain: a critique of internally generated representations
Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2024)

Out of control: computational dynamic control dysfunction in stress and anxietyrelated disorders
Discover Mental Health (2024)

The primacy of ocular perception: a narrative review on the role of gender identity in eating disorders
Eating and Weight Disorders  Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity (2024)