Dominic Zhao

Lancelot Da Costa, Samuel Tenka, Dominic Zhao et al.

Is there a canonical way to think of agency beyond reward maximisation? In this paper, we show that any type of behaviour complying with physically sound assumptions about how macroscopic biological agents interact with the world canonically integrates exploration and exploitation in the sense of minimising risk and ambiguity about states of the world. This description, known as active inference, refines the free energy principle, a popular descriptive framework for action and perception originating in neuroscience. Active inference provides a normative Bayesian framework to simulate and model agency that is widely used in behavioural neuroscience, reinforcement learning (RL) and robotics. The usefulness of active inference for RL is three-fold. \emph{a}) Active inference provides a principled solution to the exploration-exploitation dilemma that usefully simulates biological agency. \emph{b}) It provides an explainable recipe to simulate behaviour, whence behaviour follows as an explainable mixture of exploration and exploitation under a generative world model, and all differences in behaviour are explicit in differences in world model. \emph{c}) This framework is universal in the sense that it is theoretically possible to rewrite any RL algorithm conforming to the descriptive assumptions of active inference as an active inference algorithm. Thus, active inference can be used as a tool to uncover and compare the commitments and assumptions of more specific models of agency.

Johannes von Oswald, Dominic Zhao, Seijin Kobayashi et al.

Finding neural network weights that generalize well from small datasets is difficult. A promising approach is to learn a weight initialization such that a small number of weight changes results in low generalization error. We show that this form of meta-learning can be improved by letting the learning algorithm decide which weights to change, i.e., by learning where to learn. We find that patterned sparsity emerges from this process, with the pattern of sparsity varying on a problem-by-problem basis. This selective sparsity results in better generalization and less interference in a range of few-shot and continual learning problems. Moreover, we find that sparse learning also emerges in a more expressive model where learning rates are meta-learned. Our results shed light on an ongoing debate on whether meta-learning can discover adaptable features and suggest that learning by sparse gradient descent is a powerful inductive bias for meta-learning systems.

Nicolas Zucchet, Simon Schug, Johannes von Oswald et al.

Humans and other animals are capable of improving their learning performance as they solve related tasks from a given problem domain, to the point of being able to learn from extremely limited data. While synaptic plasticity is generically thought to underlie learning in the brain, the precise neural and synaptic mechanisms by which learning processes improve through experience are not well understood. Here, we present a general-purpose, biologically-plausible meta-learning rule which estimates gradients with respect to the parameters of an underlying learning algorithm by simply running it twice. Our rule may be understood as a generalization of contrastive Hebbian learning to meta-learning and notably, it neither requires computing second derivatives nor going backwards in time, two characteristic features of previous gradient-based methods that are hard to conceive in physical neural circuits. We demonstrate the generality of our rule by applying it to two distinct models: a complex synapse with internal states which consolidate task-shared information, and a dual-system architecture in which a primary network is rapidly modulated by another one to learn the specifics of each task. For both models, our meta-learning rule matches or outperforms reference algorithms on a wide range of benchmark problems, while only using information presumed to be locally available at neurons and synapses. We corroborate these findings with a theoretical analysis of the gradient estimation error incurred by our rule.