Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Matteo Priorelli

dblp:346/2553 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
3as first author
3since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0007-4481-8727ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 2 · 2 first-author · 2 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Multi-agent systems · 30% Motion planning and robot control · 30% Reinforcement learning · 30%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
active inference
0.912025
Dynamic Inference by Model Reduction · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › multi-agent reasoning
intention inference
0.912025
Dynamic Inference by Model Reduction · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2025
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control
robot control
0.912025
Dynamic Inference by Model Reduction · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

generative model · 0.9bayesian model reduction · 0.9active inference · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Dynamic planning in hierarchical active inference
abstract
By dynamic planning, we refer to the ability of the human brain to infer and impose motor trajectories related to cognitive decisions. A recent paradigm, active inference, brings fundamental insights into the adaptation of biological organisms, constantly striving to minimize prediction errors to restrict themselves to life-compatible states. Over the past years, many studies have shown how human and animal behaviors could be explained in terms of active inference - either as discrete decision-making or continuous motor control - inspiring innovative solutions in robotics and artificial intelligence. Still, the literature lacks a comprehensive outlook on effectively planning realistic actions in changing environments. Setting ourselves the goal of modeling complex tasks such as tool use, we delve into the topic of dynamic planning in active inference, keeping in mind two crucial aspects of biological behavior: the capacity to understand and exploit affordances for object manipulation, and to learn the hierarchical interactions between the self and the environment, including other agents. We start from a simple unit and gradually describe more advanced structures, comparing recently proposed design choices and providing basic examples. This study distances itself from traditional views centered on neural networks and reinforcement learning, and points toward a yet unexplored direction in active inference: hybrid representations in hierarchical models.
Matteo Priorelli, Ivilin Peev Stoianov
Neural Networks1
2025 Dynamic Inference by Model Reduction
abstract
How can agents infer the intentions of others by simply observing their behavior? And how can they generate fast and accurate actions such as grasping a moving object on the fly? Recent advances in Bayesian model reduction have led to innovative, biologically plausible approaches to actively infer the state of affairs of the world and perform planning with continuous signals. However, reducing the surrounding environment into a small set of simpler hypotheses remains a challenge in highly dynamic contexts. In this study, we propose an approach, based on active inference, that employs dynamic priors sampled from reduced versions of a generative model. Each dynamic prior corresponds to an alternative evolution of the world, which the agent can evaluate by accumulating continuous data. We test our approach on two everyday tasks: inferring a trajectory and grasping a moving object. Our findings reveal how agents can smoothly infer and enact dynamic intentions, and emphasize the key role of intentional gain or precision in motor learning.
Matteo Priorelli, Ivilin Peev Stoianov
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.1
2025 Embodied decisions as active inference
abstract
Decision-making is often conceptualized as a serial process, during which sensory evidence is accumulated for the choice alternatives until a certain threshold is reached, at which point a decision is made and an action is executed. This decide-then-act perspective has successfully explained various facets of perceptual and economic decisions in the laboratory, in which action dynamics are usually irrelevant to the choice. However, living organisms often face another class of decisions-called embodied decisions-that require selecting between potential courses of actions to be executed timely in a dynamic environment, e.g., for a lion, deciding which gazelle to chase and how fast to do so. Studies of embodied decisions reveal two aspects of goal-directed behavior in stark contrast to the serial view. First, that decision and action processes can unfold in parallel; second, that action-related components, such as the motor costs associated with selecting a particular choice alternative or required to "change mind" between choice alternatives, exert a feedback effect on the decision taken. Here, we show that these signatures of embodied decisions emerge naturally in active inference-a framework that simultaneously optimizes perception and action, according to the same (free energy minimization) imperative. We show that optimizing embodied choices requires a continuous feedback loop between motor planning (where beliefs about choice alternatives guide action dynamics) and motor inference (where action dynamics finesse beliefs about choice alternatives). Furthermore, our active inference simulations reveal the normative character of embodied decisions in ecological settings - namely, achieving an effective balance between a high accuracy and a low risk of missing valid opportunities.
Matteo Priorelli, Ivilin Peev Stoianov, Giovanni Pezzulo
PLoS Comput. Biol.1