pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08222 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 🧮 math.OC

Free-Energy Minimizing Policies Under Generative Model Ambiguity

Arash Shafiei , Caio C\'esar Graciani Rodrigues , Giovanni Russo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords variational free-energydistributionally robust controlgenerative model ambiguityminimax optimizationnon-convex minimizationconvergence guaranteesoptimal controlpendulum swing-up
0
0 comments X

The pith

Variational free-energy yields minimax policies robust to ambiguity in the generative model.

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

The paper introduces a variational free-energy formulation for making decisions robust to uncertainty in the generative model of a system. This turns the problem into a minimax optimal control task, where the policy minimizes free energy while an adversary chooses the worst-case model from an uncertainty set. Computing the optimal policy requires solving a non-convex minimization problem, and the authors supply an algorithm that is guaranteed to converge to a solution. They validate the approach through simulations on a pendulum swing-up task. A sympathetic reader would care because many control and decision problems involve imperfect models, and this offers a concrete way to derive policies that perform well across plausible variations.

Core claim

We present a variational free-energy formulation for distributionally robust decision-making with ambiguity in the generative model. The formulation, related to a broad range of learning and control frameworks, yields a minimax optimal control problem where maximization is over an uncertainty set that represents ambiguities. We prove that computing the optimal policy requires solving a non-convex minimization problem and propose an algorithm with convergence guarantees to find the solution. The effectiveness of our results is illustrated via simulations on a pendulum swing-up problem.

What carries the argument

The variational free-energy minimax formulation that converts distributionally robust control into an optimization over an uncertainty set of generative models.

Load-bearing premise

Ambiguities in the generative model can be represented by an uncertainty set that supports a meaningful minimax formulation using variational free-energy as the objective.

What would settle it

Running the proposed algorithm on the pendulum swing-up problem and observing that the resulting policy performs no better than a non-robust policy when the true model is drawn from the uncertainty set would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08222 by Arash Shafiei, Caio C\'esar Graciani Rodrigues, Giovanni Russo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Simulation results. Panels show time evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a variational free-energy formulation for distributionally robust decision-making with ambiguity in the generative model. The formulation, related to a broad range of learning and control frameworks, yields a minimax optimal control problem where maximization is over an uncertainty set that represents ambiguities. We prove that computing the optimal policy requires solving a non-convex minimization problem and propose an algorithm with convergence guarantees to find the solution. The effectiveness of our results is illustrated via simulations on a pendulum swing-up problem.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a variational free-energy formulation for distributionally robust decision-making under ambiguity in the generative model. This leads to a minimax optimal control problem, where the authors prove that computing the optimal policy requires solving a non-convex minimization problem and propose an algorithm with convergence guarantees. The approach is illustrated on a pendulum swing-up simulation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work offers a principled bridge between variational free-energy methods and distributionally robust control, extending standard frameworks to handle generative model ambiguity via a minimax formulation. The proposed algorithm could enable practical computation in such settings, provided the convergence properties align with the optimality requirements.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and algorithm section] Abstract and the section describing the algorithm (likely §4 or §5): The claim that the algorithm has 'convergence guarantees to find the solution' is load-bearing for the minimax optimality result. For non-convex minimization problems, standard guarantees typically establish convergence to first-order stationary points rather than global minimizers. Without additional structure ensuring that local minima coincide with the global solution (or a proof of global optimality), the computed policy may not satisfy the distributionally robust guarantee under the uncertainty set. The pendulum simulation does not address this, as it could succeed due to favorable initialization.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Formulation section] Clarify the precise definition of the uncertainty set and how it relates to the variational free-energy objective in the main formulation section to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the connection to variational inference.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'related to a broad range of learning and control frameworks' but does not cite specific prior works; adding 1-2 key references would strengthen the positioning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and algorithm section] Abstract and the section describing the algorithm (likely §4 or §5): The claim that the algorithm has 'convergence guarantees to find the solution' is load-bearing for the minimax optimality result. For non-convex minimization problems, standard guarantees typically establish convergence to first-order stationary points rather than global minimizers. Without additional structure ensuring that local minima coincide with the global solution (or a proof of global optimality), the computed policy may not satisfy the distributionally robust guarantee under the uncertainty set. The pendulum simulation does not address this, as it could succeed due to favorable initialization.

    Authors: We agree that the current wording in the abstract is imprecise and could be read as claiming global optimality. Our convergence analysis for the non-convex minimization problem establishes convergence to first-order stationary points under standard assumptions on the step-size and smoothness, but does not guarantee global minimizers in general. We will revise the abstract to state that the algorithm has 'convergence guarantees to first-order stationary points' and expand the algorithm section to include a remark clarifying this distinction. We will also add a brief discussion noting that stationary points satisfy the first-order necessary conditions for the minimax problem and thus yield policies that are locally distributionally robust, while acknowledging that global optimality would require additional structure (such as convexity or specific initialization strategies) that is not assumed here. For the pendulum simulation, we will include results from multiple random initializations in the revised version to demonstrate practical behavior across different starting points. These changes address the concern without affecting the core variational formulation or the proof that the optimal policy solves the indicated non-convex problem. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation builds from standard variational principles to new minimax setting

full rationale

The paper introduces a variational free-energy formulation for distributionally robust decision-making under generative model ambiguity, which yields a minimax optimal control problem. It then proves that optimal policy computation requires solving a non-convex minimization and proposes an algorithm with convergence guarantees, illustrated on a pendulum swing-up. These steps rely on established variational principles and control theory without any self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the central claims to their own inputs. The formulation and proofs are presented as independent derivations in a new setting, with no evidence of ansatz smuggling or renaming of known results as novel unification.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Since only the abstract is available, the ledger is based on the high-level description; the paper likely relies on standard assumptions from variational inference and robust optimization.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The variational free-energy can be used to model distributionally robust decision-making problems
    This is the core of the presented formulation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5373 in / 1197 out tokens · 85884 ms · 2026-05-10T16:53:27.863807+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. D. Aliprantis and K. C. Border. Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker’s Guide . Springer, 2006. 1Our Matlab implementation is available upon request

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    M. A. Bashiri, B. Ziebart, and X. Zhang. Distributionall y robust imitation learning. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y . Dauph in, P . Liang, and J. W. V aughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 34, pages 24404–24417. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    T. A. Berrueta, A. Pinosky, and T. D. Murphey. Maximum dif fusion reinforcement learning. Nature Machine Intelligence , 6(5):504–514, May 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    V . I. Bogachev and M. A. S. Ruas. Measure Theory , volume 1. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    Cammardella, A

    T. Cammardella, A. Buˇ si´ c, and S. P . Meyn. Kullback–Lei bler- Quadratic optimal control. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 61(5):3234–3258, Oct. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Y . Chen, T. T. Georgiou, and M. Pavon. On the relation betw een opti- mal transport and Schr¨ odinger bridges: A stochastic control viewpoint. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 169(2):671–691, Sept. 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    A. C. C. Coolen, R. K¨ uhn, and P . Sollich. Theory of Neural Information Processing Systems . Oxford University PressOxford, July 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas. Elements of Information Theory (Wiley Series in Telecommunications and Signal Processing ). Wiley- Interscience, USA, 2006

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Dirren, M

    C. Dirren, M. Bianchi, P . D. Grontas, J. Lygeros, and F. D¨ orfler. Con- tractivity and linear convergence in bilinear saddle-poin t problems: An operator-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of The 28th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 258 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 1954–1962. PMLR, 2025

    work page 1954

  10. [10]

    Dvijotham and E

    K. Dvijotham and E. Todorov. Inverse optimal control wi th Linearly- Solvable MDPs. In 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, page 335–342, 2010

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    Eysenbach and S

    B. Eysenbach and S. Levine. Maximum entropy RL (provabl y) solves some robust RL problems. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Frank and P

    M. Frank and P . Wolfe. An algorithm for quadratic progra mming. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly , 3(1-2):95–110, 1956

    work page 1956

  13. [13]

    K. Friston. The free-energy principle: a rough guide to the brain? Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 13(7):293–301, 2009

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Gagliardi and G

    D. Gagliardi and G. Russo. On a probabilistic approach t o synthesize control policies from example datasets. Automatica, 137:110121, Mar. 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Garrabe, H

    E. Garrabe, H. Jesawada, C. D. V ecchio, and G. Russo. On c onvex data-driven inverse optimal control for nonlinear, non-st ationary and stochastic systems. Automatica, 173:112015, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Grammatico

    S. Grammatico. Dynamic control of agents playing aggre gative games with coupling constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 62(9):4537–4548, 2017

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    P . Guan, M. Raginsky, and R. M. Willett. Online Markov De cision Processes with Kullback–Leibler control cost. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59(6):1423–1438, 2014

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    Haasler, A

    I. Haasler, A. Ringh, Y . Chen, and J. Karlsson. Multimar ginal optimal transport with a tree-structured cost and the Schr¨ odinger bridge problem. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization , 59(4):2428– 2453, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Hu and L

    Z. Hu and L. J. Hong. Kullback-Leibler divergence const rained distributionally robust optimization. Available at Optimization Online , 1(2):9, 2013

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Jesawada, G

    H. Jesawada, G. Russo, A. Swikir, and F. Abu-Dakka. Lear ning-based robust control: Unifying exploration and distributional r obustness for reliable robotics via free energy, Proceedings of the 2026 I EEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA 20 26), 2026 ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.06831)

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    S. T. Jose and O. Simeone. Free energy minimization: A un ified framework for modeling, inference, learning, and optimiza tion [lecture notes]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 38(2):120–125, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    C. Kent, J. Blanchet, and P . Glynn. Frank-Wolfe methods in proba- bility space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.05352 , 2021

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    C. Kent, J. Li, J. Blanchet, and P . W. Glynn. Modified Fran k-Wolfe in probability space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:14448–14462, 2021

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Kirschner, I

    J. Kirschner, I. Bogunovic, S. Jegelka, and A. Krause. D istributionally robust bayesian optimization. In S. Chiappa and R. Calandra , editors, Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference o n Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 108 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 2174–2184. PMLR, 26–28 Aug 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. Leibler. On information and sufficien cy. Annals of Mathematical Statistics , 22:79–87, 1951

    work page 1951

  26. [26]

    K´ arn´ y

    M. K´ arn´ y. Towards fully probabilistic control desig n. Automatica, 32(12):1719–1722, Dec. 1996

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    F. Lin, X. Fang, and Z. Gao. Distributionally robust opt imization: A review on theory and applications. Numerical Algebra, Control & amp; Optimization , 12(1):159, 2022

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Z. Liu, Q. Bai, J. Blanchet, P . Dong, W. Xu, Z. Zhou, and Z. Zhou. Distributionally robust Q–learning. In K. Chaudhuri, S. Je gelka, L. Song, C. Szepesvari, G. Niu, and S. Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 13623–13643. PMLR, 17–23 Jul 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    R. D. McAllister and P . M. Esfahani. Distributionally r obust model predictive control: Closed-loop guarantees and scalable a lgorithms. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 70(5):2963–2978, 2025

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    R. D. Mill´ an, O. P . Ferreira, and J. Ugon. Frank-Wolfe a lgorithm for DC optimization problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16444 , 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    H. Park, D. Zhou, G. A. Hanasusanto, and T. Tanaka. Distr ibutionally robust path integral control. In 2024 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 1164–1171, 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Shafiei, H

    A. Shafiei, H. Jesawada, K. Friston, and G. Russo. Distri butionally robust free energy principle for decision-making. Nature Communi- cations, 17(1):707, 2025

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    M. R. Sheriff and P . Mohajerin Esfahani. Nonlinear dist ributionally robust optimization. Mathematical Programming, 213(1–2):639–698, Dec. 2024

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Srivastava and S

    A. Srivastava and S. M. Salapaka. Dynamic parameters in sequential decision making. Automatica, 148:110795, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Taskesen, D

    B. Taskesen, D. A. Iancu, c. Koc ¸yi˘ git, and D. Kuhn. Dis tributionally robust linear quadratic control. In Proceedings of the 37th Interna- tional Conference on Neural Information Processing System s, NIPS ’23, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2023. Curran Associates Inc

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    E. Todorov. Efficient computation of optimal actions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 106(28):11478–11483, 2009

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    V an Parys, D

    B. V an Parys, D. Kuhn, P . Goulart, and M. Morari. Distrib utionally robust control of constrained stochastic systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , page 1–1, 2015

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    B. P . G. V an Parys, P . M. Esfahani, and D. Kuhn. From data t o de- cisions: Distributionally robust optimization is optimal . Management Science, 67(6):3387–3402, June 2021

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Xu and S

    H. Xu and S. Mannor. Distributionally robust Markov Dec ision Processes. Mathematics of Operations Research , 37(2):288–300, May 2012

    work page 2012