Generalised free energy and active inference

Active inference is an approach to understanding behaviour that rests upon the idea that the brain uses an internal generative model to predict incoming sensory data. The fit between this model and data may be improved in two ways. The brain could optimise probabilistic beliefs about the variables in the generative model (i.e. perceptual inference). Alternatively, by acting on the world, it could change the sensory data, such that they are more consistent with the model. This implies a common objective function (variational free energy) for action and perception that scores the fit between an internal model and the world. We compare two free energy functionals for active inference in the framework of Markov decision processes. One of these is a functional of beliefs (i.e. probability distributions) about states and policies, but a function of observations, while the second is a functional of beliefs about all three. In the former (expected free energy), prior beliefs about outcomes are not part of the generative model (because they are absorbed into the prior over policies). Conversely, in the second (generalised free energy), priors over outcomes become an explicit component of the generative model. When using the free energy function, which is blind to future observations, we equip the generative model with a prior over policies that ensure preferred (i.e. priors over) outcomes are realised. In other words, if we expect to encounter a particular kind of outcome, this lends plausibility to those policies for which this outcome is a consequence. In addition, this formulation ensures that selected policies minimise uncertainty about future outcomes by minimising the free energy expected in the future. When using the free energy functional-that effectively treats future observations as hidden states-we show that policies are inferred or selected that realise prior preferences by minimising the free energy of future expectations. Interestingly, the form of posterior beliefs about policies (and associated belief updating) turns out to be identical under both formulations, but the quantities used to compute them are not.

Qualitative approach to comparative exposure in alternatives assessment

Most alternatives assessments (AAs) published to date are largely hazard-based rankings, thereby ignoring potential differences in human and/or ecosystem exposures; as such, they may not represent a fully informed consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of possible alternatives. Building on the 2014 US National Academy of Sciences recommendations to improve AA decisions by including comparative exposure assessment into AAs, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's (HESI) Sustainable Chemical Alternatives Technical Committee, which comprises scientists from academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations, developed a qualitative comparative exposure approach. Conducting such a comparison can screen for alternatives that are expected to have a higher or different routes of human or environmental exposure potential, which together with consideration of the hazard assessment, could trigger a higher tiered, more quantitative exposure assessment on the alternatives being considered, minimizing the likelihood of regrettable substitution. This article outlines an approach for including chemical ingredient- and product-related exposure information in a qualitative comparison, including ingredient and product-related parameters. A classification approach was developed for ingredient and product parameters to support comparisons between alternatives as well as a methodology to address exposure parameter relevance and data quality. The ingredient parameters include a range of physicochemical properties that can impact routes and magnitude of exposure, whereas the product parameters include aspects such as product-specific exposure pathways, use information, accessibility, and disposal. Two case studies are used to demonstrate the application of the methodology. Key learnings and future research needs are summarized. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;00:000-000. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Estimating the onset of spring from a complex phenology database: trade-offs across geographic scales

Phenology is an important indicator of ecological response to climate change. Yet, phenological responses are highly variable among species and biogeographic regions. Recent monitoring initiatives have generated large phenological datasets comprised of observations from both professionals and volunteers. Because the observation frequency is often variable, there is uncertainty associated with estimating the timing of phenological activity. "Status monitoring" is an approach that focuses on recording observations throughout the full development of life cycle stages rather than only first dates in order to quantify uncertainty in generating phenological metrics, such as onset dates or duration. However, methods for using status data and calculating phenological metrics are not standardized. To understand how data selection criteria affect onset estimates of springtime leaf-out, we used status-based monitoring data curated by the USA National Phenology Network for 11 deciduous tree species in the eastern USA between 2009 and 2013. We asked, (1) How are estimates of the date of leaf-out onset, at the site and regional levels, influenced by different data selection criteria and methods for calculating onset, and (2) at the regional level, how does the timing of leaf-out relate to springtime minimum temperatures across latitudes and species? Results indicate that, to answer research questions at site to landscape levels, data users may need to apply more restrictive data selection criteria to increase confidence in calculating phenological metrics. However, when answering questions at the regional level, such as when investigating spatiotemporal patterns across a latitudinal gradient, there is low risk of acquiring erroneous results by maximizing sample size when using status-derived phenological data.

Selection of appropriate tumour data sets for Benchmark Dose Modelling (BMD) and derivation of a Margin of Exposure (MoE) for substances that are genotoxic and carcinogenic: considerations of biological relevance of tumour type, data quality and uncertainty assessment

This article addresses a number of concepts related to the selection and modelling of carcinogenicity data for the calculation of a Margin of Exposure. It follows up on the recommendations put forward by the International Life Sciences Institute - European branch in 2010 on the application of the Margin of Exposure (MoE) approach to substances in food that are genotoxic and carcinogenic. The aims are to provide practical guidance on the relevance of animal tumour data for human carcinogenic hazard assessment, appropriate selection of tumour data for Benchmark Dose Modelling, and approaches for dealing with the uncertainty associated with the selection of data for modelling and, consequently, the derived Point of Departure (PoD) used to calculate the MoE. Although the concepts outlined in this article are interrelated, the background expertise needed to address each topic varies. For instance, the expertise needed to make a judgement on biological relevance of a specific tumour type is clearly different to that needed to determine the statistical uncertainty around the data used for modelling a benchmark dose. As such, each topic is dealt with separately to allow those with specialised knowledge to target key areas of guidance and provide a more in-depth discussion on each subject for those new to the concept of the Margin of Exposure approach.