Shared Spatial Memory Through Predictive Coding
arXiv:2511.04235v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Constructing a consistent shared spatial memory is a critical challenge in multi-agent systems, where partial observability and limited bandwidth often lead to catastrophic failures in coordination. We introduce a multi-agent predictive coding framework that formulates coordination as the minimization of mutual uncertainty among agents. Through an information bottleneck objective, this framework prompts agents to learn not only who and what to communicate but also when. At the foundation of this framework lies a grid-cell-like metric as inter — Zhengru Fang, Yu Guo, Yuang Zhang, Haonan An, Wenbo Ding, Yuguang Fang
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Constructing a consistent shared spatial memory is a critical challenge in multi-agent systems, where partial observability and limited bandwidth often lead to catastrophic failures in coordination. We introduce a multi-agent predictive coding framework that formulates coordination as the minimization of mutual uncertainty among agents. Through an information bottleneck objective, this framework prompts agents to learn not only who and what to communicate but also when. At the foundation of this framework lies a grid-cell-like metric as internal spatial coding for self-localization, emerging spontaneously from self-supervised motion prediction. Building upon this internal spatial code, agents gradually develop a bandwidth-efficient communication mechanism and specialized neural populations that encode partners' locations-an artificial analogue of hippocampal social place cells (SPCs). These social representations are further utilized by a hierarchical reinforcement learning policy that actively explores to reduce joint uncertainty. On the Memory-Maze benchmark, our approach shows exceptional resilience to bandwidth constraints: success degrades gracefully from 73.5% to 64.4% as bandwidth shrinks from 128 to 4 bits/step, whereas a full-broadcast baseline collapses from 67.6% to 28.6%. Our findings establish a theoretically principled and biologically plausible basis for how complex social representations emerge from a unified predictive drive, leading to collective intelligence.
Subjects:
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE)
Cite as: arXiv:2511.04235 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2511.04235v4 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.04235
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Zhengru Fang [view email] [v1] Thu, 6 Nov 2025 10:12:46 UTC (8,470 KB) [v2] Mon, 1 Dec 2025 01:50:27 UTC (11,419 KB) [v3] Mon, 26 Jan 2026 11:24:30 UTC (11,524 KB) [v4] Fri, 27 Mar 2026 03:45:51 UTC (11,524 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv![First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-robot-hand-JvPW6jsLFTCtkgtb97Kys5.webp)
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety - UCLA Health
AI can describe human experiences but lacks experience in an actual ‘body.’ UCLA researchers say understanding this ‘body gap’ may matter for safety UCLA Health
New IAEA Research Project Uses Machine Learning to Better Predict Polymer Changes under Radiation - International Atomic Energy Agency
New IAEA Research Project Uses Machine Learning to Better Predict Polymer Changes under Radiation International Atomic Energy Agency
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
![[D] CVPR 2026 Travel Grant/Registration Waiver](https://d2xsxph8kpxj0f.cloudfront.net/310419663032563854/konzwo8nGf8Z4uZsMefwMr/default-img-circuit-gold-PMJWD5qsqGfXwX8w9a97Cb.webp)
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!