Physics Engines as Cognitive Models of Intuitive Physical Reasoning

Many studies have claimed that human physical reasoning consists largely of running “physics engines in the head” in which the future trajectory of the physical system under consideration is computed precisely using accurate scientific theories. In such models, uncertainty and incomplete knowledge is dealt with by sampling probabilistically over the space of possible trajectories (“Monte Carlo simulation”). We argue that such simulation-based models are too weak, in that there are many important aspects of human physical reasoning that cannot be carried out this way, or can only be carried out very inefficiently; and too strong, in that humans make large systematic errors that the models cannot account for. We conclude that simulation-based reasoning makes up at most a small part of a larger system that encompasses a wide range of additional cognitive processes.

[1]  Sergey Levine,et al.  How to train your robot with deep reinforcement learning: lessons we have learned , 2021, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[2]  Neil R. Bramley,et al.  Limits on simulation approaches in intuitive physics , 2021, Cognitive Psychology.

[3]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  How do the object-file and physical-reasoning systems interact? Evidence from priming effects with object arrays or novel labels , 2021, Cognitive Psychology.

[4]  S. Kollmannsberger,et al.  Physics-Informed Neural Networks , 2021, Deep Learning in Computational Mechanics.

[5]  Sanja Fidler,et al.  UniCon: Universal Neural Controller For Physics-based Character Motion , 2020, ArXiv.

[6]  Neil R. Bramley,et al.  Broken Physics: A Conjunction-Fallacy Effect in Intuitive Physical Reasoning , 2020, Psychological science.

[7]  W. R. Smith,et al.  Optimizing Numerical Simulations of Colliding Galaxies. I. Fitness Functions and Optimization Algorithms , 2020 .

[8]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  The frontier of simulation-based inference , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  Pieter Abbeel,et al.  Learning to Manipulate Deformable Objects without Demonstrations , 2019, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[10]  Georg Stadler,et al.  Scalable simulation of realistic volume fraction red blood cell flows through vascular networks , 2019, SC.

[11]  John Abella,et al.  A Multi-body Simulation Framework for Live Motion Tracking and Analysis within the Unity Environment , 2019, 2019 16th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR).

[12]  Wenbin Li,et al.  Learning Manipulation under Physics Constraints with Visual Perception , 2019, ArXiv.

[13]  Paris Perdikaris,et al.  Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations , 2019, J. Comput. Phys..

[14]  Jürgen Leitner,et al.  Quantifying the Reality Gap in Robotic Manipulation Tasks , 2018, 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[15]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Modeling human intuitions about liquid flow with particle-based simulation , 2018, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[16]  J. Tinker,et al.  The Aemulus Project. I. Numerical Simulations for Precision Cosmology , 2018, The Astrophysical Journal.

[17]  M. Kelly,et al.  The aerodynamic effect of an oblique wind on helicopter recovery to the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier , 2019 .

[18]  Neil R. Bramley,et al.  Intuitive experimentation in the physical world , 2018, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Learning physical parameters from dynamic scenes , 2018, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Kevin A. Smith,et al.  Different Physical Intuitions Exist Between Tasks, Not Domains , 2018, Computational Brain & Behavior.

[21]  Afsoon Afzal,et al.  Crashing Simulated Planes is Cheap: Can Simulation Detect Robotics Bugs Early? , 2018, 2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST).

[22]  T. P. Miyanawala,et al.  An Efficient Deep Learning Technique for the Navier-Stokes Equations: Application to Unsteady Wake Flow Dynamics , 2017, 1710.09099.

[23]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Mind Games: Game Engines as an Architecture for Intuitive Physics , 2017, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[24]  Jean-Baptiste Mouret,et al.  20 years of reality gap: a few thoughts about simulators in evolutionary robotics , 2017, GECCO.

[25]  Michael Beetz,et al.  Envisioning the qualitative effects of robot manipulation actions using simulation-based projections , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[26]  B. Scholl,et al.  Seeing stability: Intuitive physics automatically guides selective attention , 2016 .

[27]  Nancy S. Pollard,et al.  Predictable behavior during contact simulation: a comparison of selected physics engines , 2016, Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds.

[28]  Ernest Davis,et al.  The scope and limits of simulation in automated reasoning , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Chenfanfu Jiang,et al.  Probabilistic Simulation Predicts Human Performance on Viscous Fluid-Pouring Problem , 2016, CogSci.

[30]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Evaluating the inverse reasoning account of object discovery , 2015, Cognition.

[31]  Adam N. Sanborn Testing Bayesian and heuristic predictions of mass judgments of colliding objects , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[32]  Kevin A. Smith,et al.  Looking forwards and backwards: Similarities and differences in prediction and retrodiction , 2014, CogSci.

[33]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  From counterfactual simulation to causal judgment , 2014, CogSci.

[34]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  E. Davis,et al.  How Robust Are Probabilistic Models of Higher-Level Cognition? , 2013, Psychological science.

[36]  Ernest Davis,et al.  Qualitative Spatial Reasoning in Interpreting Text and Narrative , 2013, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[37]  Arend L. Schwab,et al.  A review on bicycle dynamics and rider control , 2013 .

[38]  Vikash K. Mansinghka,et al.  Reconciling intuitive physics and Newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. , 2013, Psychological review.

[39]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Physical predictions over time , 2013, CogSci.

[40]  Tadeusz Niezgoda,et al.  NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF BLAST WAVE ON HUMAN BODY , 2013 .

[41]  Kevin A. Smith,et al.  Consistent physics underlying ballistic motion prediction , 2013, CogSci.

[42]  R. Lawson Mirrors, mirrors on the wall…the ubiquitous multiple reflection error , 2012, Cognition.

[43]  Kevin A. Smith,et al.  Sources of uncertainty in intuitive physics , 2012, CogSci.

[44]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Ping Pong in Church: Productive use of concepts in human probabilistic inference , 2012, CogSci.

[45]  Edward Vul,et al.  Pure Reasoning in 12-Month-Old Infants as Probabilistic Inference , 2011, Science.

[46]  Florent Levillain,et al.  A Dissociation Between Judged Causality and Imagined Locations in Simple Dynamic Scenes , 2011, Psychological science.

[47]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Tactics‐Based Behavioural Planning for Goal‐Driven Rigid Body Control , 2009, Comput. Graph. Forum.

[48]  Samuel T. Moulton,et al.  Imagining predictions: mental imagery as mental emulation , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[49]  G. Marcus Kluge : the haphazard evolution of the human mind , 2009 .

[50]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Comirit: Commonsense Reasoning by Integrating Simulation and Logic , 2008, AGI.

[51]  Gert Kootstra,et al.  International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2008, ICRA 2008.

[52]  Thomas Bräunl,et al.  Evaluation of real-time physics simulation systems , 2007, GRAPHITE '07.

[53]  Rebecca Lawson,et al.  The science of cycology: Failures to understand how everyday objects work , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[54]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Seeing, acting, understanding: motor resonance in language comprehension. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[55]  M. Hegarty Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[56]  L. Barsalou Situated simulation in the human conceptual system , 2003 .

[57]  F. Keil Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[58]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Physical Imagery: Kinematic versus Dynamic Models , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[59]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Analog Imagery in Mental Model Reasoning: Depictive Models , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[60]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Diagrammatic Reasoning: Cognitive and Computational Perspectives , 1995 .

[61]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Heuristic judgment of mass ratio in two-body collisions , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[62]  M. Hegarty Mental animation: inferring motion from static displays of mechanical systems. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[63]  D. Proffitt,et al.  Understanding wheel dynamics , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[64]  Ibrahim A. Halloun,et al.  The initial knowledge state of college physics students , 1985 .

[65]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[66]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[67]  M. McCloskey Naive Theories of Motion. , 1982 .

[68]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgments of and by Representativeness , 1981 .

[69]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: misconceptions about trajectories of objects , 1981, Cognition.

[70]  R. Siegler Three aspects of cognitive development , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.