Consistent Probabilistic Simulation Underlying Human Judgment in Substance Dynamics

A growing body of evidence supports the hypothesis that humans infer future states of perceived physical situations by propagating noisy representations forward in time using rational (approximate) physics. In the present study, we examine whether humans are able to predict (1) the resting geometry of sand pouring from a funnel and (2) the dynamics of three substances—liquid, sand, and rigid balls—flowing past obstacles into two basins. Participants’ judgments in each experiment are consistent with simulation results from the intuitive substance engine (ISE) model, which employs a Material Point Method (MPM) simulator with noisy inputs. The ISE outperforms ground-truth physical models in each situation, as well as two data-driven models. The results reported herein expand on previous work proposing human use of mental simulation in physical reasoning and demonstrate human proficiency in predicting the dynamics of sand, a substance that is less common in daily life than liquid or rigid objects.

[1]  J. Monaghan Smoothed particle hydrodynamics , 2005 .

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

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

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

[5]  John G. Mikhael,et al.  Functional neuroanatomy of intuitive physical inference , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Chenfanfu Jiang,et al.  The affine particle-in-cell method , 2015, ACM Trans. Graph..

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

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

[9]  Tianqi Chen,et al.  XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System , 2016, KDD.

[10]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  How, whether, why: Causal judgments as counterfactual contrasts , 2015, CogSci.

[11]  Andre Pradhana,et al.  Drucker-prager elastoplasticity for sand animation , 2016, ACM Trans. Graph..

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

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

[14]  Chenfanfu Jiang,et al.  The material point method for simulating continuum materials , 2016, SIGGRAPH Courses.

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

[16]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Humans predict liquid dynamics using probabilistic simulation , 2015, CogSci.

[17]  P. Juslin,et al.  Visual perception of dynamic properties: cue heuristics versus direct-perceptual competence. , 2000, Psychological review.

[18]  D. Sulsky Erratum: Application of a particle-in-cell method to solid mechanics , 1995 .

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

[20]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Inferring mass in complex scenes by mental simulation , 2016, Cognition.

[21]  P. McCullagh,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 1984 .