Probing Physics Knowledge Using Tools from Developmental Psychology

In order to build agents with a rich understanding of their environment, one key objective is to endow them with a grasp of intuitive physics; an ability to reason about three-dimensional objects, their dynamic interactions, and responses to forces. While some work on this problem has taken the approach of building in components such as ready-made physics engines, other research aims to extract general physical concepts directly from sensory data. In the latter case, one challenge that arises is evaluating the learning system. Research on intuitive physics knowledge in children has long employed a violation of expectations (VOE) method to assess children's mastery of specific physical concepts. We take the novel step of applying this method to artificial learning systems. In addition to introducing the VOE technique, we describe a set of probe datasets inspired by classic test stimuli from developmental psychology. We test a baseline deep learning system on this battery, as well as on a physics learning dataset ("IntPhys") recently posed by another research group. Our results show how the VOE technique may provide a useful tool for tracking physics knowledge in future research.

[1]  H. Furth Object permanence in five-month-old infants. , 1987, Cognition.

[2]  E. Spelke Initial knowledge: six suggestions , 1994, Cognition.

[3]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Reasoning about containment events in very young infants , 2001, Cognition.

[4]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Infants' Knowledge About Occlusion and Containment Events: A Surprising Discrepancy , 2001, Psychological science.

[5]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Visualizing Data using t-SNE , 2008 .

[6]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Of bits and wows: A Bayesian theory of surprise with applications to attention , 2010, Neural Networks.

[7]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Physics for infants: characterizing the origins of knowledge about objects, substances, and number. , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[8]  Yuval Tassa,et al.  MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control , 2012, 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

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

[10]  J. Stockman Pure Reasoning in 12-Month-Old Infants as Probabilistic Inference , 2013 .

[11]  Jiajun Wu,et al.  Galileo: Perceiving Physical Object Properties by Integrating a Physics Engine with Deep Learning , 2015, NIPS.

[12]  Scott P. Johnson,et al.  Perception of Object Persistence: The Origins of Object Permanence in Infancy , 2015 .

[13]  Razvan Pascanu,et al.  Interaction Networks for Learning about Objects, Relations and Physics , 2016, NIPS.

[14]  Razvan Pascanu,et al.  A simple neural network module for relational reasoning , 2017, NIPS.

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

[16]  Lukasz Kaiser,et al.  Attention is All you Need , 2017, NIPS.

[17]  Samuel Ritter,et al.  Cognitive Psychology for Deep Neural Networks: A Shape Bias Case Study , 2017, ICML.

[18]  Tom Schaul,et al.  Building Machines that Learn and Think for Themselves: Commentary on Lake et al., Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2017 , 2017, 1711.08378.

[19]  James M. Rehg,et al.  Real-world visual statistics and infants' first-learned object names , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  A Compositional Object-Based Approach to Learning Physical Dynamics , 2016, ICLR.

[21]  Jiajun Wu,et al.  Learning to See Physics via Visual De-animation , 2017, NIPS.