Abstract
AbstractHumans are well versed in reasoning about the behaviours of physical objects and choosing actions accordingly to accomplish tasks, while this remains a major challenge for artificial intelligence. To facilitate research addressing this problem, we propose a new testbed that requires an agent to reason about physical scenarios and take an action appropriately. Inspired by the physical knowledge acquired in infancy and the capabilities required for robots to operate in real-world environments, we identify 15 essential physical scenarios. We create a wide variety of distinct task templates, and we ensure that all the task templates within the same scenario can be solved by using one specific strategic physical rule. By having such a design, we evaluate two distinct levels of generalization, namely local generalization and broad generalization. We conduct an extensive evaluation with human players, learning agents with various input types and architectures, and heuristic agents with different strategies. Inspired by how the human intelligence quotient is calculated, we define the physical reasoning quotient (Phy-Q score) that reflects the physical reasoning intelligence of an agent using the physical scenarios we considered. Our evaluation shows that (1) all the agents are far below human performance, and (2) learning agents, even with good local generalization ability, struggle to learn the underlying physical reasoning rules and fail to generalize broadly. We encourage the development of intelligent agents that can reach the human-level Phy-Q score.
Funder
United States Department of Defense | Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
United States Department of Defense | United States Army | U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command | Army Research Office
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Computer Networks and Communications,Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition,Human-Computer Interaction,Software
Reference65 articles.
1. Davis, E. Physical reasoning. New York University https://cs.nyu.edu/~davise/papers/handbookKR.pdf (2006).
2. Valenza, E., Leo, I., Gava, L. & Simion, F. Perceptual completion in newborn human infants. Child Dev. 77, 1810–1821 (2006).
3. Baillargeon, R. & DeVos, J. Object permanence in young infants: further evidence. Child Dev. 62, 1227–1246 (1991).
4. Leslie, A. Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in infants. Perception 13, 287–305 (1984).
5. Baillargeon, R., Needham, A. & Devos, J. The development of young infants’ intuitions about support. Early Dev. Parent. 1, 69–78 (1992).
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献