Recent findings suggest that humans deploy cognitive mechanism of physics simulation engines to simulate the physics of objects. We propose a framework for bots to deploy similar tools for interacting with intuitive physics environments. The framework employs a physics simulation in a probabilistic way to infer about moves performed by an agent in a setting governed by Newtonian laws of motion. However, methods of probabilistic programs can be slow in such setting due to their need to generate many samples. We complement the model with a model-free approach to aid the sampling procedures in becoming more efficient through learning from experience during game playing. We present an approach where a myriad of model-free approaches (a convolutional neural network in our model) and model-based approaches (probabilistic physics simulation) is able to achieve what neither could alone. This way the model outperforms an all model-free or all model-based approach. We discuss a case study showing empirical results of the performance of the model on the game of Flappy Bird.
This paper combines a model-free approach and a model-based approach for the game of Flappy Bird. The model-free approach is a CNN on the screen snapshots, in the same fashion as DQN was used for Atari games. The model-based approach is a probabilistic model of Newtonian laws of motion. 
The combination of model-free and model-based approaches is definitely one very relevant issue in machine learning, especially in interactive situations, such as reinforcement learning and robotics. The ideas that this paper combines are state-of-the-art and hence is it informative to see how these two particular techniques from each paradigm work together. The most interesting part is that the probabilistic model restricts the CNN restricts the sample action for the model.
I’m not sure how novel this particular combination is, but other systems have also used a model (or a solver) to restrict the possibilities of the exploration. For instance, AlphaGo combines the model-free approach with the rules of the game (at least in the first versions of AlphaGo), and others use Montecarlo Tree Search in a similar vain.
The paper is generally well-written, with some typos occasionally. However, I think that some parts of the process are no well explained, or explained in the wrong order.
For instance, the title and the abstract misled me for quite a while. The title says program induction, and this is then said to be in a fashion similar to Ghahramani 2015, but no further details are given. Is this using Julia? In any case, where is the induction? Later on, it is said that “the model learns the distributions”. but the exact way is completely missing. In other words, the model-based part is not described and encapsulated in a cryptic PHYSICSSIMULATION. In any case, if the model just learn the parameter, I wouldn’t call this “program induction”, at least in the same way as Lake and others use it, or in the way it is used in the area of “inductive programming”. 
The game should be describe at the start as “unwanted collisions” are meaningless for a reader who doesn’t know the goal of the game (which is explained in the last paragraph of the paper).
The main problem is that the physics simulation is not learnt and hence rewritten for other games with other physics. This should be solved, in order to see significant progress for benchmarks such as ALE (and properly compare with DQN and many other variants). Perhaps robotics is a better application area, as the physics are always the same (true physics).
Regarding the experiments, they are not very conclusive, especially because the difference is not that large and it is only one single game. The application to other games would be needed, especially if the physics is different. Also, the parameters are different (the ms) and I didn’t understand if these are the best choices, or the possible choices given the computational limitations. In other words, I don’t know if all techniques are compared in the same compute and data conditions. In Figure 3, the yaxis should be explained.
(hum 2017) I imagine that this refers to the authors, otherwise it is a typo.
I didn’t understand the future work. I didn’t parse the bit: “learn about rewards structures in games of physics intuition”.  Actually, the final paragraph gives hints about how much assistance and specialisation the approach is given and hence the limit of generalisations to other problems. These limitations should be stated from the beginning.
Pros:
-	Important integration of model-free and model-based approaches.
-	State-of-the-art techniques
Cons:
-	I don’t see program induction, despite being in the title.
-	Experiments are limited to one game
-	The physics engine is specialised for this game, and hence the approach is difficult to generalise (automatically) for a range of problems where the models should be different.
Typos: 
Gharmani -> Ghahramani
overs -> over
bird is required to chose -> the bird is required to choose