Galileo: Perceiving Physical Object Properties by Integrating a Physics Engine with Deep Learning
Humans demonstrate remarkable abilities to predict physical events in dynamic scenes, and to infer the physical properties of objects from static images. We propose a generative model for solving these problems of physical scene understanding from real-world videos and images. At the core of our generative model is a 3D physics engine, operating on an object-based representation of physical properties, including mass, position, 3D shape, and friction. We can infer these latent properties using relatively brief runs of MCMC, which drive simulations in the physics engine to fit key features of visual observations. We further explore directly mapping visual inputs to physical properties, inverting a part of the generative process using deep learning. We name our model Galileo, and evaluate it on a video dataset with simple yet physically rich scenarios. Results show that Galileo is able to infer the physical properties of objects and predict the outcome of a variety of physical events, with an accuracy comparable to human subjects. Our study points towards an account of human vision with generative physical knowledge at its core, and various recognition models as helpers leading to efficient inference.
This is a high quality paper, clearly written, original, and has the potential for considerable significance.  As I see it, the major contribution and innovation here is that the authors connect a symbolic physical model to an image-level recognition and tracking algorithm.As such, I think the authors need to dedicate a bit more space to discussing the image-level recognition/tracking model, its capabilities and limitations.The scenarios they assess are rather impoverished images; how well would this model fair with new scene configurations? with surfaces that are not smooth planes?With objects that are not blocks?Insofar as this is indeed as general an algorithm as it might seem at first blush, this is worth advertising clearly.If it is limited to fairly simple scenes with known geometric configurations (which would be an easy way to make something that operates over image data, but only because the domain of objects is very impoverished), this needs to be clearly stated.Either way, this reflects useful progress, but the former scenario is far more impressive.A few other comments: - In the introduction (lines ~96-98) the authors make the point that a "computational solution asserts that the infant starts with a relatively reliable mental physics engine, or acquires it soon after birth". This statement sounds like a nativist claim that I don't believe the authors would hold fast to - if infants developed a mature physics engine throughout the first year or two of life, the findings from this paper would still hold (and I would not count this as 'soon after birth'). In fact, much of Renee Baillaregon's work demonstrates that physical reasoning performance develops throughout the first year of life. If the authors wish to claim that mental physics engines are developed (and well formed) very early, they should give a nod to this work; however, I believe this statement distracts from the overall message of the paper and could be dropped.- On line 198 the authors fix sigma (the velocity noise) to 0.05. However, it is not clear how this value was set, or how sensitive to changes in this parameter the model is. It would be helpful to provide units for this value (is it in m/s? normalized to average velocity?) and briefly demonstrate that the model predictions do not change significantly under a couple other reasonable values for this parameter.- In the Outcome Prediction experiment (6.1), it is mentioned that the target object is either cardboard or foam, but the x-axis in Fig 5 represents only (I believe) the material of the initially moving object. Are the errors in Fig 5 averaged across both target objects, or was each initial material associated with only one of the two target objects?- It seems useful to estimate error correlations between people, the uniform model, and POM on the data in figure 5, given the wide variation in errors across all scenes.- For the other experiments (Mass Prediction & "Will It Move") it's not clear how the data is being analyzed. In both cases, I believe the human decision is dichotomous (obj1 heavier vs obj2 heavier for Mass Prediction and moving vs not for Will it Move), and assume that this is aggregated for each trial to get the proportion of people making each decision. Then in both cases, the model samples from the posterior a number of times to get a proportion of either choice for each model? Further clarity on this analysis would help readers understand these results- In the Mass Prediction experiment, the correlations between human and model data are calculated using Spearman's rho because the relationship is claimed to be very non-linear. However, if the POM is capturing human judgments accurately then there should be a linear, 1:1 relationship. Therefore, Pearson's correlation would be more appropriate for this relationship (unless the correlation would be skewed by outliers). Showing scatterplots of these relationships by trial would also help readers understand this relationship.- In the first sentence of the paper (line 37) it is a *Rube* Goldberg machine