\usetikzlibrary

shapes,arrows,shapes.geometric \icmltitlerunningA Framework For Testing Intuitive Physics

 \icmltitle

Probing Physics Knowledge Using Tools from Developmental Psychology

 Appendix A Appendix A A Appendix A <tag close=" ">Appendix A</tag>Convolutional Architecture AConvolutional Architecture

For encoding the images, we used 6 ResNet blocks   ( ) . Each block had three 2D convolutions with kernel sizes = 1x1, 3x3, 1x1. An activation function, rectified linear (ReLU), was only applied after all of the convolutions. The number of channels in the first two convolutions was 64 while the final convolution had 128 output channels. For all convolutions, we used a stride of 2x1. After the series of ResNet blocks, we passed the output through a final MLP with 500 hidden units using a ReLU activation function.

The decoder transposed the encoder architecture to scale from the latent output size to the full observation size. However, instead of doing a deconvolution to increase the dimensionality, we used a size-preserving convolution followed by an upsampling operation.

 Appendix B Appendix B B Appendix B <tag close=" ">Appendix B</tag>Model Representations For Consistent Vs. Inconsistent Probes BModel Representations For Consistent Vs. Inconsistent Probes

In Figure , we show a t-SNE   ( ) representation of the time courses of priors (Figure ) and memory (Figure ) for counter-balanced probes in the Object Persistence category. Counter-balanced probes make up 2 pairs of consistent and inconsistent probes, all of which can start and end in only two possible ways. In these plots, the consistent probes are represented by blue and cyan curves, and the inconsistent probes are represented by red and magenta curves. In the prior plot, we can see that initially the red and cyan curves are paired correctly (because they begin identically), as are the blue and magenta. Later in the sequence (moving from the base of the curve in the direction of the arrowhead) this matching is reversed in a manner consistent with the change induced in the inconsistent probes. Due to the manipulation, the videos represented by red and blue end identically, and likewise for cyan and magenta. When examining memory, we see the same correct initial pairing of colors as with the priors. On the other hand, when the manipulation is introduced we do not see a reversal of the pairing (as we do with the priors), but rather a forking effect. This indicates that the memory maintains information to correctly keep each trajectory distinct based on its entire history, while still able to use the appropriate parts of memory when needed for accurate prior estimation.
Figure 1 Figure 1 1 Figure 1
(a) (a) 0(a) (a)Priors (a)Priors
(b) (b) 0(b) (b)Memory (b)Memory
1t-SNE Embeddings Figure 1t-SNE Embeddings
Appendix C Appendix C C Appendix C <tag close=" ">Appendix C</tag>Model Predictions for Inconsistent Probes CModel Predictions for Inconsistent Probes

Below we show more examples of the model’s predictions for inconsistent probes that include impossible manipulations. Frames are subsampled compared to the actual input received by the model.
Figure 2 Figure 2 2 Figure 2 2) Network predictions (bottom row) for Continuity inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the inconsistent probe has the ball disappear between the pillars, the network predicts it should appear. Figure 2) Network predictions (bottom row) for Continuity inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the inconsistent probe has the ball disappear between the pillars, the network predicts it should appear.
Figure 3 Figure 3 3 Figure 3 3) Network predictions (bottom row) for Unchangeableness Position inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the object positions have been swapped after the occluder is lifted, the network predicts the objects should keep their initial placement. Figure 3) Network predictions (bottom row) for Unchangeableness Position inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the object positions have been swapped after the occluder is lifted, the network predicts the objects should keep their initial placement.
Figure 4 Figure 4 4 Figure 4 4) Network predictions (bottom row) for Unchangeableness Color inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the cube has changed color after the occluder is lifted, the network predicts it should keep the original color. Figure 4) Network predictions (bottom row) for Unchangeableness Color inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the cube has changed color after the occluder is lifted, the network predicts it should keep the original color.
Figure 5 Figure 5 5 Figure 5 5) Network predictions (bottom row) for Unchangeableness Shape inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the yellow sphere has been changed to a yellow cube after the occluder is lifted, the network predicts it should remain a sphere. Figure 5) Network predictions (bottom row) for Unchangeableness Shape inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the yellow sphere has been changed to a yellow cube after the occluder is lifted, the network predicts it should remain a sphere.
Figure 6 Figure 6 6 Figure 6 6) Network predictions (bottom row) for Object Solidity inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the cube falls through the container and floor in the inconsistent probe, the model correctly predicts it should remain in the container. Figure 6) Network predictions (bottom row) for Object Solidity inconsistent probe (top row). Even though the cube falls through the container and floor in the inconsistent probe, the model correctly predicts it should remain in the container.
Figure 7 Figure 7 7 Figure 7 7) Network predictions (bottom row) for Containment inconsistent probe (top row). When the container is moved, the cube that fell into it magically phases through it, remaining in the place the container used to be. In the first frame after this manipulation, the model correctly predicts nothing should be in the place where the container used to be. However, the model cannot hold onto this correction for an extended period of time and integrates the inconsistent information into the prior, as seen in the final frame where the space that should be empty has a blurred entity in it. Figure 7) Network predictions (bottom row) for Containment inconsistent probe (top row). When the container is moved, the cube that fell into it magically phases through it, remaining in the place the container used to be. In the first frame after this manipulation, the model correctly predicts nothing should be in the place where the container used to be. However, the model cannot hold onto this correction for an extended period of time and integrates the inconsistent information into the prior, as seen in the final frame where the space that should be empty has a blurred entity in it.
References 1 2016 He et al. He, Zhang, Ren, and Sun He et al. (2016) He2016 He, Kaiming, Zhang, Xiangyu, Ren, Shaoqing, and Sun, Jian. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 770–778, 2016. 2 2008 van der Maaten & Hinton van der Maaten and Hinton van der Maaten & Hinton (2008) Van2008 van der Maaten, Laurens and Hinton, Geoffrey. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9:2579–2605, 2008.