Consistent physics underlying ballistic motion prediction

By Kevin A. Smith, Peter W. Battaglia, E. Vul. 2013

49 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Learning Physical Intuition of Block Towers by Example (2016, background): “A number of works in cognitive science have explored intuitive physics, for example, in the context of liquid dynamics (Bates et al., 2015), ballistic motion (Smith et al., 2013) and gears and pulleys (Hegarty, 2004).”
Humans predict liquid dynamics using probabilistic simulation (2015, background): “…participants often did give judgments consistent with Newtonian principles or approximate Newtonian simulations, and subsequent work suggested that people tend to show more accurate physical knowledge when tested in more natural perceptual or interactive sensorimotor tasks (K. Smith et al., 2013).”
Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding (2013, background): “…in people ’ s perceptual judgments about simple one-and two-body interactions (e.g., judging the relative masses of two colliding point objects) can be explained as rational probabilistic inferences in a “ noisy Newtonian ” framework, assuming Newton ’ s laws plus noisy observations (11 – 14).”
Dark, Beyond Deep: A Paradigm Shift to Cognitive AI with Humanlike Common Sense (2020, background): “mans’ intuitive understanding of physics was shown later to be much more accurate, rich, and sophisticated than previously expected once dynamics and proper context were provided [164, 165, 166, 167, 168].”
Mind Games: Game Engines as an Architecture for Intuitive Physics. (2017, background): “…of predictions across di ﬀ erent tasks and types of reasoning, including predicting how a scene will unfold over time [6, 74], interacting with a dynamic scene [75], reasoning about underlying physical properties [10, 11, 66], causal judgments [7], and quantitative infant physical reasoning [9].”
Limits on simulation approaches in intuitive physics. (2021, unknown): “For example, Smith, Battaglia, and Vul (2013) present studies of single pendulums.”