CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 34Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

AGENT: A Benchmark for Core Psychological Reasoning

Open access
Shu, Tianmin, Bhandwaldar, Abhishek, Gan, Chuang, Smith, Kevin A., Liu, Shari, Gutfreund, Dan, Spelke, Elizabeth, Tenenbaum, Joshua B. +1 more·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2102.12321arXiv 2102.12321
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

For machine agents to successfully interact with humans in real-world settings, they will need to develop an understanding of human mental life. Intuitive psychology, the ability to reason about hidden mental variables that drive observable actions, comes naturally to people: even pre-verbal infants can tell agents from objects, expecting agents to act efficiently to achieve goals given constraints. Despite recent interest in machine agents that reason about other agents, it is not clear if such agents learn or hold the core psychology principles that drive human reasoning. Inspired by cognitive development studies on intuitive psychology, we present a benchmark consisting of a large dataset of procedurally generated 3D animations, AGENT (Action, Goal, Efficiency, coNstraint, uTility), structured around four scenarios (goal preferences, action efficiency, unobserved constraints, and cost-reward trade-offs) that probe key concepts of core intuitive psychology. We validate AGENT with human-ratings, propose an evaluation protocol emphasizing generalization, and compare two strong baselines built on Bayesian inverse planning and a Theory of Mind neural network. Our results suggest that to pass the designed tests of core intuitive psychology at human levels, a model must acquire or have built-in representations of how agents plan, combining utility computations and core knowledge of objects and physics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2102.12321

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A concerted effort towards building evaluations grounded in cognitive theory, such as the AGENT benchmark, BigToM or the EWOK benchmark, can neatly define the space of minimal computations needed to perform ToM at a human level and the set of evaluations for determining when a machine has such capabilities.

    “A concerted effort towards building evaluations grounded in cognitive theory, such as the AGENT benchmark [86], BigToM [72] or the EWOK benchmark [87], can neatly define the space of minimal computations needed to perform ToM at a human level and the set of evaluations for determining when a machine has such capabilities.”

    From Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [86]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Abbeel, P. and Ng, A. Y. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning , pp. 1, 2004.
  2. Aggarwal, J. K. and Ryoo, M. S. Human activity analysis: A review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 43(3):1-43, 2011.
  3. Alahi, A., Goel, K., Ramanathan, V., Robicquet, A., FeiFei, L., and Savarese, S. Social lstm: Human trajectory prediction in crowded spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 961-971, 2016.
  4. Baillargeon, R. Infants' understanding of the physical world. Journal of the Neurological Sciences , 143(1-2):199-199, 1996.
  5. Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R., and Tenenbaum, J. B. Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing. Nature Human Behaviour , 1(4):1-10, 2017.
  6. Bakhtin, A., van der Maaten, L., Johnson, J., Gustafson, L., and Girshick, R. Phyre: A new benchmark for physical reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 32:5082-5093, 2019.
  7. Battaglia, P. W., Hamrick, J. B., and Tenenbaum, J. B. Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110 (45):18327-18332, 2013.
  8. Berndt, D. J. and Clifford, J. Using dynamic time warping to find patterns in time series. In KDD workshop , pp. 359-370. Seattle, WA, USA:, 1994.
  9. Cao, Z., Gao, H., Mangalam, K., Cai, Q.-Z., Vo, M., and Malik, J. Long-term human motion prediction with scene context. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 387-404. Springer, 2020.
  10. Carroll, M., Shah, R., Ho, M. K., Griffiths, T. L., Seshia, S. A., Abbeel, P., and Dragan, A. On the utility of learning about humans for human-ai coordination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.05789 , 2019. · arXiv
  11. Choi, W. and Savarese, S. Understanding collective activitiesof people from videos. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 36(6):1242-1257, 2013.
  12. Crosby, M., Beyret, B., and Halina, M. The animal-ai olympics. Nature Machine Intelligence , 1(5):257-257, 2019.
  13. Csibra, G., B´ ır´ o, Z., Ko´ os, O., and Gergely, G. One-yearold infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cogn. Sci. , 27(1):111-133, 2003.
  14. Duan, Y., Andrychowicz, M., Stadie, B. C., Ho, J., Schneider, J., Sutskever, I., Abbeel, P., and Zaremba, W. Oneshot imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.07326 , 2017. · arXiv
  15. Finn, C., Yu, T., Zhang, T., Abbeel, P., and Levine, S. Oneshot visual imitation learning via meta-learning. In Conference on Robot Learning , pp. 357-368. PMLR, 2017.
  16. Fouhey, D. F., Kuo, W.-c., Efros, A. A., and Malik, J. From lifestyle vlogs to everyday interactions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 4991-5000, 2018.
  17. Gan, C., Schwartz, J., Alter, S., Schrimpf, M., Traer, J., De Freitas, J., Kubilius, J., Bhandwaldar, A., Haber, N., Sano, M., et al. Threedworld: A platform for interactive multi-modal physical simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.04954 , 2020. · arXiv
  18. Gandhi, K., Stojnic, G., Lake, B. M., and Dillon, M. R. Baby Intuitions Benchmark (BIB): Discerning the goals, preferences, and actions of others. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.11938 , 2021. · arXiv
  19. Gergely, G. and Csibra, G. Teleological reasoning in infancy: The na¨ ıve theory of rational action. Trends Cogn. Sci. , 7 (7):287-292, 2003.
  20. Gergely, G., N´ adasdy, Z., Csibra, G., and B´ ır´ o, S. Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition , 56 (2):165-193, 1995.
  21. Gordon, A. Commonsense interpretation of triangle behavior. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2016.
  22. Groth, O., Fuchs, F. B., Posner, I., and Vedaldi, A. Shapestacks: Learning vision-based physical intuition for generalised object stacking. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pp. 702-717, 2018.
  23. Huang, D.-A., Xu, D., Zhu, Y., Garg, A., Savarese, S., Fei-Fei, L., and Niebles, J. C. Continuous relaxation of symbolic planner for one-shot imitation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.06769 , 2019. · arXiv
  24. Ibrahim, M. S., Muralidharan, S., Deng, Z., Vahdat, A., and Mori, G. A hierarchical deep temporal model for group activity recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 1971-1980, 2016.
  25. James, S., Bloesch, M., and Davison, A. J. Task-embedded control networks for few-shot imitation learning. In Conference on Robot Learning , pp. 783-795. PMLR, 2018.
  26. Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E., and Tenenbaum, J. B. The na¨ ıve utility calculus: Computational principles underlying commonsense psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci. , 20(8):589-604, 2016.
  27. Jiang, C., Qi, S., Zhu, Y., Huang, S., Lin, J., Yu, L.-F., Terzopoulos, D., and Zhu, S.-C. Configurable 3d scene synthesis and 2d image rendering with per-pixel ground truth using stochastic grammars. International Journal of Computer Vision , 126(9):920-941, 2018.
  28. Johnson, J., Hariharan, B., van der Maaten, L., Fei-Fei, L., Lawrence Zitnick, C., and Girshick, R. Clevr: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 2901-2910, 2017.
  29. Karaman, S., Walter, M. R., Perez, A., Frazzoli, E., and Teller, S. Anytime motion planning using the rrt ∗ . In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 1478-1483. IEEE, 2011.
  30. Kitani, K. M., Ziebart, B. D., Bagnell, J. A., and Hebert, M. Activity forecasting. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 201-214. Springer, 2012.
  31. Kong, Y. and Fu, Y. Human action recognition and prediction: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.11230 , 2018. · arXiv
  32. Koppula, H. and Saxena, A. Learning spatio-temporal structure from rgb-d videos for human activity detection and anticipation. In International conference on machine learning , pp. 792-800. PMLR, 2013.
  33. Liang, J., Jiang, L., Niebles, J. C., Hauptmann, A. G., and Fei-Fei, L. Peeking into the future: Predicting future person activities and locations in videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 5725-5734, 2019.
  34. Liu, S., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Spelke, E. S. Ten-month-old infants infer the value of goals from the costs of actions. Science , 358(6366):1038-1041, November 2017.
  35. Lowe, R., Wu, Y., Tamar, A., Harb, J., Abbeel, P., and Mordatch, I. Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02275 , 2017. · arXiv
  36. Mordatch, I. and Abbeel, P. Emergence of grounded compositional language in multi-agent populations. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2018.
  37. Nan, Z., Shu, T., Gong, R., Wang, S., Wei, P., Zhu, S.-C., and Zheng, N. Learning to infer human attention in daily activities. Pattern Recognition , pp. 107314, 2020.
  38. Netanyahu, A., Shu, T., Katz, B., Barbu, A., and Tenenbaum, J. B. PHASE: PHysically-grounded Abstract Social Events for machine social perception. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) , 2021.
  39. Nikolaidis, S., Hsu, D., and Srinivasa, S. Human-robot mutual adaptation in collaborative tasks: Models and experiments. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 36(5-7):618-634, 2017.
  40. Piloto, L., Weinstein, A., TB, D., Ahuja, A., Mirza, M., Wayne, G., Amos, D., Hung, C.-c., and Botvinick, M. Probing Physics Knowledge Using Tools from Developmental Psychology. arXiv:1804.01128 [cs] , 2018. · arXiv
  41. Poppe, R. A survey on vision-based human action recognition. Image and vision computing , 28(6):976-990, 2010.
  42. Puig, X., Shu, T., Li, S., Wang, Z., Tenenbaum, J. B., Fidler, S., and Torralba, A. Watch-And-Help: A Challenge for Social Perception and Human-AI Collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.09890 , 2020. · arXiv
  43. Rabinowitz, N., Perbet, F., Song, F., Zhang, C., Eslami, S. A., and Botvinick, M. Machine theory of mind. In International conference on machine learning , pp. 42184227. PMLR, 2018.
  44. Riochet, R., Castro, M. Y., Bernard, M., Lerer, A., Fergus, R., Izard, V., and Dupoux, E. IntPhys: A Framework and Benchmark for Visual Intuitive Physics Reasoning. arXiv:1803.07616 [cs] , 2018. · arXiv
  45. Riochet, R., Sivic, J., Laptev, I., and Dupoux, E. Occlusion resistant learning of intuitive physics from videos. arXiv:2005.00069 [cs, eess] , 2020. · arXiv
  46. Rozo, L., Calinon, S., Caldwell, D. G., Jimenez, P., and Torras, C. Learning physical collaborative robot behaviors from human demonstrations. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 32(3):513-527, 2016.
  47. Shu, T. and Tian, Y. M 3 RL: Mind-aware Multi-agent Management Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00147 , 2018. · arXiv
  48. Shu, T., Xie, D., Rothrock, B., Todorovic, S., and Zhu, S.C. Joint inference of groups, events and human roles in aerial videos. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 45764584, 2015.
  49. Sigurdsson, G. A., Gupta, A., Schmid, C., Farhadi, A., and Alahari, K. Charades-ego: A large-scale dataset of paired third and first person videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.09626 , 2018. · arXiv
  50. Silver, T., Allen, K. R., Lew, A. K., Kaelbling, L. P., and Tenenbaum, J. Few-shot bayesian imitation learning with logical program policies. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pp. 10251-10258, 2020.
  51. Song, S., Yu, F., Zeng, A., Chang, A. X., Savva, M., and Funkhouser, T. Semantic scene completion from a single depth image. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 17461754, 2017.
  52. Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., and Jacobson, K. Origins of knowledge. Psychol. Rev. , 99(4):605-632, October 1992.
  53. Wang, R. E., Wu, S. A., Evans, J. A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Parkes, D. C., and Kleiman-Weiner, M. Too many cooks: Bayesian inference for coordinating multi-agent collaboration. arXiv e-prints , pp. arXiv-2003, 2020.
  54. Woodward, A. L. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach. Cognition , 69(1):1-34, 1998.
  55. Wu, J., Lu, E., Kohli, P., Freeman, W. T., and Tenenbaum, J. B. Learning to See Physics via Visual De-animation. In Neural Information Processing Systems , pp. 12, 2017.
  56. Xia, F., R. Zamir, A., He, Z.-Y., Sax, A., Malik, J., and Savarese, S. Gibson env: real-world perception for embodied agents. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018 IEEE Conference on . IEEE, 2018.
  57. Xie, A., Losey, D. P., Tolsma, R., Finn, C., and Sadigh, D. Learning latent representations to influence multi-agent interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.06619 , 2020. · arXiv
  58. Yi, K., Gan, C., Li, Y., Kohli, P., Wu, J., Torralba, A., and Tenenbaum, J. B. Clevrer: Collision events for video representation and reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01442 , 2019. · arXiv
  59. Yu, T., Finn, C., Xie, A., Dasari, S., Zhang, T., Abbeel, P., and Levine, S. One-shot imitation from observing humans via domain-adaptive meta-learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.01557 , 2018. · arXiv
  60. Ziebart, B. D., Maas, A. L., Bagnell, J. A., and Dey, A. K. Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In Aaai , volume 8, pp. 1433-1438. Chicago, IL, USA, 2008.
  61. Zitnick, C. L., Vedantam, R., and Parikh, D. Adopting abstract images for semantic scene understanding. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 38(4):627-638, 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shu, T., Bhandwaldar, A., Gan, C., Smith, K. A., Liu, S., Gutfreund, D., Spelke, E., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Ullman, T. D.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2102.12321
arXiv
2102.12321
OpenAlex
W3131691844
Cited by
34
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1231216)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
intuitive psychology, benchmark dataset, artificial agents, agent reasoning, goal preferences, action efficiency, theory of mind, human evaluation, generalization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review