To achieve human-like common sense about everyday life, machine learning systems must understand and reason about the goals, preferences, and actions of other agents in the environment. By the end of their first year of life, human infants intuitively achieve such common sense, and these cognitive achievements lay the foundation for humans' rich and complex understanding of the mental states of others. Can machines achieve generalizable, commonsense reasoning about other agents like human infants?

Early in development, infants learn a range of useful concepts, which can be challenging from a computational standpoint. This early learning comes together with an initial understanding of aspects of the meaning of concepts, e.g., their implications, causality, and using them to predict likely future events. All this is accomplished in many cases with little or no supervision, and from relatively few examples, compared with current network models. In learning about objects and human-object interactions, early acquired and possibly innate concepts are often used in the process of learning additional, more complex concepts. In the current work, we model how early-acquired concepts are used in the learning of subsequent concepts, and compare the results with standard deep network modeling. We focused in particular on the use of the concepts of animacy and goal attribution in learning to predict future events. We show that the use of early concepts in the learning of new concepts leads to better learning (higher accuracy) and more efficient learning (requiring less data). We further show that this integration of early and new concepts shapes the representation of the concepts acquired by the model. The results show that when the concepts were learned in a human-like manner, the emerging representation was more useful, as measured in terms of generalization to novel data and tasks. On a more general level, the results suggest that there are likely to be basic differences in the conceptual structures acquired by current network models compared to human learning.

As children grow older, they develop an intuitive understanding of the physical processes around them. Their physical understanding develops in stages, moving along developmental trajectories which have been mapped out extensively in previous empirical research. Here, we investigate how the learning trajectories of deep generative neural networks compare to children's developmental trajectories using physical understanding as a testbed. We outline an approach that allows us to examine two distinct hypotheses of human development - stochastic optimization and complexity increase. We find that while our models are able to accurately predict a number of physical processes, their learning trajectories under both hypotheses do not follow the developmental trajectories of children.

Classification algorithms using Transformer architectures can be affected by the sequence length learning problem whenever observations from different classes have a different length distribution. This problem brings models to use sequence length as a predictive feature instead of relying on important textual information. Even if most public datasets are not affected by this problem, privately corpora for fields such as medicine and insurance may carry this data bias. This poses challenges throughout the value chain given their usage in a machine learning application. In this paper, we empirically expose this problem and present approaches to minimize its impacts.

As children grow older, they develop an intuitive understanding of the physical processes around them. They move along developmental trajectories, which have been mapped out extensively in previous empirical research. We investigate how children's developmental trajectories compare to the learning trajectories of artificial systems. Specifically, we examine the idea that cognitive development results from some form of stochastic optimization procedure. For this purpose, we train a modern generative neural network model using stochastic gradient descent. We then use methods from the developmental psychology literature to probe the physical understanding of this model at different degrees of optimization. We find that the model's learning trajectory captures the developmental trajectories of children, thereby providing support to the idea of development as stochastic optimization.

Recent work in computer vision and cognitive reasoning has given rise to an increasing adoption of the Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) paradigm in synthetic datasets. Inspired by infant psychology, researchers are now evaluating a model's ability to label scenes as either expected or surprising with knowledge of only expected scenes. However, existing VoE-based 3D datasets in physical reasoning provide mainly vision data with little to no heuristics or inductive biases. Cognitive models of physical reasoning reveal infants create high-level abstract representations of objects and interactions. Capitalizing on this knowledge, we established a benchmark to study physical reasoning by curating a novel large-scale synthetic 3D VoE dataset armed with ground-truth heuristic labels of causally relevant features and rules. To validate our dataset in five event categories of physical reasoning, we benchmarked and analyzed human performance. We also proposed the Object File Physical Reasoning Network (OFPR-Net) which exploits the dataset's novel heuristics to outperform our baseline and ablation models. The OFPR-Net is also flexible in learning an alternate physical reality, showcasing its ability to learn universal causal relationships in physical reasoning to create systems with better interpretability.

Recent work in cognitive reasoning and computer vision has engendered an increasing popularity for the Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) paradigm in synthetic datasets. Inspired by work in infant psychology, researchers have started evaluating a model's ability to discriminate between expected and surprising scenes as a sign of its reasoning ability. Existing VoE-based 3D datasets in physical reasoning only provide vision data. However, current cognitive models of physical reasoning by psychologists reveal infants create high-level abstract representations of objects and interactions. Capitalizing on this knowledge, we propose AVoE: a synthetic 3D VoE-based dataset that presents stimuli from multiple novel sub-categories for five event categories of physical reasoning. Compared to existing work, AVoE is armed with ground-truth labels of abstract features and rules augmented to vision data, paving the way for high-level symbolic predictions in physical reasoning tasks.

To achieve human-like common sense about everyday life, machine learning systems must understand and reason about the goals, preferences, and actions of others. Human infants intuitively achieve such common sense by making inferences about the underlying causes of other agents' actions. Directly informed by research on infant cognition, our benchmark BIB challenges machines to achieve generalizable, common-sense reasoning about other agents like human infants do. As in studies on infant cognition, moreover, we use a violation of expectation paradigm in which machines must predict the plausibility of an agent's behavior given a video sequence, making this benchmark appropriate for direct validation with human infants in future studies. We show that recently proposed, deep-learning-based agency reasoning models fail to show infant-like reasoning, leaving BIB an open challenge.

We compare the acquisition of knowledge in humans and machines. Research from the field of developmental psychology indicates, that human-employed hypothesis are initially guided by simple rules, before evolving into more complex theories. This observation is shared across many tasks and domains. We investigate whether stages of development in artificial learning systems are based on the same characteristics. We operationalize developmental stages as the size of the data-set, on which the artificial system is trained. For our analysis we look at the developmental progress of Bayesian Neural Networks on three different data-sets, including occlusion, support and quantity comparison tasks. We compare the results with prior research from developmental psychology and find agreement between the family of optimized models and pattern of development observed in infants and children on all three tasks, indicating common principles for the acquisition of knowledge.