Phy-Q as a measure for physical reasoning intelligence
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Humans are well-versed in reasoning about the behaviors of physical objects and choosing actions accordingly to accomplish tasks, while it remains a major challenge for AI. To facilitate research addressing this problem, we propose a new testbed that requires an agent to reason about physical scenarios and take an action appropriately. Inspired by the physical knowledge acquired in infancy and the capabilities required for robots to operate in real-world environments, we identify 15 essential physical scenarios. We create a wide variety of distinct task templates, and we ensure all the task templates within the same scenario can be solved by using one specific strategic physical rule. By having such a design, we evaluate two distinct levels of generalization, namely the local generalization and the broad generalization. We conduct an extensive evaluation with human players, learning agents with varying input types and architectures, and heuristic agents with different strategies. Inspired by how human IQ is calculated, we define the physical reasoning quotient (Phy-Q score) that reflects the physical reasoning intelligence of an agent using the physical scenarios we considered. Our evaluation shows that 1) all agents are far below human performance, and 2) learning agents, even with good local generalization ability, struggle to learn the underlying physical reasoning rules and fail to generalize broadly. We encourage the development of intelligent agents that can reach the human level Phy-Q score. Website: https://github.com/phy-q/benchmark
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 31 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2021.
Builds on
31 of 80 references.
References · 31
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2013Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 3,274
- 2016Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 2,258
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
- 2015Deep Reinforcement Learning with Double Q-learningcited by 1,745
- 2016OpenAI Gymcited by 1,736
- 2015Prioritized Experience Replaycited by 1,099
- 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 807
- 2015Dueling Network Architectures for Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 785
- 2019RLBench: The Robot Learning Benchmark & Learning Environmentcited by 689
19 more
- 2019CLEVRER: CoLlision Events for Video REpresentation and Reasoningcited by 484
- 2019The Neuro-Symbolic Concept Learner: Interpreting Scenes, Words, and Sentences From Natural Supervisioncited by 372
- 2018Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisalcited by 217
- 2020The Next Decade in AI: Four Steps Towards Robust Artificial Intelligencecited by 195
- 2019A Meta-Transfer Objective for Learning to Disentangle Causal Mechanismscited by 158
- 2021Physion: Evaluating Physical Prediction from Vision in Humans and Machinescited by 153
- 2019PHYRE: A New Benchmark for Physical Reasoningcited by 137
- 2019CATER: A diagnostic dataset for Compositional Actions and TEmporal Reasoningcited by 137
- 2020CausalWorld: A Robotic Manipulation Benchmark for Causal Structure and Transfer Learningcited by 109
- 2016Playing FPS Games with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 95
- 2017Measuring the tendency of CNNs to Learn Surface Statistical Regularitiescited by 87
- 2019CoPhy: Counterfactual Learning of Physical Dynamicscited by 81
- 2018IntPhys: A Framework and Benchmark for Visual Intuitive Physics Reasoningcited by 73
- 2018Relational Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 73
- 2019Rapid trial-and-error learning with simulation supports flexible tool use and physical reasoningcited by 61
- 2017When Will AI Exceed Human Performance? Evidence from AI Expertscited by 41
- 2020Forward Prediction for Physical Reasoningcited by 18
- 2018The 2017 AIBIRDS Competitioncited by 5
- 2021Deceptive Level Generation for Angry Birdscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 4; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
10 papers.
- 2024How Far is Video Generation from World Model: A Physical Law Perspectivecited by 212
- 2024Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models: In-Depth Analysis on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpuscited by 32
- 2024LLMPhy: Parameter-Identifiable Physical Reasoning Combining Large Language Models and Physics Enginescited by 30
- 2026Interpreting Physics in Video World Modelscited by 22
- 2026Code as Worlds: Agentic Discovery of Executable World Representations for Physical Reasoningcited by 14
- 2023Benchmarks for Physical Reasoning AIcited by 8
- 2025Aligning Perception, Reasoning, Modeling and Interaction: A Survey on Physical AIcited by 3
- 2023NovPhy: A Testbed for Physical Reasoning in Open-world Environmentscited by 2
- 2023Physics-Based Task Generation through Causal Sequence of Physical Interactionscited by 0
- 2023Rapid Open-World Adaptation by Adaptation Principles Learningcited by 0
- 2026Code as Worlds: Agentic Discovery of Executable World Representations for Physical Reasoning27 Aug 2026
- 2026Interpreting Physics in Video World Models4 Feb 2026
- 2025Aligning Perception, Reasoning, Modeling and Interaction: A Survey on Physical AI6 Oct 2025
- 2024LLMPhy: Parameter-Identifiable Physical Reasoning Combining Large Language Models and Physics Engines12 Nov 2024
- 2024How Far is Video Generation from World Model: A Physical Law Perspective4 Nov 2024
- 2024Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models: In-Depth Analysis on the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus18 Mar 2024
- 2023Rapid Open-World Adaptation by Adaptation Principles Learning18 Dec 2023
- 2023Benchmarks for Physical Reasoning AI17 Dec 2023
- 2023Physics-Based Task Generation through Causal Sequence of Physical Interactions5 Aug 2023
- 2023NovPhy: A Testbed for Physical Reasoning in Open-world Environments3 Mar 2023