Do Neural Language Representations Learn Physical Commonsense?

  • 2019-08-08 01:41:16
  • Maxwell Forbes, Ari Holtzman, Yejin Choi
  • 8


Humans understand language based on the rich background knowledge about howthe physical world works, which in turn allows us to reason about the physicalworld through language. In addition to the properties of objects (e.g., boatsrequire fuel) and their affordances, i.e., the actions that are applicable tothem (e.g., boats can be driven), we can also reason about if-then inferencesbetween what properties of objects imply the kind of actions that areapplicable to them (e.g., that if we can drive something then it likelyrequires fuel). In this paper, we investigate the extent to which state-of-the-art neurallanguage representations, trained on a vast amount of natural language text,demonstrate physical commonsense reasoning. While recent advancements of neurallanguage models have demonstrated strong performance on various types ofnatural language inference tasks, our study based on a dataset of over 200knewly collected annotations suggests that neural language representations stillonly learn associations that are explicitly written down.


Quick Read (beta)

Do Neural Language Representations Learn Physical Commonsense?

Maxwell Forbes, Ari Holtzman, and Yejin Choi
{mbforbes, ahai, yejin}
Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington
Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence

Humans understand language based on rich background knowledge about how the physical world works, which in turn allows us to reason about the physical world through language. In addition to the properties of objects (e.g., boats require fuel) and their affordances, i.e., the actions that are applicable to them (e.g., boats can be driven), we can also reason about if–then inferences between what properties of objects imply the kind of actions that are applicable to them (e.g., that if we can drive something then it likely requires fuel).

In this paper, we investigate the extent to which state-of-the-art neural language representations, trained on a vast amount of natural language text, demonstrate physical commonsense reasoning. While recent advancements of neural language models have demonstrated strong performance on various types of natural language inference tasks, our study based on a dataset of over 200k newly collected annotations suggests that neural language representations still only learn associations that are explicitly written down.11 1 Visit for our data, code, and more project information.

Keywords: physical commonsense, natural language, neural networks, affordances

Do Neural Language Representations Learn Physical Commonsense?

Maxwell Forbes, Ari Holtzman, and Yejin Choi {mbforbes, ahai, yejin} Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence


Figure 1: Natural language communication often requires reasoning about the affordances of objects (i.e., what actions are applicable to objects) from the properties of the objects (e.g., whether an object is edible, stationary, or requires electricity) and vice versa. We study the extent to which neural networks trained on a large amount of text can recover various aspects of physical commonsense knowledge.

Understanding everyday natural language communication requires a rich spectrum of physical commonsense knowledge. Consider the example dialog sketched in Figure 1. A simple observation that, “The blender is broken again!” triggers myriad pieces of implied understanding (e.g., that something which requires electricity will only work with a source of power). Such knowledge is rarely stated explicitly (?, ?), and instead can be inferred on-the-fly as needed.

In this paper, we study physical commonsense knowledge underlying natural language understanding, organized as interactions among three distinct concepts: (i) objects, (ii) their attributes (properties), and (iii) the actions that can be applied to them (affordances) (Figure 1, bottom). The premise of our study is that language models trained on a sufficiently large amount of text can recover a great deal of physical commonsense knowledge about each of these concepts. However, aspects of this knowledge may only be implicit in natural language utterances. For example, answering a question from the Winograd Schema Challenge (?, ?)—”The trophy would not fit in the brown suitcase because it was too big. What was too big?”—implicitly requires the physical commonsense reasoning that “in order to fit X in Y, X should be relatively smaller compared to Y,” which essentially requires reasoning about the affordances of objects (fit X in Y) from their attributes (relative sizes of X and Y).

We investigate the extent to which neural language models trained on a massive amount of text demonstrate various aspects of physical commonsense knowledge and reasoning. Our analysis includes word embeddings such as GloVe (?, ?), as well as more recent contextualized representations like ELMo (?, ?) and BERT (?, ?). Such models are trained without supervision by exposing them to billions of words, and allowing them to extract patterns purely from token prediction tasks that can be derived directly from raw text. These language representation models have established unprecedented performance on a wide range of evaluations, including natural language inference and commonsense reasoning.

How much do these large, unsupervised models of language learn about physical commonsense knowledge? Some recent work has studied the capabilities of word embeddings to predict an object’s properties (?, ?, ?). Motivated by these efforts to understand language representations, we present several contributions. We propose two datasets: the abstract dataset, a refreshed version of the McRate dataset (?, ?), pruned and densely annotated to eliminate false negatives present in previous work; and the situated dataset, with annotations for objects’ properties and affordances in real-world images sampled from the MS COCO dataset (?, ?). As in previous work, we consider the prediction task of linking objects and their properties (OP), but with our new situated dataset, we are also able to study the connection between objects and their affordances (OA), as well as between affordances and properties (AP). We also study the latest models from the natural language processing community (ELMo, BERT) using in-context word representations, and present results for all of our proposed datasets and tasks. Our analysis suggests that current neural language representations are proficient at guessing the affordances and properties of objects, but lack the ability to reason about the relationship between affordances and properties itself.

Characterizing Objects through
Properties and Affordances


We use the term properties to refer to the static characteristics of objects. They encompass our commonsense understanding of what something is like. For example, we might say that an apple has the property of being edible, or that a plant is stationary.

As with ? (?), properties capture the general perception of a thing. Exceptions naturally arise. For example, specific instances can violate the general properties of an object, such as the inediblilty of a rotten apple. Additionally, subtypes can diverge from the exemplar of a category: the Venus flytrap is a plant with the ability to move.


We express an object’s actions with verbs. One way to focus on understanding the actions of objects is to focus on their affordances. Coined by ? (?), this term initially described animal-perceived uses for an object, but has since come to mean the perceived uses of an object in a given environment (?, ?, ?).

Here, we take a simpler, human-centric definition. We consider an object’s affordances to be, “what actions do humans take with an object?” For example, boots commonly afford wear, kick off, lace up, and put on.

Inference Between Affordances and Properties

Affordances and properties exhibit a surprising connection. As humans, we are able to infer many of an object’s affordances based on its properties (AP). The same is also true in the reverse (AP).

Consider an exchange: “You think you could fit that boulder in your truck?” “No way! That thing was so big you could go for a hike on it.” We might sketch out some of this information as:

fit x into y x<sizey
hike(x) xsizeHuman

While the above information only concerns a property’s relative value (comparative size), a broad range of information can be inferred between affordances and properties. Our focus in this work is on absolute properties, for example:

She plugged in her robot.
plug-in(x) uses-electricity(x)
She looked through the keyhole.
look-through(x) transparent(x)
He poured coffee into the cup
pour-into(x) holds-liquid(x)
It shattered on the floor.
shatter(x) rigid(x)

The implications () should be taken with a probabilistic grain of salt. However, they capture our intuitions about what we expect to be true. Wouldn’t it be surprising to shatter something that isn’t rigid, or plug-in something that doesn’t take power?

Humans use the link between affordances and properties to recover information. Can machine learning models do the same? It is is difficult to model these implications based on text alone because there is no direct evidence for the implied information. Any implication that can be trivially understood by a person is precisely the kind of information left unsaid. Who would write, “If I can walk inside my house, I know that my house is bigger than I am?” Nevertheless, we naturally understand that: x walk-inside yx<sizey.

Directly attacking the link between affordances and properties requires access to implications across the edges. Without such information, we can use objects as a proxy to understand how much modern neural networks know about this edge. For example, taking an object like boots, and using only its top affordances wear, kick off, and lace up, can we predict its properties?



Total Statistics
Objects 514 411 train / 103 test
Properties 50 obj/prop: 60 median (3 min, 302 max)
prop/obj: 8 median (1 min, 23 max)
Annotations 77,100 3 anns/datum
Objects 1,024 80 unique, split: 64 train / 16 test
Properties 50
Affordances 3072 3 affordances / object (by design)
Annotations 156,672 3 anns/datum


Objects Properties Affordances
harmonica, van expensive, squishy pick up, remove
potato, shovel used as a tool for cooking pet, talk to
cat, bed decorative, fun cook, throw out
Table 1: Statistics and examples for the proposed abstract and situated datasets (based on (?, ?) and (?, ?)).
Abstract Situated
obj prop μF1 sig obj prop μF1 sig obj aff μF1 sig aff prop μF1 sig
Random 0.25 0.26 0.26 *** 0.24 0.25 0.22 *** 0.53 0.62 0.51 *** 0.24 0.26 0.23 ***
Majority 0.34 0.11 0.31 *** 0.16 0.05 0.17 *** 0.82 0.68 0.82 *** 0.18 0.05 0.17 ***
GloVe 0.63 0.47 0.63 *** 0.55 0.39 0.57 0.85 0.73 0.86 0.27 0.13 0.29
Dep-Embs 0.62 0.42 0.60 *** 0.54 0.36 0.54 *** 0.84 0.67 0.84 * 0.26 0.12 0.28
ELMo 0.67 0.55 0.67 ** 0.58 0.44 0.58 *** 0.84 0.71 0.85 ** 0.31 0.17 0.34
BERT 0.74 0.67 0.74 0.64 0.59 0.67 0.87 0.77 0.88 0.36 0.25 0.37
Human 0.78 0.80 0.67 0.70 0.69 0.61 0.83 0.93 0.80 0.65 0.67 0.40
Table 2: Macro F1 scores per category (object, property, affordance) and micro F1 score (μF1) on both the abstract and situated test sets. Highest model values are bolded. Statistical significance (sig) is calculated with McNemar’s test, comparing the best-scoring model (by μF1, denoted ) with each other model. Stratified p-values are shown, with * for p<0.05, ** for p<0.01, and *** for p<0.001. Human performance is estimated by 50 expert-annotated random samples from the test set (no McNemar’s test).


As shown at the bottom of Figure 1, our problem space naturally defines three edges in a graph. A property prediction task may attempt to produce the human-labeled set of properties given a new object (OP) (?, ?). Predicting affordances can be done similarly: given a new object, can its top affordances be distinguished from others (OA)? And finally, the troublesome but fertile edge between properties and affordances: can a model predict the set of properties compatible with an affordance (AP)?

We frame each scenario as a series of joint reasoning tasks. Given two instances (e.g., an object and a property), a model must make a binary decision as to whether they are compatible. For example, predicting which of k properties {p1,,pk} are compatible with an object o will be set up as k compatibility tasks (o,pi){0,1}.22 2 We experimented with other task setups found in previous work, such as using an object to predict a k-length vector of properties: (o){0,1}k. However, we found models performed better on all metrics by instead framing the task as a series of compatibility decisions. We suspect the reason is that this setup allows models to take advantage of input representations of both words rather than just one. We denote the tasks as object-property (OP), object-affordance (OA), and affordance-property (AP).


To fuel experiments in these three tasks, we introduce two new datasets. The first we call the abstract dataset, which is a set of judgements elicited from only the name of the object (e.g., wheelbarrow) and property (e.g., is an animal). The second is the situated dataset, where properties and affordances are annotated on objects in the context of real-world pictures.33 3 Annotations for both datasets are performed by workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk.

Abstract Dataset

Several lists of properties (?, ?), categorization schemes (?, ?), and quantification layers (?, ?) have been proposed. We take the set of objects and properties from ? (?) and perform filtering and preprocessing similar to ? (?). We also include the set of objects from the MS COCO dataset (?, ?), collapse similar objects (e.g., many bird species) and add seven new properties (such as man-made and squishy). We end up with a set of 514 objects and 50 properties. We re-annotate all 25,700 object-property pairs to eliminate false negatives from the original McRae data collection process and provide labels for new entries. We annotate each pair three times for a total of 77,100 annotations, and keep only labels with 2/3 agreement.

Situated Dataset

We also annotate instances of objects situated in photographs. Images have the great advantage of resolving visual ambiguities of appearance, shape, and form. For example, a bottle has different properties if it is a glass beverage container or plastic shampoo tube. Only a few non-visual properties (e.g., smelliness) must then be inferred from the environment.

To build the an experimental situated testbed, we sample images from the MS COCO dataset (?, ?). We constrain each image to have between three and seven objects to avoid scenes that are too sparse (often portraits) or dense (cluttered collections). We also ensure that we have at least five samples of each of the 80 unique object categories in the dataset. We end up with 1,024 objects across 220 images. We then annotate all 50 properties (introduced in the abstract dataset) for each object, annotating each three times for a total of 153,600 labels. We filter using the same scheme (2/3 agreement).

In addition to the properties, we also collect annotations of the affordances for all objects in the situated dataset. We allow annotators to choose from the 504 verbs from the imSitu dataset (?, ?). We provide common variants of each verb that include particles, allowing annotations such as pick up and throw out. Annotators select the top three to five affordances that come to mind when they see the selected object in the context of its photograph. We again perform this annotation three times for each object, and aggregate the verbs chosen to pick the top three most common affordances for each object. We end up with a set of sparsely labeled affordances for each situated object. We perform balanced negative sampling by selecting k=3 affordances for each datum and setting their labels to zero.

Detailed statistics and examples for both datasets are shown in Table 1. Full lists of the objects, properties, and affordances, as well as the annotation interfaces, are provided in the Appendix.


Word embeddings

We consider four representations of the words involved in the tasks. Two of the representations are word embeddings. These map single words to vectors in d. We use GloVe embeddings (?, ?) as they have proven effective at object-property tasks in the past (?, ?). We also use Dependency Based Word Embeddings (?, ?), as they may more directly capture the relations between objects and their affordances. In both cases, d=300, and we use the GloVe embedding variant with the largest amount of pretraining (840 billion words).

Contextualized representations

The other two representations are ELMo (?, ?) and BERT (?, ?), which are contextualized. These require full sentences (as opposed to single words) to compute a vector, but in turn produce results more specific to words’ linguistic surroundings. For example, ELMo and BERT produce different representations for book in “I read the book” versus “Please book the flight,” while word embeddings have only a single representation.

To account for this, we generate sentences using the relevant objects, properties, and affordances for the task at hand. For example, to judge accordion and squishy, we would generate “An accordion is squishy.”

For ELMo, we then take the final layer representations for the two compared words, each of which is a d=1024 length vector. For BERT, we take the overall sentence representation as the final layer’s hidden state of the [CLS] (sentence summary) symbol, which produces a single d=1024 vector.


Given the word representations above, we finetune each of the models by adding trainable multilayer perceptron (MLP) after the input representations. This allows models to learn interrelations between the two categories at hand, essentially calibrating the unsupervised representations into a compatibility function. We use a single hidden layer in the MLP, and train using mean squared error loss with L2 regularization. For BERT, we find the standard procedure of finetuning the entire model vital for good performance.

To summarize, for two words (wi,wj) which can be written together in a sentence s=w1wn, we have for a model m,

r(wi,wj)={m(wi),m(wj)if m{Gl., D.E.}m{i,j}-1(s)if m=ELMom[CLS]-1(s)if m=BERT

where m()i is an embedding of the ith token in the layer , a is a nonlinear activation function, y{0,1} is the ground truth label, θ={𝐖𝟏,𝐖𝟐,𝐛𝟏,𝐛𝟐} are trainable parameters, and λ is the regularization strength.44 4 For BERT, we also follow standard practice and append a single trainable layer (logistic regression) instead of a two-layer MLP; i.e., 𝐖𝟏=𝐈,𝐛𝟏=𝟎,a(x)=x.

We optimize models using gradient descent (or Adam (?, ?) for BERT), and tune all hyperparameters using k-fold cross validation with k=5.

Figure 2: Detailed results of top performing model (BERT) on the affordance-property compatibility task (AP) in the situated dataset. (a) F1 scores are plotted per property (left) and affordance (right). (b) Properties are divided into four categories and plotted by accuracy. (c), (d) Both property and affordance F1 plotted against word frequency in natural language text.


We compare performance for these models against two simple approaches. The random baseline simply flips a coin for each compatibility decision. The majority baseline uses the per-class majority label for the training set, aggregating by property for the OP and AP tasks, and by affordance for the OA task.

Human performance

Finally, we estimate human performance on this task. We sample 50 samples at random from the test set for each task, and have an expert annotate them. For fairness to the models, we do not show the expert the photographs or exact instance from which the situated examples are drawn.


A summary of all model performances is shown in Table 2. Consistent with prior work that has studied object and property compatibility (?, ?), we find good but not perfect performance (close to 0.70 F1 scores) on the abstract dataset (task OP). Models fare slightly worse on the situated OP task, with the best performance below 0.60 F1. This effect is consistent in the human expert scores as well. Though this dataset is larger, the introduction of context allows for greater variance in the properties of an object.

The object-affordance compatibility task (OA) yields significantly higher numbers. Not only is this task statistically easier (as demonstrated by the strong majority baseline), but this edge is the only one directly observed in language. All models pretrained on text have been exposed to many instances of likely verbs for each object considered. In fact, all pretrained models perform in the same range as human ability, and there is no statistically significant difference between the models for this task.

However, all models struggle with the affordance-property task (AP). The highest F1 scores are in the 0.30s, with the random baseline achieving the highest macro F1 score by property. While this task is also the most difficult for humans, their macro F1 scores for both affordances and properties are around double those of the best performing models. We posit that the inference between affordances and properties requires multi-hop reasoning that is simply not present in the pretraining of large text-based models. We provide further analysis in the following section.


Models achieve reasonable performance predicting the compatibility of both properties and affordances with objects. However, the task requiring inference between affordances and properties (AP) confounds even the strongest models.

We explore this result through a detailed analysis of the top performing model. Figure 2 presents a breakdown of BERT’s results on the affordances-property compatibility task (AP) on the situated dataset. From the leftmost graph (a), we observe that a per-property analysis shows a largely bimodal split between properties that are fully predicted (1.0 F1), and went completely unmodeled (0.0 F1). Affordances, on the other hand, lie more evenly across the F1 range. Because the task involved the compatibility between properties and affordances, mass for correct predictions must be shared between the two data groups. That so few properties achieved a high F1 score suggests that many affordances rely on only a few properties for accurate prediction.

We perform further analysis to investigate which kinds of properties yielded better affordance-property modeling. We categorize each property into four coarse classes: functional (e.g., is used for cooking), encyclopedic (e.g., is an animal), commonsense (e.g., comes in pairs), and perceptual (e.g., is smooth). Figure  2 (b) shows a breakdown of property performance grouped by these four categories. (Here, we plot accuracy instead of the sharper F1 metric to better illustrate the spread of performance.) Functional properties exhibit the highest performance. This makes intuitive since, because functional capabilities are directly tied to an object’s affordances. In contrast, perceptual properties exhibit generally lower and inconsistent performance than other categories. We suspect that perceptual observations observed in text are not expressed with affordances, making this connection difficult for models. Largely perceptual features can be written about with simple verbs (hear, see, feel), giving them less implicit evidence than more nuanced properties. Finally, encyclopedic and commonsense properties fall somewhere in the middle. These properties, which involve an object’s general characteristics (like requires gasoline, lives in water, or has a peel), correlate with a variety of verbs. But they may only be directly expressed at a distance from a verb, making the inference between them still challenging.

Our final analyses in Figure 2 (c) and (d) investigate whether there is a link between the predictive power of the model and how often a word is used in text. We compute the frequencies of all affordances and properties occurring in natural language using the Google Web 1T corpus, an n-gram corpus computed from approximately one trillion words (?, ?). Figure 2 (c) plots the F1 score of properties against how frequently they appear in natural language; 2 (d) plots the same for affordances. We include a best-fit line along with confidence intervals shown as one standard deviation of the data. We do not observe a statistical correlation between how much affordances and properties are written about, and how well neural models are able to connect their effects; a single confidence interval spans both positive and negative slopes. This lack of clear correlation is surprising, because large state-of-the-art neural textual models generally improve with repeated exposure to instances of words. Except for the three most common words measured by property F1 score, the rest of the data shows a strikingly uniform distribution of F1 scores for any choice of frequency in natural language. This suggests that current neural models are fundamentally limited in their capacity for physical reasoning, and that only new designs—not more data—can allow them to acquire this skill.


Despite being able to associate a considerable range of information with the names of objects, neural models are not able to capture the more subtle interplay between affordances and properties. In some sense, this result is unsurprising. Collecting information around an object can be informed largely by the co-occurrence of words around that object’s various mentions. Affordances that imply properties (and the reverse) are rarely mentioned together; their mutual connotation naturally renders joint expression redundant. Hence, priorless models that learn from statistical associations falter. Given the depth of the networks used in models such as ELMo and BERT, complex inter-parameter structure arises, but the latent semantic patterns that describe physical commonsense are much weaker than more superficial patterns that arise due to grammar or domain.

This evidence evokes theories of embodied cognition (?, ?, ?), which suggest that the nature of human cognition depends strongly on the stimuli granted by physical experience. If this is so, then how is information encoded in our physical experience such that we can make predictions? If we assume a form of mental simulation, then what are the mental limits on its reliability? From an artificial intelligence perspective, the more interesting proof is in the principles of creating such a mental simulator. If we are to simulate human capacity for thought, how actually must we simulate elements of the physical world?

With the rise of physics engines, our ability to model physical inferences grows (?, ?). However, while this may make us better at anticipating human predictions about physical situations through perceptual stimuli (?, ?), there is still a long way to go before we understand the inferences that are being made through more symbolic stimuli, such as language. Exploring the mechanisms underlying this communication using an implicit shared world model will require us to either develop access to such a world model, or expose algorithms to predictions of that world model by directly querying humans. Bridging the inductive biases learned from simulation (?, ?) and those discovered by scientists (?, ?) to make inferences implicit in text will lead to a more cohesive model of commonsense physics. We expect such a model to bear fruit in studies of communication rich with physical implications.


This work was supported by NSF grants (IIS-1524371, 1637479, 1703166), NSF Fellowship, the DARPA CwC program through ARO (W911NF-15-1-0543), and gifts by Google and Facebook. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing endorsements of the funding agencies.




We provide below a full list of the objects considered in both of our datasets. We note the split that it belongs to in each dataset (train or test), and the origin of the object (MR = ? (?); C = MS COCO (?, ?)).

In general, this list is the union of objects found in McRae (?) and MS COCO. For cases where we do not use the object in either dataset (i.e., a “-” in both columns), we mark the row in italics and provide a note for why it was dropped. The most common reasons for dropping an object are: polysemy, such as in bat (animal vs baseball); hypernomy (e.g., sparrow bird) to collapse similar objects, such as the eighteen species of birds found in McRae (?); and dialect (e.g., trousers pants) to make annotations easier for readers of American English. (For the several species of fish in McRae (?), we left two fish of clearly distinct sizes, goldfish and trout, rather than including a generic “fish” object.)

Object Abstract Situated Origin Note
accordion train - MR
airplane train test MR, C
alligator train - MR
ambulance train - MR
anchor train - MR
ant train - MR
apartment train - MR
apple train train MR, C
apron train - MR
armour test - MR
ashtray train - MR
asparagus train - MR
avocado train - MR
axe test - MR
backpack test train C
bag train - MR
bagpipe train - MR
ball train - MR
balloon train - MR
banana train train MR, C
banjo test - MR
banner train - MR
barn train - MR
barrel train - MR
baseball bat train train C
baseball glove test train C
basement train - MR
basket train - MR
bat (animal) - - MR (polysemy)
bat (baseball) - - MR (polysemy)
bathtub test - MR
baton train - MR
bayonet train - MR
bazooka train - MR
beans train - MR
bear train train MR, C
beaver test - MR
bed train train MR, C
bedroom train - MR
beehive train - MR
beetle train - MR
beets train - MR
belt train - MR
bench train train MR, C
bicycle test train C
bike train - MR
bin (waste) - - MR (polysemy)
birch - - MR tree
bird train train C
biscuit train - MR
bison train - MR
blackbird - - MR bird
blender train - MR
blouse train - MR
blueberry train - MR
bluejay - - MR bird
board (black) - - MR (polysemy)
board (wood) - - MR (polysemy)
boat train train MR, C
bolts train - MR
bomb train - MR
book test train MR, C
bookcase train - MR
boots train - MR
bottle train test MR, C
bouquet train - MR
bow (ribbon) - - MR (polysemy)
bow (weapon) - - MR (polysemy)
bowl train test MR, C
box train - MR
bra train - MR
bracelet train - MR
bread train - MR
brick train - MR
bridge train - MR
broccoli train test MR, C
broom train - MR
brush test - MR
bucket test - MR
buckle test - MR
budgie - - MR (obscure)
buffalo train - MR
buggy train - MR
building test - MR
bull train - MR
bullet train - MR
bungalow train - MR
bureau train - MR
bus train train MR, C
butterfly train - MR
buzzard - - MR bird
cabbage test - MR
cabin train - MR
cabinet train - MR
cage train - MR
cake train train MR, C
calf train - MR
camel train - MR
camisole train - MR
canary - - MR bird
candle train - MR
cannon test - MR
canoe train - MR
cantaloupe train - MR
cap (bottle) - - MR (polysemy)
cap (hat) - - MR (polysemy)
cape train - MR
car train train MR, C
card (greeting) - - MR (polysemy)
caribou train - MR
carpet train - MR
carrot train train MR, C
cart test - MR
cat train train MR, C
catapult train - MR
caterpillar train - MR
catfish - - MR (obscure)
cathedral train - MR
cauliflower test - MR
cedar - - MR tree
celery train - MR
cell phone train train C
cellar train - MR
cello train - MR
certificate train - MR
chain train - MR
chair test test MR, C
chandelier train - MR
chapel train - MR
cheese test - MR
cheetah train - MR
cherry train - MR
chickadee - - MR bird
chicken test - MR
chimp train - MR
chipmunk train - MR
chisel train - MR
church train - MR
cigar train - MR
cigarette train - MR
clam train - MR
clamp train - MR
clarinet train - MR
cloak train - MR
clock train train MR, C
closet train - MR
coat train - MR
cockroach train - MR
coconut train - MR
cod - - MR (obscure)
coin train - MR
colander train - MR
comb test - MR
cork train - MR
corkscrew train - MR
corn test - MR
cottage train - MR
couch train train MR, C
cougar train - MR
cow test train MR, C
coyote train - MR
crab test - MR
cranberry train - MR
crane (machine) - - MR (polysemy)
crayon train - MR
crocodile train - MR
crossbow train - MR
crow train - MR
crowbar test - MR
crown train - MR
cucumber test - MR
cup train train MR, C
cupboard test - MR
curtains train - MR
cushion test - MR
dagger train - MR
dandelion train - MR
deer test - MR
desk train - MR
dining table train test C
dish train - MR
dishwasher train - MR
dog train train MR, C
doll test - MR
dolphin train - MR
donkey train - MR
donut train train C
door train - MR
doorknob train - MR
dove train - MR
drain train - MR
drapes train - MR
dress test - MR
dresser train - MR
drill train - MR
drum train - MR
duck train - MR
dunebuggy - - MR (no word emb.)
eagle test - MR
earmuffs train - MR
eel train - MR
eggplant train - MR
elephant test test MR, C
elevator train - MR
elk test - MR
emerald train - MR
emu - - MR (obscure)
envelope train - MR
escalator train - MR
falcon train - MR
fan (appliance) - - MR (polysemy)
faucet train - MR
fawn train - MR
fence train - MR
finch - - MR bird
fire hydrant train train C
flamingo test - MR
flea train - MR
flute train - MR
football train - MR
fork train train MR, C
fox train - MR
freezer train - MR
fridge train - MR
frisbee train train C
frog train - MR
garage train - MR
garlic train - MR
gate test - MR
giraffe train train MR, C
gloves train - MR
goat train - MR
goldfish train - MR
goose train - MR
gopher train - MR
gorilla train - MR
gown test - MR
grape train - MR
grapefruit train - MR
grasshopper train - MR
grater train - MR
grenade train - MR
groundhog train - MR
guitar train - MR
gun train - MR
guppy - - MR (obscure)
hair drier train test C
hammer train - MR
hamster train - MR
handbag train train C
hare train - MR
harmonica train - MR
harp train - MR
harpoon train - MR
harpsichord train - MR
hatchet train - MR
hawk test - MR
helicopter test - MR
helmet train - MR
hoe train - MR
honeydew train - MR
hook train - MR
hornet train - MR
horse train test MR, C
hose train - MR
hose (leggings) - - MR (polysemy)
hot dog train test C
house test - MR
housefly test - MR
hut test - MR
hyena train - MR
iguana test - MR
inn test - MR
jacket test - MR
jar train - MR
jeans train - MR
jeep train - MR
jet test - MR
kettle train - MR
key train - MR
keyboard train test C
keyboard (musical) - - MR (polysemy)
kite train train MR, C
knife train train MR, C
ladle train - MR
lamb train - MR
lamp train - MR
lantern test - MR
laptop test train C
lemon train - MR
leopard train - MR
leotards train - MR
lettuce train - MR
level train - MR
lime test - MR
limousine train - MR
lion train - MR
lobster test - MR
machete train - MR
mackerel - - MR (obscure)
magazine test - MR
mandarin test - MR
marble train - MR
mat train - MR
medal train - MR
menu train - MR
microscope train - MR
microwave train train MR, C
mink - - MR (polysemy)
mink (coat) - - MR (polysemy)
minnow - - MR (obscure)
mirror train - MR
missile train - MR
mittens test - MR
mixer train - MR
mole (animal) - - MR (polysemy)
moose train - MR
moth train - MR
motorcycle test train MR, C
mouse train train MR, C
mouse (computer) - - MR (polysemy)
mug train - MR
mushroom train - MR
muzzle train - MR
napkin train - MR
necklace train - MR
nectarine train - MR
nightgown train - MR
nightingale - - MR bird
nylons test - MR
oak - - MR tree
octopus test - MR
olive train - MR
onions test - MR
orange train train MR, C
oriole - - MR bird
ostrich test - MR
otter train - MR
oven test train MR, C
owl train - MR
ox test - MR
paintbrush train - MR
pajamas train - MR
pan train - MR
panther train - MR
pants train - MR
parakeet - - MR bird
parka train - MR
parking meter train train C
parsley train - MR
partridge - - MR bird
peach test - MR
peacock train - MR
pear train - MR
pearl test - MR
peas train - MR
peg test - MR
pelican - - MR bird
pen test - MR
pencil train - MR
penguin train - MR
pepper test - MR
perch - - MR (obscure)
person train train C
pheasant - - MR bird
piano train - MR
pickle train - MR
pie test - MR
pier train - MR
pig train - MR
pigeon train - MR
pillow test - MR
pin train - MR
pine - - MR tree
pineapple train - MR
pipe - - MR (polysemy)
pipe (smoking) - - MR (polysemy)
pistol test - MR
pizza test train C
plate test - MR
platypus test - MR
pliers train - MR
plug (electric) - - MR (polysemy)
plum train - MR
pony train - MR
porcupine train - MR
pot train - MR
potato train - MR
potted plant train train C
projector train - MR
prune train - MR
pumpkin train - MR
pyramid test - MR
python train - MR
rabbit train - MR
raccoon train - MR
racquet train - MR
radio train - MR
radish train - MR
raft train - MR
raisin test - MR
rake test - MR
raspberry train - MR
rat train - MR
rattle train - MR
rattlesnake train - MR
raven - - MR bird
razor train - MR
refrigerator train train C
remote train train C
revolver train - MR
rhubarb train - MR
rice train - MR
rifle train - MR
ring (jewelry) - - MR (polysemy)
robe train - MR
robin - - MR bird
rock test - MR
rocker test - MR
rocket train - MR
rooster train - MR
rope test - MR
ruler train - MR
sack train - MR
saddle train - MR
sailboat test - MR
salamander train - MR
salmon train - MR
sandals train - MR
sandpaper train - MR
sandwich test train C
sardine test - MR
saucer - - MR plate
saxophone test - MR
scarf train - MR
scissors train train MR, C
scooter train - MR
screwdriver train - MR
screws test - MR
seagull train - MR
seal train - MR
seaweed test - MR
shack train - MR
shawl train - MR
shed train - MR
sheep train test MR, C
shell test - MR
shelves train - MR
shield train - MR
ship train - MR
shirt train - MR
shoes train - MR
shotgun train - MR
shovel train - MR
shrimp test - MR
sink test train MR, C
skateboard test test MR, C
skillet train - MR
skirt train - MR
skis train train MR, C
skunk train - MR
skyscraper train - MR
sled train - MR
sledgehammer train - MR
sleigh train - MR
slingshot train - MR
slippers train - MR
snail train - MR
snowboard test train C
socks train - MR
sofa test - MR
spade train - MR
sparrow - - MR bird
spatula train - MR
spear train - MR
spider train - MR
spinach train - MR
spoon test train MR, C
sports ball train train C
squid train - MR
squirrel train - MR
starling - - MR bird
stereo train - MR
stick train - MR
stone test - MR
stool (furniture) - - MR (polysemy)
stop sign train train C
stork - - MR bird
stove train - MR
strainer train - MR
strawberry train - MR
submarine test - MR
subway train - MR
suitcase train train C
surfboard train train MR, C
swan train - MR
sweater train - MR
swimsuit train - MR
sword train - MR
table train - MR
tack test - MR
tangerine train - MR
tank (army) - - MR (polysemy)
tank (container) - - MR (polysemy)
tap - - MR faucet
tape (scotch) - - MR (polysemy)
taxi train - MR
teddy bear train train C
telephone test - MR
tennis racket train test C
tent train - MR
thermometer train - MR
thimble train - MR
tie train train MR, C
tiger train - MR
toad train - MR
toaster train train MR, C
toilet train train MR, C
tomahawk train - MR
tomato test - MR
tongs train - MR
toothbrush train train C
tortoise train - MR
toy test - MR
tractor train - MR
traffic light train train C
trailer train - MR
train test train MR, C
tray train - MR
tree train - new
tricycle train - MR
tripod train - MR
trolley train - MR
trombone train - MR
trousers - - MR pants
trout train - MR
truck train test MR, C
trumpet train - MR
tuba train - MR
tuna train - MR
turkey train - MR
turnip train - MR
turtle train - MR
tv train train C
typewriter train - MR
umbrella train train MR, C
unicycle train - MR
urn train - MR
van train - MR
vase train train C
veil test - MR
vest test - MR
vine train - MR
violin train - MR
vulture - - MR bird
wagon train - MR
wall train - MR
walnut train - MR
walrus train - MR
wand test - MR
wasp train - MR
whale test - MR
wheel train - MR
wheelbarrow train - MR
whip train - MR
whistle train - MR
willow - - MR tree
wine glass train train C
woodpecker train - MR
worm test - MR
wrench train - MR
yacht train - MR
yam train - MR
zebra test test MR, C
zucchini train - MR


We provide below the list of fifty properties used in both the abstract and situated datasets. We also list our categorization of the property into four areas: encyclopedic, perceptual, functional, or commonsense. Forty-three properties come from MR (?, ?), and seven are new.

To build this list of properties, we started by the now-standard practice of filtering the properties used in (?, ?) to those that occur at least five times, which yields 266 properties. From this list, we selected properties that seemed applicable to a moderate range of objects. For example, we preferred produces noise over the much more specific used by blowing air through, and we added has words on it over the near-unanimous has different colors. We also avoided properties that were narrowly identifiable (e.g., has feet) in favor of judgment-based properties (e.g., is slimy). Finally, we added a few natural complements to the selected properties; e.g., from is usually cold we included is usually hot.

Property Categorization Origin
is an animal encyclopedic MR
is big perceptual MR
is breakable commonsense MR
is used by children functional MR
is used for cleaning functional MR
is usually cold commonsense MR
is used for cooking functional MR
is dangerous commonsense MR
is decorative commonsense MR
is used for eating functional MR
is edible functional MR
requires electricity encyclopedic MR
is expensive commonsense MR
is fast commonsense MR
is worn on feet functional MR
can fly encyclopedic MR
is fun commonsense MR
requires gasoline encyclopedic MR
is hand-held commonsense MR
is hard perceptual MR
is heavy perceptual MR
is used for holding things functional MR
is usually hot commonsense new
is used for killing functional MR
is light (in weight) perceptual new
is loud perceptual MR
is man-made encyclopedic new
is used for music functional MR
comes in pairs commonsense MR
has a peel encyclopedic MR
is sharp commonsense MR
has shelves commonsense MR
is shiny perceptual MR
is slimy perceptual MR
is smelly perceptual MR
is smooth perceptual MR
produces sound perceptual MR
is squishy perceptual new
is eaten in summer commonsense MR
can swim encyclopedic MR
is tall perceptual MR
is a tool functional MR
is a toy functional MR
is used for transportation functional MR
is unhealthy commonsense new
is found on walls commonsense MR
is worn for warmth functional MR
lives in water encyclopedic MR
is usually wet commonsense new
has words on it commonsense new


We provide below the list of candidate verbs, along with the assistive particles and prepositions, we used for annotating affordances.

When annotating “What might you do to the X?” for an object X, it can be helpful or necessary to use a particle or preposition when writing an answer. Here are some examples:

Feed the dog. (verb only)
Take out the trash. (verb + particle)
Dive into the water. (verb + preposition)

We use two strategies to enable annotators to write grammatical constructions like the above. For particles, we provide common variants of each verb that use particles, such as buckle up and buckle in in addition to buckle. For prepositions, we allow an additional choice of a preposition after the annotator has selected a verb (or verb + particle) from the list.

We discard both particles and prepositions when building our task data. We do this for two reasons. First, we wish to eliminate errors where an annotator mistakes the subtle distinction between a particle and a preposition. Second, we want to constrain the input and output space for the models, which would otherwise multiplicatively scale the verbs by the number of particles and prepositions.

To pick the verbs, we take the set of 504 verbs used in the imSitu dataset (?, ?) and lemmatize them. For particles and prepositions, we run a dependency parser on a large corpus of sentences and aggregate statistics. We add all verb + particle forms of all verbs that occur in at least 5% of the usages of that verb. We then provide the twenty-six widely used prepositions as an additional selection. For brevity, we list here just the verbs in their lemmatized form, and provide the twenty-seven unique particles and prepositions.


adjust, admire, ail, aim, applaud, apply, apprehend, arch, arrange, arrest, ascend, ask, assemble, attach, attack, autograph, bake, balloon, bandage, baptize, barbecue, bathe, beg, bet, bike, bite, block, blossom, board, boat, bother, bounce, bow, braid, branch, brawl, break, brew, browse, brush, bubble, buckle, build, bulldoze, burn, bury, butt, butter, button, buy, call, calm, camouflage, camp, caress, carry, cart, carve, catch, celebrate, chase, check, cheer, cheerlead, chew, chisel, chop, circle, clap, claw, clean, clear, clench, climb, cling, clip, coach, collide, color, comb, communicate, commute, compete, complain, confront, congregate, construct, cook, cough, count, cover, craft, cram, crash, crawl, crest, crouch, crown, crush, cry, curl, curtsy, dance, decompose, decorate, deflect, descend, destroy, detain, dial, din, dip, discipline, discuss, disembark, display, dissect, distract, distribute, dive, dock, douse, drag, draw, drench, drink, drip, drive, drool, drop, drum, dry, duck, dust, dye, eat, educate, eject, embrace, emerge, empty, encourage, erase, erupt, examine, exercise, exterminate, extinguish, fall, farm, fasten, feed, fetch, fill, film, fish, fix, flame, flap, flex, flick, fling, flip, float, floss, fold, forage, ford, frisk, frown, fry, fuel, gamble, garden, gasp, gather, giggle, give, glare, glow, glue, gnaw, grieve, grill, grimace, grin, grind, guard, handcuff, hang, harvest, haul, heave, help, hike, hit, hitchhike, hoe, hoist, hug, hunch, hunt, hurl, ignite, ignore, imitate, immerse, inflate, inject, insert, instal, instruct, intermingle, interrogate, interview, jog, juggle, jump, kick, kiss, knead, kneel, knock, lace, land, lap, lather, laugh, launch, lead, leak, lean, leap, lecture, lick, lift, light, load, lock, make, manicure, march, mash, massage, measure, mend, microwave, milk, mime, mine, misbehave, moisten, moisturize, mold, mop, mourn, mow, nag, nail, nip, nuzzle, offer, officiate, open, operate, overflow, pack, package, paint, panhandle, parachute, parade, paste, pat, paw, pay, pedal, pee, peel, perform, perspire, phone, photograph, pick, pilot, pin, pinch, pitch, place, plant, plow, plummet, plunge, poke, poop, pot, pounce, pour, pout, practice, pray, preach, press, prick, protest, provide, prowl, prune, pry, pucker, pull, pump, punch, punt, push, put, queue, race, raft, rain, rake, ram, read, rear, reassure, record, recover, recuperate, rehabilitate, release, repair, rest, restrain, retrieve, rid, rinse, rock, rot, row, rub, run, salute, say, scold, scoop, score, scrap, scratch, scrub, seal, sell, serve, sew, shake, sharpen, shave, shear, shell, shelve, shiver, shoot, shop, shout, shovel, shred, shrug, shush, sign, signal, sing, sit, skate, sketch, ski, skid, skip, slap, sleep, slice, slide, slip, slither, slouch, smash, smear, smell, smile, sneeze, sniff, snow, snuggle, soak, soar, socialize, sow, spank, speak, spear, spill, spin, spit, splash, spoil, spray, spread, sprinkle, sprint, sprout, spy, squeeze, squint, stack, stampede, stand, staple, star, steer, sting, stir, stitch, stoop, storm, strap, stretch, strike, strip, stroke, study, stuff, stumble, subdue, submerge, suck, surf, swarm, sweep, swim, swing, swoop, tackle, talk, tap, taste, tattoo, taxi, teach, tear, telephone, throw, tickle, tie, till, tilt, tip, tow, train, trim, trip, tug, tune, turn, twirl, twist, type, uncork, unload, unlock, unpack, unplug, unveil, urinate, vacuum, vault, videotape, vote, wad, waddle, wag, wait, walk, wash, water, wave, wax, weed, weep, weigh, weld, wet, wheel, whip, whirl, whisk, whistle, wilt, wink, wipe, work, wrap, wring, wrinkle, write, yank, yawn

Particles and Prepositions

about, after, against, around, as, at, before, behind, by, down, for, from, in, into, like, of, off, on, onto, out, over, through, to, towards, up, with, without

Data Collection

We provide below the data collection interfaces we used to label properties in both the abstract and situated datasets. The affordances collected for the situated dataset used a similar interface.

Abstract Dataset

The interface for labeling the abstract dataset asks about an object by giving only its name (e.g., accordion), and then asking about the usual properties of that object. Annotators are given the choice “too difficult to tell,” but are encouraged to use that only when absolutely necessary, and use their best guess when possible. We display twenty-five properties at once.

Situated Dataset

The interface for labeling the situated dataset displays a picture with an object highlighted in it (the photos and object labels are from MS COCO (?, ?)).

To label properties, the annotator is asked to select which properties apply to this particular object. Because the object is grounded in a specific instance, we remove the “too difficult to tell” option, forcing a yes/no decision. We display ten properties at once.

To label affordances (not pictured), the annotator is prompted “What might you do to X?”, where X is the highlighted object. The annotator is asked to provide three to five choices using the provided verbs, particles, and prepositions (described above). After collecting all annotations, we discard the particles and prepositions, and aggregate to pick the top three verbs used for each instance. To create negative samples, we randomly pick three verbs that were not selected from the complete list.

Quality Control

We collect annotations using Amazon Mechanical Turk. We find workers generally provide high quality annotations. However, even with strict qualification requirements, we often find a nontrivial rate of negligence. To combat this, we inject two pseudo-properties (e.g., “Is X a word in the English language?” for the object X) in our data collection interface. Because we know the answers to these questions in advance, we can use them as a check to prevent a worker from answering at random. We discard all data from any worker who answers any of these questions incorrectly.


August 2019

This is the first version uploaded to arXiv. Previously, BERT was trained in the same way as all other models: fixing the model, and training an MLP on top. We fine-tuned BERT end-to-end, which then outperformed all other models. We updated the Models section, results and statistical significance tests (Table 2), and the analysis graphs (Figure 2). While BERT’s finetuned numbers are higher overall, the conclusions of the paper remain unchanged. BERT’s performance on the situated affordance property task are still far below humans’.

This version also includes an Appendix, which contains detailed information about our datasets.