Physics-IQ Verified
Video models continue 198 real filmed physics experiments from their first frames. Generated videos are compared with the real outcome, with every sample and metric weighted equally.
An audit of Physics-IQ that refines 57.6% of samples and 34.8% of prompts and adds sample-level scoring. Rankings shift from the original (Kendall tau 0.46). The repo calls it the recommended variant.
- Made by
- Anates Labs and Google DeepMind (Physics-IQ authors)
- Released
- June 2026
- Kind
- Physical prediction
- Level
- Everyday
- Scored
- Checked automatically
- Answers
- Open-ended
- Tasks
- All public
- Last model added
- July 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
Video generative models ( VGMs) have become a new frontier that can be used not just for video generation but for a multitude of downstream tasks, including world modeling. To advance these tasks, a good video model must understand the physical reality of the world. Evaluating this understanding is an emerging field and has led to the Physics-IQ benchmark, which quantifies this explicitly by comparing model-generated videos to real-world videos of physical experiments. In this work, we present a systematic audit of the Physics-IQ benchmark, expose shortcomings and propose three solutions that sharpen how we can measure physical understanding of VGMs. Specifically, we improve prompt and ground-truth quality to reduce the influence of confounding factors and further introduce a sample-level scoring system that weights each sample and metric equally. Our resulting benchmark, Physics-IQ Verified, refines 57.6% of all samples and improves over 34.8% of prompts. In a comparison study using six image-to-video generative models, we observe moderate but meaningful ranking changes (Kendall's τ= 0.46). We hope Physics-IQ Verified advances the community by providing a more reliable signal toward physically accurate VGMs. The code for the benchmark can be accessed at https://github.com/google-deepmind/physics-iq-benchmark
Flux 3 Video leads with 10.9 among models released by July 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in July 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 16 more
- 10.9 Flux 3 Video
- 9.74 Odyssey-3 Pro
- 8.58 Odyssey-3
- 8.37 Cosmos 3 Super (Astra)
- 7.98 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Super)
- 5.59 Cosmos 3 Nano (Astra)
- 3.04 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Nano)
- 2.43 Cosmos3 Super
- 2.18
Dreamina Seedance 2.5
- -0.46
MiniMax H3
- -3.00
Cosmos3-Nano
- -4.04 MiniMax H3 Max (fal)
- -4.91
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
- -5.45 Grok Imagine Video
- -6.85
HunyuanVideo 1.5
- -6.89
Gemini Omni Flash
- -7.51
Cosmos3-Edge
- -8.05 Wan 2.2 14B
- -8.42 Veo 3.1 Lite
- -8.50 CogVideoX-5B
- -9.43 Kandinsky-WM 1.0
- -10.29 Veo 3.1 Fast
- -12.54 Wan 2.2 5B
- -13.75 Sora 2
- -14.95 P-Video
- 1 Flux 3 Video custom prompts 10.9
- 2 Odyssey-3 Pro custom prompts 9.74
- 3 Odyssey-3 custom prompts 8.58
- 4 Cosmos 3 Super (Astra) custom prompts 8.37
- 5 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Super) custom prompts 7.98
- 6 Cosmos 3 Nano (Astra) custom prompts 5.59
- 7 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Nano) custom prompts 3.04
- 8 Cosmos3 Super custom prompts 2.43
- 9
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 2.18
- 10
MiniMax H3 -0.46
- 11
Cosmos3-Nano custom prompts -3.00
- 12 MiniMax H3 Max (fal) -4.04
- 13
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash -4.91
- 14 Grok Imagine Video -5.45
- 15
HunyuanVideo 1.5 -6.85
- 16
Gemini Omni Flash -6.89
- 17
Cosmos3-Edge -7.51
- 18 Wan 2.2 14B -8.05
- 19 Veo 3.1 Lite -8.42
- 20 CogVideoX-5B -8.50
- 21 Kandinsky-WM 1.0 -9.43
- 22 Veo 3.1 Fast -10.29
- 23 Wan 2.2 5B -12.54
- 24 Sora 2 -13.75
- 25 P-Video -14.95
Source: Official Physics-IQ Verified leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Flux 3 Video | 10.9 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Odyssey-3 Pro | 9.74 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Odyssey-3 | 8.58 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Cosmos 3 Super (Astra) | 8.37 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Super) | 7.98 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Cosmos 3 Nano (Astra) | 5.59 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Nano) | 3.04 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Cosmos3 Super | 2.43 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 2.18 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | | -0.46 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | | -3.00 | custom prompts | May 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | MiniMax H3 Max (fal) | -4.04 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | | -4.91 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | Grok Imagine Video | -5.45 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | | -6.85 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | | -6.89 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | | -7.51 | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 18 | Wan 2.2 14B | -8.05 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Veo 3.1 Lite | -8.42 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | CogVideoX-5B | -8.50 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | Kandinsky-WM 1.0 | -9.43 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | Veo 3.1 Fast | -10.29 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | Wan 2.2 5B | -12.54 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | Sora 2 | -13.75 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | P-Video | -14.95 | Official leaderboard |
The best score, 10.9, costs $0.87 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official Physics-IQ Verified leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flux 3 Video | custom prompts | 10.9 | $0.87 | ||
| | 2.18 | $2.84 | |||
| | -0.46 | $0.44 | |||
| | custom prompts | -3.00 | $0.43 | ||
| | -4.91 | $0.61 | |||
| Grok Imagine Video | -5.45 | $0.35 | |||
| | -6.85 | $0.60 | |||
| | -6.89 | $0.61 | |||
| | -7.51 | ||||
| Sora 2 | -13.75 | $0.64 |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official Physics-IQ Verified leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
Versions
More in World models
- AgentWorldBench In use Language world models predict the next environment observation after an agent action, in 7 domains from MCP and search to Android and desktop OS. A judge model scores each prediction against the real observation on five dimensions. GPT-5.4 58.3
- IntPhys 2 In use Models watch simulated videos and judge whether each event is physically possible, testing object permanence, immutability, continuity and solidity. Scored by accuracy.
Muse Spark Open 68.3%
- QwenWorldBench Fading Models act as world models that simulate agent environments in 7 domains, such as terminal, web, and Android. A rubric judge scores five dimensions.
Qwen3.7-Plus 62.1%
- VPCT Fading Models view an image of a ball, ramps, and three buckets and predict which bucket the ball falls into. Scored by accuracy on 100 problems.
Gemini 3 Pro 91%
- ContPhy Fading Models infer physical properties such as mass and density of fluids and soft bodies from videos and predict their dynamics.
Seed2.0 Pro 67.4%
- RBench Only in system cards 650 image+text prompts for robot video generation (tasks and embodiments). MLLM judge scores task completion, physical plausibility, stability.
Wan 2.6 60.7%