Benchmark Almanac

VideoPhy-2

Sora 23.3% leads
Cosmos3-Nano 45.6% leads
Only in system cards

200 action-centric prompts. Generated videos human-rated for semantic adherence, physical commonsense and physical-rule grounding.

Hard: best model reached only 22% joint performance on the hard subset at release. Conservation laws are a common failure.

Made by
UCLA + Google
Released
March 2025
Kind
Physical prediction
Scored
Graded by people
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Last in a system card
May 2026
Last model added
May 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Large-scale video generative models, capable of creating realistic videos of diverse visual concepts, are strong candidates for general-purpose physical world simulators. However, their adherence to physical commonsense across real-world actions remains unclear (e.g., playing tennis, backflip). Existing benchmarks suffer from limitations such as limited size, lack of human evaluation, sim-to-real gaps, and absence of fine-grained physical rule analysis. To address this, we introduce VideoPhy-2, an action-centric dataset for evaluating physical commonsense in generated videos. We curate 200 diverse actions and detailed prompts for video synthesis from modern generative models. We perform human evaluation that assesses semantic adherence, physical commonsense, and grounding of physical rules in the generated videos. Our findings reveal major shortcomings, with even the best model achieving only 22% joint performance (i.e., high semantic and physical commonsense adherence) on the hard subset of VideoPhy-2. We find that the models particularly struggle with conservation laws like mass and momentum. Finally, we also train VideoPhy-AutoEval, an automatic evaluator for fast, reliable assessment on our dataset. Overall, VideoPhy-2 serves as a rigorous benchmark, exposing critical gaps in video generative models and guiding future research in physically-grounded video generation. The data and code is available at https://videophy2.github.io/.

Abstract of VideoPhy-2: A Challenging Action-Centric Physical Commonsense Evaluation in Video Generation (arXiv:2503.06800, CC0)
2
Models scored in lab cards
2
System cards report it, from 1 lab

Cosmos3-Nano leads with 45.6%

Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.

Sora leads with 23.3% across all independent runs

Best score per model across the official leaderboard, Epoch AI’s own runs and any board Epoch AI copied. Each bar and row names its source.

Cosmos3-Nano leads with 45.6%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

  1. 1 Cosmos3-Nano 45.6%
  2. 2 Cosmos3-Edge 40.3%

Source: Labs’ model cards

Source: Official VideoPhy-2 leaderboard

Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VideoPhy-2 leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Cosmos3-Nano 45.6% May 2026 Lab model card
2 Cosmos3-Edge 40.3% May 2026 Lab model card
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Sora 23.3% Official leaderboard
2 Ray2 20.3% Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 Cosmos3-Nano 45.6% May 2026 Lab model card
2 Cosmos3-Edge 40.3% May 2026 Lab model card
3 Sora 23.3% Official leaderboard
4 Ray2 20.3% Official leaderboard

The benchmark's own leaderboard has 7 entries, 2 of them models we track. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Cosmos3-Nano 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) Cosmos3-Nano

Source: Labs’ model cards

Labs report it only in system cards

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.

2 system cards report it, from 1 lab

Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
May 31, 2026 Cosmos3-Nano technical report 45.6 VideoPhy2, Cosmos3-Nano 8B column, Table 10 Capabilities
May 31, 2026 Cosmos3-Edge technical report 40.3 VideoPhy2, Cosmos3-Edge 2B column, Table 10 Capabilities

Versions

More in World models

All 39 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%