VideoPhy-2
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.
- 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/.
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
Cosmos3-Nano 45.6%
- 2
Cosmos3-Edge 40.3%
Source: Labs’ model cards
- 1
Cosmos3-Nano 45.6%
- 2
Cosmos3-Edge 40.3%
- 3 Sora 23.3%
- 4 Ray2 20.3%
Sources: Labs’ model cards and official VideoPhy-2 leaderboard
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 45.6% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 40.3% | May 2026 | Lab model card |
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | 45.6% | May 2026 | Lab model card | |
| 2 | | 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.
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.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2026 | | 45.6 | VideoPhy2, Cosmos3-Nano 8B column, Table 10 | Capabilities |
| May 31, 2026 | | 40.3 | VideoPhy2, Cosmos3-Edge 2B column, Table 10 | Capabilities |
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%