Benchmark Almanac

WorldExam

Veo 3.1 72.8 tops its leaderboard Hailuo 2.3 72.0 leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Controllable video generators are tested as world models. Levels run from visual appearance to whether the depicted world reacts plausibly beyond what the prompt states.

It had 31 Hugging Face paper upvotes and 23 GitHub stars.

Released
August 2026
Kind
Video world models
Level
Everyday
Scored
Graded by a model
Answers
Open-ended
Tasks
All public
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Controllable video generation models are increasingly being developed as world models. Accordingly, evaluating them in this role extends beyond the apparent appearance of generated videos to the inherent reactivity of the worlds they depict: the ability to infer from the scene state how the world should react and to generate plausible consequences not explicitly described in the input. Yet existing benchmarks mainly assess visual quality or explicit instruction fulfillment by checking whether requested actions and interaction outcomes are realized, leaving inherent reactivity underexamined. We introduce WorldExam, a hierarchical diagnostic benchmark spanning four levels: Visual Quality, Control Adherence, Spatial Consistency, and World Reactivity. It comprises 1,474 cases across eight dedicated tasks and supports unified evaluation of camera-, action-, and language-driven model paradigms. The World Reactivity level evaluates scene-conditioned reactions and goal-directed behaviors beyond what is explicitly specified in the input. Evaluation of 20 representative models reveals a clear capability split. Camera-driven models excel at camera control, but their interfaces do not support dynamic interaction; action-driven models control subjects more precisely but often leave the world unresponsive; and language-driven models perform better on interaction but follow complex controls less faithfully. No model combines broad task coverage with consistently strong performance, showing that high visual quality and explicit instruction fulfillment do not guarantee inherent reactivity.

Abstract of WorldExam: Benchmarking World Models from Apparent Appearance to Inherent Reactivity (arXiv:2608.02603, CC0)
9
Entries on its own leaderboard, 3 models we track

Veo 3.1 tops the leaderboard with 72.8

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. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is Hailuo 2.3, at 72.0.

  1. 1 Veo 3.1 72.8
  2. 2 Vidu Q3 72.3
  3. 3 Hailuo 2.3 72.0
  4. 4 HappyHorse 1.0 70.6
  5. 5 Wan 2.6 I2V 66.6
  6. 6 Seedance 1.5 66.5
  7. 7 LingBot-World 60.8
  8. 8 Kling 2.5 60.5
  9. 9 WorldPlay 57.6

Source: Official WorldExam leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Veo 3.1 72.8 Official leaderboard
2 Vidu Q3 72.3 Official leaderboard
3 Hailuo 2.3 72.0 Official leaderboard
4 HappyHorse 1.0 70.6 Official leaderboard
5 Wan 2.6 I2V 66.6 Official leaderboard
6 Seedance 1.5 66.5 Official leaderboard
7 LingBot-World 60.8 Official leaderboard
8 Kling 2.5 60.5 Official leaderboard
9 WorldPlay 57.6 Official leaderboard

Scores over time

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

No dated values yet.

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.

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%