Benchmark Almanac

YoCausal

Human 79.1 tops its leaderboard Wan2.2-T2V-A14B 54.2 leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Video generation models are tested for causal and arrow-of-time understanding by comparing real videos with their time-reversed versions, in two levels.

Level 1 uses a Reverse Surprise Index. 51 HF paper upvotes.

Made by
Alaya Lab
Released
May 2026
Kind
Physical prediction
Level
Everyday
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Short answer
Tasks
All public
Last model added
July 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

As video diffusion models (VDMs) advance toward world models, a key question arises: do they truly understand causality, or merely overfit to statistical temporal patterns? Existing benchmarks mostly rely on synthetic data, limiting real-world generalization due to the sim-to-real gap. We present YoCausal, a two-level benchmark inspired by the Violation of Expectation (VoE) paradigm from cognitive science. By temporally reversing real-world videos at zero cost as natural counterfactual samples, YoCausal establishes an arbitrarily extensible evaluation protocol. Level 1 introduces the Reverse Surprise Index (RSI), quantifying arrow-of-time perception via denoising loss. Level 2 introduces the Causality Cognition Index (CCI), which leverages a VLM to stratify datasets into causal and non-causal subsets, disentangling genuine causal reasoning from temporal bias. Evaluation of 13 state-of-the-art VDMs reveals that perceiving the arrow of time does not imply understanding causality, and a significant gap persists relative to human-level causal cognition. Project page: https://www.youzhexie.me/papers/YoCausal/

Abstract of YoCausal: How Far is Video Generation from World Model? A Causality Perspective (arXiv:2605.30346, CC0)
14
Entries on its own leaderboard, 4 models we track

Human tops the leaderboard with 79.1

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 Wan2.2-T2V-A14B, at 54.2.

The newest model with a score here came out in July 2025, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Human 79.1
  2. 2 LTX-Video-2b-0.9.6 58.9
  3. 3 LTX-Video-13b-0.9.8 56.5
  4. 4 Wan2.2-T2V-A14B 54.2
  5. 5 Wan2.1-T2V-14B 53.2
  6. 6 HunyuanVideo 52.0
  7. 7 Wan2.2-TI2V-5B 51.9
  8. 8 CogVideoX-5b 49.9
  9. 9 Mochi-1-preview 49.1
  10. 10 CogVideoX1.5-5b 46.8
  11. 11 AnimateDiff-SD-1.5 45.7
  12. 12 Wan2.1-T2V-1.3B 45.5
  13. 13 CogVideoX-2b 41.5
  14. 14 AnimateDiff-SDXL 41.2

Source: Official YoCausal leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Human 79.1 Official leaderboard
2 LTX-Video-2b-0.9.6 58.9 Official leaderboard
3 LTX-Video-13b-0.9.8 56.5 Official leaderboard
4 Wan2.2-T2V-A14B 54.2 Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
5 Wan2.1-T2V-14B 53.2 Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
6 HunyuanVideo 52.0 Official leaderboard
7 Wan2.2-TI2V-5B 51.9 Jul 2025 Official leaderboard
8 CogVideoX-5b 49.9 Official leaderboard
9 Mochi-1-preview 49.1 Official leaderboard
10 CogVideoX1.5-5b 46.8 Official leaderboard
11 AnimateDiff-SD-1.5 45.7 Official leaderboard
12 Wan2.1-T2V-1.3B 45.5 Feb 2025 Official leaderboard
13 CogVideoX-2b 41.5 Official leaderboard
14 AnimateDiff-SDXL 41.2 Official leaderboard

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Alibaba Group
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026
Wan2.2-T2V-A14B 54.2

Source: Official YoCausal leaderboard

Scores over time

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

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 2025 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.5 55.0 2025

Source: Official YoCausal 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.

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%