IntPhys 2
Muse Spark Open 68.3% In use Models watch simulated videos and judge whether each event is physically possible, testing object permanence, immutability, continuity and solidity. Scored by accuracy.
Released with V-JEPA 2. The leaderboard scores a held-out split of 344 videos whose answers stay private. The CAIS AI leaderboard also runs it on frontier models.
In the authors’ words
We present IntPhys 2, a video benchmark designed to evaluate the intuitive physics understanding of deep learning models. Building on the original IntPhys benchmark, IntPhys 2 focuses on four core principles related to macroscopic objects: Permanence, Immutability, Spatio-Temporal Continuity, and Solidity. These conditions are inspired by research into intuitive physical understanding emerging during early childhood. IntPhys 2 offers a comprehensive suite of tests, based on the violation of expectation framework, that challenge models to differentiate between possible and impossible events within controlled and diverse virtual environments. Alongside the benchmark, we provide performance evaluations of several state-of-the-art models. Our findings indicate that while these models demonstrate basic visual understanding, they face significant challenges in grasping intuitive physics across the four principles in complex scenes, with most models performing at chance levels (50%), in stark contrast to human performance, which achieves near-perfect accuracy. This underscores the gap between current models and human-like intuitive physics understanding, highlighting the need for advancements in model architectures and training methodologies.
- Level
- Everyday Most adults, without training
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Muse Spark Open leads with 68.3%
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.
- 1 Muse Spark Open 68.3%
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Muse Spark Open | 68.3% | Oct 2026 | Model card |
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
One lab put it in a launch post in the last six months
Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.
| Date | Launch post | Score | As the post writes it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15 Oct 2026 | Muse Spark Open | 68.3 | IntPhys2 |
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.
Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B 56.4 - 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% - MVPBench Dropped Models answer video questions on spatial, temporal and intuitive physics. Each question comes in a pair of near-identical videos with opposite answers, so text or single-frame shortcuts fail. gemini-robotics-er-1.5-preview 72.5%
- RBench Not in model 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%