PAI-Bench
Physical-AI video generation from 1,044 prompts in six domains, VLM-QA plus quality metrics. Companion control and understanding tracks.
Generation score compressed near the real-video reference (Source 82.6. Cosmos3-Super 83.9 exceeds it). Robot domain spreads more (55-90).
In the authors’ words
Physical AI aims to develop models that can perceive and predict real-world dynamics; yet, the extent to which current multi-modal large language models and video generative models support these abilities is insufficiently understood. We introduce Physical AI Bench (PAI-Bench), a unified and comprehensive benchmark that evaluates perception and prediction capabilities across video generation, conditional video generation, and video understanding, comprising 2,808 real-world cases with task-aligned metrics designed to capture physical plausibility and domain-specific reasoning. Our study provides a systematic assessment of recent models and shows that video generative models, despite strong visual fidelity, often struggle to maintain physically coherent dynamics, while multi-modal large language models exhibit limited performance in forecasting and causal interpretation. These observations suggest that current systems are still at an early stage in handling the perceptual and predictive demands of Physical AI. In summary, PAI-Bench establishes a realistic foundation for evaluating Physical AI and highlights key gaps that future systems must address.
- Scored
- Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Cosmos3-Super tops the leaderboard with 83.9%
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 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 Veo 3, at 82.1%.
- 83.9 Cosmos3-Super
- 83.7 Cosmos3-Nano
- 82.1
Veo 3
- 81.1 Cosmos3-Edge
- 81.0 Cosmos-Predict2.5-14B
- 81.0 Cosmos-Predict2.5-2B
- 80.6 Wan2.2-I2V-A14B
- 80.4 Wan2.2-TI2V-5B
- 80.0 Cosmos-Predict2-14B-Video2World
- 79.8 Wan2.1-I2V-14B-720P
- 79.6 Cosmos-Predict2-2B-Video2World
- 78.5 MAGI-1-24B
- 78.3 CogVideoX1.5-5B-I2V
- 77.9 CogVideoX-5b-I2V
- 77.9 LTX-Video-13B
- 77.4 HunyuanVideo-I2V
- 76.9 LTX-Video-2B
- 76.9 MAGI-1-4.5B
- 69.7 DynamiCrafter_1024
- 1 Cosmos3-Super 83.9%
- 2 Cosmos3-Nano 83.7%
- 3
Veo 3 82.1%
- 4 Cosmos3-Edge 81.1%
- 5 Cosmos-Predict2.5-14B 81%
- 6 Cosmos-Predict2.5-2B 81%
- 7 Wan2.2-I2V-A14B 80.6%
- 8 Wan2.2-TI2V-5B 80.4%
- 9 Cosmos-Predict2-14B-Video2World 80%
- 10 Wan2.1-I2V-14B-720P 79.8%
- 11 Cosmos-Predict2-2B-Video2World 79.6%
- 12 MAGI-1-24B 78.5%
- 13 CogVideoX1.5-5B-I2V 78.3%
- 14 CogVideoX-5b-I2V 77.9%
- 15 LTX-Video-13B 77.9%
- 16 HunyuanVideo-I2V 77.4%
- 17 LTX-Video-2B 76.9%
- 18 MAGI-1-4.5B 76.9%
- 19 DynamiCrafter_1024 69.7%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cosmos3-Super | 83.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 2 | Cosmos3-Nano | 83.7% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 3 | | 82.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 4 | Cosmos3-Edge | 81.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 5 | Cosmos-Predict2.5-14B | 81% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 6 | Cosmos-Predict2.5-2B | 81% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 7 | Wan2.2-I2V-A14B | 80.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 8 | Wan2.2-TI2V-5B | 80.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 9 | Cosmos-Predict2-14B-Video2World | 80% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | Wan2.1-I2V-14B-720P | 79.8% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | Cosmos-Predict2-2B-Video2World | 79.6% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 12 | MAGI-1-24B | 78.5% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | CogVideoX1.5-5B-I2V | 78.3% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | CogVideoX-5b-I2V | 77.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | LTX-Video-13B | 77.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | HunyuanVideo-I2V | 77.4% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | LTX-Video-2B | 76.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | MAGI-1-4.5B | 76.9% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | DynamiCrafter_1024 | 69.7% | 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 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
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
- 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%
- 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%