Physics-IQ Verified
Video models continue 198 real filmed physics experiments from their first frames. Generated videos are compared with the real outcome, with every sample and metric weighted equally.
An audit of Physics-IQ that refines 57.6% of samples and 34.8% of prompts and adds sample-level scoring. Rankings shift from the original (Kendall tau 0.46). The repo calls it the recommended variant.
In the authors’ words
Video generative models ( VGMs) have become a new frontier that can be used not just for video generation but for a multitude of downstream tasks, including world modeling. To advance these tasks, a good video model must understand the physical reality of the world. Evaluating this understanding is an emerging field and has led to the Physics-IQ benchmark, which quantifies this explicitly by comparing model-generated videos to real-world videos of physical experiments. In this work, we present a systematic audit of the Physics-IQ benchmark, expose shortcomings and propose three solutions that sharpen how we can measure physical understanding of VGMs. Specifically, we improve prompt and ground-truth quality to reduce the influence of confounding factors and further introduce a sample-level scoring system that weights each sample and metric equally. Our resulting benchmark, Physics-IQ Verified, refines 57.6% of all samples and improves over 34.8% of prompts. In a comparison study using six image-to-video generative models, we observe moderate but meaningful ranking changes (Kendall's τ= 0.46). We hope Physics-IQ Verified advances the community by providing a more reliable signal toward physically accurate VGMs. The code for the benchmark can be accessed at https://github.com/google-deepmind/physics-iq-benchmark
- 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
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Flux 3 Video leads with 10.9
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. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
- 10.9 Flux 3 Video
- 9.74 Odyssey-3 Pro
- 8.58 Odyssey-3
- 8.37 Cosmos 3 Super (Astra)
- 7.98 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Super)
- 5.59 Cosmos 3 Nano (Astra)
- 3.04 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Nano)
- 2.43 Cosmos3 Super
- 2.18
Dreamina Seedance 2.5
- -0.46
MiniMax H3
- -3.00 Cosmos3 Nano
- -4.04 MiniMax H3 Max (fal)
- -4.91
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash
- -5.45 Grok Imagine Video
- -6.85
HunyuanVideo 1.5
- -6.89
Gemini Omni Flash
- -7.51 Cosmos3 Edge
- -8.05 Wan 2.2 14B
- -8.42 Veo 3.1 Lite
- -8.50 CogVideoX-5B
- -9.43 Kandinsky-WM 1.0
- -10.29 Veo 3.1 Fast
- -12.54 Wan 2.2 5B
- -13.75 Sora 2
- -14.95 P-Video
- 1 Flux 3 Video custom prompts 10.9
- 2 Odyssey-3 Pro custom prompts 9.74
- 3 Odyssey-3 custom prompts 8.58
- 4 Cosmos 3 Super (Astra) custom prompts 8.37
- 5 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Super) custom prompts 7.98
- 6 Cosmos 3 Nano (Astra) custom prompts 5.59
- 7 Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Nano) custom prompts 3.04
- 8 Cosmos3 Super custom prompts 2.43
- 9
Dreamina Seedance 2.5 2.18
- 10
MiniMax H3 -0.46
- 11 Cosmos3 Nano custom prompts -3.00
- 12 MiniMax H3 Max (fal) -4.04
- 13
Gemini Omni 1.1 Flash -4.91
- 14 Grok Imagine Video -5.45
- 15
HunyuanVideo 1.5 -6.85
- 16
Gemini Omni Flash -6.89
- 17 Cosmos3 Edge -7.51
- 18 Wan 2.2 14B -8.05
- 19 Veo 3.1 Lite -8.42
- 20 CogVideoX-5B -8.50
- 21 Kandinsky-WM 1.0 -9.43
- 22 Veo 3.1 Fast -10.29
- 23 Wan 2.2 5B -12.54
- 24 Sora 2 -13.75
- 25 P-Video -14.95
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Flux 3 Video | 10.9 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Odyssey-3 Pro | 9.74 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | Odyssey-3 | 8.58 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | Cosmos 3 Super (Astra) | 8.37 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Super) | 7.98 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | Cosmos 3 Nano (Astra) | 5.59 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | Physis-Lang (Cosmos3 Nano) | 3.04 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Cosmos3 Super | 2.43 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 2.18 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 10 | | -0.46 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 11 | Cosmos3 Nano | -3.00 | custom prompts | Official leaderboard | |
| 12 | MiniMax H3 Max (fal) | -4.04 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 13 | | -4.91 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 14 | Grok Imagine Video | -5.45 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 15 | | -6.85 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 16 | | -6.89 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | Cosmos3 Edge | -7.51 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 18 | Wan 2.2 14B | -8.05 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 19 | Veo 3.1 Lite | -8.42 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 20 | CogVideoX-5B | -8.50 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 21 | Kandinsky-WM 1.0 | -9.43 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 22 | Veo 3.1 Fast | -10.29 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 23 | Wan 2.2 5B | -12.54 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 24 | Sora 2 | -13.75 | Official leaderboard | ||
| 25 | P-Video | -14.95 | Official leaderboard |
The best score, 10.9, costs $0.87 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flux 3 Video | custom prompts | 10.9 | $0.87 | ||
| | 2.18 | $2.84 | |||
| | -0.46 | $0.44 | |||
| | -4.91 | $0.61 | |||
| Grok Imagine Video | -5.45 | $0.35 | |||
| | -6.85 | $0.60 | |||
| | -6.89 | $0.61 | |||
| Sora 2 | -13.75 | $0.64 |
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.
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.
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%