MethodologyAnnotator qualityUpdatesHugging Face396.3k downloadsSuggest a model or benchmarkRequest a private benchmark
Benchmarks
Dimensions
Models
Categories
category
perspective
scene
Physics v2updated 2026-11-03

World Models: Physics Generation Benchmark v2

Rapidatabenchmark@rapidata.ai

Abstract

Video and world models are increasingly evaluated on their understanding of real-world physics. Physics-IQ (Motamed et al., 2026), later refined by Physics-IQ Verified, measures how closely generated videos reproduce real physical events using automated motion-based metrics.Building on this work, we investigate how reference-based evaluations relate to human perception. Using 198 real recordings across 66 physical scenarios, we evaluate 26 video and world models through two complementary questions: Blind, which video looks more realistic without seeing the original recording; and Referenced, which video more faithfully reproduces what actually happened.Across 758,940 human judgments and 126,490 pairwise comparisons, reference-conditioned human rankings correlate more strongly with Physics-IQ Verified scores (Spearman 0.81) than blind realism rankings (0.66).These findings highlight two distinct aspects of video generation: reproducing an observed physical event and generating a convincing, plausible continuation. A real recording captures one possible outcome, but not necessarily the only physically plausible one. This distinction raises broader questions for video generation evaluation and post-training: what should automated metrics and reward models optimize for, fidelity to a specific observed outcome or the broader space of physically plausible outcomes? The details cover the setup and the comparison with Physics-IQ, all videos and votes are on Hugging Face, and our blog post walks through examples.

LeaderboardCompare OutputsMatchupsAnalysisPromptsDetails
#
Model
Organization
Score
95% CI
Interval
Responses
Matches
Win rate
#
Model
Score

Table 1. Overall standings, World Model Physics benchmark. Scores from a Bradley–Terry fit rescaled to Elo; intervals are 95% Wald intervals. Click any row to view sample outputs in Figure 1.

Methodology notesCompare Outputs
Figure 1. Sample outputs from FLUX 3 Max on representative prompts from the fixed set. Outputs shown are those used in matches.
Score vs. cost
75010001250$0.05$0.1$0.2$0.5cost, USD per video second (log scale)score

Figure 2. Overall Elo against the provider's list price, cost on a log scale. Teal-ringed models are the Pareto frontier, no model is both cheaper and better, joined by a step line, so picking a budget on the x-axis reads off the best model at or under it. Faded models are dominated; whiskers are the score 95% CI. Prices are hand-maintained snapshots of provider list prices; 5 models without a recorded price are not shown. Hover a model for exact numbers.

Evaluation: Models are compared on the same prompts through pairwise human judgements.
Score: Scores show relative performance within this benchmark. A higher score means a model was more likely to be preferred over the other evaluated models.
Uncertainty: The 95% confidence interval shows the uncertainty around each model’s estimated score.
Views: Results can be explored by blind, referenced, and by prompt category.
Coverage: This benchmark includes a fixed prompt set across multiple categories, evaluated on all ranked models.
Data: Available prompts, model outputs, and evaluation results can be downloaded for further analysis.
Version: Results correspond to Physics v2, last updated on 2026-11-03.

We use crowd intelligence to deliver real, diverse human feedback at scale for model evaluation and post-training.

Benchmarks
Text-to-ImageOutput Diversity (Mode Collapse)Camera MovementRelative Camera MovementPhysicsPhysicsRealismImage-to-3DSVGLLM-to-3DSuggest a model or benchmark
Method
MethodologyData on Hugging Face
Rapidata
rapidata.ai Private benchmarksContactX LinkedIn
Rapidata, benchmark.ai © 2026