The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
PhysBench: Benchmarking and Enhancing Vision-Language Models for Physical World Understanding
Open accessAbstract
Understanding the physical world is a fundamental challenge in embodied AI, critical for enabling agents to perform complex tasks and operate safely in real-world environments. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have shown great promise in reasoning and task planning for embodied agents, their ability to comprehend physical phenomena remains extremely limited. To close this gap, we introduce PhysBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate VLMs' physical world understanding capability across a diverse set of tasks. PhysBench contains 10,002 entries of interleaved video-image-text data, categorized into four major domains: physical object properties, physical object relationships, physical scene understanding, and physics-based dynamics, further divided into 19 subclasses and 8 distinct capability dimensions. Our extensive experiments, conducted on 75 representative VLMs, reveal that while these models excel in common-sense reasoning, they struggle with understanding the physical world -- likely due to the absence of physical knowledge in their training data and the lack of embedded physical priors. To tackle the shortfall, we introduce PhysAgent, a novel framework that combines the generalization strengths of VLMs with the specialized expertise of vision models, significantly enhancing VLMs' physical understanding across a variety of tasks, including an 18.4\% improvement on GPT-4o. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that enhancing VLMs' physical world understanding capabilities can help embodied agents such as MOKA. We believe that PhysBench and PhysAgent offer valuable insights and contribute to bridging the gap between VLMs and physical world understanding.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Even advanced models fail on basic light physical scene understanding.
“Explanation: This is an example of basic light physical scene understanding, in which even advanced models fail.”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Chow et al., 2025
PhysBench and UrbanVideo-Bench demonstrate that current VLMs lack basic physics understanding and urban navigation skills.
“PhysBench [26] (10k video-image-text triplets) and UrbanVideo-Bench [254] (5.2k drone clips) demonstrate that current VLMs lack basic physics understanding and urban navigation skills.”
From Understanding World or Predicting Future? A Comprehensive Survey of World Models (2026) · cites this paper as [26]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
This paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding World or Predicting Future? A Comprehensive Survey of World Models
Ding, J., Zhang, Y., Shang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zong, Z., Feng, J., Yuan, Y., Su, H., Li, N., Sukiennik, N., et al. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3746449 · Cited by 169
LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law ExamsPreprint
Fan, Y., Ni, J., Merane, J., Salimbeni, E., Tian, Y., Hermstrüwer, Y., Huang, Y., Akhtar, M., Geering, F., Dreyer, O., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5265144 · Cited by 25
Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
Song, P., Han, P., & Goodman, N. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06176 · Cited by 3
VideoHallu: Evaluating and Mitigating Multi-modal Hallucinations for Synthetic VideosPreprint
Li, Z., Wu, X., Qin, Y., Shi, G., Du, H., Manocha, D., Zhou, T., & Boyd-Graber, J. L. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/bxc6x1 · Cited by 2
Dynamic resource allocation orchestrates physical simulation in the human brainPreprint
Long, L., Wang, Q., Yang, Q., & Chang, L. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.21.732202
Metadata
- Authors
- Chow, W., Mao, J., Li, B., Seita, D., Guizilini, V., & Wang, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2501.16411
- OpenAlex
- W4406937275
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- vision-language models, benchmark, embodied agents, physics reasoning, commonsense reasoning, physical priors, Moka, GPT-4o
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review