📬 Want your model on the leaderboard? We help evaluate for free! Submit here →

A Comprehensive Multi-turn Benchmark for Interactive Video World Model Evaluation

Kaining Ying*, Hengrui Hu*, Siyu Ren, Jiamu Li, Fengjiao Chen,
Ziwen Wang, Xuezhi Cao, Xunliang Cai, Henghui Ding

Fudan University    Meituan LongCat Team

*Equal contribution    Corresponding author: hhding@fudan.edu.cn

📌
289
Test Cases
👁️ 2 Perspectives🧑 5 Subject types🌍 6 Scene categories🎨 Multiple styles
📎
1,058
Interaction Turns
🧭 601 Navigation🎬 183 Event Edit🏃 213 Subject Action🔄 61 Perspective Switch
🔖
22
Metrics
🎥 6 Video Quality🎯 2 Setting🕹️ 4 Interaction🔗 8 Consistency⚙️ 2 Physical✅ Human-validated
🏷️
22
Models
📝 9 Text📷 7 Camera🎮 6 Action

TL;DR

Interactive world models are advancing rapidly, yet no unified standard exists for systematic evaluation. WBench fills this gap with 289 multi-turn cases across 5 dimensions — evaluating 23 models with 22 metrics validated against human judgments. We find that no single model dominates all dimensions.

Multi-turn
Navi + action + event + PS
Navigation
W/A/S/D/left/right/up/down
Subject Action
Character action
Event Editing
Environment change
Perspective Switch
FP ↔ TP

Key Findings

📌
1
No model dominates all dimensions. Among 22 evaluated models, including commercial APIs (Kling 3.0, Seedance 1.5, Wan 2.7), open-source models (HY-Video 1.5, Cosmos 2.5, HY-World 1.5), and closed-source beta world models (Genie 3, Happy Oyster), each excels in different aspects. Kling 3.0 leads overall but lags in Consistency; HY-Video 1.5 ranks 1st in Consistency among text-conditioned models but struggles with Interaction; world models like Happy Oyster and HY-World 1.5 dominate Navigation yet underperform in Video Quality.
📌
2
Navigation is largely independent of other capabilities. Among text-conditioned models, YUME 1.5 achieves the highest navigation score (72.0) yet ranks near bottom on event editing (57.8) and perspective switching (16.7). Conversely, Wan 2.7 leads in event editing (84.0) and subject action (83.4) but scores only 66.0 on navigation. This suggests navigation and semantic interaction require fundamentally different internal representations.
📌
3
Camera control does not imply subject control. Navigation accuracy and perspective consistency are two distinct capabilities that most models fail to achieve simultaneously. For example, HY-World 1.5 ranks 1st in navigation (87.5) but only scores 62.5 in perspective consistency; conversely, LingBot-World achieves the highest perspective consistency (90.9) but lags in navigation (79.8).
📌
4
Physical correctness follows rendering quality, not control ability. Models with higher video quality tend to produce more physically plausible outputs (correlation ρ=0.82), while control ability (navigation, interaction) shows near-zero correlation with physics scores.
📌
5
Multi-turn interactions compound errors. Navigation accuracy drops -21 points from turn 1 to turn 4 as errors compound across steps. Dedicated world models (HY-World 1.5) degrade much less than text-conditioned models (Kling 3.0), suggesting explicit geometric control better preserves spatial state than text-based prompting.

Leaderboard

Click column headers to sort. Scores 0–100, higher is better. # = per-metric rank.

QualitySettingInteractionConsistencyPhysicalHover abbreviations for full names
Split:
Metric:
Type:
#ModelAverage ↕Quality ↕Setting ↕Interaction ↕Consistency ↕Physical ↕
🥇Kling 3.0
Kling AI · API
79.181.491.070.383.769.3
🥈LingBot-World
base-camera
Ant Group · Open Source
78.578.972.679.889.971.2
🥉Wan 2.7
Alibaba · API
78.581.591.466.081.671.8
4HY-World 1.5
ar-distill
Tencent · Open Source
78.278.172.287.586.966.3
5HY-Video 1.5
Tencent · Open Source
78.077.685.671.887.467.4
6LingBot-World
fast
Ant Group · Open Source
77.579.477.979.484.965.7
7Happy Oyster
Alibaba · Web
76.977.374.285.184.363.5
8Seedance 1.5
ByteDance · API
76.582.182.968.081.368.4
9Lyra 2.0
4-step AR
NVIDIA · Open Source
76.377.173.285.479.366.7
10SANA-WM
4-step AR
NVIDIA · Open Source
76.079.376.182.180.761.9
11DreamX-World
5B AR
Amap · Open Source
75.077.580.878.474.963.3
12Cosmos 2.5
NVIDIA · Open Source
74.872.983.364.186.567.4
13LTX 2.3
Lightricks · Open Source
74.477.185.267.677.264.9
14InSpatio-World
InSpatio · Open Source
73.971.571.472.888.465.2
15Genie 3
Google · Web
73.975.272.573.382.665.7
16Fantasy-World
Amap · Open Source
73.872.471.372.186.466.8
17YUME 1.5
Shanghai AI Lab · Open Source
73.577.672.472.080.165.2
18LongCat-Video
Meituan · Open Source
73.475.472.363.187.168.9
19Infinite-World
Meituan · Open Source
72.977.069.375.980.062.1
20MatrixGame3
Skywork · Open Source
71.375.563.683.574.559.3
21Kairos 3.0
SenseTime · Open Source
70.574.070.365.182.660.4
22MatrixGame2
Skywork · Open Source
68.873.867.180.665.157.2
23HY-GameCraft
Tencent · Open Source
68.573.066.667.872.662.4
24Astra
Tsinghua · Open Source
63.867.159.667.773.351.4

Evaluation Metrics

22 metrics across 5 dimensions. All scores normalized to 0–100, higher is better.

Video Quality (7)

  • Aesthetic VBench aesthetic scorer
  • Imaging VBench technical quality
  • Flickering Inter-frame brightness stability
  • Dynamic RAFT optical flow magnitude
  • Smoothness RAFT flow consistency
  • Background CLIP background similarity
  • HPSv3 Human Preference Score v3

Setting Adherence (2)

  • Scene VLM: scene elements vs. environment prompt
  • Subject VLM: appearance/action vs. character prompt

Interaction (4)

  • Navigation MegaSAM pose estimation, NavScore = (Acc+Con)/2
  • Event Edit VLM: environment changes vs. instruction
  • Subject Action VLM: action execution correctness
  • Perspective Switch VLM: FP↔TP transition accuracy

Consistency (8)

  • Spatial DreamSim: first vs. last frame after loop
  • Gated Spatial Spatial × dynamic degree gate
  • Perspective SAM2 mask centroid stability
  • Segment TransNetV2 shot-boundary; 1-cut_rate
  • Geometric DA3 depth reprojection error
  • Photometric DA3 pixel reprojection PSNR
  • Subject DINOv2+CLIP masked similarity
  • Background CLIP background region similarity

Physical (2)

  • Visual Plausibility Tuned VLM-based plausibility regressor
  • Causal Fidelity VLM: physical cause-effect correctness

Metric Comparison

Same case, different models — see how metrics capture quality differences.

Statistics

289 cases, 4 interaction types, 6 scene categories, 5 subject types.

Perspective
FPP(178)TPP(111)
Turns/Case
2(67)3(39)4(148)5(16)6+(19)
Interaction
Navigation(601)Subject Action(213)Event Edit(183)PS(61)
SA Type
Locomotion(19)Manipulation(19)Tool Use(19)NPC(19)
EE Type
Environment(21)Appearance(20)Obj.Mech(19)Obj.Phys(16)Obj.Natural(12)
Subject
Human(126)Animal(18)Robot(17)Vehicle(14)Other(114)
Scene
Nature(89)Urban(61)Indoor(47)Work(40)Fantasy(29)Sports(23)
Style
Photorealistic(150)Styled(139)
Turns
4 turns5+32

Citation

If you find our work useful, please consider citing:

@article{ying2026wbenchcomprehensivemultiturnbenchmark,
  title={WBench: A Comprehensive Multi-turn Benchmark for Interactive Video World Model Evaluation},
  author={Ying, Kaining and Hu, Hengrui and Ren, Siyu and Li, Jiamu and Chen, Fengjiao and Wang, Ziwen and Cao, Xuezhi and Cai, Xunliang and Ding, Henghui},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.25874},
  year={2026}
}