GEOPHYS: The Geometry of Physical Plausibility

Physical implausibility—a ball passing through a wall, an object vanishing behind an occluder—turns out to leave a fingerprint in the geometry of a video's trajectory through the feature space of an ordinary frozen image encoder. Five cheap kinematic statistics on those trajectories (speed variation, curvature, angle consistency, acceleration, prediction residual) detect physics violations at 98.3% on LikePhys and 93.3% on IntPhys2, where V-JEPA 2, GPT-4o, Gemini, and twelve video diffusion models sit near chance—and the same score works as a best-of-N verifier that lifts MAGI-1 24B from 50.0% to 64.5% on PhysicsIQ at a fraction of the cost of a world-model verifier. No video pretraining, no physics supervision, no learned ranker.

The problem, and why the standard answers are unsatisfying

Humans detect impossible events within milliseconds—infants stare longer at objects that vanish, and adult EEG shows fast, automatic surprise signatures. Machine approaches to the same judgment have been heavyweight by construction: prompt a multimodal LLM to act as a judge, score videos by the likelihood a video diffusion model assigns them, or run a billion-parameter video-pretrained world model like V-JEPA 2 and measure its prediction error. All of these share an assumption: physical plausibility must be explicitly reasoned about or explicitly trained into a model that has seen video.

The embarrassing empirical fact is that these expensive systems barely work on controlled benchmarks. On LikePhys (650 matched pairs of Blender-rendered videos, identical except for one controlled violation like reversed gravity or ground penetration), twelve modern video diffusion models score 39–56%—chance is 50%. On IntPhys2 (506 photorealistic Unreal Engine pairs probing object permanence, solidity, continuity, immutability), GPT-4o gets 53.8%, Gemini 2.5 gets 55.6%, and V-JEPA 2—a model built specifically to predict video—gets 57.5%. Humans get 96.4%.

So there's a live puzzle: the judgment humans make effortlessly is one our biggest video models fail at. GEOPHYS's answer is that the signal was hiding somewhere nobody thought to look: in models that have never seen a video at all.

The key idea: plausible physics is straight; violations are kinks

There's a long thread running through both machine learning and neuroscience—temporal slowness, Lie-group transformation models, learned linearization—arguing that a good visual representation should make natural transformations geometrically simple: nonlinear pixel-space motion should map to approximately linear feature-space motion. The neuroscience version is the "perceptual straightening" result: primate visual cortex represents natural videos as straighter trajectories than the raw pixels do.

GEOPHYS turns this into a testable hypothesis about physics. If a frozen image encoder has learned to linearize natural dynamics, then a physically plausible video should trace a smooth, locally predictable curve through feature space—and a physical violation should break that smoothness at the violation. A ball approaching a wall generates a smooth pre-impact trajectory; the frame where it impossibly passes through the wall lands somewhere the trajectory wasn't heading, producing a kink.

Concretely: each frame \mathbf{x}_t goes through a frozen backbone f_\theta, the spatial tokens are average-pooled into one vector \bar{\mathbf{z}}_t \in \mathbb{R}^d per frame, and the video becomes a discrete trajectory \Gamma(\mathbf{V}) = (\bar{\mathbf{z}}_1, \ldots, \bar{\mathbf{z}}_T). Then you compute finite-difference kinematics on that curve, exactly as if it were a particle's path:

• Speed variation \phi_{\mathrm{speed}}: the std of step sizes s_t = \|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_{t+1} - \bar{\mathbf{z}}_t\|. Erratic representational jumps (objects teleporting, vanishing) inflate it.
• Curvature and angle consistency \phi_{\mathrm{curv}}, \phi_{\mathrm{ang}}: mean and std of the turning angle \theta_t between consecutive displacement vectors. Straight is plausible; sharp bends flag violations.
• Acceleration \phi_{\mathrm{accel}}: mean squared second difference \|\bar{\mathbf{z}}_{t+2} - 2\bar{\mathbf{z}}_{t+1} + \bar{\mathbf{z}}_t\|^2, capturing abrupt changes in either direction or step magnitude.
• Prediction residual \phi_{\mathrm{perr}}: fit a linear autoregressive predictor of \bar{\mathbf{z}}_{t+1} from the previous H features; the residual is the component of the next feature orthogonal to the recent linear span. Low residual means the trajectory lives on a locally low-dimensional, predictable manifold.

Larger values of any signal mean less regular dynamics. That's the entire method—no training, no ranker, no video model.

Why the choice of backbones matters

The hypothesis originates in the V1-straightening literature, so the authors deliberately span both families: two self-supervised ViTs (DINOv2, DINOv3) and two architecturally brain-modeled CNNs (CORnet-S, a recurrent V1→V2→V4→IT ventral-stream model, and VOneNet, a ResNet-50 with a fixed, untrained Gabor V1 front-end). All frozen, all sub-billion parameters, none trained on video or physics.

A validation split of LikePhys is used to pick, per backbone, a readout layer (the one maximizing the curvature gap between plausible and violated videos) and the single best signal: angle consistency for the DINOs, speed variation for CORnet-S, acceleration for VOneNet. The straightening effect itself is remarkably universal: violated videos have higher turning angles than plausible ones at every one of 57 layer×backbone combinations (p < 10^{-8}), with the strongest single-layer effect in CORnet-S V1 (d = 0.58)—the layer explicitly designed to mimic primate V1. Even VOneNet's untrained Gabor filters show it (d \approx 0.22), meaning some of the signal exists at the level of oriented-edge statistics without any learning at all. That's a striking detail: part of "physics detection" is apparently baked into natural-image edge statistics.

For paired benchmarks, the decision rule is trivial: whichever video in a pair has the larger standardized signal is called violated, with |z_b| as confidence. Backbones are combined by majority vote or an "OR" rule that trusts the single most confident backbone.

The evidence

Detection. The headline numbers deserve context because the baselines are so bad:

Two controls here matter. First, a linear probe trained on the same DINOv3 features (leave-one-scene-out) gets only 62.4% on LikePhys and 55.5% on IntPhys2—so the gain comes from trajectory geometry, not raw feature quality. Second, applying the GEOPHYS framework to V-JEPA 2's own features yields 78.3% on LikePhys, far above V-JEPA 2's native use—the geometry readout, not the backbone, is doing the work.

The ensemble jump is large because the backbones are genuinely complementary (Fig. 5 of the paper): on LikePhys, DINOv3 wins fluid scenarios (Faucet: 97% vs VOneNet's 19%), VOneNet wins shadows and rigid bodies, CORnet-S wins flags. Different architectures kink on different violations.

Now the caveat you should hold onto: the OR rule on matched pairs is a weak-ish test—it just needs one of four backbones to be confidently right per pair, and confidence miscalibration in the wrong direction would hurt, but with paired stimuli sharing initial conditions there's a lot of structure to exploit. The authors anticipate this with an ROC analysis under a single global threshold across pairs: AUCs are 90% (OR) on LikePhys but only 82% on IntPhys2, well below the 93.3% pairwise number. So the score ranks within a pair much better than it ranks across videos. For a deployed "is this video physically plausible?" detector without a matched control, the honest number is the AUC, not the pairwise accuracy.

Generation. The more practically important result is best-of-N verification. Sample N=16 candidates from a video generator, score each with GEOPHYS (unchanged from the detection setup), keep the best. On PhysicsIQ—198 real-filmed scenarios where a generator must continue a 3-second conditioning clip and is scored against a real held-out continuation via motion-mask metrics:

GEOPHYS beats every verifier on every generator tested (MAGI-1 4.5B/24B, Wan2.1 14B, CogVideoX-5B), landing within 1.6–7.2 points of the oracle ceiling. And it does so at 0.25 s/video and 1.2 GB VRAM for a single backbone (1.0 s / 2.0 GB for the four-backbone ensemble) versus WMReward's 1.5 s and 9.3 GB. Since best-of-N cost scales linearly in N, that's roughly 5× more candidates per unit wall-clock. The per-scenario distributions show the gain is broad—median and upper quartile both shift—not a few outliers.

One subtle validity check: does GEOPHYS just select for boring, static videos (a frozen frame has perfectly smooth features)? The VBench analysis says partly yes, partly no: generic quality dimensions are flat, FVD and LPIPS (fidelity to the real continuation) improve, but "dynamic degree" falls as PhysicsIQ rises (\rho \approx -0.87). The authors read this as suppression of spurious motion; a skeptic reads it as a mild bias toward less motion that happens to correlate with plausibility on this benchmark. Both readings are probably partially true.

The EEG link. The most intriguing—and thinnest—result. In the violation-of-expectation paradigm, adult EEG shows a working-memory marker (contralateral delay activity, CDA) that scales with the number of tracked objects. On matched stimuli where one object enters an occluder and two emerge ("Create"), GEOPHYS's CORnet-S IT speed signal rises after the violation just as the human CDA does; in "Vanish" (two enter, one exits), both fall. The signal tracks object number with t(6)=4.5, p=0.004 (Create) and t(6)=-2.9, p=0.026 (Vanish)—that's n=7 stimulus pairs, so treat it as a suggestive correspondence, not a mechanism claim. The authors are appropriately careful: the signals diverge during occlusion itself, where CDA stays elevated (tracking objects it can't see) while GEOPHYS drops to zero. A frozen image encoder has no memory; it can only react when the impossible thing becomes visible. The alignment is in the surprise response, not the representation of hidden objects.

What to make of it

The result that will stick, if it replicates broadly, is the reframing: physical plausibility detection doesn't require a model that knows physics—it requires a representation in which natural dynamics are geometrically simple, so that violations are geometrically loud. This is the "verification is easier than generation" asymmetry the discussion section leans on: producing a plausible continuation is hard; recognizing a kink in a smooth curve is nearly free. For test-time scaling of video generators, that asymmetry is directly exploitable, and given the cost profile (a frozen DINOv3 at 0.25 s/video, no training), GEOPHYS-style verifiers seem likely to get adopted quickly—the barrier to trying it is essentially zero.

It also lands a genuinely nice blow on the world-model narrative. V-JEPA 2 was built to predict video and is marketed as an intuitive-physics learner; here it scores 57.5% on IntPhys2 natively, while a fixed Gabor filter bank plus a ResNet scores 61.7% by reading trajectory geometry—and running the geometry readout on V-JEPA 2's own features beats V-JEPA 2's native evaluation on LikePhys by ~20 points. Whatever these video models know about physics, we've been reading it out badly.

The skepticism list is real, though. Everything is benchmark-shaped: LikePhys and IntPhys2 are curated matched pairs of rendered video where the violation is a clean, localized event; the paper never tests unpaired, in-the-wild footage, and the ROC gap (93.3% pairwise vs. 82% AUC on IntPhys2) tells you the absolute score is much weaker than the relative one. Hyperparameters (readout layer, per-backbone signal choice) are selected on a LikePhys validation split, and while they transfer to IntPhys2 and PhysicsIQ, that's still tuning within a family of synthetic physics benchmarks. The signals are explicitly time-symmetric—a video played backwards traces the identical trajectory—so an entire class of violations (arrow-of-time reversals, entropy violations) is invisible by construction. And subtler failure modes of generated video, like slow drift in object identity with locally smooth features, would sail through. The authors say most of this themselves in the Limitations section, which is refreshingly free of overclaiming.

Where to spend your time in the paper: Section 4.2 plus Appendix A. The detection tables are the headline, but Appendix A's layer-by-layer straightening analysis—effect sizes rising with depth in DINOv2 exactly mirroring the primate V1→IT profile, CORnet-S's designated V1 layer showing the strongest effect of any layer anywhere, and an untrained Gabor front-end still showing the effect—is where the "why does this work" story actually lives. Section 4.3's compute analysis (Appendix I) is worth a skim if you build video generation pipelines; the Study 1 EEG material is fascinating but should be read as a promissory note (n=7 pairs) rather than a result.