3DCodeBench
Agentic procedural 3D modeling via code: author engine-ready 3D assets through software APIs. Graded for executability and shape fidelity.
In the authors’ words
Procedural 3D modeling through code is emerging as a versatile paradigm, offering deterministic, engine-ready, and precisely editable assets that neural 3D generators inherently lack. Authoring such procedural content, however, demands deep expertise in 3D software APIs, parametric design, and code-level geometric reasoning. In this paper, we propose 3DCodeBench, a systematic benchmark for evaluating vision-language model (VLM) agents for procedural 3D generation in 3D modeling software. Specifically, 3DCodeBench evaluates how effectively 12 advanced VLMs can serve as procedural 3D modelers by translating text and image references into procedural code for 3D modeling software. Recognizing that automated metrics may not fully capture the perceptual quality of 3D shapes, we build 3DCodeArena, a ranking platform based on pairwise human preferences over generated 3D outputs. From extensive evaluations and results, we observe that: (1) Failures mostly arise from API mismatches, while successful renders still suffer from disconnected or floating 3D geometric components. (2) Test-time scaling, such as higher thinking budgets and multi-turn refinement, improves performance overall. Our findings highlight a critical need for high-quality procedural coding data to advance commercial VLMs. Furthermore, effective procedural 3D modeling requires a robust execution environment that provides high-fidelity feedback for iterative refinement. We release 3DCodeBench, including the curated large-scale dataset of multimodal (text/image) prompts, procedural code, 3D object triplets, evaluation protocol, and the public 3DCodeArena platform as a foundational toolkit for exploring VLM-based procedural 3D modelers.
- Scored
- Ranked by votes People pick the better of two answers, as in an arena, and the votes are turned into ratings.
- Answers
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
Grok 4.6 leads with 54%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
2 system cards report it, from 1 lab
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
More in Engineering and CAD
- BenchCAD In use Programmatic CAD: 17,900 execution-verified CadQuery programs over 106 industrial part families. Four matched tasks scored on geometry. GPT-6 Astra 95.9%
- EEBench In use 13 electrical-engineering circuit and PCB design tasks graded by deterministic build checks, simulation and BOM constraints. No LLM judge. Claude Opus 5.5 75%
- Parametric CAD Bench In use Agents author editable parametric FreeCAD part designs, graded against held-back references for geometry and spec consistency. Claude Opus 5.5 61%
- CADGenBench Only in system cards Agents construct CAD models from design prompts. The generation split is graded for executability and geometric correctness. Claude Fable 5 45.1%
- PartBench Only in system cards Parametric mechanical part design and CAD-style generation, graded for geometric and manufacturing fidelity. Grok 4.6 58.5%
- Physical-Engineering's Last Exam Not in model cards Agents produce billable engineering deliverables such as calculation packages, drawings and design reviews in 85 tasks across electrical, civil, structural and mechanical engineering. Automatic graders check constraints, safety limits and the design objective. Claude Opus 5.5 0.49