LMBuild
Language model agents design 3D structures as parts, joints, materials and assembly steps. Scoring checks that the structures can be built and work as intended.
It had 38 Hugging Face paper upvotes and 7 GitHub stars.
In the authors’ words
LLM-based agents are increasingly capable of generating complex 3D structures, with the potential to reshape how objects are designed and realized in the physical world. Yet, producing elegant geometry is fundamentally different from producing objects that can be built and perform their intended functions. Existing evaluations largely focus on geometric quality while overlooking physical realizability. We introduce LMBuild, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on generating buildable and functional structures. LMBuild represents generated objects as assembled structures comprising part decompositions, joints, materials, and sequences. To support reproducible evaluation, we provide a unified framework consisting of: (1) an interactive environment in which agents can use tools to retrieve, create, and place components to construct objects; (2) a curated benchmark that repurposes established CAD datasets and augments them with knowledge from Wikipedia; and (3) a evaluation framework covering structural soundness, functional affordance, design quality, and physical realization. Evaluations across 30 systems reveal several intriguing findings: (a) Soundness and alignment are no longer the primary bottlenecks for frontier closed-source models, while functional affordance and physical operability remain substantially more challenging; (b) stronger models more effectively create new components, whereas weaker models tend to rely on retrieval; and (c) providing functional specifications substantially improves part completeness, kinematics, and physical operability. These results show that generating real-world structures requires deeper reasoning about functional affordances, mechanics, and designing and creating novel components. We expect LMBuild to provide a foundation for measuring progress and incentivizing research toward agents that generate buildable and functional structures.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for LMBuild yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
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%
- 3DCodeBench Only in system cards Agentic procedural 3D modeling via code: author engine-ready 3D assets through software APIs. Graded for executability and shape fidelity. Grok 4.6 54%
- PartBench Only in system cards Parametric mechanical part design and CAD-style generation, graded for geometric and manufacturing fidelity. Grok 4.6 58.5%