Benchmark Almanac

SGP-Bench

Models read symbolic graphics programs such as SVG and CAD code and answer questions about what the rendered image would show, without seeing the image.

The benchmark is built procedurally.

In the authors’ words

Against the backdrop of enthusiasm for large language models (LLMs), there is a growing need to scientifically assess their capabilities and shortcomings. This is nontrivial in part because it is difficult to find tasks which the models have not encountered during training. Utilizing symbolic graphics programs, we propose a domain well-suited to test multiple spatial-semantic reasoning skills of LLMs. Popular in computer graphics, these programs procedurally generate visual data. While LLMs exhibit impressive skills in general program synthesis and analysis, symbolic graphics programs offer a new layer of evaluation: they allow us to test an LLM's ability to answer semantic questions about the images or 3D geometries without a vision encoder. To semantically understand the symbolic programs, LLMs would need to possess the ability to "imagine" and reason how the corresponding graphics content would look with only the symbolic description of the local curvatures and strokes. We use this task to evaluate LLMs by creating a large benchmark for the semantic visual understanding of symbolic graphics programs, built procedurally with minimal human effort. Particular emphasis is placed on transformations of images that leave the image level semantics invariant while introducing significant changes to the underlying program. We evaluate commercial and open-source LLMs on our benchmark to assess their ability to reason about visual output of programs, finding that LLMs considered stronger at reasoning generally perform better. Lastly, we introduce a novel method to improve this ability – Symbolic Instruction Tuning (SIT), in which the LLM is finetuned with pre-collected instruction data on symbolic graphics programs. Interestingly, we find that SIT not only improves LLM's understanding on symbolic programs, but it also improves general reasoning ability on various other benchmarks.

Abstract of Can Large Language Models Understand Symbolic Graphics Programs? (arXiv:2408.08313, CC0)
Made by Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems and others (Zeju Qiu , Weiyang Liu et al.) Released Aug 2024 General visual questions All tasks public Last in a launch post Aug 2025 , dropped before it saturated Last model added Aug 2025
Level
University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Multiple choice
1
Model scored in lab cards
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

InternVL3.5-241B-A28B leads with 70.7%

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.

  1. 1 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 70.7%
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 70.7% Aug 2025 Model card

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

Reported by the lab in its model card
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Near the ceiling (85%) InternVL3.5-241B-A28B

No launch post has listed it since Aug 2025

Launch posts from every lab that has listed it, one tick per post. Tall colored ticks include it, and short gray ones leave it out.

Shanghai AI Lab
DateLaunch postScoreAs the post writes it
25 Aug 2025 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 70.7 SGP-Bench

One system card reports it

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.

DateDocumentScoreAs the document writes itSection
25 Aug 2025 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B technical report 70.7 SGP-Bench Overall (Table 2, Table 12). Semantics 51.2, Count 69.2, Color 92.1, Shape 77.6, Reasoning 58.0 Capabilities

More in Vision

All 234 in Vision
  • MMMU In use 11.5K college-level multimodal questions across 30 subjects. Multiple-choice and open accuracy. GPT-5.1 85.4%
  • MMMU-Pro In use Harder MMMU: college-level multimodal questions with more options and vision-only inputs to remove text shortcuts. Kimi K3.1 Pro 84.1%
  • CharXiv In use Chart understanding on real arXiv figures. Reasoning questions require synthesizing information from complex charts. Claude Fable 5 93.5%
  • MATH-Vision (MathVision) In use 3,040 competition math problems with visual context. Answer accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 97.7%
  • ChartQA In use Models answer human-written and generated questions about chart images that need visual and arithmetic reasoning. Scored by relaxed accuracy with a 5 percent numeric tolerance. Command A Vision 90.9%
  • DocVQA In use Models answer 50,000 questions about 12,000 scanned document images by reading their text and layout. Scoring is ANLS, a string similarity to reference answers. Seed1.5-VL 96.9%