Datasets:

Modalities:
Text
Formats:
json
Size:
< 1K
ArXiv:
Libraries:
Datasets
pandas
License:
GeoGramBench / README.md
sxluo's picture
Update README.md
0c78972 verified
metadata
license: apache-2.0

GeoGramBench: Benchmarking the Geometric Program Reasoning in Modern LLMs

GeoGramBench is a tailored benchmark dataset designed for evaluating the geometric spatial reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) over procedural programmatic code. The dataset introduces a novel task, Program-to-Geometry, that requires models to transform programmatic drawing code into abstract geometric reasoning for problem-solving.

Features of GeoGramBench

  • 500 Curated Problems: Each sample includes procedural drawing code and associated geometry reasoning problems. These problems are rigorously curated to ensure quality, fairness, and diversity.
  • Taxonomy-Based Evaluation: Problems are categorized into three difficulty levels:
    • Primitive Recognition: Basic geometric problems requiring direct recognition of a few elements.
    • Local Relation Composition: Involves reasoning about relationships between multiple geometric components.
    • Global Abstract Integration: Complex problems requiring global spatial synthesis, parameterization, or 3D reasoning.
  • Six Subtypes: Problems span six mathematical subfields: Angle, Length, Area, Volume, Ratio, and Count, supporting fine-grained diagnostics.

Dataset Composition

Subtype Primitive Compositional Abstract
Angle 22 20 7
Length 25 88 20
Area 26 89 46
Ratio 14 51 4
Count 15 31 15
Volume 0 0 27

Benchmark Highlights

  • GeoGramBench differs from traditional math benchmarks by emphasizing the symbolic-to-spatial abstraction capabilities of LLMs, leveraging procedural code expressed in formats such as Asymptote.
  • Initial evaluation using 17 state-of-the-art LLMs revealed substantial gaps, particularly for higher abstraction tasks:
    • Models achieved less than 50% accuracy on the most challenging Global Abstract Integration category.
    • Even advanced models struggle to bridge procedural code with reliable spatial reasoning.
Model Primitive Compositional Abstract ALL
Closed-source Models
GPT-o3-mini 84.33 75.66 42.16 70.00
GPT-o1 86.76 76.02 43.35 70.92
GPT-o1-preview 74.79 55.98 26.20 53.15
GPT-o1-mini 79.62 63.21 29.09 58.94
GPT-4o 39.81 21.29 4.96 21.40
Gemini-Pro-1.5 49.26 31.79 15.92 31.64
Open-source Models
Qwen3-235B-Thinking-2507 89.09 79.12 49.05 74.00
DeepSeek-R1 85.66 75.27 40.38 69.17
DeepSeek-v3-0324 80.57 68.89 27.67 62.05
QwQ-32B 85.17 73.12 37.92 67.20
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 79.78 67.83 35.92 62.68
Bespoke-Stratos-32B 62.50 42.56 17.02 40.55
s1.1-32B 75.37 58.96 26.58 54.60
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B 72.79 58.74 24.16 53.38
Sky-T1-mini-7B 71.45 57.75 24.79 52.70
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B 60.29 39.02 11.03 36.70
DeepScaleR-1.5B-preview 65.44 47.89 15.76 43.83

Use Cases

GeoGramBench is designed for:

  • Researchers developing geometry-aware LLMs for symbolic-to-spatial reasoning.
  • Model diagnostics to pinpoint weaknesses in handling code-driven geometric reasoning or abstract spatial relations.
  • Evaluation and advancement of LLMs' performance on tasks involving spatial reasoning.

Citation

If you use GeoGramBench in your research, please cite:

@article{luo2025geogrambench,
  title={Geogrambench: Benchmarking the geometric program reasoning in modern llms},
  author={Luo, Shixian and Zhu, Zezhou and Yuan, Yu and Yang, Yuncheng and Shan, Lianlei and Wu, Yong},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17653},
  year={2025}
}