Benchmark Almanac

SGP-Bench

Claude 3.5 Sonnet 67.4% leads since August 2024
InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 70.7% leads since August 2025
Dropped

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.

Released
August 2024
Kind
General visual questions
Level
University
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude 3.5 Sonnet #157 on the capability index
Last in a launch post
August 2025, dropped before it saturated
Last model added
August 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

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)
36
Entries on its own leaderboard, 22 models we track
1
Launch post lists it, from 1 lab
1
System card reports it, from 1 lab

Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads with 67.4% among models released by August 2024

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.

InternVL3.5-241B-A28B leads with 70.7%, claims included

Best score per model from every source, including labs’ own numbers and claims Epoch AI collected from reports and papers. Labs pick their own settings, so a claim can beat an independent run of the same model.

The newest model with a score here came out in August 2024, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 67.4%
  2. 2 GPT-4o Aug 2024 64.8%
  3. 3 GPT-4o May 2024 63.3%
  4. 4 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 60.9%
  5. 5 GPT-4o mini 58.5%
  6. 6 Llama 3.1-405B 58%
  7. 7 Llama 3.1-70B 57.4%
  8. 8 Mistral-Large2-12B 57.2%
  9. 9 Claude 3 Sonnet 56.5%
  10. 10 Llama 3-70B 54.8%
  11. 11 Qwen2-72B 53.7%
  12. 12 Command R-104B 50%
  13. 13 Qwen1.5-110B 49.9%
  14. 14 GPT-3.5 Turbo-01-25 49.8%
  15. 15 Qwen1.5-32B 49.4%
  16. 16 Mistral-Codestral-22b-v0.1 49.1%
  17. 17 Claude 3 Haiku 48.6%
  18. 18 Reflection-Llama3.1-70B 47.4%
  19. 19 Qwen1.5-72B 46.6%
  20. 20 Llama 3.1-8B 46.5%
  21. 21 Command R-35B 46.1%
  22. 22 DeepSeek-Coder-V2-16B 45.1%
  23. 23 Mistral-NeMo-12B 44.9%
  24. 24 Yi-1.5-34B 44.3%
  25. 25 Aya-23-35B 44.2%
  26. 26 Llama 3-8B 42.9%
  27. 27 InternLM2-20B 42.4%
  28. 28 InternLM2.5-7B 42.1%
  29. 29 Mistral 7B v0.3 41.7%
  30. 30 Gemma 1.1 7B IT 39.3%
  31. 31 InternLM2-7B 38.2%
  32. 32 Qwen1.5-7B 37.6%
  33. 33 Yi-1.5-9B 35.5%
  34. 34 Gemma 1.1 2B IT 31.7%
  35. 35 CodeQwen1.5-7B 30.1%
  36. 36 Aya-23-8B 29%

Source: Official SGP-Bench leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 67.4% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-4o Aug 2024 64.8% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-4o May 2024 63.3% May 2024 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 60.9% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-4o mini 58.5% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
6 Llama 3.1-405B 58% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
7 Llama 3.1-70B 57.4% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Mistral-Large2-12B 57.2% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
9 Claude 3 Sonnet 56.5% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Llama 3-70B 54.8% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen2-72B 53.7% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Command R-104B 50% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen1.5-110B 49.9% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
14 GPT-3.5 Turbo-01-25 49.8% Jan 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen1.5-32B 49.4% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
16 Mistral-Codestral-22b-v0.1 49.1% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
17 Claude 3 Haiku 48.6% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
18 Reflection-Llama3.1-70B 47.4% Sep 2024 Official leaderboard
19 Qwen1.5-72B 46.6% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
20 Llama 3.1-8B 46.5% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
21 Command R-35B 46.1% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
22 DeepSeek-Coder-V2-16B 45.1% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
23 Mistral-NeMo-12B 44.9% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
24 Yi-1.5-34B 44.3% May 2024 Official leaderboard
25 Aya-23-35B 44.2% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
26 Llama 3-8B 42.9% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
27 InternLM2-20B 42.4% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
28 InternLM2.5-7B 42.1% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
29 Mistral 7B v0.3 41.7% Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
30 Gemma 1.1 7B IT 39.3% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
31 InternLM2-7B 38.2% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
32 Qwen1.5-7B 37.6% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
33 Yi-1.5-9B 35.5% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
34 Gemma 1.1 2B IT 31.7% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
35 CodeQwen1.5-7B 30.1% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
36 Aya-23-8B 29% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 InternVL3.5-241B-A28B 70.7% Aug 2025 Lab model card
2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet 67.4% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-4o Aug 2024 64.8% Aug 2024 Official leaderboard
4 GPT-4o May 2024 63.3% May 2024 Official leaderboard
5 GPT-4 Turbo Apr 2024 60.9% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
6 GPT-4o mini 58.5% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
7 Llama 3.1-405B 58% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
8 Llama 3.1-70B 57.4% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
9 Claude 3 Sonnet 56.5% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
10 Llama 3-70B 54.8% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
11 Qwen2-72B 53.7% Jun 2024 Official leaderboard
12 Qwen1.5-110B 49.9% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
13 Qwen1.5-32B 49.4% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
14 Claude 3 Haiku 48.6% Mar 2024 Official leaderboard
15 Qwen1.5-72B 46.6% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
16 Llama 3.1-8B 46.5% Jul 2024 Official leaderboard
17 Yi-1.5-34B 44.3% May 2024 Official leaderboard
18 Llama 3-8B 42.9% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
19 Mistral 7B v0.3 41.7% Sep 2023 Official leaderboard
20 Gemma 1.1 7B IT 39.3% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
21 Qwen1.5-7B 37.6% Feb 2024 Official leaderboard
22 Gemma 1.1 2B IT 31.7% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard
23 CodeQwen1.5-7B 30.1% Apr 2024 Official leaderboard

Labs report scores for 1 model in their cards. Switch the scores above to rank them together.

Number one over time 2 models have held number one with claims included since its release in August 2024

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

Anthropic
Own leaderboard Not tested since Aug 2024

Source: Official SGP-Bench leaderboard

Scores over time

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

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Reported by the lab in its model card Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) InternVL3.5-241B-A28B Claude 3.5 Sonnet GPT-4 Turbo Claude 3 Sonnet Qwen1.5-32B Mistral 7B v0.3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2024 2025 Near the ceiling (85%) InternVL3.5-241B-A28B Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Sources: Official SGP-Bench leaderboard and labs’ model cards

No launch post has listed it since August 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
Aug 25, 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
Aug 25, 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 281 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. GPT-5.6 Sol 84.6%
  • 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%
  • MMStar In use Models answer 1,500 human-curated image questions that cannot be solved without the image, across 6 core capabilities. Scored by accuracy. Qwen 3.8 Max 85.9%
  • 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%