The results show that CAD evaluation must test engineering behavior rather than appearance alone, while editing supplied CAD is substantially easier than generating it, while complex edits and matched FEA remain difficult.
Abstract
A CAD model is not engineering-grade merely because it looks correct. It must satisfy design requirements, respond predictably to parameter changes, support controlled edits, match a reference structural response under a declared analysis, and connect to other parts through valid joints. We present CADEngBench, a two-track benchmark for these capabilities. CADEngBench-P evaluates 300 parametric parts, each used for one zero-to-CAD task and one functional-editing task (600 tasks in total), through boundary-representation (B-Rep) validity, engineering and DFM checks, parameter-family perturbations, functional editing, and matched linear-static FEA in CalculiX. CADEngBench-A evaluates 150 body pairs through ranked joint retrieval, exact face-and-edge grounding, joint-frame prediction, and kinematic verification. Across eight multimodal, code-capable models, editing supplied CAD is substantially easier than generating it, while complex edits and matched FEA remain difficult. Assembly predictions often locate the relevant region but fail to recover the recorded joint or mating entities. These results show that CAD evaluation must test engineering behavior rather than appearance alone.
Parametric computer-aided design (CAD) modeling is difficult to evaluate with a single metric. Existing CAD benchmarks often emphasize synthetic or CAD-native settings, limited input modalities, or executability and IoUs alone. We introduce RealCADBench, a benchmark for intent-to-program CAD modeling from real industrial design intents. It contains 12,632 tasks from 19 factory-automation categories and spans text descriptions, 2D engineering drawings, real product pictures, and rendered images for both Part and Assembly modeling. We report results on a 1,770-task evaluation slice: 1,745 Part tasks across four input regimes and RCB-Assm25, a 25-task assembly study used in every reported assembly comparison. Each method generates FreeCAD API Python, which a shared runtime executes to export the 3D model. We evaluate the exported model using executability, Solid IoU, Surface IoU, and a rubric-based visual-semantic identity Judge. Among the nine standalone frontier large models evaluated, no model leads all four metrics. Across six frontier-scale large models, executability ranges from 0.565 to 0.812, Solid IoU from 0.2841 to 0.5379, and Surface IoU from 0.112 to 0.217 across the four Part regimes. The highest regime-balanced composite comes from a different model than the leaders on the four component metrics. On RCB-Assm25, Codex with GPT-5.5 improves executability and both IoU metrics over standalone GPT-5.5, but lowers the Judge score by 6.98 percentage points, leaving GPT-5.5 as the Judge leader. We also observe recurring failure modes, most notably missing fine structures, loss of part identity, and incorrect assembly placement. These results show that execution alone is insufficient to characterize realistic CAD modeling and that frontier models and agents differ substantially across executability, IoUs, and visual-semantic identity.
JoyIndustrial VisCAD Team Linxin Cai, Qiu-He Hong, Zhi-Chao Huang et al.· 0 citations
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) underpins modern engineering, yet converting existing shapes into editable models still demands substantial expert effort. Most AI systems emit the entire CAD program in a single pass, never inspecting the intermediate geometry. In contrast, human engineers build a part feature by feature, checking after each operation what remains to be modeled. We introduce CADENA (Spanish for"chain"), a model that reconstructs a 3D mesh as a parametric CAD program, growing its sequence of operations one at a time and comparing the target with the currently predicted geometry at every step. We also address the lack of benchmarks for evaluating reverse-engineering methods on mechanical parts, introducing CADENA-Bench, a benchmark that measures performance across categories of mechanical parts. CADENA outperforms prior methods on CADENA-Bench and on the DeepCAD, Fusion 360, and MCB datasets. Code is available at https://github.com/zhemdi/cadena, model weights at https://huggingface.co/kulibinai/cadena, and CADENA-Bench at https://huggingface.co/datasets/kulibinai/cadena-bench.
S. Kabisov, Gennadiy Savrasov, Maksim Elistratov et al.· 0 citations
Virtual reality (VR) can strengthen assembly design reviews (DRs) by enabling engineers to inspect product structures, execute assembly actions, and detect manufacturability issues before physical prototyping. However, industrial uptake remains constrained by the effort required to convert CAD assemblies into interactive and reusable VR scenarios. Existing CAD-based simulations often require manual data preparation and programming expertise, which limits their use in routine engineering. This paper presents DRIVE-A (CAD-to-VR framework for InteractiVE Assembly design review), a Unity-based framework that supports the rapid authoring of interactive assembly-review scenarios from standard CAD data. The framework was derived from requirements elicited with manufacturing companies from different industrial sectors and combines CAD-to-mesh conversion, product-structure reconstruction, GUI-based scenario configuration, immersive execution, issue annotation, and automatic reporting. DRIVE-A supports assembly sequencing, interaction constraints, tool usage, collision-related alerts, visibility and reachability checks, and structured review outputs. An industrial gearbox case study demonstrates the feasibility of the pipeline and shows that the framework can reduce manual preparation effort, remove the need for end-user VR programming, and support earlier identification of assembly-related design issues. The results indicate that CAD-driven and no-code VR authoring can make assembly DRs more repeatable and more readily integrated into industrial product-development workflows.
Fabio Grandi, Rocco De Ciantis, Tommaso Romoli et al.· The International Journal of...· 0 citations
OmniMech is introduced, the first million-scale benchmark for evaluating VLMs on executable CAD generation from industrial manufacturing data, and experiments show that current VLMs and CAD-specialized models still struggle with executable program synthesis, fine-grained 3D reconstruction, and reliable enforcement of dimensions and tolerances.
Taiting Lu, Runze Liu, Ziwei Dong et al.· 0 citations
Current 3D generative models mostly produce a final surface: a visually strong but largely opaque mesh. Interactive 3D worlds need more than a surface. They need named parts, an assembly hierarchy, measurable constraints, local edit handles, and joints for articulation. We present Nova3D, a system that generates 3D assets as executable Blender source code; the compiled mesh, a binary glTF (GLB), is treated as the artifact, not the asset. Because the output is a program, semantic handles exist at generation time rather than being recovered afterward by segmentation or rigging. We evaluate on Nova3D-Bench, a frozen, spec-grounded benchmark of 54 items across six domains and three difficulty levels with text and image inputs, against eleven baselines in four families (mesh-native, part-structured, code-native, and CAD) plus a same-LLM ablation. Nova3D produces an executable program and a valid artifact for 54/54 items. Every asset exposes named parts organized in a parent-child assembly tree; no mesh-native, CAD, or segmentation baseline exposes either. It satisfies 51/52 prompt-stated numeric and count constraints (best baseline: 11/52), passes 14/18 blinded local edits with locality preserved in 18/18, and articulates 59 joints across 12 assets at 98.3% geometric validity, where every baseline exposes zero native joints. Its geometry is competitive: it wins the structured domains in a pairwise shape-quality tournament and is second only to the strongest mesh-native model, while conceding texture realism to baked-PBR systems. The central result is representational: code-native generation turns a generated 3D object from an opaque surface into a programmable asset that downstream systems can inspect, measure, edit, and animate.
Nimra Noor, Muhammad Bilal, A. Hussain et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
Printability assessment in additive manufacturing is typically conducted at the geometry level before printing to determine whether a computer-aided design (CAD) model or stereolithography (STL) file can be successfully fabricated. Task suitability, in contrast, is usually evaluated after printing to determine whether the fabricated part satisfies the requirements of its intended use. As a result, for non-expert users to print functional parts, unsuitable material or process choices may only be identified after fabrication, leading to repeated printing, material waste, and user frustration. To address this challenge, this paper leverages the reasoning and language-understanding capabilities of large language models (LLMs), while grounding the reasoning with geometry evidence and structured material/printer knowledge to generate reliable pre-print recommendations. Given a stereolithography (STL) model and a natural-language task description, the framework generates a structured recommendation covering printability, material choice, process parameters, design guidance, risks, and explanations. We evaluate the framework on focused STL benchmark scenarios with novice-style task descriptions. The proposed method achieves 75.0% printability over 96 physical validation trials, with 88.9% task suitability among successfully printed samples. It also improves Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite material-selection accuracy from 37.5% under pure LLM to 90.0%. Expert evaluation further shows improved report quality, while post-print feedback improves recommendations on selected problematic cases. These results suggest that user task intent, geometry evidence, and structured material knowledge are all important for reliable task-driven printability assistance.
Zhaoda Du, Qiaojie Zheng, Xiaoli Zhang· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
