Imaging-101: Benchmarking LLM Coding Agents on Scientific Computational Imaging

Vision-language models (VLMs) and agentic AI have shown strong performance on semantic visual tasks, but it remains unclear whether they can handle the physics and inverse problems that underlie computational imaging. We present ImagingBench, a benchmark of 20 computational imaging tasks spanning five categories: ray and wave optics, image signal processing, inverse reconstruction, computational sensing, and calibration. ImagingBench evaluates three complementary settings: Expert, fixed expert-guided inverse reconstruction; Planner, planner-guided inverse reconstruction; and Forward, forward-system simulation for consistency checking. We benchmark leading proprietary and open-source image-centric multimodal systems, including Gemini, GPT, and Qwen, and compare them with representative task-specific non-agentic baselines. Across tasks, agentic models remain consistently weaker than specialized methods, especially on computational sensing problems such as lensless imaging, event-based reconstruction, time-of-flight imaging, and holography. Planner guidance provides only modest and inconsistent gains over the fixed-prompt Expert baseline. Although the models often generate visually plausible outputs, their reference-based fidelity remains poor, revealing a substantial gap between semantic visual competence and physically grounded imaging performance. ImagingBench provides a unified testbed for measuring this gap and tracking progress in agentic AI for computational imaging.

Comparing CT reconstruction methods fairly is labor-intensive and largely manual, and many benchmarks use idealized data. We ask whether a large language model (LLM) agent can do the labor of reconstruction research on its own, and whether a ranking measured on ideal data predicts behavior under realistic noise. We built an agentic loop: the agent edits a solver, runs a short cluster job, reads one frozen metric, and revises. The metric is a calibrated headroom score against the FBP baseline, inside the field of view; every method shares the same differentiable fan-beam projector. We benchmarked 26 methods on Mayo low-dose CT (noise-limited) and a 128-view sparse-view breast task from the noiseless DL-Sparse-View Challenge, with validation-selected iterations scored on a held-out test set. Every trained breast model was then re-scored on noisy inputs (I_0 = 10^5 photons) without retraining, and separately retrained on matched noise. The agent independently implemented, tuned, and benchmarked all 26 methods, and recombined them into a compact solver of 969 parameters that ties the top Mayo tier at the 1% level using 0.4% of the champion's parameters. Benchmarking gives a tier of statistically indistinguishable top methods, not one winner. Mild input noise nearly inverts the breast ranking: the noiseless champion (a supervised image denoiser, hr 0.89) collapses to 0.00, while a learned primal-dual method rises to champion (0.72 to 0.93). An ideal-data leaderboard therefore does not predict robustness. The inversion is a transfer effect, not a permanent deficit: retraining on matched noise restores much of the clean ranking (Spearman rho 0.04 to 0.61). Noise is only the easiest confounder in an open-ended set (beam hardening, scatter, anatomy, disease), so no single-factor challenge certifies generality. Benchmarks should model a broad spectrum of realistic factors at once.

Image-to-code generation tests whether a vision-language model (VLM) can recover the structure of an image enough to express it as executable code. Existing benchmarks either focus on narrow visual domains, depend on paired executable reference code, or rely on generic rubrics that miss domain-specific reconstruction errors. We introduce Vision2Code, a reference-code-free benchmark and evaluation framework for multi-domain image-to-code generation. Vision2Code contains 2,169 test examples from 15 source datasets that span charts and plots, geometry, graphs, scientific imagery, documents, and 3D spatial scenes. Models generate executable programs, which we render and score against the source image using a VLM rater with dataset-specific rubrics and deterministic guardrails for severe semantic failures. We report render-success diagnostics that separate code execution failures from reconstruction quality. Human validation shows that this evaluation protocol aligns better with human judgments than either a generic visual rubric or embedding-similarity baselines. Across nine open-weight and proprietary models, we find that image-to-code performance is domain-dependent: leading models perform well on regular chart- and graph-like visuals but remain weak on spatial scenes, chemistry, documents, and circuit-style diagrams. Finally, we show that evaluator-filtered model outputs can serve as training data to improve image-to-code capability, with Qwen3.5-9B improving from 1.60 to 1.86 on the benchmark without paired source programs. Vision2Code provides a reproducible testbed for measuring, diagnosing, and improving image-to-code generation. Our code and data are publicly available at https://image2code.github.io/vision2code/.