cs.SEOct 26, 2026

UnityBench-Mini3D: Evaluating LLM Agents for 3D Game Development in Unity

Authors: Yijun Zhou, Minghao Shao, Ke Zhang, Renkai Yuan, Hongbo Yuan, Bin Hu, Bozhao Qian, Hongxia Shen, 

Organizations: Unity China · New York University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Xiamen University · 

Abstract

Game development stresses coding agents in ways general software engineering does not: correctness depends on how engine APIs, serialized scene state, and runtime behavior interact, not on source code alone. Existing benchmarks mainly target platforms such as Godot and heavily rely on LLM judges or coarse task-level outcomes. We present UnityBench-Mini3D, a benchmark of 77 project-level Unity tasks organized around seven expert-defined skill categories rather than tutorials or genres, with three difficulty tiers. Each task pairs a complete Unity project with natural-language requirements and is evaluated using 1,178 held-out, human-authored milestone tests covering scene structure, component configuration, and runtime behavior. This in-engine evaluation provides deterministic partial credit, localizes failures, and distinguishes partial implementations from complete solutions without relying on subjective judges. Across 21 models and 9 coding harnesses, the average pass rate reaches 80.9% on easy tasks but falls to 35.2% on hard tasks, with just 57.7% overall. UnityBench-Mini3D provides a reproducible, diagnostic testbed distinguishing systems across difficulty levels.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables22 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Sep 19, 2026

CraftBench-UE: Deterministic Evaluation for Coding Agents in Unreal Engine

Building gameplay features in a game engine requires more than code, as code that compiles and runs does not necessarily implement the requested gameplay. We introduce CraftBenchUE, an evaluation harness that runs agents in an isolated Unreal Engine environment, reconstructs their saved submissions in fresh projects, and applies deterministic build, asset, and runtime checks without an LLM judge. Based on the harness, we built a benchmark consisting of 70 tasks spanning C++ source, Blueprint assets, and editor scripting. We evaluate seven models under two editor-tool configurations, with a file-and-shell baseline on C++ tasks. We further pair tasks that specify the same gameplay and use the same runtime tests, but require C++ and Blueprint as the deliverables. Across the 10 paired tasks, C++ completion rates exceed Blueprint by 30.0 and 42.9 percentage points in the two tool configurations. Among on-time Blueprint submissions in this paired set that pass asset checks, 42.2% and 50.0% fail explicit runtime assertions. These submissions satisfy asset requirements but fail the required gameplay tests. We will release the harness, task benchmark, and our trajectory findings with the report.
Sep 29, 2026

Code4Scene: Benchmarking Coding Agents for Constructing and Editing 3D Scenes

Frontier coding agents can now write and execute code that authors 3D environments, but whether they reliably understand 3D structure and precisely control scene state remains unclear. The generated 3D scene is a persistent, executable artifact: a convincing render can hide incorrect spatial relations, intersecting objects, or unintended modifications. We introduce Code4Scene, a benchmark of 190 Unreal Engine cases built from human-assembled scenes that evaluates coding agents on two complementary settings under a shared execution interface. Construction tests scene-level spatial reasoning from open-ended language specifications, where many realizations are valid; editing tests precise control of scene state, where the agent must recover the target scene from reference images while preserving everything else. Rather than scoring code or rendered views, Code4Scene evaluates the generated engine-native scene for task fulfillment, artifact integrity, and static physical validity, with edits additionally compared against withheld ground truth. Across 14 coding-agent configurations on the 95-case public set, construction and editing performance are strongly correlated but not interchangeable (Spearman ρ=0.78ρ= 0.78): Claude Fable 5.1 leads construction, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads editing, and GPT-6 Astra narrowly leads overall. Spatial Composition is the weakest construction category for every agent, while editing remains imprecise: the best Repair F1 is only 0.527, and 35.8% of edits that fully recover the target still introduce unintended changes elsewhere in the scene. These results expose a gap between plausible 3D generation and reliable spatial reasoning and state control.
Feb 11, 2026

GameDevBench: Evaluating Agentic Capabilities Through Game Development

Despite rapid progress on coding agents, progress on their multimodal counterparts has lagged behind. A key challenge is the scarcity of evaluation testbeds that combine the complexity of software development with the need for deep multimodal understanding. In game development, agents must navigate large, dense codebases while manipulating intrinsically multimodal assets such as shaders, sprites, and animations within a visual game scene. We present GameDevBench, the first benchmark for evaluating agents on game development tasks. GameDevBench consists of 333 tasks derived from web and video tutorials. Tasks require significant multimodal understanding and are complex: the average solution requires over three times the lines of code and file changes compared to prior software development benchmarks. Agents struggle with game development, with the best agent and method solving only 53.8% of tasks. We find a strong correlation between perceived task difficulty and multimodal complexity, with average success rate dropping from 51.4% on gameplay-oriented tasks to 33.0% on 2D graphics tasks. To improve multimodal capability, we introduce two simple image- and video-based feedback mechanisms for agents. Despite their simplicity, these methods consistently improve performance, increasing GPT-5.4's performance from 41.1% to 52.0% when given visual feedback.