the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
GeoGen3D 1.0: An LMM-Based Reasoning Agent Framework for 3D Geological Model Generation
Abstract. 3D Geological models provide conceptual and specific frameworks for a range of theoretical and applied geoscience activities, from theoretical research to the search for new resources. In many scenarios, the scarcity of data is common, and researchers must infer corresponding 3D geological structures based only on textual descriptions or outcrop images, for which standard 3D modelling approaches are poorly suited. Although current generative artificial intelligence can already generate pictures, videos, and 3D object models as required, there is still no feasible method to directly convert geologists' ideas or real photos of rock outcrops into 3D geological models. Here we present GeoGen3D, an intelligent Agent for text-image multimodal-driven 3D geological modeling. (1) Based on an improved ReAct agent framework, and by constructing a comprehensive collection of Noddy-based agent tools, we leverage the deep text and image understanding capabilities of large multimodal models (LMMs) to enable intelligent generation of 3D geological models from textual or visual inputs. (2) We introduce MMGM-Eval, a multimodal 3D geological model generation benchmark, to systematically evaluate the ability of LMMs to generate geological models from multimodal prompts. Our analyses demonstrate that GeoGen3D significantly outperforms direct prompt engineering approaches combining LMMs on the MMGM-Eval benchmark. GeoGen3D thus provides an efficient and intelligent modeling paradigm for multimodal-driven 3D geological model generation, especially suitable for scenarios lacking sufficient data.
- Preprint
(4219 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(14913 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1960 - No compliance with the policy of the journal', Juan Antonio Añel, 21 Jun 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Jiateng Guo, 23 Jun 2026
reply
Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-1960-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on CEC1', Jiateng Guo, 24 Jun 2026
reply
Dear Professor Añel,
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We sincerely apologize for the oversight in our initial submission.
The missing test dataset (the primary input data mentioned in our manuscript) has now been uploaded to a new version of the repository. The dataset, named MMGM-Eval, is available at the following location:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20817650
We have ensured that the data necessary to replicate our work is now fully accessible. We will also update the 'Code and Data Availability' section in the revised manuscript to cite this new repository location, along with the corresponding reference in the bibliography, should the Topical Editor decide to continue with the review process.
Thank you for your understanding, and we appreciate your guidance in ensuring compliance with GMD's Code and Data Policy.
Sincerely,
Jiateng GuoCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1960-AC2 -
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Jun 2026
reply
Dear authors,
Thanks for addressing this issue. I have checked the repositories and we can consider now the current version of your manuscript in compliance with the code policy of the journal.
Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev. Executive Editor
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1960-CEC2
-
CEC2: 'Reply on AC2', Juan Antonio Añel, 25 Jun 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Jiateng Guo, 23 Jun 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1960', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jul 2026
reply
This paper develops an AI-based tool that can create 3D geological models in response to a text or image prompt. The method uses three different AI agents interacting with each other, in accordance with the ReAct (reasoning and acting) framework. The agents also retrieve external knowledge from Wikipedia and generate the models using the Noddy geological modelling tool. The authors show that this multi-agent, ReAct framework can produce better models than simply prompting an LMM in one step. To do so, they create a benchmark set of example prompts, which can be used for testing this and other AI workflows.
The paper contributes to a rapidly growing interest in the use of AI in geological modeling (and everything else). I think its most significant contribution is likely to be in demonstrating the value of a ReAct-type multi-step, iteratively improving approach to this task over a single-step approach. However, I find some aspects of the paper unclear and feel that major revisions are necessary to clarify and strengthen it.
Comments:
Line 31: I don't think deep should be capitalized.
Figure 1: I have multiple comments on this figure:
- Is it possible to show the whole 555 word prompt somewhere, even if in a supplement or appendix?
- It appears that the prompts are different in a and b. To make a direct comparison, the same prompt should be used in both cases.
- In figure a, Hunyuan3D Studio is used, but this tool is not mentioned anywhere else in the manuscript, and it is not one of the LMMs that GeoGen3D is compared to in section 3.2 (or the one underlying the agents in GeoGen3D). Why not show one of the same LMMs that is used in the comparison later?
Line 44: A comma is needed after "prompts".
Lines 71-73: It was not initially clear to me that T, Ioutcrop, His, and M are the variable names for the text descriptions, field outcrop images, set of geological activity events, and three-dimensional geological model, respectively. They should be set off with commas or parentheses to make this clear.
Line 80: Is "Anoddy" the name of the “geological event action space”? Maybe set it off with commas too.
Section 2.2: It should probably be stated in this section (or even before) which LMM is used to build the agents. From Tables 2-4, I do see that it is GPT-4o, but I think that readers will be looking for that information earlier.
Section 2.2.1: Is Wikipedia a sufficient source for geological information? It covers major geological concepts but often doesn’t go very deep. Also, it can change. There should be at least some discussion of the choice to use it.
Figure 3: This flow chart suggests (in the blue box) that the agent looks up a Wikipedia page called “Inverted fold”. But when I search on Wikipedia, there is no such page. Even the “Fold (geology)” page only uses the word “inverted” twice and without any real explanation.
Line 127: Is “Pplan” a typo? Or is that the name of something?
Line 139: Missing r in representation.
Lines 214-220: It is not clear to me how the scoring is done. Line 217 suggests that an LLM does the scoring? Is it the same one doing the generating? Is there any human labeling involved to make sure that the LLM gets it right? Also, what is the misfit function that is used to produce a numerical score?
Section 3.1: If I am looking at the correct files in the Zenodo dataset, the Text2Geo3D-Eval prompts all appear to be in Chinese. Since this is an English-language article, it would be helpful to also see the results from the equivalent prompts in English. Perhaps try them in both languages and report both scores.
Section 3.2: It would be helpful to show examples of the geological models generated by each of the AIs rather than just the scores. Maybe pick one of the evaluation datasets to use as an example. Or one image example and one text example. And refer the reader to the Zenodo repository for the rest.
Tables 2 and 3: What are the three different columns under Score? Three trials? Three different metrics? This should be labeled or explained somewhere.
Figure 5: The prompt asks to “restore” the structure shown in the picture, but what follows seems to be more a forward model than a restoration. Maybe a different term could be used here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1960-RC1
Data sets
Data Sets Jiateng Guo and Junkun Li https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19493634
Model code and software
Source Code Jiateng Guo and Junkun Li https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19493634
Video supplement
Video Demo Jiateng Guo and Junkun Li https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19493634
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 203 | 85 | 18 | 306 | 19 | 10 | 10 |
- HTML: 203
- PDF: 85
- XML: 18
- Total: 306
- Supplement: 19
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear authors,
Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy".
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.html
In the repository cited in the Code and Data Availability section, the data necessary to replicate your work is missing. The repository currently only contains data for a test case, and in your manuscript you seem to use multiple training cases.