Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than Never Conditioning: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion

Yang Xiao

cs.LGJul 25, 2026

Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than Never Conditioning: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion

Authors: Yang Xiao

Organizations: Sichuan University

Abstract

Fine-tuned code LLMs are routinely conditioned on a design-intent specification, but the correctness axis of such a signal -- a wrong intent rather than an absent one -- has not been tested, and the benefit of conditioning is usually scored with the same detector that defines the signal. We study CADCON, a five-feature design-intent header prepended to CadQuery-style programs during LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B, scoring adherence with executable geometric assertions that share no code with the header-defining extractor. On a pre-registered sample of 400 deduplicated held-out programs stratified over eleven intent profiles, at 40% prefix and three seeds, a semantically wrong header degrades adherence below the never-header-trained baseline on 3/3 seeds under both tokenizations at the program level, and on 3/3 token and 2/3 text seeds at the 298 distinct model inputs they present. Wrong-header executability is not depressed relative to that baseline. A derangement control, retrained so every program receives another program's header -- holding the header marginal fixed while destroying its correlation with the program -- saw the same programs, indices and wrong headers. Its correct-to-wrong change is -0.006/+0.016/-0.003 against 0.124/0.241/0.230 for the standard model, and the interaction is significant on 3/3 seeds (p <= 5.9e-7), so the model's sensitivity to whether the header is right or wrong requires the learned mapping. The control sits below the baseline by the same margin under a correct as under a wrong header, so we claim that sensitivity and not the below-baseline level. On features the true intent lacks, the standard model realizes a feature far more often when the wrong header names it; the control does not. Ground truth itself scores only 0.567 here, the scale on which arm levels should be read. Wrong design intent is not inert: it actively misdirects generation.

Explore similar work

Sep 7, 2026cs.AI

CIT-CAD: Constraint Intent Tree-based CAD Code Generation and Verification

Natural-language Computer-Aided Design (CAD) code generation aims to turn design intent into executable and editable parametric programs. Large language models (LLMs) make this goal increasingly practical, but useful systems must preserve the construction process behind the rendered geometry. Existing benchmarks and methods mostly focus on how closely the generated CAD model matches the reference geometry, often using metrics such as Intersection over Union (IoU). Such metrics can miss errors in part decomposition, construction hierarchy, Boolean operations, sketch structure, and geometric relations. This gap calls for a representation that makes design intent explicit and lets a system check generated code against that intent. We propose CIT-CAD, a framework that infers a Constraint Intent Tree (CIT) from the input description to represent the intended entities, hierarchy, operations, and relations. The tree has two roles: it guides CAD code generation and defines expected constraints for verification. The framework extracts actual constraints from the generated program, compares them with the expected constraints, and uses mismatches to localize and repair design violations. Experiments show that the framework improves CAD generation performance, with larger gains on more complex multi-entity designs. By turning design intent into an explicit and checkable object, this work is the first attempt to move text-to-CAD generation beyond rendered-geometry matching toward construction-aware synthesis, verification, and repair.

Yali Du, Hui Sun, San-Zhuo Xi +1

Text-To-Cad Computer-Aided Design Code Generation Constraint-Aware Synthesis Label Constraint Modeling Structural Constraints+1

Ask PDF

Aug 7, 2026cs.SE

DevIntent: How Much Does LLM-Generated Code Violate Developer Intent?

Code generated by LLMs can violate a developer's implicit intentions when given an ambiguous prompt, yet standard benchmarks measure only whether code passes its stated test. We introduce the Intent Violation Rate (IVR) and a 49-problem pilot benchmark derived from HumanEval+. Each problem strips implicit constraints from a clarified prompt and encodes them as hidden constraint tests. IVR measures the fraction of LLM-generated solutions that pass the stated (visible) tests yet fail hidden constraint tests that capture unstated intent. Evaluating Claude Sonnet 4.6 and OpenAI GPT 4.1, we find both pass over 92% of stated tests yet violate intent in over half of problems (54.5% and 63.5%), following a systematic, bimodal pattern consistent across both models. Out findings indicate that pass rates overstate how well generated code reflects developer intent.

Susana Haing, Natan Vidra, Spurthi Setty

Code Quality Violation Structural Constraints

Ask PDF

May 11, 2026cs.AI

BenchCAD: A Comprehensive, Industry-Standard Benchmark for Programmatic CAD

Industrial Computer-Aided Design (CAD) code generation requires models to produce executable parametric programs from visual or textual inputs. Beyond recognizing the outer shape of a part, this task involves understanding its 3D structure, inferring engineering parameters, and choosing CAD operations that reflect how the part would be designed and manufactured. Despite the promise of Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) for this task, they are rarely evaluated on whether these capabilities jointly hold in realistic industrial CAD settings. We present BenchCAD, a unified benchmark for industrial CAD reasoning. BenchCAD contains 17,900 execution-verified CadQuery programs across 106 industrial part families, including bevel gears, compression springs, twist drills, and other reusable engineering designs. It evaluates models through visual question answering, code question answering, image-to-code generation, and instruction-guided code editing, enabling fine-grained analysis across perception, parametric abstraction, and executable program synthesis. Across 10+ frontier models, BenchCAD shows that current systems often recover coarse outer geometry but fail to produce faithful parametric CAD programs. Common failures include missing fine 3D structure, misinterpreting industrial design parameters, and replacing essential operations such as sweeps, lofts, and twist-extrudes with simpler sketch-and-extrude patterns. Fine-tuning and reinforcement learning improve in-distribution performance, but generalization to unseen part families remains limited. These results position BenchCAD as a benchmark for measuring and improving the industrial readiness of multimodal CAD automation.

Haozhe Zhang, Kaichen Liu, Miaomiao Chen +4

Text-To-Cad Computer-Aided Design Industrial 3D Models

Ask PDF