Papers › Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than Never Conditioning: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis...
Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than Never Conditioning: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion
Yang Xiao
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
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.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.23191, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections