arXiv Machine Learning

Wrong Design Intent Can Be Worse Than None: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion

arXiv:2607. 23191v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Fine-tuned code LLMs are often conditioned on a design-intent header to steer parametric CAD generation, but whether the model reads that header's content has been tested neither under execution-level scoring nor with a causal control.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 28

Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than None: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion

arXiv:2607. 23191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fine-tuned code LLMs can be conditioned on a lightweight design-intent header to steer parametric CAD generation, but whether the model actually reads the header's content has not been tested under a metric independent of the conditioning itself, nor with a causal control.

By Yang Xiao
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 11

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

arXiv:2607. 23191v3 Announce Type: replace 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.

By Yang Xiao
arXiv AI
5d ago

Dead text or binding clause? Measuring and restoring constraint influence in black-box LLM dialogues

arXiv:2608. 12599v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multi-turn dialogues let users revoke constraints as easily as impose them, but revocation does not reliably take effect: models keep enacting withdrawn requirements (occasionally beneath comments asserting their removal), a failure we call \emph{behavioral relapse}, or revocation inertia.

By Haoyuan Zhu