arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.23191

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

Yang Xiao
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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 related subjects

cs.LGcs.GR

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yang Xiao. 2026-07-25. Wrong Design Intent Is Worse Than Never Conditioning: A Derangement-Control Diagnosis of Header Conditioning in CAD Program Completion. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.23191

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗