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

Geometry-matching metrics like IoU tell you almost nothing about whether generated CAD code preserves the intended construction process. On Qwen3 samples, per-sample IoU and constraint satisfaction correlate at Pearson r = 0.022 and Spearman ρ = 0.023, and cases exist with IoU 90.41% but CSR 10.00%.

CIT-CAD infers a Constraint Intent Tree from a natural-language description, encoding expected entities, hierarchy, Boolean roles, sketch attributes and inter-entity relations, generates CadQuery code conditioned on it, then extracts actual constraints by AST analysis plus runtime geometry and repairs localized violations under an acceptance rule that only commits repairs preserving locked constraints. Evaluated on 26,783 multi-entity Text2CAD samples with DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-Instruct, Qwen3-A3B-Instruct and GPT-5.4-mini.

Valid syntax rate rises 74.1% to 83.3% (DeepSeek), 78.0% to 85.1% (Qwen3), 87.2% to 90.4% (GPT-5.4-mini). Constraint satisfaction roughly doubles (14.8% to 28.3%; 16.7% to 31.8%; 16.7% to 37.7%). IoU barely moves on open models (29.0% to 29.2%; 32.6% to 32.8%). Repair iterations lift Qwen3 CSR 18.2% to 28.9%, saturating after 3 rounds.

The comparison is vanilla prompting versus the full pipeline with the same backbone, so the tree, the validator and the repair loop are not separated; the repair-iteration curve is the only partial ablation, and there is no matched-token-budget baseline. CSR is computed from LLM-inferred trees, so the metric and the method share a source. Absolute success rates stay low (IoU@0.95 3.3%-5.9%), and sketch-level constraints remain the dominant failure. Treat construction-level checks as a separate axis from geometry when scoring text-to-CAD.