Generative AI has transformed the fields of Design and Manufacturing by providing efficient and automated methods for generating and modifying 3D objects. One approach involves using Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate Computer- Aided Design (CAD) scripting code, which can then be executed to render a 3D object; however, the resulting 3D object may not meet the specified requirements. Testing the correctness of CAD generated code is challenging due to the complexity and structure of 3D objects (e.g., shapes, surfaces, and dimensions) that are not feasible in code. In this paper, we introduce CADCodeVerify, a novel approach to iteratively verify and improve 3D objects generated from CAD code. Our approach works by producing ameliorative feedback by prompting a Vision-Language Model (VLM) to generate and answer a set of validation questions to verify the generated object and prompt the VLM to correct deviations. To evaluate CADCodeVerify, we introduce, CADPrompt, the first benchmark for CAD code generation, consisting of 200 natural language prompts paired with expert-annotated scripting code for 3D objects to benchmark progress. Our findings show that CADCodeVerify improves VLM performance by providing visual feedback, enhancing the structure of the 3D objects, and increasing the success rate of the compiled program. When applied to GPT-4, CADCodeVerify achieved a 7.30% reduction in Point Cloud distance and a 5.0% improvement in success rate compared to prior work

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and CodeLlama are powerful models for code generation and understanding. Fine-tuning these models comes with a high computational cost and requires a large labeled dataset. Alternatively, in-context learning techniques allow models to learn downstream tasks with only a few examples. Recently, researchers have shown how in-context learning performs well in bug detection and repair. In this paper, we propose code-pair classification task in which both the buggy and non-buggy versions are given to the model, and the model identifies the buggy ones. We evaluate our task in real-world dataset of bug detection and two most powerful LLMs. Our experiments indicate that an LLM can often pick the buggy from the non-buggy version of the code, and the code-pair classification task is much easier compared to be given a snippet and deciding if and where a bug exists.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive proficiency in code generation. Nonetheless, similar to human developers, these models might generate code that contains security vulnerabilities and flaws. Writing secure code remains a substantial challenge, as vulnerabilities often arise during interactions between programs and external systems or services, such as databases and operating systems. In this paper, we propose a novel approach, Feedback-Driven Solution Synthesis (FDSS), designed to explore the use of LLMs in receiving feedback from Bandit, which is a static code analysis tool, and then the LLMs generate potential solutions to resolve security vulnerabilities. Each solution, along with the vulnerable code, is then sent back to the LLM for code refinement. Our approach shows a significant improvement over the baseline and outperforms existing approaches. Furthermore, we introduce a new dataset, PythonSecurityEval, collected from real-world scenarios on Stack Overflow to evaluate the LLMs' ability to generate secure code. Code and data are available at \url{https://github.com/Kamel773/LLM-code-refine}

Pretrained models of code, such as CodeBERT and CodeT5, have become popular choices for code understanding and generation tasks. Such models tend to be large and require commensurate volumes of training data, which are rarely available for downstream tasks. Instead, it has become popular to train models with far larger but less realistic datasets, such as functions with artificially injected bugs. Models trained on such data, however, tend to only perform well on similar data, while underperforming on real world programs. In this paper, we conjecture that this discrepancy stems from the presence of distracting samples that steer the model away from the real-world task distribution. To investigate this conjecture, we propose an approach for identifying the subsets of these large yet unrealistic datasets that are most similar to examples in real-world datasets based on their learned representations. Our approach extracts high-dimensional embeddings of both real-world and artificial programs using a neural model and scores artificial samples based on their distance to the nearest real-world sample. We show that training on only the nearest, representationally most similar samples while discarding samples that are not at all similar in representations yields consistent improvements across two popular pretrained models of code on two code understanding tasks. Our results are promising, in that they show that training models on a representative subset of an unrealistic dataset can help us harness the power of large-scale synthetic data generation while preserving downstream task performance. Finally, we highlight the limitations of applying AI models for predicting vulnerabilities and bugs in real-world applications