Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is highly prevalent but remains substantially underdiagnosed. Polysomnography (PSG) is the reference standard, but its cost and limited availability constrain large-scale case identification. AI-based screening tools may support risk stratification and referral prioritization, but their diagnostic accuracy across apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) thresholds remains uncertain. Objective: This review aimed to systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based OSA screening tools at AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, with emphasis on models using non-PSG–derived inputs. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published from January 1, 2016, to May 3, 2026. Eligible studies included adults evaluated for suspected OSA or recruited from population-based cohorts, assessed AI-based models intended or interpretable for OSA screening, risk prediction, or screening-oriented severity classification, used PSG as the reference standard, and reported sufficient data to construct or reconstruct 2×2 contingency tables. Diagnostic accuracy was synthesized separately by AHI threshold and input source using bivariate random-effects models, with 95% CIs and prediction intervals (PIs). Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), respectively. Results: A total of 60 studies were included, of which 47 contributed data to the meta-analysis. At AHI thresholds of ≥5, ≥15, and ≥30 events/hour, pooled sensitivities were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92‐0.96; 95% PI 0.71‐0.99), 0.87 (95% CI 0.84‐0.89; 95% PI 0.66‐0.96), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.79‐0.87; 95% PI 0.61‐0.94), respectively; the corresponding specificities were 0.77 (95% CI 0.69‐0.84; 95% PI 0.30‐0.96), 0.81 (95% CI 0.75‐0.85; 95% PI 0.39‐0.96), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.87‐0.94; 95% PI 0.55‐0.99), respectively. The corresponding areas under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.943, 0.907, and 0.920. For non-PSG–derived tools, sensitivities were 0.92, 0.85, and 0.81, and specificities were 0.70, 0.74, and 0.85 at the 3 thresholds, respectively. For PSG-derived models, sensitivities were 0.96, 0.90, and 0.85, and specificities were 0.82, 0.88, and 0.96, respectively. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested performance variation across selected study and model characteristics, including region, algorithmic framework, data source, and validation method. Conclusions: AI-based tools showed generally favorable screening performance for OSA across clinically relevant AHI thresholds, although wide PIs suggest variable performance across future comparable populations and settings. By synthesizing diagnostic accuracy across 3 AHI thresholds and distinguishing non-PSG–derived from PSG-derived models, this review extends previous broad or modality-specific reviews and offers a clinically interpretable, pathway-specific basis for linking model performance to intended use. The findings may clarify potential roles for non-PSG–derived tools in front-end screening and referral prioritization and for PSG-derived models in reduced-channel assessment and sleep-laboratory workflow support. Given substantial heterogeneity, limited external validation, and low or very low certainty of evidence, prospective validation is needed before routine implementation.

arXiv:2605.23965v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on logical reasoning benchmarks, yet their reliability remains uncertain. Existing evaluations rely on static benchmarks, which fail to assess robustness under logically equivalent transformations and often overestimate reasoning capability. We propose LGMT (Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing), an oracle-free framework that leverages first-order logic (FOL) to evaluate LLM reasoning. By deriving metamorphic relations from formal logical equivalences, LGMT constructs semantically invariant test cases and detects reasoning defects through cross-case consistency checking. Experiments on six state-of-the-art LLMs show that LGMT exposes substantial hidden defects missed by traditional reference-based evaluations. We further find that models are particularly sensitive to symbol-level and conclusion-level variations, and that advanced prompting such as Few-shot CoT only partially mitigates these issues. These results suggest that LLM evaluation should move beyond isolated correctness toward robustness under logical invariance. LGMT provides a principled and scalable approach for diagnosing reasoning failures.

arXiv:2605.24383v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Ethical constraints on open-weight AI models are both a reflection of societal concerns and a foundation for AI governance policy. They are expected to propagate to downstream derivatives while implemented as voluntary metadata disclosures that must be restated at each generation of reuse. We audit 2,142,823 model repositories on Hugging Face Hub to test whether this disclosure-based governance infrastructure can sustain traceability across deep model lineages. Restriction evidence decays with a half-life of 1.31 derivation steps ($R^2$=0.98), and beyond seven downstream generations at least 80% of descendant models lack sufficient public evidence for a governance determination, a depth boundary we formalize as the governance horizon. Platform-level interventions to restore missing licence metadata reveal that policy design (not enforcement alone) is the binding factor: inheritance-only designs require near-complete enforcement to move the horizon, whereas a mandatory-declaration design that explicitly resolves orphan lineage components shifts the horizon already at moderate enforcement. The structural bottleneck is lineages with no inheritable upstream intent: such orphan components remain undecidable under any inheritance-only policy regardless of enforcement rate, and unresolved upstream nodes additionally create direct downstream undecidability bottlenecks that inheritance rules alone cannot recover. Comparison with PyPI, where governance signals are carried by explicit machine-readable declarations, corroborates that the collapse is topology-specific to open-weight derivation rather than inherent to open ecosystems. These results establish that disclosure-based governance has a shallow, structurally determined reach in open-weight AI, and that achieving deep supply-chain accountability requires provenance mechanisms propagating governance signals through derivation itself.

arXiv:2603.29183v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-set anomaly detection (OSAD) is an emerging paradigm designed to utilize limited labeled data from anomaly classes seen in training to identify both seen and unseen anomalies during testing. Current approaches rely on simple augmentation methods to generate pseudo anomalies that replicate unseen anomalies. Despite being promising in image data, these methods are found to be ineffective in time series data due to the failure to preserve its sequential nature, resulting in trivial or unrealistic anomaly patterns. They are further plagued when the training data is contaminated with unlabeled anomalies. This work introduces $\textbf{IMPACT}$, a novel framework that leverages $\underline{\textbf{i}}$nfluence $\underline{\textbf{m}}$odeling for o$\underline{\textbf{p}}$en-set time series $\underline{\textbf{a}}$nomaly dete$\underline{\textbf{ct}}$ion, to tackle these challenges. The key insight is to $\textbf{i)}$ learn an influence function that can accurately estimate the impact of individual training samples on the modeling, and then $\textbf{ii)}$ leverage these influence scores to generate semantically divergent yet realistic unseen anomalies for time series while repurposing high-influential samples as supervised anomalies for anomaly decontamination. Extensive experiments show that IMPACT significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods, showing superior accuracy under varying OSAD settings and contamination rates.

arXiv:2603.29844v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The development of Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models has been significantly accelerated by pre-trained Vision-Language Models (VLMs). However, most existing end-to-end VLAs treat the VLM primarily as a multimodal encoder, directly mapping vision-language features to low-level actions. This paradigm underutilizes the VLM's potential in high-level decision making and introduces training instability, frequently degrading its rich semantic representations. To address these limitations, we introduce DIAL, a framework bridging high-level decision making and low-level motor execution through a differentiable latent intent bottleneck. Specifically, a VLM-based System-2 performs latent world modeling by synthesizing latent visual foresight within the VLM's native feature space; this foresight explicitly encodes intent and serves as the structural bottleneck. A lightweight System-1 policy then decodes this predicted intent together with the current observation into precise robot actions via latent inverse dynamics. To ensure optimization stability, we employ a two-stage training paradigm: a decoupled warmup phase where System-2 learns to predict latent futures while System-1 learns motor control under ground-truth future guidance within a unified feature space, followed by seamless end-to-end joint optimization. This enables action-aware gradients to refine the VLM backbone in a controlled manner, preserving pre-trained knowledge. Extensive experiments on the RoboCasa GR1 Tabletop benchmark show that DIAL establishes a new state-of-the-art, achieving superior performance with 10x fewer demonstrations than prior methods. Furthermore, by leveraging heterogeneous human demonstrations, DIAL learns physically grounded manipulation priors and exhibits robust zero-shot generalization to unseen objects and novel configurations during real-world deployment on a humanoid robot.

Histidine scanning represents a broadly applicable technique for the identification of critical interaction sites within TCRs and other mechanosensory receptors to enhance receptor signaling strength and augment therapeutic efficacy via the catch bond mechanism.

arXiv:2507.01352v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Despite the critical role of reward models (RMs) in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), current state-of-the-art open RMs perform poorly on most existing evaluation benchmarks, failing to capture nuanced human preferences. We hypothesize that this brittleness stems primarily from limitations in preference datasets, which are often narrowly scoped, synthetically labeled, or lack rigorous quality control. To address these challenges, we present SynPref-40M, a large-scale preference dataset comprising 40 million preference pairs. To enable data curation at scale, we design a human-AI synergistic two-stage pipeline that leverages the complementary strengths of human annotation quality and AI scalability. In this pipeline, humans provide verified annotations, while LLMs perform automatic curation based on human guidance. Training on this preference mixture, we introduce Skywork-Reward-V2, a suite of eight reward models ranging from 0.6B to 8B parameters, trained on a carefully curated subset of 26 million preference pairs from SynPref-40M. We demonstrate that Skywork-Reward-V2 is versatile across a wide range of capabilities, including alignment with human preferences, objective correctness, safety, resistance to stylistic biases, and best-of-N scaling. These reward models achieve state-of-the-art performance across seven major reward model benchmarks, outperform generative reward models, and demonstrate strong downstream performance. Ablation studies confirm that effectiveness stems not only from data scale but also from high-quality curation. The Skywork-Reward-V2 series represents substantial progress in open reward models, demonstrating how human-AI curation synergy can unlock significantly higher data quality.

arXiv:2502.13069v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on underspecified user instructions. Making unwarranted assumptions to compensate for the missing information and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes, safety risks due to tool misuse, and wasted computational resources. In this work, we study the ability of LLM agents to handle underspecified instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance across three key steps: (a) detecting underspecificity, (b) asking targeted clarification questions, and (c) leveraging the interaction to improve performance in underspecified scenarios. We introduce Ambig-SWE, an underspecified variant of SWE-Bench Verified, specifically designed to evaluate agent behavior under ambiguity and interaction. Our findings reveal that models struggle to distinguish between well-specified and underspecified instructions. However, when models interact for underspecified inputs, they effectively obtain vital information from the user leading to significant improvements in performance, up to 74% over the non-interactive settings, underscoring the value of effective interaction. Our study highlights critical gaps in how current state-of-the-art models handle missing information in complex software engineering tasks and structures the evaluation into distinct steps to enable targeted improvements.