OVIP-SG is presented, a unified framework for instance-preserving semantic mapping, functional scene partitioning, and language-guided small, fine-grained object retrieval that outperforms ConceptGraphs under a unified evaluation protocol on Replica.
Abstract
Integrating open-vocabulary perception into object-level 3D scene graphs is a double-edged sword. While vision-language detectors recover long-tail categories and small, fine-grained objects overlooked by closed-set models, they also tend to fragment large surfaces and merge small objects into larger neighboring objects, compromising instance-level consistency and undermining mapping fidelity. Moreover, existing methods struggle to retrieve previously unmapped targets or determine whether a queried object is absent, hindering robust embodied open-world navigation and exploration. We present OVIP-SG, a unified framework for instance-preserving semantic mapping, functional scene partitioning, and language-guided small, fine-grained object retrieval. OVIP-SG uses a vision-language model (VLM) to enumerate scene-specific categories for robust open-world detection. Symmetric 3D Intersection over Union (IoU) association and area-weighted feature fusion preserve small independent instances, while VLM-inferred object functions partition scenes into compact functional search regions. A four-stage cascaded retrieval pipeline further incorporates voxel voting and determines target absence from exploration coverage. Under a unified evaluation protocol on Replica, OVIP-SG outperforms ConceptGraphs by 6.31 points in class-mean accuracy (mAcc) and 5.15 points in frequency-weighted mIoU (F-mIoU) while achieving a class-agnostic native-instance Panoptic Quality (PQ) of 0.398. It reduces the search area to 21.8% of the indoor floor space and reaches 0.773 balanced accuracy for object-presence classification. Real-world robotic experiments further demonstrate its practical effectiveness. Code is available at https://github.com/Agibot-Spatial-AI/OVIP-SG.
LifeSciBench is introduced, a benchmark of 750 expert-authored tasks designed to evaluate whether language models can handle realistic life science research work, with each constituent task paired with a human expert-written rubric.
Amelia Liu, Andrew Ho, Anne Marie Droste et al.· bioRxiv· 2 citations
TestifAI, a deep learning testing framework for efficient and accurate estimation of robustness against combinations of perturbations, is proposed and partial model tomography is introduced, a novel approach to reconstructing model behaviour in a multi-perturbation space from tests that apply only a small number of perturbations.
Arooj Arif, T. Hartung, E. Botoeva et al.· 1 citation
A rapidly advancing precision-therapy pipeline-including antisense oligonucleotides to upregulate the intact allele, AAV-based gene replacement, CRISPR-mediated transcriptional activation, epigenetic modulators, and rational pathway-targeted small molecules-offers realistic prospects for disease modification.
This paper proposes the Evaluation Context Protocol (ECP), an early-stage, vendor-neutral framework intended to act as a portable evaluation contract layer for agentic systems and describes an open-source reference implementation that includes adapters for LangChain, LlamaIndex, CrewAI, and PydanticAI.
Large Language Models show potential in their diagnostic accuracy and consequent ability to reduce clinician burden, and may provide the greatest benefit when used to optimise referral quality at source, improving both clinician and potentially LLM triage downstream.
K. Surendran, I. Aziz, Glyndwr Jenkins· Current Surgery Reports· 0 citations
Background Ambient AI documentation tools, known as scribes, are entering routine clinical practice at scale, but the evidence comparing the notes they produce against clinician-written notes is dominated by single-site, single-language studies that rely on human review to find errors, a method known to miss most documentation errors. Methods We conducted a paired simulation across five countries and languages (Cambridge/English, Barcelona/Spanish, Milan/Italian, Paris/French, Cologne/German; 385 paired consultations, 770 notes). From each actor-performed consultation, an AI scribe (Heidi) and a junior-to-middle-grade clinician independently produced a note. Notes were scored on the PDQI-9 by evaluators blinded to authorship. Documentation errors were identified by two methods of deliberately different sensitivity - clinician adjudication, and a calibrated automated reviewer externally validated against a blinded ten-clinician panel - then graded for clinical risk by a three-model panel. The co-primary outcomes were PDQI-9 total and Critical+High error burden, the latter reported under both detection arms. The analysis plan was registered before any pooling across sites. Results AI notes scored higher than clinician notes on the PDQI-9 (40.6 vs 35.6; difference +5.08, 95% CI 4.6-5.6; Cohen dz=0.55), consistently across all five sites (dz 0.41-0.75), and were less dispersed (5.7% of AI vs 27.8% of clinician notes fell below the study pre-specified low-score threshold (<32)). On the principal safety outcome - the paired probability that a note carried [≥]Critical+High error - clinician notes were affected more often under both detection arms: 61.0% versus 24.4% by the calibrated reviewer (relative risk 2.50, 95% CI 2.09-3.00) and 21.8% versus 6.2% by clinician adjudication (relative risk 3.50, 95% CI 2.32-5.27). The difference was largest for omissions. Unaided clinician review identified roughly 12% of the errors the calibrated reviewer retained, and a smaller fraction in AI notes than in clinician notes. Conclusions In this simulation, AI-generated notes scored higher on documentation quality, varied less, and carried fewer clinically significant errors than notes written on the same consultations by junior-to-middle-grade clinicians. The magnitude of the safety difference depends on the sensitivity of error detection, so we report both detection regimes and bound rather than point-estimate the absolute error rate. Extension to live practice, consultant-authored documentation, and notes as filed after clinician editing remains to be established.
H. Bergman, V. Liu, B. Austin et al.· medRxiv· 0 citations
A new method for surgically removing training examples from a model reveals that as datasets grow, the link between what a model learns and what it produces dissolves.
