arXiv:2607.15314v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Healthcare spans high-stakes communication, expert reasoning, and workflow execution, yet specialized LLMs that cover these use cases together remain limited. A healthcare model must handle patient consultation, clinical reasoning over text and images, interactive diagnosis, and electronic health record (EHR) tool use. These capabilities fail in different ways, and a narrow update for one task can degrade another. We present Cura 1T, a healthcare-specialized LLM trained through a human-gated self-evolution loop. In each evolution round, a training agent plans a target capability, trains the model, evaluates benchmark trajectories, and refines the data mixture from observed failures. This data-centered loop improves the model through targeted synthetic and curated examples rather than a single generic medical-data update. Across the healthcare evaluation suite, Cura 1T ranks at or near the top among frontier baselines, while remaining competitive on out-of-domain reasoning and agentic benchmarks.

arXiv:2607.15367v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Desktop voice assistants are still dominated by cloud pipelines that ship raw audio off the machine and expose a fixed set of skills. We describe AnovaX, a small local-first assistant that runs entirely on the user’s computer and treats the desktop itself as its action surface. A single Python process wires together a wake-word gate, a speech pipeline, an LLM planner (Gemini) that emits a JSON plan of tool calls, a whitelist-and-denylist safety layer, a multi-agent orchestrator that translates each plan into typed child agents on a bounded thread pool, and an adaptive recovery loop that takes over whenever a core step fails. Every tool corresponds to a specialized agent class (AppAgent, TypingAgent, BrowserAgent and six others) with its own timeout, retry policy, and shared-resource locks. A recursive MetaAgent lets the planner delegate a sub-goal back to itself, capped at two levels of nesting. The recovery loop uses a compact ReAct-style prompt and hides Gemini’s latency behind speculative execution of read-only tools. A companion Flask server exposes a phone-friendly remote over the local WiFi, mirrors every agent lifecycle event to the phone in real time, and streams the laptop’s screen back over MJPEG so the user can watch remote commands land as they run. The point of the project is less to compete with Siri or Alexa than to show that a legible, few-thousand-line assistant is enough to open apps, type into them, run searches, coordinate concurrent actions, recover from single-step failures, and be driven entirely from a phone in another room — without the LLM ever touching the keyboard.

arXiv:2607.15388v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER’s reviewer is more precise than broadcast’s (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver’s working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

Sarah Friar, CFO of OpenAI, introduces a practical AI scorecard to measure ROI through useful work, cost per successful task, dependability, and return on compute.