Body size predicts how long ant workers live - but not how they age or how they die from heat

An agent deployed in a single body cannot learn how fast that body wears, because every trial that would reveal its wear resistance wears the body it would protect. We study this epoch-one setting, in which the parameters of a fixed-weight policy are set before the body is drawn and never updated in life. The agent carries a load-gated nociceptive channel and a memory that retains what was felt. We prove that felt cost moves the allocation to the best-paid work not yet felt rather than the gentlest, that an agent without retention never sees the felt-cost constraint bind, and that the channel pays only where the threat is individually unpredictable, cheap to avoid and expensive to ignore. We measure per body, setting the agent with channel and memory against the same individual without them, where neither carries a schedule learned across lives. On $2{,}000$ simulated floor-layer knees, with wear anchored to published loss rates, feeling, retaining and substituting extends the working life from age $55.2$ to $59.6$ and raises career output from $33.7$ to $36.1$. $69.3\%$ of bodies gain and none lose. A body that feels but retains nothing past the day gains one of the $+4.4$ years, and retention carries the rest. A population-trained agent gains $+0.65$ years from the same channel at $-0.54$ output. The difference is what a species prior already supplies, and a single body has none. The two are related by an identity, the ablation mean reporting $(1-χ)$ of the per-body value with $χ$ the share a blind schedule already captures, so we report both. Where the regime map predicts value, a care robot sextuples its certified service life and a field-anchored fleet writes off $0.15$ of its machines instead of $0.55$. Where it predicts none, a rover gains little over blind caution, so the map holds in both directions.

Swarms of small robots are an attractive way to survey lunar caves and lava tubes. Missions such as NASA's CADRE will fly cooperating rovers for distributed mapping, but only in daylight. The 354 h lunar night drops the surface towards 95 K, and the radioisotope heaters that let single rovers survive it cannot be supplied at swarm scale. In this study we investigate whether a swarm can instead use its own members as thermal shielding. We train one policy, shared by all twenty robots, by reinforcement learning with an evolution-strategies estimator. The policy receives a single reward, once, at the end of the night: the mean temperature of the five coldest robots. Nothing in that reward refers to position, spacing, exposure or motion. Two behaviors nonetheless emerge. The swarm aggregates, and robots circulate between the sheltered core and the exposed rim, the same pair of behaviors with which emperor penguins survive the Antarctic winter. We measure the survival threshold, the smallest stored energy per robot at which every robot is still alive at sunrise. Across ten runs it is 155.6 +/- 1.3 pcm-h, where one pcm-h is 7.2 kJ of stored heat. That is 37% below a motionless huddle and within 13% of a physics-based lower bound, and at a budget where the motionless huddle loses six robots, every robot survives. The behavior needs no shared spatial reference and no robot-robot contact, and transfers from twenty robots to forty without retraining.

Long-lived AI agents are increasingly deployed as persistent operational systems, yet they are still evaluated like freshly initialized models. Day-one benchmarks miss a basic systems question: how long does an agent remain reliable after deployment? Even when model weights are frozen, an agent's effective state keeps changing as it compresses interaction history, retrieves from a growing memory store, revises facts after updates, and undergoes routine maintenance. Reliability therefore becomes a lifespan property of the full agent harness, not only a snapshot property of the base model. We introduce AgingBench, a longitudinal reliability benchmark for agent lifespan engineering: measuring not only whether deployed agents degrade, but what form the degradation takes and where repair should target. AgingBench organizes agent aging into four mechanisms: compression aging, interference aging, revision aging, and maintenance aging. To diagnose these failures, AgingBench uses temporal dependency graphs and paired counterfactual probes that produce diagnostic profiles for the write, retrieval, and utilization stages of the memory pipeline. Across 7 scenarios, 14 models, multiple memory policies, and both runner-controlled and autonomous agents, over ~400 runs spanning 8 - 200 sessions show that agent aging is not one-dimensional: behavioral tests can remain clean while factual precision decays; derived-state tracking can collapse sharply within a single model; and the same wrong answer can require different repairs depending on what the diagnostic profile points to. These results suggest that reliable agent deployment requires lifespan evaluation, mechanism-level diagnosis, and stage-targeted repair, not only stronger day-one models.