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

In social insects, mortality risk comprises distinct components that may not share the same predictors: lifespan duration, senescence trajectory, and thermal vulnerability. We tested these three axes in 18 Australian ant species using paired field-laboratory survival assays (2,363 cohort-day observations; 1,148 workers). Body size predicted duration (Cox HR = 0.67, p = 0.002), while colony size (p = 0.60) and the size x temperature interaction (p = 0.72) showed no detectable moderating effect. A weak but significant size x foraging-rate interaction was detected (LRT p = 0.014), suggesting that intrinsic physiology remains the most parsimonious explanation for the main size-longevity pattern, although ecological context may contribute. Senescence trajectory was associated with circadian niche rather than size: it was steepest in matinal species (Kruskal-Wallis p = 0.009; matinal vs. crepuscular p = 0.002) and was uncorrelated with body mass (Spearman p = 0.32). Thermal hazard plateaued above 20 degrees C (Delta AIC = -38; p < 0.001), with elevated thermal sensitivity in Rhytidoponera (Ectatomminae) above the plateau (5% per degree C, p = 0.015). Circadian regime and lineage identity, not body size, therefore emerge as the most climate-relevant axes, although they are strongly collinear (Cramer's V = 0.85). These results show that body size captures only one dimension of mortality risk and that size-based vulnerability indices may misrank taxa when senescence and thermal sensitivity are decoupled from body size.

Measuring the Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap: How the language of the evidence shapes what language models understand

Language models are often evaluated as though capabilities demonstrated in English remain equally available when the same content is presented in other languages. Traditional multilingual benchmarks rarely isolate language while holding content, question, reference answer, model, and evaluation unit constant. We define the Cross-Lingual Comprehension Gap (CLCG) as the reduction in response quality when the same content and question are presented in a target language rather than in English. Using ParallelQA-18, a professionally human-translated parallel corpus, we evaluate five models from five laboratories on a stratified sample of 150 articles across 18 languages (English reference; Portuguese high-resource baseline; 16 targets spanning Joshi et al. 2020 classes 0-4). A within-item design varies only passage language. The primary estimator contrasts English versus pooled target-language Token-F1 micro-means on higher-complexity open-ended questions, with article-cluster bootstrap intervals. The primary pooled CLCG is 0.078 (95% CI 0.072-0.084), about a 17% reduction relative to the English score; the equal-language macro summary is 0.077. Net of Portuguese, the macro gap is 0.016 (95% CI 0.013-0.020). Language-level CLCG is negatively associated with Joshi resource class (rho = -0.594, p = 0.015, n = 16). In blinded paired human evaluations, higher-resource responses are preferred in 61.6% of decisive judgments (estimated preference probability 0.655, 95% CI 0.558-0.741). Capabilities shown in English should not be assumed to transfer equally to other languages; English-centered evaluations may overestimate quality for users of low-resource languages.

The C-index illusion: discrimination without calibration in published survival models

Recent work has argued normatively, on synthetic data, that evaluating survival models by discrimination alone (concordance index) yields systematically misleading model comparisons, because the metric ignores calibration and time-dependent accuracy. Whether this matters for real, published, non-clinical models has not been tested. We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains -- hard-drive failure prediction, peer-to-peer credit default, and user disengagement on digital platforms -- validate our instrument against the anchor paper's own synthetic experiment, and test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate. Three of five reject (though one pre-registered threshold clears by a narrow margin). A model reproducing the published literature's discrimination almost exactly (C = 0.9595 vs. 0.958 reported) fails a formal calibration test at p < 0.001; a broad feature-ablation search finds no single attribute responsible for its discrimination, so the calibration failure is not a trivial shortcut artifact. A lender's estimated default risk is biased upward by roughly two percentage points, growing to nearly four in the riskiest segment, when loan prepayment is treated as non-informative censoring rather than a competing risk. A platform's churn model shows probability estimates that degrade with the horizon even as global discrimination stays within the pre-registered C-index band. A direct test of whether metric choice inverts model preference does not reject, though with limited power given two to three models per domain; the failure mode we document is better characterized as misplaced confidence in a chosen model than as choosing the wrong one. We release a pre-registered evaluation harness with full code and an annotated notebook, so these results can be verified independently and the audit extended.

Temporal Dropout Risk in Learning Analytics: A Harmonized Survival Benchmark Across Dynamic and Early-Window Representations

Student dropout is a persistent concern in Learning Analytics, yet comparative studies frequently evaluate predictive models under heterogeneous protocols, prioritizing discrimination over temporal interpretability and calibration. This study introduces a survival-oriented benchmark for temporal dropout risk modelling using the Open University Learning Analytics Dataset (OULAD). Two harmonized arms are compared: a dynamic weekly arm, with models in person-period representation, and a comparable continuous-time arm, with an expanded roster of families -- tree-based survival, parametric, and neural models. The evaluation protocol integrates four analytical layers: predictive performance, ablation, explainability, and calibration. Results are reported within each arm separately, as a single cross-arm ranking is not methodologically warranted. Within the comparable arm, Random Survival Forest leads in discrimination and horizon-specific Brier scores; within the dynamic arm, Poisson Piecewise-Exponential leads narrowly on integrated Brier score within a tight five-family cluster. No-refit bootstrap sampling variability qualifies these positions as directional signals rather than absolute superiority. Ablation and explainability analyses converged, across all families, on a shared finding: the dominant predictive signal was not primarily demographic or structural, but temporal and behavioral. Calibration corroborated this pattern in the better-discriminating models, with the exception of XGBoost AFT, which exhibited systematic bias. These results support the value of a harmonized, multi-dimensional benchmark in Learning Analytics and situate dropout risk as a temporal-behavioral process rather than a function of static background attributes.

A Mathematical Framework for Temporal Modeling and Counterfactual Policy Simulation of Student Dropout

This study proposes a temporal modeling framework with a counterfactual policy-simulation layer for student dropout in higher education, using LMS engagement data and administrative withdrawal records. Dropout is operationalized as a time-to-event outcome at the enrollment level; weekly risk is modeled in discrete time via penalized, class-balanced logistic regression over person--period rows. Under a late-event temporal holdout, the model attains row-level AUCs of 0.8350 (train) and 0.8405 (test), with aggregate calibration acceptable but sparsely supported in the highest-risk bins. Ablation analyses indicate performance is sensitive to feature set composition, underscoring the role of temporal engagement signals. A scenario-indexed policy layer produces survival contrasts $ΔS(T)$ under an explicit trigger/schedule contract: positive contrasts are confined to the shock branch ($T_{\rm policy}=18$: 0.0102, 0.0260, 0.0819), while the mechanism-aware branch is negative ($ΔS_{\rm mech}(18)=-0.0078$, $ΔS_{\rm mech}(38)=-0.0134$). A subgroup analysis by gender quantifies scenario-induced survival gaps via bootstrap; contrasts are directionally stable but small. Results are not causally identified; they demonstrate the framework's capacity for internal structural scenario comparison under observational data constraints.

MGit: A Model Versioning and Management System

Models derived from other models are extremely common in machine learning (ML) today. For example, transfer learning is used to create task-specific models from "pre-trained" models through finetuning. This has led to an ecosystem where models are related to each other, sharing structure and often even parameter values. However, it is hard to manage these model derivatives: the storage overhead of storing all derived models quickly becomes onerous, prompting users to get rid of intermediate models that might be useful for further analysis. Additionally, undesired behaviors in models are hard to track down (e.g., is a bug inherited from an upstream model?). In this paper, we propose a model versioning and management system called MGit that makes it easier to store, test, update, and collaborate on model derivatives. MGit introduces a lineage graph that records provenance and versioning information between models, optimizations to efficiently store model parameters, as well as abstractions over this lineage graph that facilitate relevant testing, updating and collaboration functionality. MGit is able to reduce the lineage graph's storage footprint by up to 7x and automatically update downstream models in response to updates to upstream models.