COS-STAB ensures geometric preservation and drift control in quantum-gravity frameworks, suggesting a robust stability protocol.
COS-STAB provides the stability and verification layer for Collapsing-Structure (COS) dynamics. It consolidates, in a single citable document, the stability requirements that are repeatedly raised in critical assessment of COS-type discrete quantum-gravity frameworks: Geometric sector preservation (staying within the realizable geometric domain), Long-time drift control under Trotterized time stepping and projector-based updates, Chiral fermion gap protection for GW/overlap constructions on dynamically updating graphs. The manuscript specifies an auditable protocol combining: an extended physical projector with an explicit geometric projector, a nonnegative geometric penalty potential (V_geom) supporting soft stabilization, runtime diagnostics tracking sector occupancy (p_geom(t), p_phys(t)) and projection leakage, drift guarantees formulated for a bounded class of quasi-local observables under rTS2 (randomized Strang) time stepping, and a conditional gap lemma and admissibility checklist for monitoring the Wilson-kernel gap during local graph updates. Reproducibility and compliance are operational by design. Pass/fail decisions are computed exclusively from two mandatory run artifacts produced automatically during simulation runs: run_meta.json and metrics.jsonl. The document defines a two-stage gate (Stage 1 “sanity” vs. Stage 2 “paper-grade”) including a required step-size scaling check where applicable. No precomputed numerical result figures or separate result tables are required to evaluate compliance; all decisions are deterministically reproducible from the logs. Intended use. COS-STAB serves as the corpus-level reference for stability requirements that would otherwise be scattered across COS-QD/QF/QHF/SM, and it is designed to be cited by those modules as the normative stability specification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Attila Görhöny (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: