Benchmarks (executed) & falsifiable validation roadmap (proposed)

Experiments: what is executed vs. what is proposed

This page separates (A) executed, reproducible residual-first benchmarks from (B) proposed falsifiable tabletop tests. The benchmarks are methodological and make no claim of new physical effects. The roadmap describes tests designed to discriminate QDL-style closure/scaling from standard parameterizations, with explicit failure conditions.

3L + 2F Dimensional Closure
Residual-first adequacy tests
Four-platform experimental roadmap
Benchmarks: 3 executed
Executed (reproducible) Executed
These records are intended to be easy to audit and replicate. They do not assert new physics; they demonstrate benchmark discipline (declared families, declared budgets, residual-first diagnostics).
In progress In progress
  • Pre-registration templates for tabletop discriminant tests
  • Replicability scaffolding (artifacts list + expected outputs checklist)
  • Partner outreach for platform-specific sensitivity studies
“In progress” denotes work products that support falsifiability and auditability (not experimental confirmation).
Proposed (falsifiable tests) Proposed
  • Torsion-balance discriminants (scaling-based)
  • NV-center discriminants (geometry/field sweeps)
  • Cavity discriminants (geometry/material sweeps)
  • Metamaterial discriminants (dispersion-collapse signatures)
“Proposed” means the discriminant is specified as a test target; it is not a demonstrated empirical effect.
Jump to what you want Quick nav
Use Track A for executed residual-first records. Use Track B for falsifiable discriminants by platform (each has a stated failure condition).
Track A — BenchmarksExecuted → Track B — RoadmapProposed → Benchmarks & DOIsList → Interpretation logicHow to read → Torsion balancePlatform → NV centersPlatform → CavitiesPlatform → MetamaterialsPlatform →
Two-track layout: Track A (executed) first; Track B (proposed) second.
Track A: Benchmarks Track B: Roadmap How to interpret results Collaboration

Program overview

How QDL maps a ledger representation into auditable benchmarks and discriminant experiments.

What this page does (and does not) claim

QDL proposes a closure-based admissibility rule in a 3L + 2F basis and argues that this can be tested by looking for discriminant scaling behavior across multiple platforms. This page makes a strict separation:

  • Executed benchmarks (Track A) are methodological and do not claim new physics.
  • Proposed experiments (Track B) describe falsifiable discriminants and explicit failure conditions.

If you want the framework definition, start at Framework. If you want the broader paper library, use Publications.

Key references

Framework-first references (definition → reconstruction → method → rigor → applications):

Experimental roadmap anchor: 10.5281/zenodo.17654442

Track A — Executed benchmarks & null tests

Residual-first, auditable comparisons using declared model families and public data. Methodological only.

Executed · reproducible records
Residual-first · structure matters
Declared families · stated budgets
No new effects claimed
What “benchmark” means here

Benchmarks are explicit comparisons between declared model families under a stated parameter budget, evaluated primarily by residual structure rather than aggregate fit magnitude. Each record is designed to be auditable: dataset provenance, model forms, fit controls, and residual plots are published alongside the analysis.

  • Decision rule: coherent residual structure indicates model inadequacy.
  • Declared parameter budget: model families are specified before fitting.
  • Reproducibility: scripts/CSVs/figures are versioned with stable DOIs.

These benchmarks are evidence for benchmark discipline; they are not presented as standalone validation of QDL’s strongest cross-domain physical claims.

Quick links (executed records)

Stable DOIs for immediate citation and replication.

Each record contains provenance, declared preprocessing, declared model families, and residual plots intended to make adequacy or failure visually inspectable.

Executed benchmark summaries (scope-limited)

Consistent summaries for orientation. These are methodological results unless an explicit physical discriminant is stated elsewhere.

1) Optical Cavity Resonance Benchmark
Domain: precision photonics / metrology Residual-first diagnostics distinguish stabilized traces (noise-like residuals under a reduced family) from uncontrolled resonance scans (coherent residual structure persists under both reduced and low-order baseline families).
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18076864

2) NV-Center ODMR Benchmark
Domain: solid-state quantum sensing Residual-first benchmarking compares baseline spin-Hamiltonian fits with a strictly reduced comparison family using public ODMR data, emphasizing structural adequacy rather than fit magnitude alone.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18069870

3) Benchmarks & Null Tests (Cross-domain anchor)
Domain: methodology / null-test discipline Defines residual-first reporting conventions and provides executed null-test anchors where a reduced family is expected to pass if no additional structure is present.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18057668

Publishing discipline (what stays fixed)

What is held constant across benchmarks to preserve auditability.

  • Public provenance: datasets are linked with stable identifiers.
  • Declared preprocessing: no hidden filtering/windowing/cherry-picked segments.
  • Declared model families: reduced vs baseline comparisons are explicit.
  • Residual-first reporting: structure in residuals is treated as primary evidence.

This discipline is designed to avoid ambiguous “fit improvement” narratives and enable clear success/failure judgments that other groups can independently reproduce.

How to interpret results

A compact decision tree separating benchmark adequacy from empirical support for QDL-specific discriminants.

Decision logic (benchmarks vs. discriminant experiments)

Benchmark passes (residuals noise-like under the declared reduced family) → evidence that the reduced family is adequate for that dataset under the stated pipeline choices.

Benchmark fails (coherent residual structure persists) → evidence of model inadequacy or pipeline artifact; it does not by itself identify the missing physics.

Discriminant test supports QDL only if a pre-stated, QDL-distinct scaling/pattern appears under controlled sweeps and the standard comparison fails to match it within uncertainty.

This page is structured to reduce scope creep: benchmarks are method; discriminants are physics tests.

Transform-invariance discipline (brief)

QDL-adjacent analyses often involve re-expression (units, bases, measurement-chain parameterizations). This page treats the following as audit transforms: unit changes, basis reparameterizations, and explicit measurement-chain re-expression with declared bookkeeping.

Transforms that change model class, introduce undisclosed calibration degrees of freedom, or alter data selection are treated as interpretation changes and must be declared as such.

This is intended to prevent post-hoc reinterpretation under a different analysis choice.

Track B — Proposed falsifiable tabletop tests

Four complementary platforms. Each block states a discriminant and an explicit failure condition.

Torsion balance
Scaling discriminants vs. geometry & mass configuration.
Proposed geometry sweep
  • Declare constrained vs standard family (budgets fixed).
  • Run geometry/configuration sweep.
  • Residual-first: scaling must appear without ad hoc flexibility.
Go to torsion →
NV centers
Frequency-shift discriminants under field/geometry sweeps.
Benchmark exists Proposed test
  • Benchmark shows workflow (no new effects claimed).
  • Pre-register a sweep and constrained discriminant.
  • Hold calibration degrees fixed; report residual-first.
Go to NV →
Cavities
Length–frequency sweeps as a clean L–F probe.
Benchmark exists Proposed test
  • Use existing apparatus for a geometry/material sweep.
  • Test constrained scaling vs standard family.
  • Failure = no discriminant or only via extra flexibility.
Go to cavities →
Metamaterials
Dispersion-collapse candidates as discriminant signatures.
Proposed sweep/collapse
  • Find/construct a dataset with a clean sweep axis.
  • Declare constrained collapse target.
  • Residual-first: collapse must beat flexible refits.
Go to metamaterials →
Roadmap anchor

QDL Experimental Validation Protocol: 10.5281/zenodo.17654442

The protocol describes candidate discriminants across platforms. This page presents them as proposed tests until independently executed by experimental groups.

Torsion-balance experiments

Scaling discriminants vs. geometry and mass configuration.

Concept

Precision torsion balances are sensitive to small forces and allow controlled sweeps of geometry and configuration. QDL proposes that certain admissibility/closure constraints translate into discriminant scaling patterns under these sweeps.

QDL-distinct discriminant: a pre-stated scaling relation (or exponent constraint) tied to ledger closure under geometry/configuration sweeps.
Standard comparison: conventional parameterization (plus known systematics) fits equally well without the QDL constraint.
Minimum viable test: a geometry/configuration sweep designed to separate the constrained (QDL) family from the unconstrained family.
Failure condition: the QDL-constrained scaling is not observed within uncertainty across the sweep (or cannot outperform the standard family without adding degrees of freedom).

Platform details and candidate discriminants are outlined in the protocol DOI above.

Status and next steps

This is presented as proposed. The recommended pathway is sensitivity-first:

  • Identify an existing torsion dataset suitable for a geometry/configuration sweep.
  • Declare the two model families (standard vs constrained) and parameter budgets.
  • Run the sweep and report residual structure as primary diagnostic.

Reference: 10.5281/zenodo.17654442

NV-center frequency shifts

Discriminants under controlled field and geometry sweeps.

Concept

NV centers provide a precision probe with controllable environments. QDL proposes that certain constrained combinations of fields, geometry, and constants may yield discriminant patterns under structured sweeps.

QDL-distinct discriminant: a pre-stated pattern in frequency shifts/residual structure across geometry/field sweeps consistent with a constrained ledger family.
Standard comparison: baseline spin-Hamiltonian family (plus known corrections) matches the sweep equally well without the constraint.
Minimum viable test: a sweep designed to isolate the constrained pattern while holding calibration degrees of freedom fixed.
Failure condition: no constrained pattern appears (or it appears only after adding ad hoc degrees of freedom that erase the discriminant).

Phenomenology anchor: 10.5281/zenodo.17803804

Status and next steps

This is presented as proposed physics testing. Separately, the executed benchmark below is methodological.

  • Executed benchmark (method): 10.5281/zenodo.18069870
  • Proposed discriminant: pre-register a sweep + constrained family; run residual-first reporting.

Keep “benchmark” and “discriminant test” logically separate to avoid over-claiming.

Cavity length–frequency scaling

Geometry/material sweeps as a clean L–F probe.

Concept

Cavity resonators tightly couple length and frequency and are well-suited to controlled sweeps. QDL proposes discriminant scaling constraints in an L–F basis that can be tested against standard parameterizations.

QDL-distinct discriminant: a pre-stated scaling constraint across geometry/material sweeps that is not reducible to unit-balance alone.
Standard comparison: conventional fit family explains the sweep without the QDL constraint at equal or better residual adequacy.
Minimum viable test: geometry sweep designed to stress the constraint while keeping calibration fixed.
Failure condition: no discriminant scaling is found (or the constrained family only “wins” after adding degrees of freedom that erase constraint meaning).

Teaching/lab anchor: 10.5281/zenodo.17663340

Status and next steps

Presented as proposed physics testing. The executed benchmark is methodological.

  • Executed benchmark (method): 10.5281/zenodo.18076864
  • Proposed discriminant: pre-register sweep + constrained model family; report residual-first.

The roadmap aims for low-barrier repurposing of existing cavity apparatus into discriminant sweeps.

Metamaterial coherence & dispersion

Dispersion-collapse candidates as discriminant signatures.

Concept

Metamaterials allow engineered dispersion and controlled effective parameters. QDL proposes that certain “locked” combinations may yield discriminant collapse behavior under designed sweeps.

QDL-distinct discriminant: a pre-stated dispersion-collapse or scaling-lock signature under a defined sweep.
Standard comparison: conventional effective-medium modeling reproduces the signature without the constraint.
Minimum viable test: a sweep designed to separate constrained collapse from flexible parameter fits.
Failure condition: no constrained collapse appears, or it is explainable only by unconstrained refits that destroy discriminant meaning.

Phenomenology anchor: 10.5281/zenodo.17803804

Status and next steps

Presented as proposed. Suggested pathway:

  • Identify an existing dataset with suitable sweep structure.
  • Declare constrained vs unconstrained families and budgets.
  • Report residual-first; treat collapse claims as falsifiable targets.

The goal is to avoid “it could be” narratives by making the discriminant and the failure condition explicit.

FAQ (scope & falsifiability)

Short answers to prevent over-interpretation.

Are any new physical effects claimed on this page?

The executed benchmarks are methodological and do not claim new effects. The tabletop discriminants are proposed tests with explicit failure conditions, presented as targets until independently executed.

What would count as a QDL-relevant “hit”?

A pre-stated discriminant scaling/pattern appears under controlled sweeps, and the standard comparison family fails to reproduce it within uncertainty without introducing extra degrees of freedom that erase the discriminant.

What would count as a clear failure?

The QDL-constrained family fails across the sweep within uncertainty, or it only matches after adding ad hoc flexibility that nullifies the constraint’s meaning.

Are benchmarks evidence for QDL?

Benchmarks provide evidence of auditability and a residual-first adequacy workflow. They are not presented as standalone validation of the strongest cross-domain QDL physics claims.

Collaboration & data

How experimental groups can engage, replicate, or refute.

For experimental groups

Collaboration is most valuable when it sharpens falsifiability and reduces interpretive wiggle room.

  • Replicate an executed benchmark using the same record and artifacts.
  • Propose a platform sweep; pre-state the discriminant and failure condition.
  • Publish residual-first reporting (including null tests) regardless of outcome.

The aim is to make success and failure equally publishable by design.

Contact & resources

Email: [email protected]

Additional materials:

If you want to run a discriminant test, the most helpful first step is a short sensitivity note: what sweep is feasible, what noise floor dominates, and what failure condition is credible.