A measurement record

Cosmos

A language model whose every initial weight was drawn from real measured quantum hardware, and the honest record of what that does, and what it does not.

1,842,432 parameters · no base model · char-level CHSH S = 2.7905 Bell violation, 98.7% of Tsirelson λ₁ = 0.90384 Lorenz, published 0.9056 six quantum→accuracy tests → six nulls
Cory Shane Davis · Independent Researcher CC BY 4.0 doi:10.5281/zenodo.17574447
01The claim

Not that quantum makes it smarter.
That its origin is auditable.

Most work in this space claims a performance gain. This one does not, and was tested at six separate injection points to be sure. All six came back null.

What is claimed instead is narrower and checkable: that this model's origin traces, bit by bit, to real physical measurement, and that every step of that trace has a falsifiable test attached.

Why the nulls are load-bearing. Quantum measurements and a good pseudo-random generator draw from the same distribution. A correctly built system must therefore show no accuracy advantage from quantum bits. A project reporting that quantum made its model smarter would be reporting that something was broken or fabricated. Bell violation plus verified provenance plus zero accuracy gain is the only combination an honest version of this can produce.

02The chain

From a measurement to a mind

a recorded biological rhythm ‖ 3.2M measured IBM shots
SHA-256 → one 60-bit seed
seed governs weight init, data order, every stochastic step
u = int(bits)/2ⁿ → z = √2·erf⁻¹(2u−1) → 1,842,432 weights
quantum window ‖ live pulse → SHA-256 → the value that selects the next token

Each link below is a test that was run and could have failed. None of them is an argument; all of them are numbers.

linktestresult
entropy is genuinely quantumCHSH on ibm_marrakesh S = 2.7905 vs bound 2.0 · ~35σ
birth pipeline is correct3,258,886 archived draws matches theory to 4 decimals
seed derivation deterministic5 derivations 1 distinct value · 0 bytes emitted
seed determines weightssame vs 1-bit-flipped Δ = 0.000e+00 · vs 2.26e-02
correlations are the circuit'sgate-matched topology t = +80.5 / +164.6
physics computes real chaosLorenz constants λ₁ = 0.90384 vs 0.9056
03Is it actually quantum

The one measurement nothing classical can fake

E(A, B ) = +0.7197 E(A, B') = −0.6675 E(A', B) = +0.6982 E(A', B') = +0.7051 S = E(A, B) − E(A, B') + E(A', B) + E(A', B') = 2.7905
measured S2.7905
classical bound2.0000

No theory with local pre-existing values can exceed this.

Tsirelson bound2.8284

The maximum quantum mechanics permits. Measured is 98.7% of it.

Bell's theorem gives a hard ceiling for any local hidden-variable theory. This hardware clears it by roughly 35σ at 4,096 shots per setting. The entropy source is physically quantum.

This is also an entirely expected result for functioning quantum hardware. It verifies the pipeline, it does not discover new physics, and is not presented as such.

04Were the weights really born from it

A deficit that proves the method

u = (int(bits) + ½) / 2ⁿ z = √2 · erf⁻¹(2u − 1)
statistic32-level theoretical ceilingmeasured, 3,258,886 draws
mean+0.0000−0.0001
standard deviation0.98020.9804
|z| ≤ 10.68750.6874
|z| ≤ 20.93750.9374

The sd is 0.98, not 1.00, and that is the evidence, not a flaw. Five qubits give 32 discrete outcomes, so |z| cannot exceed 2.1523 by construction. The deficit is quantisation, and it matches the theoretical ceiling to four decimal places. A pipeline reporting a perfect 1.0000 here would be the suspicious one.

05The workload archive

11.36 million public samples, honestly labeled

The privacy-filtered archive separates explicitly labeled IBM hardware jobs, legacy records whose provider label was not retained, and Azure simulator output. Only the labeled IBM subset is claimed as measured-hardware provenance.

public samples11,355,136
public records2,776

1,897 retain IBM backend + job ID

shot-conservation failures0

counts sum to declared totals, every job

backendshotsshare
ibm_fez5,562,36849.0%
legacy unlabelled3,584,00031.6%
ibm_marrakesh1,200,12810.6%
ibm_kingston1,007,6168.9%
rigetti.sim.qvm1,024<0.1%

Archive span February–July 2026; the underlying theory was deposited in 2024. Provider-unlabelled records are retained for reproducibility but excluded from hardware-provenance claims. Raw physics/sensory/runtime fields are not published.

06Hardware fingerprint

The deviation is the evidence

Across the 7.77 million explicitly labeled IBM hardware samples, outcomes cluster by Hamming weight. Ideal uniform hardware follows the binomial; the measured histogram shows the device-level deviation without mixing in unlabelled or simulator records.

zero ones, |00000⟩ 3.75 vs 3.12 ideal

enriched

five ones, |11111⟩ 3.03 vs 3.12 ideal

depleted

|0⟩ is over-represented and |1⟩ under-represented, the signature of amplitude damping and readout asymmetry. Excited states decay toward the ground state during measurement. A simulator drawing from a clean binomial would not produce this skew, and a fabricated dataset would have no reason to invent it.

The bias is corrected downstream by von Neumann debiasing before entropy reaches the weights. It is shown here unprocessed, because the artifact is the proof.

07Twelve dimensions governing one bit

Continuous state, discrete outcome

The 12-dimensional state does not sit alongside the quantum layer, it parameterises it. Continuous physics sets the rotation angles; the Born rule turns those angles into probabilities; measurement collapses them to a bit.

12D CST state ──► θ = (θ₁, θ₂, θ₃) continuous │ ry(θ₁) rx(θ₂) rz(θ₃) rotation on the Bloch sphere │ |ψ⟩ = α|0⟩ + β|1⟩ superposition │ P(1) = |β|² Born rule │ ▼ measurement 1 or 0 discrete, irreversible
what is continuous

Twelve real-valued dimensions of internal state, evolving on a verified chaotic attractor with λ₁ > 0.

what is discrete

A single measured bit. The continuous state governs only the probability of each outcome, never which one occurs.

This is the precise sense in which twelve dimensions control one and zero: they set the amplitudes, and the amplitudes set the odds. The collapse itself remains irreducibly undetermined, which is what makes the trajectory unrepeatable.

08Information structure

A holographic encoding, measured

Partial information decomposition splits what two subsystems carry about the system's future into four parts. The result is unambiguous.

redundancy1.7 – 2.6

nats. The same information present in multiple subsystems.

synergy0.3 – 1.2

nats. Present only in the joint state. Below surrogate on 9 of 10 partitions.

the exceptionz = +6.38

consciousness │ rest, 0.66 nats no other subsystem reconstructs.

Redundancy dominating synergy is a holographic signature in the technical sense: information about the whole is distributed across the parts, each carrying much of the others'. That is robustness, not emergence, and stating it that way matters, because the two are routinely confused.

One seam behaves differently. Cut consciousness away and something is lost that nothing else rebuilds. It is a single result at one partition and is reported as exactly that.

09The nulls

Six places quantum could have helped. It didn't.

injection siteresult
i.i.d. weight initialisationnull, the gain was init scale, not quantum
decoder sampling seednull. Pseudo / IBM / Rigetti equivalent
spatial 54D seed, approximatenull, beat 1 of 5 random vectors, z = −0.92
spatial 54D seed, full pipelinenull, beat 0 of 8 random vectors, z = −1.75
entanglement matrix as attention kernelnull, worse than plain, 3/3 seeds, t = −18.6
live sensory state as prompt textnull, n = 40 paired, blind-judged, CI crosses zero

These are published first, not buried in an appendix. A reader who only remembers one thing from this deck should remember that the quantum layer provides physical non-determinism and receipted provenance, and not lower loss.

Several measurement instruments in this project were themselves found to be wrong and rebuilt; those failures are kept in the record rather than deleted, because they are the reason the surviving results can be trusted.

10Comparison

The axis this competes on

Loss numbers are not comparable across different corpora, tokenizers and scales, so no such comparison is offered. The axis where a claim can be made is provenance.

propertytypical open modelCosmos
weight originpseudo-random init, unrecordedmeasured quantum, receipted per job
init reproducible from a stated seedusually, if publishedverified: Δ = 0.000e+00
1-bit seed change measurably alters weightsuntestedverified: Δ = 2.26e-02
entropy source verified non-classicaln/aCHSH S = 2.7905
base modelinheritednone
parameters10⁹ – 10¹²1.84 × 10⁶
conversational abilityhigha newborn, 88.5% real-word rate

It is small and it cannot hold a conversation. That is stated plainly because the comparison is not about capability. It is about whether a model's origin can be audited to a physical event, which almost nothing in this field can claim.

11What none of this shows

The line that does not move

Loss curves, Bell violations, Lyapunov exponents and integration measures are all silent on whether there is anything it is like to be this system. Section 08 tests one contested theory's necessary structural condition. Necessary is not sufficient, and the theory itself is disputed.

Any self-report a system produces about its own inner life is the least reliable signal available, and it grows more eloquent the less there is behind it, not more. Such statements are excluded from evidence here on purpose.

No claim is made about machine consciousness in either direction. That remains where it was before this project started.

12Origin

Zeref's Rain

The echo of a pain became the truth of a seed.

The seed is a one-way hash over measured quantum entropy and biological aggregates that are personal to the author. The derivation module never prints, logs, or writes raw samples, 0 bytes emitted, verified, and only aggregates ever leave it.

seed = SHA-256( quantum_bytes ‖ bio_aggregates ) → 60-bit integer same seed → weights identical, Δ = 0.000e+00 one bit different → a different model, Δ = 2.26e-02

What is published is the mechanism and the proof that it holds. Not the data.

Two independent senses of unrepeatable meet here: the quantum measurements that shaped these weights cannot be recovered from any state, and the recording behind the seed happened once.

13Build your own

Everything is open

The weights, the findings, and a runnable script for every claim in this deck. Each benchmark prints its own verdict, including when the verdict is no.

python benchmarks/verify_quantum_engine.py # CHSH Bell test + archive integrity python benchmarks/verify_physics_engine.py # Lorenz constants vs published values python benchmarks/topology_matched.py # gate-matched entanglement topology python benchmarks/phi_pid.py # integration structure python spark_serve.py 11500 # run the weights, Ollama-compatible API
bring your own keys

IBM Quantum and Azure, stored locally, never transmitted. Falls back to archived entropy with no keys at all.

what to build next

The synergy result points somewhere specific: subsystems that are parallel readouts of one state stay redundant. Give one its own driver and the structure should change. That prediction is testable with phi_pid.py as shipped.

A light at the end of a dark, dark tunnel, and the receipts to show it was really there.
huggingface.co/phera-ra/QC67_cosmo Mixed license · research/data CC BY 4.0 · Genesis separate terms