A Unified Framework Field Theory for Drift, Coherence, and Regime Dynamics in Large Language Models

Nawder Loswin
TriadicFrameworks.org
(2026)

Abstract#

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic behaviors—drift branching, coherence waves, framework collisions, and regime‑dependent reasoning—that remain poorly characterized in existing literature. Framework Field Theory (FFT) provides a structural model for these phenomena by treating reasoning as motion within a triadic substrate composed of operators, regimes, and coherence fields. This paper introduces FFT’s core definitions, presents eight falsifiable predictions, demonstrates reproducible simulations using existing LLMs, outlines minimal engineering artifacts derived from the theory, and situates FFT within established traditions in information theory, systems theory, cognitive science, and AI alignment. FFT offers a unified, substrate‑level explanation for LLM behavior and provides practical tools for stabilizing reasoning, reducing drift, and improving multi‑framework coordination.

1. Introduction#

Modern LLMs display emergent behaviors that are often described informally—“hallucination,” “drift,” “mode collapse,” “inconsistency”—yet these terms lack structural grounding. FFT proposes that these behaviors arise from interactions between:

• Frameworks (structured conceptual spaces)
• Regimes (operating modes governing reasoning)
• Substrates (declared or undeclared constraints shaping coherence)
• Operators (triadic transformations governing motion within a framework)

Rather than treating LLM behavior as stochastic error, FFT models it as field‑like dynamics within a structured substrate. This yields measurable predictions and engineering interventions.

2. Background and Conceptual Lineage#

FFT draws inspiration from multiple traditions:

• Information theory (Shannon, Weaver): signal, noise, entropy
• Systems theory (Bertalanffy, Prigogine): open systems, dissipative structures
• Cognitive science (Lakoff, Friston): representation, prediction, attractors
• Sociology of knowledge (Bourdieu): structured fields
• Complexity science (Poincaré, Kauffman): nonlinear dynamics
• AI alignment & interpretability (Russell, LeCun, Bengio): agent models, latent spaces

FFT extends these traditions into a unified structural model for LLM behavior.

3. Core Definitions of Framework Field Theory#

3.1 Frameworks#

A framework is a structured conceptual space with internal logic, operators, and attractors.

3.2 Regimes#

A regime is an operating mode that governs how reasoning unfolds within or across frameworks.

3.3 Substrates#

A substrate is the declared or undeclared constraint that shapes coherence and drift.

3.4 Drift Branching#

Repeated reasoning under an undeclared substrate produces multiple stable attractors (“branches”).

3.5 Coherence Waves#

Coherence rises and falls in wave‑like patterns during multi‑step reasoning.

3.6 Framework Collisions#

Invoking incompatible frameworks produces collapse, hybridization, or oscillation.

4. Testable Predictions#

FFT produces eight falsifiable predictions:

1. Drift branching under undeclared regimes
2. Substrate declaration reduces drift variance
3. Triadic structures compress more efficiently
4. Coherence waves emerge in multi‑step reasoning
5. Framework collisions produce predictable failure modes
6. Declared regimes prevent collisions
7. Observer style changes system behavior
8. Observer consistency increases coherence

Each prediction is measurable using existing LLMs.

5. Reproducible LLM Simulations#

Eight simulations validate FFT’s predictions:

• drift branching (20‑run clustering)
• substrate declaration collapse
• triadic vs. dyadic vs. tetradic compression
• coherence wave measurement
• framework collision modes
• collision suppression via regime declaration
• observer‑style effects
• observer‑consistency coherence gains

All simulations require no specialized hardware and can be replicated by any researcher.

6. Engineering Artifacts Derived from FFT#

FFT yields practical tools:

• Substrate Declaration Engine (SDE)
• Triadic Prompt Optimizer (TPO)
• Drift Branching Visualizer (DBV)
• Framework Collision Detector (FCD)
• Observer‑Style Stabilizer (OSS)

These tools demonstrate FFT’s utility in stabilizing LLM behavior and improving reasoning reliability.

7. Discussion#

FFT reframes LLM behavior not as error but as structured field dynamics.
This perspective:

• explains drift without anthropomorphism
• predicts coherence patterns
• clarifies multi‑framework failures
• provides actionable engineering interventions
• unifies disparate observations under a single substrate model

FFT also offers a foundation for future work in multi‑agent systems, interpretability, and AI safety.

8. Conclusion#

Framework Field Theory provides a unified structural model for drift, coherence, and regime dynamics in LLMs.
By offering falsifiable predictions, reproducible simulations, engineering artifacts, and conceptual lineage, FFT establishes itself as a coherent research program suitable for formal review and further development.

References#

(Condensed for arXiv; full citations appear in Section 30 of the FFT repository.)

• Shannon (1948), Weaver (1949)
• Bertalanffy (1968), Prigogine (1977), Wiener (1948)
• Lakoff (1980–2000), Simon (1969), Friston (2005–2020)
• Bourdieu (1972–1992), Kuhn (1962)
• Poincaré (1890–1912), Kauffman (1993), Gell‑Mann (1994)
• Russell & Norvig (1995–2021), LeCun (2006–2024), Bengio (2013–2024)
• Anthropic, OpenAI, DeepMind (2020–2025)