Contextual situations are those in which seemingly ‘the same’ random variable changes its identity depending on the conditions under which it is recorded. Such a change of identity is observed whenever the assumption that the variable is one and the same under different conditions leads to contradictions when one considers its joint distribution with other random variables (this is the essence of all Bell-type theorems). In our Contextuality-by-Default approach, instead of asking why or how the conditions force ‘one and the same’ random variable to change ‘its’ identity, any two random variables recorded under different conditions are considered different ‘automatically.’ They are never the same, nor are they jointly distributed, but one can always impose on them a joint distribution (probabilistic coupling). The special situations when there is a coupling in which these random variables are equal with probability 1 are considered noncontextual. Contextuality means that such couplings do not exist. We argue that the determination of the identity of random variables by conditions under which they are recorded is not a causal relationship and cannot violate laws of physics.
Contextual situations are those in which seemingly ‘the same’ random variable changes its identity depending on the conditions under which it is recorded. Such a change of identity is observed whenever the assumption that the variable is one and the same under different conditions leads to contradictions when one considers its joint distribution with other random variables (this is the essence of all Bell-type theorems). In our Contextuality-by-Default approach, instead of asking why or how the conditions force ‘one and the same’ random variable to change ‘its’ identity, any two random variables recorded under different conditions are considered different ‘automatically.’ They are never the same, nor are they jointly distributed, but one can always impose on them a joint distribution (probabilistic coupling). The special situations when there is a coupling in which these random variables are equal with probability 1 are considered noncontextual. Contextuality means that such couplings do not exist. We argue that the determination of the identity of random variables by conditions under which they are recorded is not a causal relationship and cannot violate laws of physics.
Contextuality is usually defined as absence of a joint distribution for a set of measurements (random variables) with known joint distributions of some of its subsets. However, if these subsets of measurements are not disjoint, contextuality is mathematically impossible even if one generally allows (as one must) for random variables not to be jointly distributed. To avoid contradictions one has to adopt the Contextuality‐by‐Default approach: measurements made in different contexts are always distinct and stochastically unrelated to each other. Contextuality is reformulated then in terms of the (im)possibility of imposing on all the measurements in a system a joint distribution of a particular kind: such that any measurements of one and the same property made in different contexts satisfy a specified property, . In the traditional analysis of contextuality means “are equal to each other with probability 1”. However, if the system of measurements violates the “no‐disturbance principle”, due to signaling or experimental biases, then the meaning of has to be generalized, and the proposed generalization is “are equal to each other with maximal possible probability” (applied to any set of measurements of one and the same property). This approach is illustrated on arbitrary systems of binary measurements, including most of quantum systems of traditional interest in contextuality studies (irrespective of whether the “no‐disturbance” principle holds in them).
Contextuality means non-existence of a joint distribution for random variables recorded under mutually incompatible conditions, subject to certain constraints imposed on how the identity of these variables may change across these conditions. In simple quantum systems contextuality is indicated by violations of Bell-type or Leggett-Garg-type inequalities. These inequalities, however, are predicated on the assumption of no-signaling, defined as invariance of the distributions of measurement results with respect to other (e.g., earlier in time) measurements' settings. Signaling makes the inequalities inapplicable: a non-signaling system with any degree of contextuality, however high, loses any relation to this concept as soon as it exhibits any degree of signaling, however small. This is unsatisfactory. We describe a principled way of defining and measuring contextuality in arbitrary systems with random outputs, whether signaling is absent or present.
From behavioral sciences to biology to quantum mechanics, one encounters situations where (i) a system outputs several random variables in response to several inputs, (ii) for each of these responses only some of the inputs may "directly" influence them, but (iii) other inputs provide a "context" for this response by influencing its probabilistic relations to other responses. These contextual influences are very different, say, in classical kinetic theory and in the entanglement paradigm of quantum mechanics, which are traditionally interpreted as representing different forms of physical determinism. One can mathematically construct systems with other types of contextuality, whether or not empirically realizable: those that form special cases of the classical type, those that fall between the classical and quantum ones, and those that violate the quantum type. We show how one can quantify and classify all logically possible contextual influences by studying various sets of probabilistic couplings, i.e., sets of joint distributions imposed on random outputs recorded at different (mutually incompatible) values of inputs.
Contextuality is a central property in comparative analysis of classical, quantum, and supercorrelated systems. We examine and compare two well-motivated approaches to contextuality. One approach ("contextuality-by-default") is based on the idea that one and the same physical property measured under different conditions (contexts) is represented by different random variables. The other approach is based on the idea that while a physical property is represented by a single random variable irrespective of its context, the joint distributions of the random variables describing the system can involve negative (quasi-)probabilities. We show that in the Leggett-Garg and EPR-Bell systems, the two measures essentially coincide.
In quantum physics, the term ‘contextual’ can be used in more than one way. One usage, here called ‘Bell contextual’ since the idea goes back to Bell, is that if A , B and C are three quantum observables, with A compatible (i.e. commuting) with B and also with C , whereas B and C are incompatible, a measurement of A might yield a different result (indicating that quantum mechanics is contextual) depending upon whether A is measured along with B (the { A , B } context) or with C (the { A , C } context). An analysis of what projective quantum measurements measure shows that quantum theory is Bell non-contextual: the outcome of a particular A measurement when A is measured along with B would have been exactly the same if A had, instead, been measured along with C . A different definition, here called ‘globally (non)contextual’ refers to whether or not there is (non-contextual) or is not (contextual) a single joint probability distribution that simultaneously assigns probabilities in a consistent manner to the outcomes of measurements of a certain collection of observables, not all of which are compatible. A simple example shows that such a joint probability distribution can exist even in a situation where the measurement probabilities cannot refer to properties of a quantum system, and hence lack physical significance, even though mathematically well defined. It is noted that the quantum sample space, a projective decomposition of the identity, required for interpreting measurements of incompatible properties in different runs of an experiment using different types of apparatus, has a tensor product structure, a fact sometimes overlooked. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond’.
Random variables representing measurements, broadly understood to include any responses to any inputs, form a system in which each of them is uniquely identified by its content (that which it measures) and its context (the conditions under which it is recorded). Two random variables are jointly distributed if and only if they share a context. In a canonical representation of a system, all random variables are binary, and every content-sharing pair of random variables has a unique maximal coupling (the joint distribution imposed on them so that they coincide with maximal possible probability). The system is contextual if these maximal couplings are incompatible with the joint distributions of the context-sharing random variables. We propose to represent any system of measurements in a canonical form and to consider the system contextual if and only if its canonical representation is contextual. As an illustration, we establish a criterion for contextuality of the canonical system consisting of all dichotomizations of a single pair of content-sharing categorical random variables.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.