Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1407.2886

Generalizing Bell-type and Leggett-Garg-type Inequalities to Systems with Signaling

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Janne V. Kujala

Published Jul 10, 2014• 15 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1407.2886

Related papers

Unified approach to contextuality, nonlocality, and temporal correlations

M. Markiewicz, Paweł Kurzyński, Jayne E. Thompson +4 more

We highlight the existence of a joint probability distribution as the common underpinning assumption behind Bell-type, contextuality, and Leggett-Garg-type tests. We then present a procedure to translate contextual scenarios into temporal Leggett-Garg-type and spatial Bell-type ones. To demonstrate the generality of this approach we construct a family of spatial Bell-type inequalities. We show that in the Leggett-Garg scenario a necessary condition for contextuality in time is given by a violation of consistency conditions in the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1302.3502•Physical Review A•Apr 18, 2014•32 citations

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for an Extended Noncontextuality in a Broad Class of Quantum Mechanical Systems

Janne V. Kujala, Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Jan-Åke Larsson

The notion of (non)contextuality pertains to sets of properties measured one subset (context) at a time. We extend this notion to include so-called inconsistently connected systems, in which the measurements of a given property in different contexts may have different distributions, due to contextual biases in experimental design or physical interactions (signaling): a system of measurements has a maximally noncontextual description if they can be imposed a joint distribution on in which the measurements of any one property in different contexts are equal to each other with the maximal probability allowed by their different distributions. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such a description in a broad class of systems including Klyachko-Can-Binicioğlu-Shumvosky-type (KCBS), EPR-Bell-type, and Leggett-Garg-type systems. Because these conditions allow for inconsistent connectedness, they are applicable to real experiments. We illustrate this by analyzing an experiment by Lapkiewicz and colleagues aimed at testing contextuality in a KCBS-type system.

arXiv:1412.4724•Physical Review Letters•Oct 6, 2015•92 citations

Contextuality is about identity of random variables

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Janne V. Kujala

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.

arXiv:1405.2116•Physica Scripta•Dec 1, 2014•59 citations

Probabilistic foundations of contextuality

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Janne V. Kujala

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).

arXiv:1604.08412•Fortschritte der Physik•Sep 7, 2016•34 citations

Measuring Observable Quantum Contextuality

J. Acácio de Barros, Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Janne V. Kujala +1 more

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.

arXiv:1406.3088•Jun 12, 2014•7 citations

Contextuality, Complementarity, Signaling, and Bell Tests

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This is a review devoted to the complementarity–contextuality interplay with connection to the Bell inequalities. Starting the discussion with complementarity, I point to contextuality as its seed. Bohr contextuality is the dependence of an observable’s outcome on the experimental context; on the system–apparatus interaction. Probabilistically, complementarity means that the joint probability distribution (JPD) does not exist. Instead of the JPD, one has to operate with contextual probabilities. The Bell inequalities are interpreted as the statistical tests of contextuality, and hence, incompatibility. For context-dependent probabilities, these inequalities may be violated. I stress that contextuality tested by the Bell inequalities is the so-called joint measurement contextuality (JMC), the special case of Bohr’s contextuality. Then, I examine the role of signaling (marginal inconsistency). In QM, signaling can be considered as an experimental artifact. However, often, experimental data have signaling patterns. I discuss possible sources of signaling—for example, dependence of the state preparation on measurement settings. In principle, one can extract the measure of “pure contextuality” from data shadowed by signaling. This theory is known as contextuality by default (CbD). It leads to inequalities with an additional term quantifying signaling: Bell–Dzhafarov–Kujala inequalities.

arXiv:2208.07425•Entropy•Sep 28, 2022•36 citations
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.
We highlight the existence of a joint probability distribution as the common underpinning assumption behind Bell-type, contextuality, and Leggett-Garg-type tests. We then present a procedure to translate contextual scenarios into temporal Leggett-Garg-type and spatial Bell-type ones. To demonstrate the generality of this approach we construct a family of spatial Bell-type inequalities. We show that in the Leggett-Garg scenario a necessary condition for contextuality in time is given by a violation of consistency conditions in the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics.
The notion of (non)contextuality pertains to sets of properties measured one subset (context) at a time. We extend this notion to include so-called inconsistently connected systems, in which the measurements of a given property in different contexts may have different distributions, due to contextual biases in experimental design or physical interactions (signaling): a system of measurements has a maximally noncontextual description if they can be imposed a joint distribution on in which the measurements of any one property in different contexts are equal to each other with the maximal probability allowed by their different distributions. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such a description in a broad class of systems including Klyachko-Can-Binicioğlu-Shumvosky-type (KCBS), EPR-Bell-type, and Leggett-Garg-type systems. Because these conditions allow for inconsistent connectedness, they are applicable to real experiments. We illustrate this by analyzing an experiment by Lapkiewicz and colleagues aimed at testing contextuality in a KCBS-type system.
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 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.
This is a review devoted to the complementarity–contextuality interplay with connection to the Bell inequalities. Starting the discussion with complementarity, I point to contextuality as its seed. Bohr contextuality is the dependence of an observable’s outcome on the experimental context; on the system–apparatus interaction. Probabilistically, complementarity means that the joint probability distribution (JPD) does not exist. Instead of the JPD, one has to operate with contextual probabilities. The Bell inequalities are interpreted as the statistical tests of contextuality, and hence, incompatibility. For context-dependent probabilities, these inequalities may be violated. I stress that contextuality tested by the Bell inequalities is the so-called joint measurement contextuality (JMC), the special case of Bohr’s contextuality. Then, I examine the role of signaling (marginal inconsistency). In QM, signaling can be considered as an experimental artifact. However, often, experimental data have signaling patterns. I discuss possible sources of signaling—for example, dependence of the state preparation on measurement settings. In principle, one can extract the measure of “pure contextuality” from data shadowed by signaling. This theory is known as contextuality by default (CbD). It leads to inequalities with an additional term quantifying signaling: Bell–Dzhafarov–Kujala inequalities.