Most behavioural and social experiments aimed at revealing contextuality are confined to cyclic systems with binary outcomes. In quantum physics, this broad class of systems includes as special cases Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovsky-type, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bell-type and Suppes-Zanotti-Leggett-Garg-type systems. The theory of contextuality known as contextuality-by-default allows one to define and measure contextuality in all such systems, even if there are context-dependent errors in measurements, or if something in the contexts directly interacts with the measurements. This makes the theory especially suitable for behavioural and social systems, where direct interactions of 'everything with everything' are ubiquitous. For cyclic systems with binary outcomes, the theory provides necessary and sufficient conditions for non-contextuality, and these conditions are known to be breached in certain quantum systems. We review several behavioural and social datasets (from polls of public opinion to visual illusions to conjoint choices to word combinations to psychophysical matching), and none of these data provides any evidence for contextuality. Our working hypothesis is that this may be a broadly applicable rule: behavioural and social systems are non-contextual, i.e. all 'contextual effects' in them result from the ubiquitous dependence of response distributions on the elements of contexts other than the ones to which the response is presumably or normatively directed.
Most behavioural and social experiments aimed at revealing contextuality are confined to cyclic systems with binary outcomes. In quantum physics, this broad class of systems includes as special cases Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovsky-type, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bell-type and Suppes-Zanotti-Leggett-Garg-type systems. The theory of contextuality known as contextuality-by-default allows one to define and measure contextuality in all such systems, even if there are context-dependent errors in measurements, or if something in the contexts directly interacts with the measurements. This makes the theory especially suitable for behavioural and social systems, where direct interactions of 'everything with everything' are ubiquitous. For cyclic systems with binary outcomes, the theory provides necessary and sufficient conditions for non-contextuality, and these conditions are known to be breached in certain quantum systems. We review several behavioural and social datasets (from polls of public opinion to visual illusions to conjoint choices to word combinations to psychophysical matching), and none of these data provides any evidence for contextuality. Our working hypothesis is that this may be a broadly applicable rule: behavioural and social systems are non-contextual, i.e. all 'contextual effects' in them result from the ubiquitous dependence of response distributions on the elements of contexts other than the ones to which the response is presumably or normatively directed.
The theme of this issue is ‘Quantum contextuality, causality and freedom of choice.’ Contextuality, including non-locality as its special case, has long since becomeone of the central topics in foundations of quantum mechanics, also making inroads in computer science, psychology and linguistics. Contextuality (or lack thereof, non-contextuality) is a property of a system of measurements, broadly understood. The measurements have generally random outcomes, and, as a preliminary intuition, a system of measurements is contextual if one cannot find a joint distribution for their outcomes subject to certain constraints. A precise definition depends on how a system of measurements is represented, which can be done in several different ways.
Cyclic systems of dichotomous random variables have played a prominent role in contextuality research, describing such experimental paradigms as the Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovsky, Einstein-Podolsky-RosenBell, and Leggett-Garg ones in physics, as well as conjoint binary choices in human decision making. Here, we understand contextuality within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, based on the notion of probabilistic couplings satisfying certain constraints. CbD allows us to drop the commonly made assumption that systems of random variables are consistently connected (i.e., it allows for all possible forms of "disturbance" or "signaling" in them). Consistently connected systems constitute a special case in which CbD essentially reduces to the conventional understanding of contextuality. We present a theoretical analysis of the degree of contextuality in cyclic systems (if they are contextual) and the degree of noncontextuality in them (if they are not). By contrast, all previously proposed measures of contextuality are confined to consistently connected systems, and most of them cannot be extended to measures of noncontextuality. Our measures of (non)contextuality are defined by the L-1-distance between a point representing a cyclic system and the surface of the polytope representing all possible noncontextual cyclic systems with the same single-variable marginals. We completely characterize this polytope, as well as the polytope of all possible probabilistic couplings for cyclic systems with given single-variable marginals. We establish that, in relation to the maximally tight Bell-type CbD inequality for (generally, inconsistently connected) cyclic systems, the measure of contextuality is proportional to the absolute value of the difference between its two sides. For noncontextual cyclic systems, the measure of noncontextuality is shown to be proportional to the smaller of the same difference and the L-1-distance to the surface of the box circumscribing the noncontextuality polytope. These simple relations, however, do not generally hold beyond the class of cyclic systems, and noncontextuality of a system does not follow from noncontextuality of its cyclic subsystems.
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’.
In quantum physics there are well-known situations when measurements of the same property in different contexts (under different conditions) have the same probability distribution but cannot be represented by one and the same random variable. Such systems of random variables are called contextual. More generally, true contextuality is observed when different contexts force measurements of the same property (in psychology, responses to the same question) to be more dissimilar random variables than warranted by the difference of their distributions. The difference in distributions is itself a form of context-dependence but of another nature: it is attributable to direct causal influences exerted by contexts upon the random variables. The Contextuality-by-Default theory allows one to separate true contextuality from direct influences in the overall context-dependence. The Contextuality-by-Default analysis of numerous previous attempts to demonstrate contextuality in human judgments shows that all context-dependence in them can be accounted for by direct influences, with no true contextuality present. However, contextual systems in human behavior can be found. In this paper we present a series of crowd-sourcing experiments that exhibit true contextuality in simple decision making. The design of these experiments is an elaboration of one introduced in the Snow Queen experiment (Decision 5, 193-204, 2018), in which contextuality was for the first time demonstrated unequivocally. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Cyclic systems of dichotomous random variables have played a prominent role in contextuality research, describing such experimental paradigms as the Klyachko-Can-Binicio\ifmmode \breve{g}\else \u{g}\fi{}lu-Shumovsky, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bell, and Leggett-Garg ones in physics, as well as conjoint binary choices in human decision making. Here, we understand contextuality within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, based on the notion of probabilistic couplings satisfying certain constraints. CbD allows us to drop the commonly made assumption that systems of random variables are consistently connected (i.e., it allows for all possible forms of ``disturbance'' or ``signaling'' in them). Consistently connected systems constitute a special case in which CbD essentially reduces to the conventional understanding of contextuality. We present a theoretical analysis of the degree of contextuality in cyclic systems (if they are contextual) and the degree of noncontextuality in them (if they are not). By contrast, all previously proposed measures of contextuality are confined to consistently connected systems, and most of them cannot be extended to measures of noncontextuality. Our measures of (non)contextuality are defined by the L1-distance between a point representing a cyclic system and the surface of the polytope representing all possible noncontextual cyclic systems with the same single-variable marginals. We completely characterize this polytope, as well as the polytope of all possible probabilistic couplings for cyclic systems with given single-variable marginals. We establish that, in relation to the maximally tight Bell-type CbD inequality for (generally, inconsistently connected) cyclic systems, the measure of contextuality is proportional to the absolute value of the difference between its two sides. For noncontextual cyclic systems, the measure of noncontextuality is shown to be proportional to the smaller of the same difference and the L1-distance to the surface of the box circumscribing the noncontextuality polytope. These simple relations, however, do not generally hold beyond the class of cyclic systems, and noncontextuality of a system does not follow from noncontextuality of its cyclic subsystems.