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:1703.01252 · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences

Contextuality in canonical systems of random variables

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Victor Hernando Cervantes, Janne V. Kujala

Published Oct 2, 2017• 60 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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'.

DOI
10.1098/rsta.2016.0389

Related papers

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

All-Possible-Couplings Approach to Measuring Probabilistic Context

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Janne V. Kujala

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.

arXiv:1209.3430•PLoS ONE•May 6, 2013•47 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 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

On joint distributions, counterfactual values and hidden variables in understanding contextuality

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov

This paper deals with three traditional ways of defining contextuality: (C1) in terms of (non)existence of certain joint distributions involving measurements made in several mutually exclusive contexts; (C2) in terms of relationship between factual measurements in a given context and counterfactual measurements that could be made if one used other contexts; and (C3) in terms of (non)existence of 'hidden variables' that determine the outcomes of all factually performed measurements. It is generally believed that the three meanings are equivalent, but the issues involved are not entirely transparent. Thus, arguments have been offered that C2 may have nothing to do with C1, and the traditional formulation of C1 itself encounters difficulties when measurement outcomes in a contextual system are treated as random variables. I show that if C1 is formulated within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, the notion of a probabilistic coupling, the core mathematical tool of CbD, subsumes both counterfactual values and 'hidden variables'. In the latter case, a coupling itself can be viewed as a maximally parsimonious choice of a hidden variable. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.

arXiv:1809.04528•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Sep 16, 2019•23 citations

Measures of contextuality and non-contextuality

Janne V. Kujala, Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov

We discuss three measures of the degree of contextuality in contextual systems of dichotomous random variables. These measures are developed within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, and apply to inconsistently connected systems (those with 'disturbance' allowed). For one of these measures of contextuality, presented here for the first time, we construct a corresponding measure of the degree of non-contextuality in non-contextual systems. The other two CbD-based measures do not suggest ways in which degree of non-contextuality of a non-contextual system can be quantified. We find the same to be true for the contextual fraction measure developed by Abramsky, Barbosa and Mansfield. This measure of contextuality is confined to consistently connected systems, but CbD allows one to generalize it to arbitrary systems. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.

arXiv:1903.07170•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Sep 16, 2019•36 citations
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'.
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).
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.
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.
This paper deals with three traditional ways of defining contextuality: (C1) in terms of (non)existence of certain joint distributions involving measurements made in several mutually exclusive contexts; (C2) in terms of relationship between factual measurements in a given context and counterfactual measurements that could be made if one used other contexts; and (C3) in terms of (non)existence of 'hidden variables' that determine the outcomes of all factually performed measurements. It is generally believed that the three meanings are equivalent, but the issues involved are not entirely transparent. Thus, arguments have been offered that C2 may have nothing to do with C1, and the traditional formulation of C1 itself encounters difficulties when measurement outcomes in a contextual system are treated as random variables. I show that if C1 is formulated within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, the notion of a probabilistic coupling, the core mathematical tool of CbD, subsumes both counterfactual values and 'hidden variables'. In the latter case, a coupling itself can be viewed as a maximally parsimonious choice of a hidden variable. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.
We discuss three measures of the degree of contextuality in contextual systems of dichotomous random variables. These measures are developed within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, and apply to inconsistently connected systems (those with 'disturbance' allowed). For one of these measures of contextuality, presented here for the first time, we construct a corresponding measure of the degree of non-contextuality in non-contextual systems. The other two CbD-based measures do not suggest ways in which degree of non-contextuality of a non-contextual system can be quantified. We find the same to be true for the contextual fraction measure developed by Abramsky, Barbosa and Mansfield. This measure of contextuality is confined to consistently connected systems, but CbD allows one to generalize it to arbitrary systems. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.