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'.
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'.
A primary goal in recent research on contextuality has been to extend this concept to cases of inconsistent connectedness, where observables have different distributions in different contexts. This article proposes a solution within the framework of probabi- listic causal models, which extend hidden-variables theories, and then demonstrates an equivalence to the contextuality-by-default (CbD) framework. CbD distinguishes contextuality from direct influences of context on observables, defining the latter purely in terms of probability distributions. Here, we take a causal view of direct influences, defining direct influence within any causal model as the probability of all latent states of the system in which a change of context changes the outcome of a measurement. Model-based contextuality (M-contextuality) is then defined as the necessity of stronger direct influences to model a full system than when considered individually. For consistently connected systems, M-contextuality agrees with standard contextuality. For general systems, it is proved that M-contextuality is equivalent to the property that any model of a system must contain 'hidden influences', meaning direct influences that go in opposite directions for different latent states, or equivalently signalling between observers that carries no information. This criterion can be taken as formalizing the 'no-conspiracy' principle that has been proposed in connection with CbD. M-contextuality is then proved to be equivalent to CbD-contextuality, thus providing a new interpretation of CbD-contextuality as the non-existence of a model for a system without hidden direct influences. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.
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).
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'.
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’.
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.
This paper provides a systematic account of the hidden variable models (HVMs) formulated to describe systems of random variables with mutually exclusive contexts. Any such system can be described either by a model with free choice but generally context-dependent mapping of the hidden variables into observable ones, or by a model with context-independent mapping but generally compromised free choice. These two types of HVMs are equivalent, one can always be translated into another. They are also unfalsifiable, applicable to all possible systems. These facts, the equivalence and unfalsifiability, imply that freedom of choice and context-independent mapping are no assumptions at all, and they tell us nothing about freedom of choice or physical influences exerted by contexts as these notions would be understood in science and philosophy. The conjunction of these two notions, however, defines a falsifiable HVM that describes non-contextuality when applied to systems with no disturbance or to consistifications of arbitrary systems. This HVM is most adequately captured by the term 'context-irrelevance', meaning that no distribution in the model changes with context. This article is part of the theme issue 'Quantum contextuality, causality and freedom of choice'.