It is useful to have a criterion for when the predictions of an operational theory should be considered classically explainable. Here we take the criterion to be that the theory admits of a generalized-noncontextual ontological model. Existing works on generalized noncontextuality have focused on experimental scenarios having a simple structure: typically, prepare-measure scenarios. Here, we formally extend the framework of ontological models as well as the principle of generalized noncontextuality to arbitrary compositional scenarios. We leverage a process-theoretic framework to prove that, under some reasonable assumptions, every generalized-noncontextual ontological model of a tomographically local operational theory has a surprisingly rigid and simple mathematical structure — in short, it corresponds to a frame representation which is not overcomplete. One consequence of this theorem is that the largest number of ontic states possible in any such model is given by the dimension of the associated generalized probabilistic theory. This constraint is useful for generating noncontextuality no-go theorems as well as techniques for experimentally certifying contextuality. Along the way, we extend known results concerning the equivalence of different notions of classicality from prepare-measure scenarios to arbitrary compositional scenarios. Specifically, we prove a correspondence between the following three notions of classical explainability of an operational theory: (i) existence of a noncontextual ontological model for it, (ii) existence of a positive quasiprobability representation for the generalized probabilistic theory it defines, and (iii) existence of an ontological model for the generalized probabilistic theory it defines.
It is useful to have a criterion for when the predictions of an operational theory should be considered classically explainable. Here we take the criterion to be that the theory admits of a generalized-noncontextual ontological model. Existing works on generalized noncontextuality have focused on experimental scenarios having a simple structure: typically, prepare-measure scenarios. Here, we formally extend the framework of ontological models as well as the principle of generalized noncontextuality to arbitrary compositional scenarios. We leverage a process-theoretic framework to prove that, under some reasonable assumptions, every generalized-noncontextual ontological model of a tomographically local operational theory has a surprisingly rigid and simple mathematical structure — in short, it corresponds to a frame representation which is not overcomplete. One consequence of this theorem is that the largest number of ontic states possible in any such model is given by the dimension of the associated generalized probabilistic theory. This constraint is useful for generating noncontextuality no-go theorems as well as techniques for experimentally certifying contextuality. Along the way, we extend known results concerning the equivalence of different notions of classicality from prepare-measure scenarios to arbitrary compositional scenarios. Specifically, we prove a correspondence between the following three notions of classical explainability of an operational theory: (i) existence of a noncontextual ontological model for it, (ii) existence of a positive quasiprobability representation for the generalized probabilistic theory it defines, and (iii) existence of an ontological model for the generalized probabilistic theory it defines.
To make precise the sense in which the operational predictions of quantum theory conflict with a classical worldview, it is necessary to articulate a notion of classicality within an operational framework.A widely applicable notion of classicality of this sort is whether or not the predictions of a given operational theory can be explained by a generalized-noncontextual ontological model.We here explore what notion of classicality this implies for the generalized probabilistic theory (GPT) that arises from a given operational theory, focusing on prepare-measure scenarios.We first show that, when mapping an operational theory to a GPT by quotienting relative to operational equivalences, the constraint of explainability by a generalized-noncontextual ontological model is mapped to the constraint of explainability by an ontological model.We then show that, under the additional assumption that the ontic state space is of finite cardinality, this constraint on the GPT can be expressed as a geometric condition which we term simplex embeddability.Whereas the traditional notion of classicality for a GPT is that its state space be a simplex and its effect space be the dual of this simplex, simplex embeddability merely requires that its state space be embeddable in a simplex and its effect space in the dual of that simplex.We argue that simplex embeddability constitutes an intuitive and freestanding notion of classicality for GPTs.Our result also has applications to witnessing nonclassicality in prepare-measure experiments.
An experiment or theory is classically explainable if it can be reproduced by some noncontextual ontological model. In this work, we adapt the notion of ontological models and generalized noncontextuality so it applies to the framework of operational probabilistic theories (OPTs). A defining feature of quotiented OPTs, which sets them apart from the closely related framework of generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs), is their explicit specification of the structure of instruments, these being generalizations of quantum instruments (including nondestructive measurements); in particular, one needs to explicitly declare which collections of transformations constitute a valid instrument. We are particularly interested in strongly causal OPTs, in which the choice of a future instrument can be conditioned on a past measurement outcome. This instrument structure might seem to permit the possibility of a contextual kind of ontological representation, where the representation of a given transformation depends on which instrument it is considered a part of. However, we prove that this is not possible by showing that for strongly causal quotiented OPTs the structure of instruments does not allow for such a contextual ontological representation. It follows that ontological representations of strongly causal quotiented OPTs are entirely determined by their action on individual transformations, with no dependence on the structure of instruments.
Starting from arbitrary sets of quantum states and measurements, referred to as the prepare-and-measure scenario, an operationally noncontextual ontological model of the quantum statistics associated with the prepare-and-measure scenario is constructed. The operationally noncontextual ontological model coincides with standard Spekkens noncontextual ontological models for tomographically complete scenarios, while covering the non-tomographically complete case with a new notion of a reduced space, which we motivate following the guiding principles of noncontextuality. A mathematical criterion, called unit separability , is formulated as the relevant classicality criterion – the name is inspired by the usual notion of quantum state separability. Using this criterion, we derive a new upper bound on the cardinality of the ontic space. Then, we recast the unit separability criterion as a (possibly infinite) set of linear constraints, from which we obtain two separate hierarchies of algorithmic tests to witness the non-classicality or certify the classicality of a scenario. Finally, we reformulate our results in the framework of generalized probabilistic theories and discuss the implications for simplex-embeddability in such theories.
We construct an ontological model for the theory known as bilocal classical theory doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.052216. To our knowledge, this is only the second time that an ontological model has been constructed for an entire theory, rather than just for some particular scenarios within a theory. This result refutes a conjecture from doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.052216 which suggested that there might be no local-realist ontological model for bilocal classical theory. Moreover, it is the first time that an ontological model has been constructed for a theory that fails to be locally tomographic, showing that the assumption of local tomography underpinning the structure theorem in doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-03-14-1283 is a genuine limitation of the theorem. This demonstrates that in general there is no tension between failures of local tomography and classical explainability (i.e., generalised noncontextuality). In fact, bilocal classical theory is in many ways more simply understood via the underlying ontological model than it is within its original formulation (much as how odd-dimensional stabiliser subtheories can be more simply understood via Spekkens' toy theory). Furthermore, this result naturally leads to the question, does every locally-classical theory admit of an ontological model? By constructing a concrete counterexample, we show that this is not the case. Our findings demonstrate that there is no straightforward relationship between theories being locally-classical, and them being classically-explainable. This shows that the fundamental status of compositional properties (such as local tomography) is not a technical side-issue, but a central and unavoidable question for a coherent understanding even of classicality itself.
Generalized contextuality refers to our inability of explaining measurement statistics using a contextindependent probabilistic and ontological model.On the other hand, measurement statistics can also be modeled using the framework of general probabilistic theories (GPTs).Here, starting from a construction of GPTs based on a Gleason-type theorem, we fully characterize these structures with respect to their permission and rejection of generalized (non)contextual ontological models.It follows that in any GPT construction the three insistence of (i) the no-restriction hypothesis, (ii) the ontological noncontextuality, and (iii) multiple nonrefinable measurements for any fixed number of outcomes are incompatible.Hence, any GPT satisfying the no-restriction hypothesis is ontologically noncontextual if and only if it is simplicial.We give a detailed discussion of GPTs for which the no-restriction hypothesis is violated, and show that they can always be considered as subtheories (subGPTs) of GPTs satisfying the hypothesis.It is shown that subGPTs are ontologically noncontextual if and only if they are subtheories of simplicial GPTs of the same dimensionality.Finally, we establish as a corollary the necessary and sufficient condition for a single resourceful measurement or state to promote an ontologically noncontextual (i.e., classical) general probabilistic theory to an ontologically contextual (i.e., nonclassical) one under the no-restriction hypothesis.
When should a given operational phenomenology be deemed to admit of a classical explanation? When it can be realized in a generalized-noncontextual ontological model. The case for answering the question in this fashion has been made in many previous works and motivates research on the notion of generalized noncontextuality. Many criticisms and concerns have been raised, however, regarding the definition of this notion and of the possibility of testing it experimentally. In this work, we respond to some of the most common of these objections. One such objection is that the existence of a classical record of which laboratory procedure was actually performed in each run of an experiment implies that the operational equivalence relations that are a necessary ingredient of any proof of the failure of noncontextuality do not hold, and consequently that conclusions of nonclassicality based on these equivalences are mistaken. We explain why this concern is unfounded. Our response affords the opportunity for us to clarify certain facts about generalized noncontextuality, such as the possibility of having proofs of its failure based on a consideration of the subsystem structure of composite systems. Similarly, through our responses to each of the other objections, we elucidate some under-appreciated facts about the notion of generalized noncontextuality and experimental tests thereof.