In a recent paper published in PNAS authors prove that locality and free choice are equivalent resources which need to be relaxed in order to fully reproduce some statistics in Bell experiments (while always maintaining realism). We explain that their assumption of free choice is simply counterfactual definiteness or noncontextuality. Therefore the resource in Bell experiments is contextuality and not the violations of locality and/or of free choice. It is definitely less mind boggling conclusion because experimenters` freedom of choice is a prerequisite of science,
In a recent paper published in PNAS authors prove that locality and free choice are equivalent resources which need to be relaxed in order to fully reproduce some statistics in Bell experiments (while always maintaining realism). We explain that their assumption of free choice is simply counterfactual definiteness or noncontextuality. Therefore the resource in Bell experiments is contextuality and not the violations of locality and/or of free choice. It is definitely less mind boggling conclusion because experimenters` freedom of choice is a prerequisite of science,
Bell inequalities rest on three fundamental assumptions: realism, locality, and free choice, which lead to nontrivial constraints on correlations in very simple experiments. If we retain realism, then violation of the inequalities implies that at least one of the remaining two assumptions must fail, which can have profound consequences for the causal explanation of the experiment. We investigate the extent to which a given assumption needs to be relaxed for the other to hold at all costs, based on the observation that a violation need not occur on every experimental trial, even when describing correlations violating Bell inequalities. How often this needs to be the case determines the degree of, respectively, locality or free choice in the observed experimental behavior. Despite their disparate character, we show that both assumptions are equally costly. Namely, the resources required to explain the experimental statistics (measured by the frequency of causal interventions of either sort) are exactly the same. Furthermore, we compute such defined measures of locality and free choice for any nonsignaling statistics in a Bell experiment with binary settings, showing that it is directly related to the amount of violation of the so-called Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequalities. This result is theory independent as it refers directly to the experimental statistics. Additionally, we show how the local fraction results for quantum-mechanical frameworks with infinite number of settings translate into analogous statements for the measure of free choice we introduce. Thus, concerning statistics, causal explanations resorting to either locality or free choice violations are fully interchangeable.
The causal modelling of Bell experiments relies on three fundamental assumptions: locality, freedom of choice and arrow-of-time. It turns out that nature violates Bell inequalities, which implies the failure of at least one of those assumptions. Since rejecting any of them, even partially, is sufficient to explain the observed correlations, it is natural to inquire about the cost in each case. This paper builds upon the findings in Blasiak et al. 2021 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2020569118 ( doi:10.1073/pnas.2020569118 ) showing the equivalence between the locality and free choice assumptions. Here, we include retrocausal models to complete the picture of causal explanations of the observed correlations. Furthermore, we refine the discussion by considering more challenging causal scenarios which allow only single-arrow type violations of a given assumption. The figure of merit chosen for the comparison of the causal cost is defined as the minimal frequency of violation of the respective assumption required for a simulation of the observed experimental statistics. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Quantum contextuality, causality and freedom of choice’.
Abstract We show that the ability to consider counterfactual situations is a necessary assumption of Bell’s theorem, and that, to allow Bell inequality violations while maintaining all other assumptions, we just require certain measurement choices be counterfactually restricted, rather than the full removal of counterfactual definiteness. We illustrate how the counterfactual definiteness assumption formally arises from the statistical independence assumption. Counterfactual restriction therefore provides a way to interpret statistical independence violation different to what is typically assumed (i.e. that statistical independence violation means either retrocausality or superdeterminism). We tie counterfactual restriction to contextuality, and show the similarities to that approach.
Bell's theorem states that no description of a Bell experiment can be simultaneously local, realistic in the sense of counterfactual definiteness, and free of conspiracy between settings and hidden state. The recent generation of experiments has confirmed the predicted violation of the CHSH inequality, so one of the assumptions must be abandoned. Which one, and how one reconstructs a coherent worldview after doing so, is a question on which many authors disagree. This paper is written by three such authors. All three reject both counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial violation of statistical independence of setting choices and state. After a joint exposition of the classical half of Bell's theorem in the language of Pearl-style causal graphs, a joint summary of the loophole-free experiments, and a joint survey of the recent literature, each author states where they have presently arrived. Gill accepts irreducible and non-local quantum randomness and finds the choice between locality and realism a false dichotomy. In his later works, Bell derives counterfactual definiteness from classical local causality, and that is what has to go. The metaphysical concepts "realism", "locality", "causality" need to be reconsidered. Helland reconstructs the Hilbert-space formalism from a theory of accessible variables, and from this theory he concludes that every observer must be limited in a specific sense. Jongejan proposes a geometric hidden-variable construction in which the degree of violation of the CHSH inequality depends on the number of dimensions of space, Tsirelson's bound corresponding to three dimensions. The authors conclude with a discussion.
Bell inequalities may only be derived, if hidden variables do not depend on the experimental settings. The stochastic independence of hidden and setting variables is called: freedom of choice, free will, measurement independence or no conspiracy. By imbedding the Bell causal structure in a larger causal network the authors correctly prove, that one can explain and quantify possible violation of measurement independence without evoking the super-determinism. They assume the independence of the variables that causally determine the settings and investigate how they might become correlated with hidden variables. Using their extended causal networks they derive a contextual probabilistic model on which their further correct results are based. The authors seem to ignore that contextual probabilistic model may be derived directly using only probabilistic concepts and incorporating correctly setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments. In these contextual probabilistic models experimenters freedom of choice is not compromised and the results of Bell Tests including an apparent violation of Einsteinian nonsignaling may be explained in a locally causal way. Talking about freedom of choice is misleading and is rooted in incorrect understanding of Bayes Theorem. We explain why freedom of choice should be called noncontextuality and why its violation in Bell Tests confirms only the contextual character of quantum observables. Therefore, contextuality and not experimenters freedom of choice are important resources in quantum information.
Abstract The relations between Bell nonlocality and Kochen–Specker contextuality have been subject of research from many different perspectives in the last decades. Recently, some interesting results on these relations have been explored in the so-called generalized Bell scenarios, that is, scenarios where Bell spatial separation (or agency independence) coexist with (at least one of the) parties’ ability to perform compatible measurements at each round of the experiment. When this party has an n-cycle compatiblity setup, it was first claimed that Bell nonlocality could not be concomitantly observed with contextuality at this party’s local experiment. However, by a more natural reading of the definition of locality, it turns out that both Bell nonlocality and local contextuality can, in fact, be jointly present. In spite of it, in this work we prove that in the simplest of those scenarios there cannot be arbitrary amounts of both of these two resources together. That is, in these cases we show that the violation of any Bell inequality limits the possible violations of any local noncontextuality inequality. We also explore this trade-off relation using quantifiers of nonlocality and contextuality, discussing how such a relation can be understood in terms of a ‘global’ notion of contextuality, and we study possible extensions of this result to other scenarios.