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:2208.07425 · Entropy

Contextuality, Complementarity, Signaling, and Bell Tests

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Sep 28, 2022• 36 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This is a review devoted to the complementarity–contextuality interplay with connection to the Bell inequalities. Starting the discussion with complementarity, I point to contextuality as its seed. Bohr contextuality is the dependence of an observable’s outcome on the experimental context; on the system–apparatus interaction. Probabilistically, complementarity means that the joint probability distribution (JPD) does not exist. Instead of the JPD, one has to operate with contextual probabilities. The Bell inequalities are interpreted as the statistical tests of contextuality, and hence, incompatibility. For context-dependent probabilities, these inequalities may be violated. I stress that contextuality tested by the Bell inequalities is the so-called joint measurement contextuality (JMC), the special case of Bohr’s contextuality. Then, I examine the role of signaling (marginal inconsistency). In QM, signaling can be considered as an experimental artifact. However, often, experimental data have signaling patterns. I discuss possible sources of signaling—for example, dependence of the state preparation on measurement settings. In principle, one can extract the measure of “pure contextuality” from data shadowed by signaling. This theory is known as contextuality by default (CbD). It leads to inequalities with an additional term quantifying signaling: Bell–Dzhafarov–Kujala inequalities.

DOI
10.3390/e24101380

Related papers

Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity and Its Contextual Basis

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This chapter is devoted to the Bohr complementarity principle.This is one of the basic quantum principles. We dissolve it into separate subprincipleson contextuality, incompatibility, complementary-completeness,and individuality. We emphasize the role of the contexuatlity component. It is not highlighted in the foundational discussions. ByBohr, the outputs of measurements are resulted from the complexinteraction between a system and measurement context, the values ofquantum observables cannot be treated as objective properties of systems.Such Bohr contextuality is more general than joint measurement contextuality(JMC) considered in the discussions on the Bellinequality. JMC is a very special form of the Bohr contextuality. The incompatibility component is always emphasized and often referred as the wave-particle duality. The principle ofinformation complementary-completeness represents Bohr’s claim on completenessof quantum theory. The individuality principle is basic for thenotion of phenomenon used by Bohr to emphasize the individuality and discreteness of outputs of measurements. Individuality plays the crucial role in distinguishing quantum and classical optics entanglements.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2024•0 citations

Contextuality-by-Default Description of Bell Tests: Contextuality as the Rule and Not as an Exception

Marian Kupczyński

Contextuality and entanglement are valuable resources for quantum computing and quantum information. Bell inequalities are used to certify entanglement; thus, it is important to understand why and how they are violated. Quantum mechanics and behavioural sciences teach us that random variables 'measuring' the same content (the answer to the same Yes or No question) may vary, if 'measured' jointly with other random variables. Alice's and BoB's raw data confirm Einsteinian non-signaling, but setting dependent experimental protocols are used to create samples of coupled pairs of distant ±1 outcomes and to estimate correlations. Marginal expectations, estimated using these final samples, depend on distant settings. Therefore, a system of random variables 'measured' in Bell tests is inconsistently connected and it should be analyzed using a Contextuality-by-Default approach, what is done for the first time in this paper. The violation of Bell inequalities and inconsistent connectedness may be explained using a contextual locally causal probabilistic model in which setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated. We prove that this model does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice which is a prerequisite of science. Contextuality seems to be the rule and not an exception; thus, it should be carefully tested.

arXiv:2104.11555•Entropy•Aug 25, 2021•19 citations

Quantum measurements and contextuality

Robert B. Griffiths

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’.

arXiv:1902.05633•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Sep 16, 2019•21 citations

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

Violation of the Bell’s type inequalities as a local expression of incompatibility

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Abstract By filtering out the philosophic component we can be said that the EPR-paper was directed against the straightforward interpretation of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or more generally the Bohr’s complementarity principle. The latter expresses contextuality of quantum measurements: dependence of measurement’s output on the complete experimental arrangement. However, Bell restructured the EPR-argument against complementarity to justify nonlocal theories with hidden variables of the Bohmian mechanics’ type. Then this Bell’s kind of nonlocality - subquantum nonlocality - was lifted to the level of quantum theory - up to the terminology “quantum nonlocality”. The aim of this short note is to explain that Bell’s test is simply a special test of local incompatibility of quantum observables, similar to interference experiments, e.g., the two-slit experiment.

arXiv:1902.07070•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Sep 1, 2019•3 citations

On the applicability of Kolmogorov's theory of probability to the description of quantum phenomena. Part II: Bell inequalities

Maik Reddiger

Among the various "no-go theorems" in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities are among the few, which do not implicitly rely on the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Instead, Bell inequalities are commonly understood to rest on Kolmogorov's theory of probability and a "locality" assumption. Physical evidence supporting their violation is hence taken as evidence against at least one of these two assumptions. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical debate on Bell inequalities from the point of view of Kolmogorov's theory of probability, focusing on the Bell-Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequality (BCHSH inequality). The central contribution is the motivation and mathematical study of the notion of contextuality in Bell experiments: in so-called contextual Bell models the detectors themselves behave randomly and the distribution of the random detector parameters depends on the chosen detector settings. It is shown how even "classical" Bell experiments motivate such a description. The need to account for contextuality was pointed out before by de la Peña, Cetto, Brody, Lochak, Bohm, Hiley and others. A broad class of contextual models is proven to satisfy the BCHSH inequality, thereby generalizing a previous result by Gill and Lambare. Nonetheless, even under strong locality requirements, contextual Bell models may violate the BCHSH inequality: based on work by Popescu and Rohrlich, we consider a "proof of concept" example exhibiting the maximum possible violation. Contrary to the much debated "loopholes" in empirical tests of Bell inequalities, contextuality thus reveals a conceptual misunderstanding in the physical conclusions commonly drawn from Bell inequality violations.

quant-pharXiv:2609.31075•Sep 28, 2026•0 citations
This is a review devoted to the complementarity–contextuality interplay with connection to the Bell inequalities. Starting the discussion with complementarity, I point to contextuality as its seed. Bohr contextuality is the dependence of an observable’s outcome on the experimental context; on the system–apparatus interaction. Probabilistically, complementarity means that the joint probability distribution (JPD) does not exist. Instead of the JPD, one has to operate with contextual probabilities. The Bell inequalities are interpreted as the statistical tests of contextuality, and hence, incompatibility. For context-dependent probabilities, these inequalities may be violated. I stress that contextuality tested by the Bell inequalities is the so-called joint measurement contextuality (JMC), the special case of Bohr’s contextuality. Then, I examine the role of signaling (marginal inconsistency). In QM, signaling can be considered as an experimental artifact. However, often, experimental data have signaling patterns. I discuss possible sources of signaling—for example, dependence of the state preparation on measurement settings. In principle, one can extract the measure of “pure contextuality” from data shadowed by signaling. This theory is known as contextuality by default (CbD). It leads to inequalities with an additional term quantifying signaling: Bell–Dzhafarov–Kujala inequalities.
This chapter is devoted to the Bohr complementarity principle.This is one of the basic quantum principles. We dissolve it into separate subprincipleson contextuality, incompatibility, complementary-completeness,and individuality. We emphasize the role of the contexuatlity component. It is not highlighted in the foundational discussions. ByBohr, the outputs of measurements are resulted from the complexinteraction between a system and measurement context, the values ofquantum observables cannot be treated as objective properties of systems.Such Bohr contextuality is more general than joint measurement contextuality(JMC) considered in the discussions on the Bellinequality. JMC is a very special form of the Bohr contextuality. The incompatibility component is always emphasized and often referred as the wave-particle duality. The principle ofinformation complementary-completeness represents Bohr’s claim on completenessof quantum theory. The individuality principle is basic for thenotion of phenomenon used by Bohr to emphasize the individuality and discreteness of outputs of measurements. Individuality plays the crucial role in distinguishing quantum and classical optics entanglements.
Contextuality and entanglement are valuable resources for quantum computing and quantum information. Bell inequalities are used to certify entanglement; thus, it is important to understand why and how they are violated. Quantum mechanics and behavioural sciences teach us that random variables 'measuring' the same content (the answer to the same Yes or No question) may vary, if 'measured' jointly with other random variables. Alice's and BoB's raw data confirm Einsteinian non-signaling, but setting dependent experimental protocols are used to create samples of coupled pairs of distant ±1 outcomes and to estimate correlations. Marginal expectations, estimated using these final samples, depend on distant settings. Therefore, a system of random variables 'measured' in Bell tests is inconsistently connected and it should be analyzed using a Contextuality-by-Default approach, what is done for the first time in this paper. The violation of Bell inequalities and inconsistent connectedness may be explained using a contextual locally causal probabilistic model in which setting dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated. We prove that this model does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice which is a prerequisite of science. Contextuality seems to be the rule and not an exception; thus, it should be carefully tested.
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’.
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).
Abstract By filtering out the philosophic component we can be said that the EPR-paper was directed against the straightforward interpretation of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or more generally the Bohr’s complementarity principle. The latter expresses contextuality of quantum measurements: dependence of measurement’s output on the complete experimental arrangement. However, Bell restructured the EPR-argument against complementarity to justify nonlocal theories with hidden variables of the Bohmian mechanics’ type. Then this Bell’s kind of nonlocality - subquantum nonlocality - was lifted to the level of quantum theory - up to the terminology “quantum nonlocality”. The aim of this short note is to explain that Bell’s test is simply a special test of local incompatibility of quantum observables, similar to interference experiments, e.g., the two-slit experiment.
Among the various "no-go theorems" in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities are among the few, which do not implicitly rely on the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Instead, Bell inequalities are commonly understood to rest on Kolmogorov's theory of probability and a "locality" assumption. Physical evidence supporting their violation is hence taken as evidence against at least one of these two assumptions. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical debate on Bell inequalities from the point of view of Kolmogorov's theory of probability, focusing on the Bell-Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequality (BCHSH inequality). The central contribution is the motivation and mathematical study of the notion of contextuality in Bell experiments: in so-called contextual Bell models the detectors themselves behave randomly and the distribution of the random detector parameters depends on the chosen detector settings. It is shown how even "classical" Bell experiments motivate such a description. The need to account for contextuality was pointed out before by de la Peña, Cetto, Brody, Lochak, Bohm, Hiley and others. A broad class of contextual models is proven to satisfy the BCHSH inequality, thereby generalizing a previous result by Gill and Lambare. Nonetheless, even under strong locality requirements, contextual Bell models may violate the BCHSH inequality: based on work by Popescu and Rohrlich, we consider a "proof of concept" example exhibiting the maximum possible violation. Contrary to the much debated "loopholes" in empirical tests of Bell inequalities, contextuality thus reveals a conceptual misunderstanding in the physical conclusions commonly drawn from Bell inequality violations.