Recent research on quantum contextuality has been strongly centered on device-independent frameworks, such as the many graph approaches to contextuality and the celebrated sheaf-theoretical approach. Contextuality is described in these frameworks as a property of data only, making it possible to characterize and quantify the phenomena regardless of the reasons why it occurs. In this paper we look beyond the data and focus on possible explanations for this experimental fact. We show that a classical system generating contextual data can easily be found if the following conditions are satisfied (1) We only have access to a specific collection of epistemic measurements (which, all things considered, is basically Bohr's view on quantum measurements) and (2) There is a limitation on which of these measurements can be jointly performed. The way we see it, this example indicates that contextuality may be a consequence of the type of measurement taken into account, instead of an intrinsic feature of the system upon which these measurements are performed; if this is correct, the widespread idea that quantum contextuality is a non-classical feature can be avoided.
Recent research on quantum contextuality has been strongly centered on device-independent frameworks, such as the many graph approaches to contextuality and the celebrated sheaf-theoretical approach. Contextuality is described in these frameworks as a property of data only, making it possible to characterize and quantify the phenomena regardless of the reasons why it occurs. In this paper we look beyond the data and focus on possible explanations for this experimental fact. We show that a classical system generating contextual data can easily be found if the following conditions are satisfied (1) We only have access to a specific collection of epistemic measurements (which, all things considered, is basically Bohr's view on quantum measurements) and (2) There is a limitation on which of these measurements can be jointly performed. The way we see it, this example indicates that contextuality may be a consequence of the type of measurement taken into account, instead of an intrinsic feature of the system upon which these measurements are performed; if this is correct, the widespread idea that quantum contextuality is a non-classical feature can be avoided.
The view that non-classical phenomena are witnessed when noncontextuality inequalities are violated by quantum correlations has become widespread over the last decades, and many authors describe contextuality as a counter-intuitive and non-classical feature of quantum systems. In this paper we show that a classical input/output device generating contextual data (i.e., data violating noncontextuality inequalities) can easily be found if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) We only have access to a specific collection of epistemic measurements, namely measurements which do not necessarily reveal properties possessed by the system to the agent, and (2) not all these measurements can be jointly performed. The conclusion we draw from this example is twofold. Firstly, regarding model-independent contextuality, it suggests that, unlike Bell inequalities (whose violation allegedly implies non-locality), noncontextuality inequalities have no phenomenological significance per se: we cannot treat experiments as black-boxes and draw conclusions about the phenomenological status of their underlying structure based only on contextuality analysis of the data they generate. Secondly, regarding quantum theory, it indicates that one who accepts, as many interpretations suggest, that quantum theory satisfies both these conditions should not take for granted that quantum contextuality is a signature of non-classicality.
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’.
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. We will argue that there exists a general confusion within the foundational literature arising from the improper "scrambling" of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. While the first one, introduced by Bohr, is related to an epistemic interpretation of contextuality which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of certain measurement situations described in classical terms; the second meaning of contextuality is related to a purely formal understanding of contextuality as exposed by the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem which focuses instead on the constraints of the orthodox quantum formalism in order to interpret projection operators as preexistent or actual (definite valued) properties. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an "omelette of contextuality" which has been fully widespread through a popularized "epistemic explanation" of the KS theorem according to which: The measurement outcome of the observable A when measured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A, B] = [A, C] = 0, and [B, C] /= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling epistemic and formal perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. Finally, we analyze the consequences of such widespread epistemic reading of KS theorem as related to statistical statements of measurement outcomes.
Quantum theory departs from classical physics in its treatment of correlations, most prominently through the phenomena of contextuality and nonlocality. Once regarded primarily as foundational curiosities, these effects are now understood as key operational resources for quantum computation, communication, and simulation. Although traditionally investigated in distinct settings, recent theoretical and experimental advances have revealed deep conceptual, mathematical, and operational connections between them. This review presents a unified perspective on these developments based on sheaf-theoretic and graph-theoretic frameworks, which provide theory-independent characterizations of statistical correlations. These approaches clarify the structural relationship between contextuality and nonlocality, facilitate the formulation of experimentally testable inequalities, and guide implementations in realistic physical platforms, with particular emphasis on photonic systems. By bridging abstract theoretical structures and concrete experimental realizations, this review sheds light on the nonclassical foundations of quantum correlations and their emerging role in quantum technologies.
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. We will argue that there exists a general confusion within the foundational literature arising from the improper of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. While the first one, introduced by Bohr, is related to an interpretation of which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of certain measurement situations described in classical terms; the second meaning of is related to a purely formal understanding of as exposed by the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem which focuses instead on the constraints of the orthodox quantum formalism in order to interpret projection operators as preexistent or actual (definite valued) properties. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an omelette of contextuality which has been fully widespread through a popularized epistemic explanation of the KS theorem according to which: The measurement outcome of the observable A when measured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A, B] = [A, C] = 0, and [B, C] /= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling and formal perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. Finally, we analyze the consequences of such widespread reading of KS theorem as related to statistical statements of measurement outcomes.
In this paper we attempt to analyze the physical and philosophical meaning of quantum contextuality. In the first part we will argue that a general confusion within the literature comes from the improper "scrambling" of two different meanings of quantum contextuality. The first one is related to an epistemic interpretation of contextuality, introduced by Bohr, which stresses the incompatibility (or complementarity) of quantum measurements. The second, is related to an ontic notion of contextuality, exposed through the Kochen-Specker (KS) theorem, which focuses on the constraints to discuss about actual (definite valued) properties within the orthodox formalism of QM. We will show how these two notions have been scrambled together creating an "omelette of contextuality" which has been fully widespread through a popularized "epistemic explanation" of the KS theorem according to which: The outcome of the observable A when mea- sured together with B or together with C will necessarily differ in case [A,B] = [A,C] = 0, and [B,C] ̸= 0. We will show why this statement is not only improperly scrambling epistemic and ontic perspectives, but is also physically and philosophically meaningless. In the second part of the paper, we will analyse the relation between ‘classical contexts’ and QM. We will show that three accepted presuppositions found within the orthodox literature are, in general, false. Namely: (i) that quantum contextuality does not preclude an objective description of physical reality, (ii) that the choice of a context (or basis) restores a classical description of reality, and (iii) that the choice of a (classical) context is a necessary condition for accounting for empirical statements in QM.