Degrees, Levels, and Profiles of Contextuality

We introduce a new notion, that of a contextuality profile of a system of random variables. Rather than characterizing a system's contextuality by a single number, its overall degree of contextuality, we show how it can be characterized by a curve relating degree of contextuality to level at which the system is considered, $\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \textnormal{level} & 1 & \cdots & n-1 & n>1 & n+1 & \cdots & N\\ \hline \textnormal{degree} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & d_{n}>0 & d_{n+1}\geq d_{n} & \cdots & d_{N}\geq d_{N-1} \end{array}$ , where N is the maximum number of variables per system's context. A system is represented at level n if one only considers the joint distributions with $k\leq n$ variables, ignoring higher-order joint distributions. We show that the level-wise contextuality analysis can be used in conjunction with any well-constructed measure of contextuality. We present a method of concatenated systems to explore contextuality profiles systematically, and we apply it to the contextuality profiles for three major measures of contextuality proposed in the literature.We introduce a new notion, that of a contextuality profile of a system of random variables. Rather than characterizing a system's contextuality by a single number, its overall degree of contextuality, we show how it can be characterized by a curve relating degree of contextuality to level at which the system is considered, $ \begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \textnormal{level} & 1 & \cdots & n-1 & n>1 & n+1 & \cdots & N\\ \hline \textnormal{degree} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & d_{n}>0 & d_{n+1}\geq d_{n} & \cdots & d_{N}\geq d_{N-1} \end{array} $, where N is the maximum number of variables per system's context. A system is represented at level n if one only considers the joint distributions with $ k\leq n $ variables, ignoring higher-order joint distributions. We show that the level-wise contextuality analysis can be used in conjunction with any well-constructed measure of contextuality. We present a method of concatenated systems to explore contextuality profiles systematically, and we apply it to the contextuality profiles for three major measures of contextuality proposed in the literature.

Mar 26, 20260 citations

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Victor H. Cervantes

We introduce a new notion, that of a contextuality profile of a system of random variables. Rather than characterizing a system's contextuality by a single number, its overall degree of contextuality, we show how it can be characterized by a curve relating degree of contextuality to level at which the system is considered. A system is represented at level n if one only considers the joint distributions with no more than n variables, ignoring higher-order joint distributions. We show that the level-wise contextuality analysis can be used in conjunction with any well-constructed measure of contextuality. We present a method of concatenated systems to explore contextuality profiles systematically, and we apply it to the contextuality profiles for three major measures of contextuality proposed in the literature.We introduce a new notion, that of a contextuality profile of a system of random variables. Rather than characterizing a system's contextuality by a single number, its overall degree of contextuality, we show how it can be characterized by a curve relating degree of contextuality to level at which the system is considered. A system is represented at level n if one only considers the joint distributions with no more than n variables, ignoring higher-order joint distributions. We show that the level-wise contextuality analysis can be used in conjunction with any well-constructed measure of contextuality. We present a method of concatenated systems to explore contextuality profiles systematically, and we apply it to the contextuality profiles for three major measures of contextuality proposed in the literature.

quant-pharXiv:2603.26692EntropyMar 17, 20260 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).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:1604.08412Fortschritte der PhysikSep 7, 201634 citations

Contextuality in canonical systems of random variables

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Victor Hernando Cervantes, Janne V. Kujala

Random variables representing measurements, broadly understood to include any responses to any inputs, form a system in which each of them is uniquely identified by its content (that which it measures) and its context (the conditions under which it is recorded). Two random variables are jointly distributed if and only if they share a context. In a canonical representation of a system, all random variables are binary, and every content-sharing pair of random variables has a unique maximal coupling (the joint distribution imposed on them so that they coincide with maximal possible probability). The system is contextual if these maximal couplings are incompatible with the joint distributions of the context-sharing random variables. We propose to represent any system of measurements in a canonical form and to consider the system contextual if and only if its canonical representation is contextual. As an illustration, we establish a criterion for contextuality of the canonical system consisting of all dichotomizations of a single pair of content-sharing categorical random variables.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.Random variables representing measurements, broadly understood to include any responses to any inputs, form a system in which each of them is uniquely identified by its content (that which it measures) and its context (the conditions under which it is recorded). Two random variables are jointly distributed if and only if they share a context. In a canonical representation of a system, all random variables are binary, and every content-sharing pair of random variables has a unique maximal coupling (the joint distribution imposed on them so that they coincide with maximal possible probability). The system is contextual if these maximal couplings are incompatible with the joint distributions of the context-sharing random variables. We propose to represent any system of measurements in a canonical form and to consider the system contextual if and only if its canonical representation is contextual. As an illustration, we establish a criterion for contextuality of the canonical system consisting of all dichotomizations of a single pair of content-sharing categorical random variables.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.

arXiv:1703.01252Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesOct 2, 201760 citations

Contextuality and Informational Redundancy

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Janne V. Kujala

A noncontextual system of random variables may become contextual if one adds to it a set of new variables, even if each of them is obtained by the same context-wise function of the old variables. This fact follows from the definition of contextuality, and its demonstration is trivial for inconsistently connected systems (i.e., systems with disturbance). However, it also holds for consistently connected (and even strongly consistently connected) systems, provided one acknowledges that if a given property was not measured in a given context, this information can be used in defining functions among the random variables. Moreover, every inconsistently connected system can be presented as a (strongly) consistently connected system with essentially the same contextuality characteristics.A noncontextual system of random variables may become contextual if one adds to it a set of new variables, even if each of them is obtained by the same context-wise function of the old variables. This fact follows from the definition of contextuality, and its demonstration is trivial for inconsistently connected systems (i.e., systems with disturbance). However, it also holds for consistently connected (and even strongly consistently connected) systems, provided one acknowledges that if a given property was not measured in a given context, this information can be used in defining functions among the random variables. Moreover, every inconsistently connected system can be presented as a (strongly) consistently connected system with essentially the same contextuality characteristics.

arXiv:2211.03164EntropyDec 21, 20222 citations

Measures of contextuality and non-contextuality

Janne V. Kujala, Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov

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'.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'.

arXiv:1903.07170Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSep 16, 201936 citations

\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c} \textnormal{level} & 1 & \cdots & n-1 & n>1 & n+1 & \cdots & N\\ \hline \textnormal{degree} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & d_{n}>0 & d_{n+1}\geq d_{n} & \cdots & d_{N}\geq d_{N-1} \end{array}

, where N is the maximum number of variables per system's context. A system is represented at level n if one only considers the joint distributions with

k\leq n

variables, ignoring higher-order joint distributions. We show that the level-wise contextuality analysis can be used in conjunction with any well-constructed measure of contextuality. We present a method of concatenated systems to explore contextuality profiles systematically, and we apply it to the contextuality profiles for three major measures of contextuality proposed in the literature.