Quantum contextuality

Last updated

Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. Any attempt to do so in a realistic hidden-variable theory leads to values that are dependent upon the choice of the other (compatible) observables which are simultaneously measured (the measurement context). More formally, the measurement result (assumed pre-existing) of a quantum observable is dependent upon which other commuting observables are within the same measurement set.

Contents

Contextuality was first demonstrated to be a feature of quantum phenomenology by the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem. [1] [2] The study of contextuality has developed into a major topic of interest in quantum foundations as the phenomenon crystallises certain non-classical and counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory. A number of powerful mathematical frameworks have been developed to study and better understand contextuality, from the perspective of sheaf theory, [3] graph theory, [4] hypergraphs, [5] algebraic topology, [6] and probabilistic couplings. [7]

Nonlocality, in the sense of Bell's theorem, may be viewed as a special case of the more general phenomenon of contextuality, in which measurement contexts contain measurements that are distributed over spacelike separated regions. This follows from Fine's theorem. [8] [3]

Quantum contextuality has been identified as a source of quantum computational speedups and quantum advantage in quantum computing. [9] [10] [11] [12] Contemporary research has increasingly focused on exploring its utility as a computational resource.

Kochen and Specker

The need for contextuality was discussed informally in 1935 by Grete Hermann, [13] but it was more than 30 years later when Simon B. Kochen and Ernst Specker, and separately John Bell, constructed proofs that any realistic hidden-variable theory able to explain the phenomenology of quantum mechanics is contextual for systems of Hilbert space dimension three and greater. The Kochen–Specker theorem proves that realistic noncontextual hidden variable theories cannot reproduce the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. [14] Such a theory would suppose the following.

  1. All quantum-mechanical observables may be simultaneously assigned definite values (this is the realism postulate, which is false in standard quantum mechanics, since there are observables which are indefinite in every given quantum state). These global value assignments may deterministically depend on some 'hidden' classical variable which, in turn, may vary stochastically for some classical reason (as in statistical mechanics). The measured assignments of observables may therefore finally stochastically change. This stochasticity is however epistemic and not ontic as in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics.
  2. Value assignments pre-exist and are independent of the choice of any other observables which, in standard quantum mechanics, are described as commuting with the measured observable, and they are also measured.
  3. Some functional constraints on the assignments of values for compatible observables are assumed (e.g., they are additive and multiplicative, there are however several versions of this functional requirement).

In addition, Kochen and Specker constructed an explicitly noncontextual hidden variable model for the two-dimensional qubit case in their paper on the subject, [1] thereby completing the characterisation of the dimensionality of quantum systems that can demonstrate contextual behaviour. Bell's proof invoked a weaker version of Gleason's theorem, reinterpreting the theorem to show that quantum contextuality exists only in Hilbert space dimension greater than two. [2]

Frameworks for contextuality

Sheaf-theoretic framework

The sheaf-theoretic, or Abramsky–Brandenburger, approach to contextuality initiated by Samson Abramsky and Adam Brandenburger is theory-independent and can be applied beyond quantum theory to any situation in which empirical data arises in contexts. As well as being used to study forms of contextuality arising in quantum theory and other physical theories, it has also been used to study formally equivalent phenomena in logic, [15] relational databases, [16] natural language processing, [17] and constraint satisfaction. [18]

In essence, contextuality arises when empirical data is locally consistent but globally inconsistent.

This framework gives rise in a natural way to a qualitative hierarchy of contextuality.

Each level in this hierarchy strictly includes the next. An important intermediate level that lies strictly between the logical and strong contextuality classes is all-versus-nothing contextuality, [15] a representative example of which is the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger proof of nonlocality.

Graph and hypergraph frameworks

Adán Cabello, Simone Severini, and Andreas Winter introduced a general graph-theoretic framework for studying contextuality of different physical theories. [19] Within this framework experimental scenarios are described by graphs, and certain invariants of these graphs were shown have particular physical significance. One way in which contextuality may be witnessed in measurement statistics is through the violation of noncontextuality inequalities (also known as generalized Bell inequalities). With respect to certain appropriately normalised inequalities, the independence number, Lovász number, and fractional packing number of the graph of an experimental scenario provide tight upper bounds on the degree to which classical theories, quantum theory, and generalised probabilistic theories, respectively, may exhibit contextuality in an experiment of that kind. A more refined framework based on hypergraphs rather than graphs is also used. [5]

Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) framework

In the CbD approach, [20] [21] [22] developed by Ehtibar Dzhafarov, Janne Kujala, and colleagues, (non)contextuality is treated as a property of any system of random variables, defined as a set  in which each random variable  is labeled by its content, the property it measures, and its context, the set of recorded circumstances under which it is recorded (including but not limited to which other random variables it is recorded together with);  stands for " is measured in ". The variables within a context are jointly distributed, but variables from different contexts are stochastically unrelated, defined on different sample spaces. A (probabilistic) coupling of the system  is defined as a system  in which all variables are jointly distributed and, in any context ,  and  are identically distributed. The system  is considered noncontextual if it has a coupling  such that the probabilities are maximal possible for all contexts  and contents such that . If such a coupling does not exist, the system is contextual. For the important class of cyclic systems of dichotomous () random variables,   (), it has been shown [23] [24] that such a system is noncontextual if and only if

where

and

with the maximum taken over all  whose product is . If  and , measuring the same content in different context, are always identically distributed, the system is called consistently connected (satisfying "no-disturbance" or "no-signaling" principle). Except for certain logical issues, [7] [21] in this case CbD specializes to traditional treatments of contextuality in quantum physics. In particular, for consistently connected cyclic systems the noncontextuality criterion above reduces to which includes the Bell/CHSH inequality (), KCBS inequality (), and other famous inequalities. [25] That nonlocality is a special case of contextuality follows in CbD from the fact that being jointly distributed for random variables is equivalent to being measurable functions of one and the same random variable (this generalizes Arthur Fine's analysis of Bell's theorem). CbD essentially coincides with the probabilistic part of Abramsky's sheaf-theoretic approach if the system is strongly consistently connected, which means that the joint distributions of  and  coincide whenever  are measured in contexts . However, unlike most approaches to contextuality, CbD allows for inconsistent connectedness, with  and differently distributed. This makes CbD applicable to physics experiments in which no-disturbance condition is violated, [24] [26] as well as to human behavior where this condition is violated as a rule. [27] In particular, Vctor Cervantes, Ehtibar Dzhafarov, and colleagues have demonstrated that random variables describing certain paradigms of simple decision making form contextual systems, [28] [29] [30] whereas many other decision-making systems are noncontextual once their inconsistent connectedness is properly taken into account. [27]

Operational framework

An extended notion of contextuality due to Robert Spekkens applies to preparations and transformations as well as to measurements, within a general framework of operational physical theories. [31] With respect to measurements, it removes the assumption of determinism of value assignments that is present in standard definitions of contextuality. This breaks the interpretation of nonlocality as a special case of contextuality, and does not treat irreducible randomness as nonclassical. Nevertheless, it recovers the usual notion of contextuality when outcome determinism is imposed.

Spekkens' contextuality can be motivated using Leibniz's law of the identity of indiscernibles. The law applied to physical systems in this framework mirrors the entended definition of noncontextuality. This was further explored by Simmons et al, [32] who demonstrated that other notions of contextuality could also be motivated by Leibnizian principles, and could be thought of as tools enabling ontological conclusions from operational statistics.

Extracontextuality and extravalence

Given a pure quantum state , Born's rule tells that the probability to obtain another state in a measurement is . However, such a number does not define a full probability distribution, i.e. values over a set of mutually exclusive events, summing up to 1. In order to obtain such a set one needs to specify a context, that is a complete set of commuting operators (CSCO), or equivalently a set of N orthogonal projectors that sum to identity, where is the dimension of the Hilbert space. Then one has as expected. In that sense, one can tell that a state vector alone is predictively incomplete, as long a context has not been specified. [33] The actual physical state, now defined by within a specified context, has been called a modality by Auffèves and Grangier [34] [35]

Since it is clear that alone does not define a modality, what is its status ? If , one sees easily that is associated with an equivalence class of modalities, belonging to different contexts, but connected between themselves with certainty, even if the different CSCO observables do not commute. This equivalence class is called an extravalence class, and the associated transfer of certainty between contexts is called extracontextuality. As a simple example, the usual singlet state for two spins 1/2 can be found in the (non commuting) CSCOs associated with the measurement of the total spin (with ), or with a Bell measurement, and actually it appears in infinitely many different CSCOs - but obviously not in all possible ones. [36]

The concepts of extravalence and extracontextuality are very useful to spell out the role of contextuality in quantum mechanics, that is not non-contextual (like classical physical would be), but not either fully contextual, since modalities belonging to incompatible (non-commuting) contexts may be connected with certainty. Starting now from extracontextuality as a postulate, the fact that certainty can be transferred between contexts, and is then associated with a given projector, is the very basis of the hypotheses of Gleason's theorem, and thus of Born's rule. [37] [38] Also, associating a state vector with an extravalence class clarifies its status as a mathematical tool to calculate probabilities connecting modalities, which correspond to the actual observed physical events or results. This point of view is quite useful, and it can be used everywhere in quantum mechanics.

Other frameworks and extensions

A form of contextuality that may present in the dynamics of a quantum system was introduced by Shane Mansfield and Elham Kashefi, and has been shown to relate to computational quantum advantages. [39] As a notion of contextuality that applies to transformations it is inequivalent to that of Spekkens. Examples explored to date rely on additional memory constraints which have a more computational than foundational motivation. Contextuality may be traded-off against Landauer erasure to obtain equivalent advantages. [40]

Fine's theorem

The Kochen–Specker theorem proves that quantum mechanics is incompatible with realistic noncontextual hidden variable models. On the other hand Bell's theorem proves that quantum mechanics is incompatible with factorisable hidden variable models in an experiment in which measurements are performed at distinct spacelike separated locations. Arthur Fine showed that in the experimental scenario in which the famous CHSH inequalities and proof of nonlocality apply, a factorisable hidden variable model exists if and only if a noncontextual hidden variable model exists. [8] This equivalence was proven to hold more generally in any experimental scenario by Samson Abramsky and Adam Brandenburger. [3] It is for this reason that we may consider nonlocality to be a special case of contextuality.

Measures of contextuality

Contextual fraction

A number of methods exist for quantifying contextuality. One approach is by measuring the degree to which some particular noncontextuality inequality is violated, e.g. the KCBS inequality, the Yu–Oh inequality, [41] or some Bell inequality. A more general measure of contextuality is the contextual fraction. [11]

Given a set of measurement statistics e, consisting of a probability distribution over joint outcomes for each measurement context, we may consider factoring e into a noncontextual part eNC and some remainder e',

The maximum value of λ over all such decompositions is the noncontextual fraction of e denoted NCF(e), while the remainder CF(e)=(1-NCF(e)) is the contextual fraction of e. The idea is that we look for a noncontextual explanation for the highest possible fraction of the data, and what is left over is the irreducibly contextual part. Indeed, for any such decomposition that maximises λ the leftover e' is known to be strongly contextual. This measure of contextuality takes values in the interval [0,1], where 0 corresponds to noncontextuality and 1 corresponds to strong contextuality. The contextual fraction may be computed using linear programming.

It has also been proved that CF(e) is an upper bound on the extent to which e violates any normalised noncontextuality inequality. [11] Here normalisation means that violations are expressed as fractions of the algebraic maximum violation of the inequality. Moreover, the dual linear program to that which maximises λ computes a noncontextual inequality for which this violation is attained. In this sense the contextual fraction is a more neutral measure of contextuality, since it optimises over all possible noncontextual inequalities rather than checking the statistics against one inequality in particular.

Measures of (non)contextuality within the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) framework

Several measures of the degree of contextuality in contextual systems were proposed within the CbD framework, [22] but only one of them, denoted CNT2, has been shown to naturally extend into a measure of noncontextuality in noncontextual systems, NCNT2. This is important, because at least in the non-physical applications of CbD contextuality and noncontextuality are of equal interest. Both CNT2 and NCNT2 are defined as the -distance between a probability vector  representing a system and the surface of the noncontextuality polytope representing all possible noncontextual systems with the same single-variable marginals. For cyclic systems  of dichotomous random variables, it is shown [42] that if the system is contextual (i.e., ),

and if it is noncontextual ( ),

where  is the -distance from the vector  to the surface of the box circumscribing the noncontextuality polytope. More generally, NCNT2 and CNT2 are computed by means of linear programming. [22] The same is true for other CbD-based measures of contextuality. One of them, denoted CNT3, uses the notion of a quasi-coupling, that differs from a coupling in that the probabilities in the joint distribution of its values are replaced with arbitrary reals (allowed to be negative but summing to 1). The class of quasi-couplings  maximizing the probabilities  is always nonempty, and the minimal total variation of the signed measure in this class is a natural measure of contextuality. [43]

Contextuality as a resource for quantum computing

Recently, quantum contextuality has been investigated as a source of quantum advantage and computational speedups in quantum computing.

Magic state distillation

Magic state distillation is a scheme for quantum computing in which quantum circuits constructed only of Clifford operators, which by themselves are fault-tolerant but efficiently classically simulable, are injected with certain "magic" states that promote the computational power to universal fault-tolerant quantum computing. [44] In 2014, Mark Howard, et al. showed that contextuality characterizes magic states for qubits of odd prime dimension and for qubits with real wavefunctions. [45] Extensions to the qubit case have been investigated by Juani Bermejo-Vega et al. [41] This line of research builds on earlier work by Ernesto Galvão, [40] which showed that Wigner function negativity is necessary for a state to be "magic"; it later emerged that Wigner negativity and contextuality are in a sense equivalent notions of nonclassicality. [46]

Measurement-based quantum computing

Measurement-based quantum computation (MBQC) is a model for quantum computing in which a classical control computer interacts with a quantum system by specifying measurements to be performed and receiving measurement outcomes in return. The measurement statistics for the quantum system may or may not exhibit contextuality. A variety of results have shown that the presence of contextuality enhances the computational power of an MBQC.

In particular, researchers have considered an artificial situation in which the power of the classical control computer is restricted to only being able to compute linear Boolean functions, i.e. to solve problems in the Parity L complexity class ⊕L. For interactions with multi-qubit quantum systems a natural assumption is that each step of the interaction consists of a binary choice of measurement which in turn returns a binary outcome. An MBQC of this restricted kind is known as an l2-MBQC. [47]

Anders and Browne

In 2009, Janet Anders and Dan Browne showed that two specific examples of nonlocality and contextuality were sufficient to compute a non-linear function. This in turn could be used to boost computational power to that of a universal classical computer, i.e. to solve problems in the complexity class P. [48] This is sometimes referred to as measurement-based classical computation. [49] The specific examples made use of the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger nonlocality proof and the supra-quantum Popescu–Rohrlich box.

Raussendorf

In 2013, Robert Raussendorf showed more generally that access to strongly contextual measurement statistics is necessary and sufficient for an l2-MBQC to compute a non-linear function. He also showed that to compute non-linear Boolean functions with sufficiently high probability requires contextuality. [47]

Abramsky, Barbosa and Mansfield

A further generalization and refinement of these results due to Samson Abramsky, Rui Soares Barbosa and Shane Mansfield appeared in 2017, proving a precise quantifiable relationship between the probability of successfully computing any given non-linear function and the degree of contextuality present in the l2-MBQC as measured by the contextual fraction. [11] Specifically,

where are the probability of success, the contextual fraction of the measurement statistics e, and a measure of the non-linearity of the function to be computed , respectively.

Further examples

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quantum entanglement</span> Correlation between quantum systems

Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon that occurs when a duet of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in such a way that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics.

Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories, given some basic assumptions about the nature of measurement. "Local" here refers to the principle of locality, the idea that a particle can only be influenced by its immediate surroundings, and that interactions mediated by physical fields cannot propagate faster than the speed of light. "Hidden variables" are putative properties of quantum particles that are not included in quantum theory but nevertheless affect the outcome of experiments. In the words of physicist John Stewart Bell, for whom this family of results is named, "If [a hidden-variable theory] is local it will not agree with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics it will not be local."

In physics, the CHSH inequality can be used in the proof of Bell's theorem, which states that certain consequences of entanglement in quantum mechanics cannot be reproduced by local hidden-variable theories. Experimental verification of the inequality being violated is seen as confirmation that nature cannot be described by such theories. CHSH stands for John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt, who described it in a much-cited paper published in 1969. They derived the CHSH inequality, which, as with John Stewart Bell's original inequality, is a constraint—on the statistical occurrence of "coincidences" in a Bell test—which is necessarily true if an underlying local hidden-variable theory exists. In practice, the inequality is routinely violated by modern experiments in quantum mechanics.

In quantum physics, a measurement is the testing or manipulation of a physical system to yield a numerical result. A fundamental feature of quantum theory is that the predictions it makes are probabilistic. The procedure for finding a probability involves combining a quantum state, which mathematically describes a quantum system, with a mathematical representation of the measurement to be performed on that system. The formula for this calculation is known as the Born rule. For example, a quantum particle like an electron can be described by a quantum state that associates to each point in space a complex number called a probability amplitude. Applying the Born rule to these amplitudes gives the probabilities that the electron will be found in one region or another when an experiment is performed to locate it. This is the best the theory can do; it cannot say for certain where the electron will be found. The same quantum state can also be used to make a prediction of how the electron will be moving, if an experiment is performed to measure its momentum instead of its position. The uncertainty principle implies that, whatever the quantum state, the range of predictions for the electron's position and the range of predictions for its momentum cannot both be narrow. Some quantum states imply a near-certain prediction of the result of a position measurement, but the result of a momentum measurement will be highly unpredictable, and vice versa. Furthermore, the fact that nature violates the statistical conditions known as Bell inequalities indicates that the unpredictability of quantum measurement results cannot be explained away as due to ignorance about "local hidden variables" within quantum systems.

A Bell test, also known as Bell inequality test or Bell experiment, is a real-world physics experiment designed to test the theory of quantum mechanics in relation to Albert Einstein's concept of local realism. Named for John Stewart Bell, the experiments test whether or not the real world satisfies local realism, which requires the presence of some additional local variables to explain the behavior of particles like photons and electrons. As of 2015, all Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.

In the interpretation of quantum mechanics, a local hidden-variable theory is a hidden-variable theory that satisfies the principle of locality. These models attempt to account for the probabilistic features of quantum mechanics via the mechanism of underlying, but inaccessible variables, with the additional requirement that distant events be statistically independent.

A Tsirelson bound is an upper limit to quantum mechanical correlations between distant events. Given that quantum mechanics violates Bell inequalities, a natural question to ask is how large can the violation be. The answer is precisely the Tsirelson bound for the particular Bell inequality in question. In general, this bound is lower than the bound that would be obtained if more general theories, only constrained by "no-signalling", were considered, and much research has been dedicated to the question of why this is the case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pilot wave theory</span> One interpretation of quantum mechanics

In theoretical physics, the pilot wave theory, also known as Bohmian mechanics, was the first known example of a hidden-variable theory, presented by Louis de Broglie in 1927. Its more modern version, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, interprets quantum mechanics as a deterministic theory, avoiding troublesome notions such as wave–particle duality, instantaneous wave function collapse, and the paradox of Schrödinger's cat. To solve these problems, the theory is inherently nonlocal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quantum tomography</span> Reconstruction of quantum states based on measurements

Quantum tomography or quantum state tomography is the process by which a quantum state is reconstructed using measurements on an ensemble of identical quantum states. The source of these states may be any device or system which prepares quantum states either consistently into quantum pure states or otherwise into general mixed states. To be able to uniquely identify the state, the measurements must be tomographically complete. That is, the measured operators must form an operator basis on the Hilbert space of the system, providing all the information about the state. Such a set of observations is sometimes called a quorum. The term tomography was first used in the quantum physics literature in a 1993 paper introducing experimental optical homodyne tomography.

In physics, the Tsallis entropy is a generalization of the standard Boltzmann–Gibbs entropy. It is proportional to the expectation of the q-logarithm of a distribution.

In quantum mechanics, the Kochen–Specker (KS) theorem, also known as the Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem, is a "no-go" theorem proved by John S. Bell in 1966 and by Simon B. Kochen and Ernst Specker in 1967. It places certain constraints on the permissible types of hidden-variable theories, which try to explain the predictions of quantum mechanics in a context-independent way. The version of the theorem proved by Kochen and Specker also gave an explicit example for this constraint in terms of a finite number of state vectors.

In mathematical physics, Gleason's theorem shows that the rule one uses to calculate probabilities in quantum physics, the Born rule, can be derived from the usual mathematical representation of measurements in quantum physics together with the assumption of non-contextuality. Andrew M. Gleason first proved the theorem in 1957, answering a question posed by George W. Mackey, an accomplishment that was historically significant for the role it played in showing that wide classes of hidden-variable theories are inconsistent with quantum physics. Multiple variations have been proven in the years since. Gleason's theorem is of particular importance for the field of quantum logic and its attempt to find a minimal set of mathematical axioms for quantum theory.

In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality refers to the phenomenon by which the measurement statistics of a multipartite quantum system do not allow an interpretation with local realism. Quantum nonlocality has been experimentally verified under a variety of physical assumptions. Any physical theory that aims at superseding or replacing quantum theory should account for such experiments and therefore cannot fulfill local realism; quantum nonlocality is a property of the universe that is independent of our description of nature.

Quantum nondemolition (QND) measurement is a special type of measurement of a quantum system in which the uncertainty of the measured observable does not increase from its measured value during the subsequent normal evolution of the system. This necessarily requires that the measurement process preserves the physical integrity of the measured system, and moreover places requirements on the relationship between the measured observable and the self-Hamiltonian of the system. In a sense, QND measurements are the "most classical" and least disturbing type of measurement in quantum mechanics.

In quantum information and quantum computing, a cluster state is a type of highly entangled state of multiple qubits. Cluster states are generated in lattices of qubits with Ising type interactions. A cluster C is a connected subset of a d-dimensional lattice, and a cluster state is a pure state of the qubits located on C. They are different from other types of entangled states such as GHZ states or W states in that it is more difficult to eliminate quantum entanglement in the case of cluster states. Another way of thinking of cluster states is as a particular instance of graph states, where the underlying graph is a connected subset of a d-dimensional lattice. Cluster states are especially useful in the context of the one-way quantum computer. For a comprehensible introduction to the topic see.

The Leggett–Garg inequality, named for Anthony James Leggett and Anupam Garg, is a mathematical inequality fulfilled by all macrorealistic physical theories. Here, macrorealism is a classical worldview defined by the conjunction of two postulates:

  1. Macrorealism per se: "A macroscopic object, which has available to it two or more macroscopically distinct states, is at any given time in a definite one of those states."
  2. Noninvasive measurability: "It is possible in principle to determine which of these states the system is in without any effect on the state itself, or on the subsequent system dynamics."

In quantum information theory, quantum discord is a measure of nonclassical correlations between two subsystems of a quantum system. It includes correlations that are due to quantum physical effects but do not necessarily involve quantum entanglement.

The noisy-storage model refers to a cryptographic model employed in quantum cryptography. It assumes that the quantum memory device of an attacker (adversary) trying to break the protocol is imperfect (noisy). The main goal of this model is to enable the secure implementation of two-party cryptographic primitives, such as bit commitment, oblivious transfer and secure identification.

Boson sampling is a restricted model of non-universal quantum computation introduced by Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov after the original work of Lidror Troyansky and Naftali Tishby, that explored possible usage of boson scattering to evaluate expectation values of permanents of matrices. The model consists of sampling from the probability distribution of identical bosons scattered by a linear interferometer. Although the problem is well defined for any bosonic particles, its photonic version is currently considered as the most promising platform for a scalable implementation of a boson sampling device, which makes it a non-universal approach to linear optical quantum computing. Moreover, while not universal, the boson sampling scheme is strongly believed to implement computing tasks which are hard to implement with classical computers by using far fewer physical resources than a full linear-optical quantum computing setup. This advantage makes it an ideal candidate for demonstrating the power of quantum computation in the near term.

Quantum foundations is a discipline of science that seeks to understand the most counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory, reformulate it and even propose new generalizations thereof. Contrary to other physical theories, such as general relativity, the defining axioms of quantum theory are quite ad hoc, with no obvious physical intuition. While they lead to the right experimental predictions, they do not come with a mental picture of the world where they fit.

References

  1. 1 2 S. Kochen and E.P. Specker, "The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics", Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics17, 59–87 (1967)
  2. 1 2 Gleason, A. M, "Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space", Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics6, 885–893 (1957).
  3. 1 2 3 Abramsky, Samson; Brandenburger, Adam (2011-11-28). "The Sheaf-Theoretic Structure Of Non-Locality and Contextuality". New Journal of Physics. 13 (11): 113036. arXiv: 1102.0264 . Bibcode:2011NJPh...13k3036A. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036. ISSN   1367-2630. S2CID   17435105.
  4. Cabello, Adan; Severini, Simone; Winter, Andreas (2014-01-27). "Graph-Theoretic Approach to Quantum Correlations". Physical Review Letters. 112 (4): 040401. arXiv: 1401.7081 . Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112d0401C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.040401. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   24580419. S2CID   34998358.
  5. 1 2 Acín, Antonio; Fritz, Tobias; Leverrier, Anthony; Sainz, Ana Belén (2015-03-01). "A Combinatorial Approach to Nonlocality and Contextuality". Communications in Mathematical Physics. 334 (2): 533–628. arXiv: 1212.4084 . Bibcode:2015CMaPh.334..533A. doi:10.1007/s00220-014-2260-1. ISSN   1432-0916. S2CID   119292509.
  6. Abramsky, Samson; Mansfield, Shane; Barbosa, Rui Soares (2012-10-01). "The Cohomology of Non-Locality and Contextuality". Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science. 95: 1–14. arXiv: 1111.3620 . doi:10.4204/EPTCS.95.1. ISSN   2075-2180. S2CID   9046880.
  7. 1 2 Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N.; Kujala, Janne V. (2016-09-07). "Probabilistic foundations of contextuality". Fortschritte der Physik. 65 (6–8): 1600040. arXiv: 1604.08412 . Bibcode:2017ForPh..6500040D. doi:10.1002/prop.201600040. ISSN   0015-8208. S2CID   56245502.
  8. 1 2 Fine, Arthur (1982-02-01). "Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities". Physical Review Letters. 48 (5): 291–295. Bibcode:1982PhRvL..48..291F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.291.
  9. Raussendorf, Robert (2013-08-19). "Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation". Physical Review A. 88 (2): 022322. arXiv: 0907.5449 . Bibcode:2013PhRvA..88b2322R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.022322. ISSN   1050-2947. S2CID   118495073.
  10. Howard, Mark; Wallman, Joel; Veitch, Victor; Emerson, Joseph (June 2014). "Contextuality supplies the 'magic' for quantum computation". Nature. 510 (7505): 351–355. arXiv: 1401.4174 . Bibcode:2014Natur.510..351H. doi:10.1038/nature13460. ISSN   0028-0836. PMID   24919152. S2CID   4463585.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Abramsky, Samson; Barbosa, Rui Soares; Mansfield, Shane (2017-08-04). "Contextual Fraction as a Measure of Contextuality". Physical Review Letters. 119 (5): 050504. arXiv: 1705.07918 . Bibcode:2017PhRvL.119e0504A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.050504. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   28949723. S2CID   206295638.
  12. Bermejo-Vega, Juan; Delfosse, Nicolas; Browne, Dan E.; Okay, Cihan; Raussendorf, Robert (2017-09-21). "Contextuality as a Resource for Models of Quantum Computation with Qubits". Physical Review Letters. 119 (12): 120505. arXiv: 1610.08529 . Bibcode:2017PhRvL.119l0505B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.120505. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   29341645. S2CID   34682991.
  13. Crull, Elise; Bacciagaluppi, Guido (2016). Grete Hermann - Between Physics and Philosophy. Netherlands: Springer. p. 154. ISBN   978-94-024-0968-0.
  14. Carsten, Held (2000-09-11). "The Kochen–Specker Theorem". plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 2018-11-17.
  15. 1 2 Abramsky, Samson; Soares Barbosa, Rui; Kishida, Kohei; Lal, Raymond; Mansfield, Shane (2015). "Contextuality, Cohomology and Paradox". Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik GMBH, Wadern/Saarbruecken, Germany. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs). 41: 211–228. arXiv: 1502.03097 . Bibcode:2015arXiv150203097A. doi:10.4230/lipics.csl.2015.211. ISBN   9783939897903. S2CID   2150387.
  16. Abramsky, Samson (2013), Tannen, Val; Wong, Limsoon; Libkin, Leonid; Fan, Wenfei (eds.), "Relational Databases and Bell's Theorem", In Search of Elegance in the Theory and Practice of Computation: Essays Dedicated to Peter Buneman, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, vol. 8000, pp. 13–35, arXiv: 1208.6416 , doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41660-6_2, ISBN   9783642416606, S2CID   18824713
  17. Abramsky, Samson; Sadrzadeh, Mehrnoosh (2014), Casadio, Claudia; Coecke, Bob; Moortgat, Michael; Scott, Philip (eds.), "Semantic Unification", Categories and Types in Logic, Language, and Physics: Essays Dedicated to Jim Lambek on the Occasion of His 90th Birthday, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1–13, arXiv: 1403.3351 , doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54789-8_1, ISBN   9783642547898, S2CID   462058
  18. Abramsky, Samson; Dawar, Anuj; Wang, Pengming (2017). "The pebbling comonad in Finite Model Theory". 2017 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS). pp. 1–12. arXiv: 1704.05124 . doi:10.1109/LICS.2017.8005129. ISBN   9781509030187. S2CID   11767737.
  19. A. Cabello, S. Severini, A. Winter, Graph-Theoretic Approach to Quantum Correlations", Physical Review Letters112 (2014) 040401.
  20. Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N.; Cervantes, Víctor H.; Kujala, Janne V. (2017). "Contextuality in canonical systems of random variables". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 375 (2106): 20160389. arXiv: 1703.01252 . Bibcode:2017RSPTA.37560389D. doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0389. ISSN   1364-503X. PMC   5628257 . PMID   28971941.
  21. 1 2 Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N. (2019-09-16). "On joint distributions, counterfactual values and hidden variables in understanding contextuality". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 377 (2157): 20190144. arXiv: 1809.04528 . Bibcode:2019RSPTA.37790144D. doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0144. ISSN   1364-503X. PMID   31522638. S2CID   92985214.
  22. 1 2 3 Kujala, Janne V.; Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N. (2019-09-16). "Measures of contextuality and non-contextuality". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 377 (2157): 20190149. arXiv: 1903.07170 . Bibcode:2019RSPTA.37790149K. doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0149. ISSN   1364-503X. PMID   31522634. S2CID   90262337.
  23. Kujala, Janne V.; Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N. (2015-11-02). "Proof of a Conjecture on Contextuality in Cyclic Systems with Binary Variables". Foundations of Physics. 46 (3): 282–299. arXiv: 1503.02181 . doi:10.1007/s10701-015-9964-8. ISSN   0015-9018. S2CID   12167276.
  24. 1 2 Kujala, Janne V.; Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N.; Larsson, Jan-Åke (2015-10-06). "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for an Extended Noncontextuality in a Broad Class of Quantum Mechanical Systems". Physical Review Letters. 115 (15): 150401. arXiv: 1412.4724 . Bibcode:2015PhRvL.115o0401K. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.150401. ISSN   0031-9007. PMID   26550710. S2CID   204428.
  25. Araújo, Mateus; Quintino, Marco Túlio; Budroni, Costantino; Cunha, Marcelo Terra; Cabello, Adán (2013-08-21). "All noncontextuality inequalities for then-cycle scenario". Physical Review A. 88 (2): 022118. arXiv: 1206.3212 . Bibcode:2013PhRvA..88b2118A. doi:10.1103/physreva.88.022118. ISSN   1050-2947. S2CID   55266215.
  26. Dzhafarov, Ehtibar; Kujala, Janne (2018). "Contextuality Analysis of the Double Slit Experiment(with a Glimpse into Three Slits)". Entropy. 20 (4): 278. arXiv: 1801.10593 . Bibcode:2018Entrp..20..278D. doi: 10.3390/e20040278 . ISSN   1099-4300. PMC   7512795 . PMID   33265369.
  27. 1 2 Dzhafarov, E. N.; Zhang, Ru; Kujala, Janne (2016). "Is there contextuality in behavioural and social systems?". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 374 (2058): 20150099. arXiv: 1504.07422 . doi: 10.1098/rsta.2015.0099 . ISSN   1364-503X. PMID   26621988.
  28. Cervantes, Víctor H.; Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N. (2018). "Snow queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in human choices". Decision. 5 (3): 193–204. arXiv: 1711.00418 . doi: 10.1037/dec0000095 . ISSN   2325-9973.
  29. Basieva, Irina; Cervantes, Víctor H.; Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N.; Khrennikov, Andrei (2019). "True contextuality beats direct influences in human decision making". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 148 (11): 1925–1937. arXiv: 1807.05684 . doi:10.1037/xge0000585. ISSN   1939-2222. PMID   31021152. S2CID   49864257.
  30. Cervantes, Víctor H.; Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N. (2019). "True contextuality in a psychophysical experiment". Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 91: 119–127. arXiv: 1812.00105 . doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2019.04.006. ISSN   0022-2496. S2CID   54440741.
  31. Spekkens, R. W. (2005-05-31). "Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements". Physical Review A. 71 (5): 052108. arXiv: quant-ph/0406166 . Bibcode:2005PhRvA..71e2108S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052108. ISSN   1050-2947. S2CID   38186461.
  32. A.W. Simmons, Joel J. Wallman, H. Pashayan, S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, "Contextuality under weak assumptions", New J. Phys. 19 033030, (2017).
  33. P. Grangier, Contextual inferences, nonlocality, and the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, Entropy 23:12, 1660(2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/12/1660
  34. P. Grangier, Contextual objectivity: a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, European Journal of Physics 23, 331 (2002) quant-ph/0012122
  35. A. Auffèves and P. Grangier, Contexts, Systems and Modalities: a new ontology for quantum mechanics, Found. Phys. 46, 121 (2016) arxiv:1409.2120
  36. P. Grangier, Why is incomplete indeed: a simple illustration, arxiv:2210.05969
  37. A. Auffèves and P. Grangier, Deriving Born's rule from an Inference to the Best Explanation, Found. Phys. 50, 1781 (2020) arxiv:1910.13738
  38. A. Auffèves and P. Grangier, Revisiting Born's rule through Uhlhorn's and Gleason's theorems, Entropy 23, 1660 (2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/23/12/1660
  39. 1 2 Mansfield, Shane; Kashefi, Elham (2018-12-03). "Quantum Advantage from Sequential-Transformation Contextuality". Physical Review Letters. 121 (23): 230401. arXiv: 1801.08150 . Bibcode:2018PhRvL.121w0401M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.230401. PMID   30576205. S2CID   55452360.
  40. 1 2 Henaut, Luciana; Catani, Lorenzo; Browne, Dan E.; Mansfield, Shane; Pappa, Anna (2018-12-17). "Tsirelson's bound and Landauer's principle in a single-system game" (PDF). Physical Review A. 98 (6): 060302. arXiv: 1806.05624 . Bibcode:2018PhRvA..98f0302H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.060302. S2CID   51693980.
  41. 1 2 Yu, Sixia; Oh, C. H. (2012-01-18). "State-Independent Proof of Kochen-Specker Theorem with 13 Rays". Physical Review Letters. 108 (3): 030402. arXiv: 1109.4396 . Bibcode:2012PhRvL.108c0402Y. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.030402. PMID   22400719. S2CID   40786298.
  42. Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N.; Kujala, Janne V.; Cervantes, Víctor H. (2020). "Contextuality and noncontextuality measures and generalized Bell inequalities for cyclic systems". Physical Review A. 101 (4): 042119. arXiv: 1907.03328 . Bibcode:2020PhRvA.101d2119D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.101.042119. S2CID   195833043.
  43. Dzhafarov, Ehtibar N.; Kujala, Janne V. (2016). "Context–content systems of random variables: The Contextuality-by-Default theory". Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 74: 11–33. arXiv: 1511.03516 . doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2016.04.010. ISSN   0022-2496. S2CID   119580221.
  44. Bravyi, Sergey; Kitaev, Alexei (2005-02-22). "Universal quantum computation with ideal Clifford gates and noisy ancillas" (PDF). Physical Review A. 71 (2): 022316. arXiv: quant-ph/0403025 . Bibcode:2005PhRvA..71b2316B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022316. S2CID   17504370.
  45. Howard, Mark; Wallman, Joel; Veitch, Victor; Emerson, Joseph (June 2014). "Contextuality supplies the 'magic' for quantum computation". Nature. 510 (7505): 351–355. arXiv: 1401.4174 . Bibcode:2014Natur.510..351H. doi:10.1038/nature13460. ISSN   0028-0836. PMID   24919152. S2CID   4463585.
  46. Spekkens, Robert W. (2008-07-07). "Negativity and Contextuality are Equivalent Notions of Nonclassicality". Physical Review Letters. 101 (2): 020401. arXiv: 0710.5549 . Bibcode:2008PhRvL.101b0401S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.020401. PMID   18764163. S2CID   1821813.
  47. 1 2 Raussendorf, Robert (2013-08-19). "Contextuality in Measurement-based Quantum Computation". Physical Review A. 88 (2): 022322. arXiv: 0907.5449 . Bibcode:2013PhRvA..88b2322R. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.022322. ISSN   1050-2947. S2CID   118495073.
  48. Anders, Janet; Browne, Dan E. (2009-02-04). "Computational Power of Correlations". Physical Review Letters. 102 (5): 050502. arXiv: 0805.1002 . Bibcode:2009PhRvL.102e0502A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.050502. PMID   19257493. S2CID   19295670.
  49. Hoban, Matty J.; Wallman, Joel J.; Anwar, Hussain; Usher, Naïri; Raussendorf, Robert; Browne, Dan E. (2014-04-09). "Measurement-Based Classical Computation" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 112 (14): 140505. arXiv: 1304.2667 . Bibcode:2014PhRvL.112n0505H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.140505. PMID   24765935. S2CID   19547995.
  50. Chailloux, André; Kerenidis, Iordanis; Kundu, Srijita; Sikora, Jamie (April 2016). "Optimal bounds for parity-oblivious random access codes". New Journal of Physics. 18 (4): 045003. arXiv: 1404.5153 . Bibcode:2016NJPh...18d5003C. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/4/045003. ISSN   1367-2630. S2CID   118490822.
  51. Schmid, David; Spekkens, Robert W. (2018-02-02). "Contextual Advantage for State Discrimination". Physical Review X. 8 (1): 011015. arXiv: 1706.04588 . Bibcode:2018PhRvX...8a1015S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011015. S2CID   119049978.
  52. Kleinmann, Matthias; Gühne, Otfried; Portillo, José R.; Larsson, Jan-Åke; Cabello, Adán (November 2011). "Memory cost of quantum contextuality". New Journal of Physics. 13 (11): 113011. arXiv: 1007.3650 . Bibcode:2011NJPh...13k3011K. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113011. ISSN   1367-2630. S2CID   13466604.