Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

This paper claims that generalized contextuality is typical, not exceptional, in randomly sampled qubit prepare-and-measure experiments: with only seven pure states and eight projective measurements, over 99% of random scenarios are context

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 08:24 UTC pith:F3MD5YF3

load-bearing objection A genuinely new and mostly solid numerical study of how often random qubit prepare-and-measure scenarios are contextual, but the headline numbers rest on an LP oracle whose false-positive rate is calibrated at only one classical point and on an unrefereed same-group preprint. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.20722 v3 pith:F3MD5YF3 submitted 2025-10-23 quant-ph

Typicality of Contextuality

Vinicius P. Rossi , Beata Zjawin , Roberto D. Baldij\~ao , David Schmid , John H. Selby , Ana Bel\'en Sainz This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ta03.67.-a
keywords generalized contextualitytypicalityprepare-and-measure scenarioslinear programrobustness of contextualityqubitparity-oblivious multiplexingBell nonlocality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper asks how often a randomly chosen quantum experiment is nonclassical, in the sense of Spekkens' generalized noncontextuality, where classical means that operationally indistinguishable preparations and measurements are represented identically in an underlying model. Using a linear program that searches for such a model, the authors find that contextuality is typical: for random qubit preparations and binary measurements, more than 99% of samples are contextual once the experiment has as few as seven pure states and eight projective measurements. They also show that typicality degrades only gently with mixedness and unsharpness, so contextuality remains common under realistic noise. However, high quantitative degrees of contextuality, the kind that yield strong quantum advantages, are not typical, as illustrated with parity-oblivious multiplexing.

Core claim

The central claim is that generalized contextuality, not classicality, is the generic behavior of qubit fragments. Concretely, for pure states and projective measurements, numerical simulations with N=10^6 samples give t(n=7,m=8,d=2)>99%, and every reported t≈100% value has a Wilson lower bound ensuring the true typicality is at least 99.999% with 99% confidence. Linear dependence among pure states is the analytical trigger: below n=d^2 states typicality is provably zero (Lemma 1), while above it, in the limit of many measurements, typicality tends to one (Prop. 3). The paper's message is that stumbling onto a nonclassical resource requires no careful engineering, but obtaining a large resou

What carries the argument

The linear-programming test for simplex embeddability, which computes the robustness of contextuality r, the minimal amount of depolarizing noise needed to make the sampled fragment admit a generalized-noncontextual model. Any sample with r>10^-7 is labelled contextual, and the threshold is calibrated at the provably classical point (n=4,m=2). The analytical backbone is Lemma 1 (n≤d^2 linearly independent states are never contextual) and Prop. 3 (for n>d^2 pure states, typicality tends to 1 as m→∞), which together set the phase boundary in (n,m) space.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on trusting the numerical linear program with its r>10^-7 cutoff as a correct oracle for generalized noncontextuality at every probed parameter point, calibrated only at the provably classical (n=4,m=2) scenario, and on an unrefereed companion theorem identifying pure-state linear dependence as necessary and sufficient for contextuality when all measurements are allowed.

What would settle it

Run an exact-arithmetic or independently implemented noncontextuality test on the same n=7,m=8 pure-qubit samples: if even 1% of the samples the paper classifies as contextual were found to admit a generalized-noncontextual model, the claimed >99% typicality would be false; equivalently, feeding in deliberately constructed classical fragments at those parameter values and observing r>10^-7 in more than one in a thousand cases would expose a false-positive rate sufficient to undermine the result.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • With seven random pure qubit states and eight random projective measurements, over 99% of experiments are already contextual; near-100% typicality means the true fraction is certified above 99.999% with 99% confidence.
  • For n>d^2, typicality approaches 1 as the number of measurements grows, and monotonicity means adding either states or measurements can push typicality to any level below 1.
  • Typicality survives realistic noise: with purity and sharpness lowered, reaching 99% typicality requires only single-digit to low-double-digit numbers of preparations, for example n=7 for purity in 0.9–1 and n=25 for unconstrained POVMs.
  • Contextuality is a more accessible nonclassical resource than Bell nonlocality: its typicality saturates much faster for comparable resources.
  • High typicality does not imply high advantage: in parity-oblivious multiplexing with random projective measurements, contextuality occurs in 98.6% of samples but the average advantage is only about 8% over the optimal classical strategy, compared with 18.3% for the optimal strategy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The n>d^2 threshold suggests a sharp typicality transition in random fragments: below it classical explanation is guaranteed almost surely, above it nonclassicality is generic. One could test whether this transition sharpens with dimension in higher-dimensional random qudit experiments.
  • If the result generalizes to higher dimensions, contextuality would be not just common but the default state of unengineered quantum experiments, strengthening the case that quantum advantages in communication and computation are easier to find than to quantify.
  • A practical extension: using the toolbox to map the purity, sharpness, n, and m boundary for a specific laboratory's noise profile could let experimenters deliberately hit t>99% without engineering special states, provided the linear-program oracle remains reliable outside its calibration point.
  • Editorial inference: the gap between typicality and average advantage suggests that resource-theoretic measures such as robustness or success rate, rather than mere existence of contextuality, are the quantities that predict practical quantum advantage.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies how often randomly sampled qubit prepare-and-measure fragments are contextual in the generalized (Spekkens) sense. It defines a numerical typicality t(n,m,d;N) as the fraction of N samples for which the simplex-embedding linear program of Ref. [32] returns robustness r > 10^-7. For pure states and projective measurements the authors report t > 99% for (n=7,m=8), with many cells at t≈100% over N=10^6 samples, and use Wilson confidence intervals to claim the true typicality is at least 99.999% with 99% confidence. They also study mixed states and POVMs, constraints on purity/sharpness, compare with Bell nonlocality, and apply the framework to parity-oblivious multiplexing. Analytical results include: Lemma 1 (t=0 for n≤d^2), Proposition 2 (t<1 for any finite scenario), and Proposition 3 (asymptotically t→1 for n>d^2 or m>d^2 in certain limits). An open-source toolbox is provided.

Significance. If the numerical oracle is faithful, the paper makes a substantial quantitative contribution: it shows that generalized contextuality is generic in modest random qubit experiments rather than requiring careful engineering, and it provides an open-source toolbox for experiment design. The statistical treatment using Wilson intervals and the sanity check at the provably classical (n=4,m=2) point are commendable. The POM analysis usefully separates typicality of contextuality from typicality of quantum advantage. The comparison with Bell nonlocality is interesting and clearly caveated. The paper is therefore potentially important for both foundations and experimental practice, provided the computational certification can be independently validated at the probed parameter points.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1.2 and Appendix C] The linear-program decision procedure that underlies all numerical claims is calibrated only at the single provably classical point (n=4,m=2,d=2). The paper itself notes that the r-threshold 'may depend on the scenario, the solver employed... and the internal optimization settings', yet the headline cells of Fig. 2(a) — e.g., (n=7,m=8), (n=10,m=6), (n=19,m=20) — are far from this calibration point. A scenario-dependent tendency of the pipeline to return r>10^-7 for noncontextual fragments would directly inflate the reported t≈100% values and would be invisible in the (4,2) calibration. Please add false-positive calibrations at the high-(n,m) cells, for example by feeding the LP provably noncontextual fragments with comparable n,m (e.g., states confined to a simplex and effects from its dual, or sufficiently depolarized states/effects), and report the resulting false-positive rates and th
  2. [Appendix D, Prop. 3 and Lemma 1] The asymptotic statements (Prop. 3 and Eq. (7)) and the interpretation of the m=92 numerical results depend on the theorem from the unreviewed same-group preprint Ref. [33] that, for pure states, linear dependence is necessary and sufficient for contextuality when all measurements are available. Since this is a load-bearing input and not an independent check, the paper should either include a self-contained proof of this theorem in an appendix or explicitly state that Prop. 3 and the associated asymptotic claims are conditional on Ref. [33]. This issue does not affect the finite-numerical results themselves, but it affects the analytical framework in which those results are interpreted.
  3. [§1.2 and §2.1] The claim that t(n,m,d;N)≈100% 'ensures' that true typicality is at least 99.999% with 99% confidence conflates binomial sampling confidence with correctness of the LP oracle. The Wilson interval only bounds sampling error conditional on the oracle being exact at the probed (n,m). The caveat 'assuming that all 10^6 trials were unproblematic' appears only in Appendix C; it should be stated prominently in the main text and linked to the calibration requirement raised above. As written, the abstract and §2.1 could be read as asserting an unconditional certification that the LP does not provide.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1] The abstract states that contextuality arises with probability over 99% in experiments with 'a modest number of random preparations and measurements'. This is not the case for the mixed-state/POVM sampling of Fig. 2(b), where the maximum in the scanned range is 97.7%. Please qualify the central claim by specifying that it holds for pure/sharp or sufficiently constrained ensembles.
  2. [Eq. (9)] Equation (9) would be clearer with parentheses, e.g., s = (r/2 - s_NC)/(r-1). As printed, the fraction is ambiguous.
  3. [§2.1, fixed measurement set] The counting of the fixed measurement set is confusing: the text refers to 'm=92 distinct projectors' and then to '184 distinct effects' after including antipodal points. Please clarify whether m denotes the number of binary measurements, the number of projectors, or the number of POVM effects, so that the reader can reproduce the exact set.
  4. [Appendix D, Prop. 2] The proof of Prop. 2 invokes Lebesgue volume for the mixed-state sampling, whereas the numerical sampling uses the Hilbert-Schmidt measure (and rejection). The argument still works because both measures are absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure, but this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Analytical boundary results are imported from a same-group preprint, but the main numerical typicality claim rests on the published LP and is not reduced to a fitted input by construction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2.1, Lemma 1 proof (page 7)]
    "As shown in Ref. [33], if a set of states is linearly independent, then there are no prepare-and-measure experiments where one can witness contextuality, even if all measurements are considered. In other words, the fragment ({ρ_i}^n_{i=1}, E_all) admits of a noncontextual model, where E_all denotes the set of all effects."

    The low-n boundary of the paper's typicality picture is not derived here; it is taken as an established theorem from Ref. [33], an unreviewed arXiv preprint whose author list overlaps with the present paper. Lemma 1, the n>=4 cut used in all simulations, and the n=4 sanity check in Appendix C all treat this imported necessary condition as fact. The analytical claim is therefore load-bearing on a same-group citation rather than on a proof contained in this manuscript.

  2. self citation load bearing [Appendix D, proof of Proposition 3]
    "From Ref. [33], any set Ω_n of n>d^2 randomly sampled states will be such that the fragment (Ω_n, E) does not admit of a simplex embedding."

    Proposition 3, which is used to claim that typicality tends to 1 and that t grows monotonically, delegates its key impossibility statement to the same unreviewed preprint by overlapping authors. The asymptotic 'prediction' is essentially a corollary of Ref. [33]'s necessary-and-sufficient boundary, so the analytical headline is not independently established within this paper.

full rationale

The central numerical claim — that t(n,m,d=2;N=10^6) exceeds 99% for modest numbers of random qubit preparations and measurements — is an empirical frequency of outputs of the linear program of Ref. [32]. That LP is a published, parameter-free decision procedure for simplex embeddability, and the paper's use of it is not circular: the threshold r>10^-7 is a numerical tolerance chosen so that the provably classical (n=4,m=2) point returns r=0, and the reported typicalities are counts of LP outputs above that tolerance. A scenario-dependent false-positive rate in the LP would be a correctness or calibration concern, not a by-construction reduction of the predicted quantity to a fitted parameter. The Wilson-score certification is likewise a standard binomial confidence statement. However, the analytic scaffolding is less clean: Lemma 1 and Proposition 3 both import their key theorem from Ref. [33], an unreviewed arXiv preprint co-authored by one of the present authors. The paper does not prove or independently verify that theorem, yet it uses it to set the n>=4 boundary, to justify the n=4 numerical calibration, and to establish the asymptotic typicality result. That is a load-bearing self-citation. Because the numerical typicality results remain independently generated by the published LP, the circularity is partial rather than total.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim is a numerical theorem whose two hinges are (i) the simplex-embedding LP of Ref [32] as a faithful oracle and (ii) the Ref [33] linear-dependence theorem. Both come from the present authors' circle. The main hand-chosen constants are the classicality threshold 10^-7, the 92-direction measurement grid, and the sampling measures; none is a physical parameter, but all shape the reported percentages.

free parameters (3)
  • classicality threshold r_thresh = 10^-7
    Robustness values r ≤ 10^-7 are declared classical. Chosen in Appendix C so that the provably-classical sanity scenario (n=4, m=2, d=2) yields 0% typicality under ECOS/CLARABEL; every 't≈100%' headline inherits this calibration.
  • fixed-effect discretization grid (jπ/20, kπ/5) = 92 dichotomic projectors (184 effects)
    Hand-chosen grid approximating the full projective-effect space for Fig. 3. The finite grid leaves typicality below the theoretical value (t(n=5)=99.76% vs. the almost-sure linear-dependence guarantee), so quantitative '≈100%' claims for n≥6 are grid-dependent.
  • sampling measure for mixed states/POVMs = Hilbert-Schmidt (Ginibre) with rejection on purity/sharpness
    No canonical uniform measure exists on purity-constrained state/effect sets; all mixed-state typicality numbers (Figs. 2b, 3, 5b; POM case ii) are measure-dependent. The caveat is stated in Appendix B but not in the abstract.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Generalized noncontextuality is equivalent to simplex-embeddability of the associated GPT fragment (Spekkens 2005; Schmid et al. 2021 [29]; Selby et al. 2024 [32]).
    The LP certifies contextuality via simplex-embedding; the entire notion of 'contextuality' in the paper is this framework, introduced in §1.1 and used in §1.2.
  • domain assumption Linear independence of a set of states implies noncontextuality with all effects; linear dependence of pure states implies contextuality with all effects (Ref [33]).
    Load-bearing for Lemma 1 (§2.1), Proposition 3 (Appendix D), and the interpretation of Fig. 3. Ref [33] is an unrefereed preprint with overlapping authorship (Schmid), a status the paper does not flag at the point of use.
  • domain assumption Haar-uniform sampling over pure states/unitaries and Ginibre full-rank sampling define 'randomness'; purity-constrained ensembles are generated by rejection sampling.
    All typicality frequencies are relative to these measures (Appendix B). A different measure over mixed states or POVMs would change the reported percentages.
  • domain assumption The robustness-to-success map s = f(r) for parity-oblivious multiplexing (Eq. 9, from Refs [5, 9]) and s_NC = (1+1/k)/2.
    Section 3 converts LP robustness r into POM success rates via a formula attributed to the same group's Fonseca et al. [9]. The formula is garbled in the text I reviewed, so I cannot independently verify it; the POM conclusions inherit its correctness.
  • domain assumption cdd (double-description) and cvxpy solvers return cone certificates accurate at the 10^-7 level for all probed scenarios.
    Stated in Appendix C; solver/threshold sensitivity was checked only at the (n=4, m=2) calibration point, not at the high-typicality points where the headline claims live.
invented entities (1)
  • none no independent evidence
    purpose: The paper introduces no new physical postulates, particles, forces, or dynamical laws.
    'Robustness of contextuality' and 'typicality of contextuality' are defined quantities over known state/effect spaces; the GPT fragment formalism is prior work ([29], [32]). No graviton-style entity is pulled from a hat.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 26823 in / 24492 out tokens · 221535 ms · 2026-08-04T08:24:30.375043+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Typicality of Contextuality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3MD5YF3

@misc{pith2026251020722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Typicality of Contextuality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3MD5YF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.20722}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Identifying when observed statistics cannot be explained by any reasonable classical model is a central problem in quantum foundations. A principled and universally applicable approach to defining and identifying nonclassicality is given by the notion of generalized noncontextuality. Here, we study the typicality of contextuality -- namely, the likelihood that randomly chosen quantum preparations and measurements produce nonclassical statistics. Using numerical linear programs to test for the existence of a generalized-noncontextual model, we find that contextuality is fairly common: even in experiments with only a modest number of random preparations and measurements, contextuality arises with probability over 99%. We also show that while typicality of contextuality decreases as the purity (sharpness) of the preparations (measurements) decreases, this dependence is not especially pronounced, so contextuality is fairly typical even in settings with realistic noise. Finally, we show that although nonzero contextuality is quite typical, quantitatively high degrees of contextuality are not as typical, and so large quantum advantages (like for parity-oblivious multiplexing, which we take as a case study) are not as typical. We provide an open-source toolbox that outputs the typicality of contextuality as a function of tunable parameters (such as lower and upper bounds on purity and other constraints on states and measurements). This toolbox can inform the design of experiments that achieve the desired typicality of contextuality for specified experimental constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20722 by Ana Bel\'en Sainz, Beata Zjawin, David Schmid, John H. Selby, Roberto D. Baldij\~ao, Vinicius P. Rossi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Visualization of the effects |j, k⟩ from Eq. 6 (blue dots) and their antipodal counterparts (purple dots) for k = 0, showing only the ZX-hemisphere of the Bloch sphere, for clarity. The full set of effects is obtained by additionally rotating this polygon 4 times in steps of π 5 around the Z axis of the Bloch sphere. To sample the effects, there are two approaches that we employ depending on the task— ran￾… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Typicality of contextuality for different numbers of preparations and measurements for randomly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Typicality of contextuality for 92 dichotomic projective measurements over a qubit (that approximate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of n = 5 (a) pure states and (b) mixed states and their convex hulls (violet), measured by the same 92 projective measurements provided by Eq. (6) and their convex hull (blue, excluding the null and the unit effects). comparison of one sampling for the pure and mixed cases for n = 5 is given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Minimal number of states n needed to observe typicality t(n,m=20,d=2;N=106) > 99% for m = 20 measurements as a function of the lower bound on purity of the states with (a) sharp measurements and (b) unsharp measurements, for two different upper bounds on their purity. In (b), the bounds on sharpness are the same as the purity of the states. slice or not. Our results thereby show that for 20 projective meas… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optimal states for the 3-to-1 parity-oblivious multiplexing task. The optimal measurements for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Runtime for typicality assessment of a scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plots of typicality of contextuality for a scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Plots of typicality for a scenario (n = 4, m = 2, d = 2, N) with varying numbers of iterations N for n mixed states and m binary POVMs for (a) CLARABEL and (b) ECOS, and considering different thresholds for r. The number N = 106 is therefore chosen to ensure a decent statistical sample while still ensuring that the computational time for our analysis was feasible. We are aware that this number drastically … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Decoupling local classicality from classical explainability: A noncontextual model for bilocal classical theory and a locally-classical but contextual theory

    quant-ph 2025-11 accept novelty 7.0

    Bilocal classical theory has a classical ontological model, but some locally-classical latent theories do not, so local classicality and classical explainability are logically independent.

  2. How rare are Markovian quantum dynamics?

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Random sampling shows Markovian two-step qubit dynamics form only a small fraction of the total space under multiple non-Markovianity witnesses.

  3. Commutativity from a single Bargmann invariant equality

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Two quantum states ρ₁ and ρ₂ commute exactly when tr(ρ₁²ρ₂²) = tr(ρ₁ ρ₂ ρ₁ ρ₂).

  4. Warring Contextualities -- Provably Classical vs Provably Nonclassical

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Kochen-Specker contextuality generalizes nonclassicality while Spekkens' noncontextuality generalizes classicality, reconciling the two as successive stages in a hierarchy of classicality.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox

    J. S. Bell. “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox”. Physics Physique Fizika1, 195– 200 (1964). 18

    1964

  2. [2]

    The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics

    S. Kochen and E. P. Specker. “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”. J. Math. Mech.17, 59–87 (1967)

    1967

  3. [3]

    Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measure- ments

    R. W. Spekkens. “Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measure- ments”. Phys. Rev. A71, 052108 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox

    Kok-Wei Bong, An ´ ıbal Utreras-Alarc´ on, Farzad Ghafari, Yeong-Cherng Liang, Nora Tis- chler, Eric G Cavalcanti, Geoff J Pryde, and Howard M Wiseman. “A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox”. Nature Physics16, 1199–1205 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Preparation Contextuality Powers Parity-Oblivious Multiplexing

    R. W. Spekkens, D. H. Buzacott, A. J. Keehn, B. Toner, and G. J. Pryde. “Preparation Contextuality Powers Parity-Oblivious Multiplexing”. Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 010401 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Preparation contextuality as an essential feature underlying quantum communication advantage

    D. Saha and A. Chaturvedi. “Preparation contextuality as an essential feature underlying quantum communication advantage”. Phys. Rev. A100, 022108 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Robust certification of unsharp instruments through sequential quantum advantages in a prepare-measure communication game

    Abhyoudai S. S., S. Mukherjee, and A. K. Pan. “Robust certification of unsharp instruments through sequential quantum advantages in a prepare-measure communication game”. Phys. Rev. A107, 012411 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Quantum vs noncontextual semi-device-independent randomness certification

    C. Roch i Carceller, K. Flatt, H. Lee, J. Bae, and J. B. Brask. “Quantum vs noncontextual semi-device-independent randomness certification”. Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 050501 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Robustness of contextuality under different types of noise as quantifiers for parity-oblivious multiplexing tasks

    A. M. Fonseca, V. P. Rossi, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, J. H. Selby, and A. B. Sainz. “Robustness of contextuality under different types of noise as quantifiers for parity-oblivious multiplexing tasks”. Phys. Rev. A111, 022217 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Uniqueness of Noncontextual Models for Stabilizer Subtheories

    D. Schmid, H. Du, J. H. Selby, and M. F. Pusey. “Uniqueness of Noncontextual Models for Stabilizer Subtheories”. Phys. Rev. Lett.129(2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Contextuality and inductive bias in quantum machine learning

    J. Bowles, V. J. Wright, M. Farkas, N. Killoran, and M. Schuld. “Contextuality and inductive bias in quantum machine learning”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2302.01365 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Parity Oblivious d-Level Random Access Codes and Class of Noncontextuality Inequalities

    A. Ambainis, M. Banik, A. Chaturvedi, D. Kravchenko, and A. Rai. “Parity Oblivious d-Level Random Access Codes and Class of Noncontextuality Inequalities”. Preprint in arXiv, arXiv:1607.05490 (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Optimal bounds for parity-oblivious random access codes

    A. Chailloux, I. Kerenidis, S. Kundu, and J. Sikora. “Optimal bounds for parity-oblivious random access codes”. New J. Phys.18, 045003 (2016)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Contextuality in entanglement-assisted one-shot classical communication

    S. A. Yadavalli and R. Kunjwal. “Contextuality in entanglement-assisted one-shot classical communication”. Quantum6, 839 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    Certifying Quantum Signatures in Thermodynamics and Metrology via Contextuality of Quantum Linear Response

    M. Lostaglio. “Certifying Quantum Signatures in Thermodynamics and Metrology via Contextuality of Quantum Linear Response”. Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 230603 (2020)

    2020

  16. [16]

    Contextual advantage for state-dependent cloning

    M. Lostaglio and G. Senno. “Contextual advantage for state-dependent cloning”. Quantum 4, 258 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Contextual advantage for state discrimination

    D. Schmid and R. W. Spekkens. “Contextual advantage for state discrimination”. Phys. Rev. X8, 011015 (2018)

    2018

  18. [18]

    Quantum Contextual Advantage Depending on Nonzero Prior Probabilities in State Discrimination of Mixed Qubit States

    J. Shin, D. Ha, and Y. Kwon. “Quantum Contextual Advantage Depending on Nonzero Prior Probabilities in State Discrimination of Mixed Qubit States”. Entropy23, 1583 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Contextual Advantages and Certification for Maximum-Confidence Discrimination

    K. Flatt, H. Lee, C. Roch I Carceller, J. B. Brask, and J. Bae. “Contextual Advantages and Certification for Maximum-Confidence Discrimination”. PRX Quantum3, 030337 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Discriminating three mirror-symmetric states with a restricted contextual advantage

    S. Mukherjee, S. Naonit, and A. K. Pan. “Discriminating three mirror-symmetric states with a restricted contextual advantage”. Phys. Rev. A106, 012216 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Specker’s parable of the overprotective seer: A road to contextuality, nonlocality and complementarity

    Y. C. Liang, R. W. Spekkens, and H. M. Wiseman. “Specker’s parable of the overprotective seer: A road to contextuality, nonlocality and complementarity”. Physics Reports506, 1– 39 (2011)

    2011

  22. [22]

    All the noncontextuality inequalities for arbitrary prepare-and-measure experiments with respect to any fixed set of operational equivalences

    D. Schmid, R. W. Spekkens, and E. Wolfe. “All the noncontextuality inequalities for arbitrary prepare-and-measure experiments with respect to any fixed set of operational equivalences”. Phys. Rev. A97, 062103 (2018). 19

    2018

  23. [23]

    Invertible map between bell nonlocal and contextuality scenarios

    V. J. Wright and M. Farkas. “Invertible map between bell nonlocal and contextuality scenarios”. Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 220202 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Anomalous weak values and contextuality: Robustness, tightness, and imaginary parts

    R. Kunjwal, M. Lostaglio, and M. F. Pusey. “Anomalous weak values and contextuality: Robustness, tightness, and imaginary parts”. Phys. Rev. A100, 042116 (2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Contextuality in Anoma- lous Heat Flow

    N. E. Comar, D. Cius, L. F. Santos, R. Wagner, and B. Amaral. “Contextuality in Anoma- lous Heat Flow”. PRX Quantum6, 030359 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Negativity and Contextuality are Equivalent Notions of Nonclassicality

    R. W. Spekkens. “Negativity and Contextuality are Equivalent Notions of Nonclassicality”. Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 020401 (2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    A structure theorem for generalized-noncontextual ontological models

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, M. F. Pusey, and R. W. Spekkens. “A structure theorem for generalized-noncontextual ontological models”. Quantum8, 1283 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    The ontological identity of empirical indiscernibles: Leibniz’s method- ological principle and its significance in the work of Einstein

    R. W. Spekkens. “The ontological identity of empirical indiscernibles: Leibniz’s method- ological principle and its significance in the work of Einstein”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:1909.04628 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1909

  29. [29]

    Characterization of Noncontextuality in the Framework of Generalized Probabilistic Theories

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, E. Wolfe, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. Spekkens. “Characterization of Noncontextuality in the Framework of Generalized Probabilistic Theories”. PRX Quantum 2, 010331 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Emergence of Noncontextuality under Quantum Darwinism

    R. D. Baldij˜ ao, R. Wagner, C. Duarte, B. Amaral, and M. T. Cunha. “Emergence of Noncontextuality under Quantum Darwinism”. PRX Quantum2, 030351 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    A review and reformulation of macroscopic realism: resolving its deficiencies using the framework of generalized probabilistic theories

    D. Schmid. “A review and reformulation of macroscopic realism: resolving its deficiencies using the framework of generalized probabilistic theories”. Quantum8, 1217 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Linear Program for Testing Nonclassicality and an Open-Source Implementation

    J. H. Selby, E. Wolfe, D. Schmid, A. B. Sainz, and V. P. Rossi. “Linear Program for Testing Nonclassicality and an Open-Source Implementation”. Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 050202 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Reassessing the boundary be- tween classical and nonclassical for individual quantum processes

    Y. Zhang, D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and R. W. Spekkens. “Reassessing the boundary be- tween classical and nonclassical for individual quantum processes”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2503.05884 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Quantifiers and witnesses for the non- classicality of measurements and of states

    Y. Zhang, D. Schmid, Y. Y ¯ ıng, and R. W. Spekkens. “Quantifiers and witnesses for the non- classicality of measurements and of states”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2504.02944 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    A combinatorial approach to nonlocality and contextuality

    A. Ac ´ ın, T. Fritz, A. Leverrier, and A. B. Sainz. “A combinatorial approach to nonlocality and contextuality”. Commun. Math. Phys.334, 533–628 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms

    L. Hardy. “Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:quant– ph/0101012 (2001)

    arXiv 2001

  37. [37]

    Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories

    J. Barrett. “Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories”. Phys. Rev. A 75, 032304 (2007)

    2007

  38. [38]

    Quantum Theory from First Principles: An Informational Approach

    G. M. D’Ariano, G. Chiribella, and P. Perinotti. “Quantum Theory from First Principles: An Informational Approach”. Cambridge University Press. (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Unscrambling the omelette of causa- tion and inference: The framework of causal-inferential theories

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, and R. W. Spekkens. “Unscrambling the omelette of causa- tion and inference: The framework of causal-inferential theories”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2009.03297 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  40. [40]

    eliewolfe/SimplexEmbedding: Initial Release

    E. Wolfe. “eliewolfe/SimplexEmbedding: Initial Release”.https://zenodo.org/record/ 7709974(2023). GitHub repository. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

    2023

  41. [41]

    pjcavalcanti/SimplexEmbeddingGPT: Release 1.0.0

    P. Cavalcanti, V. P. Rossi, and J. H. Selby. “pjcavalcanti/SimplexEmbeddingGPT: Release 1.0.0”.https://zenodo.org/record/10955995(2023). MIT License

    arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference

    E. B. Wilson. “Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference”. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.22, 209–212 (1927)

    1927

  43. [43]

    Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agarwal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johansson, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori. “Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2412.04705 (2024). 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Random quantum opera- tions

    W. Bruzda, V. Cappellini, H. Sommers, and K. ˙Zyczkowski. “Random quantum opera- tions”. Phys. Lett. A373, 320–324 (2009)

    2009

  45. [45]

    Geometry of quantum states: An introduction to quan- tum entanglement

    I. Bengtsson and K. ˙Zyczkowski. “Geometry of quantum states: An introduction to quan- tum entanglement”. Cambridge University Press. (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    Generating random quantum channels

    R. Kukulski, I. Nechita, L. Pawela, Z. Pucha la, and K. ˙Zyczkowski. “Generating random quantum channels”. J. Math. Phys.62, 062201 (2021)

    2021

  47. [47]

    Robust preparation noncontextuality inequalities in the simplest scenario

    M. F. Pusey. “Robust preparation noncontextuality inequalities in the simplest scenario”. Phys. Rev. A98, 022112 (2018)

    2018

  48. [48]

    Alternative robust ways of witnessing nonclassi- cality in the simplest scenario

    M. Khoshbin, L. Catani, and M. Leifer. “Alternative robust ways of witnessing nonclassi- cality in the simplest scenario”. Phys. Rev. A109, 032212 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Contex- tuality without incompatibility

    J. H. Selby, D. Schmid, E. Wolfe, A. B. Sainz, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. Spekkens. “Contex- tuality without incompatibility”. Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 230201 (2023)

    2023

  50. [50]

    Inaccessible information in probabilistic models of quantum systems, non- contextuality inequalities and noise thresholds for contextuality

    I. Marvian. “Inaccessible information in probabilistic models of quantum systems, non- contextuality inequalities and noise thresholds for contextuality”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2003.05984 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    From the Kochen-Specker Theorem to Noncontextuality Inequalities without Assuming Determinism

    R. Kunjwal and R. W. Spekkens. “From the Kochen-Specker Theorem to Noncontextuality Inequalities without Assuming Determinism”. Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 110403 (2015)

    2015

  52. [52]

    How difficult is it to prepare a quantum state?

    D. Girolami. “How difficult is it to prepare a quantum state?”. Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 010505 (2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    Ideal projective measurements have infinite re- source costs

    Y. Guryanova, N. Friis, and M. Huber. “Ideal projective measurements have infinite re- source costs”. Quantum4, 222 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    V. P. Rossi.https://github.com/RossiVinicius/TypicalityOfContextuality(2025). GitHub repository

    2025

  55. [55]

    Bell nonlocality

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner. “Bell nonlocality”. Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 419–478 (2014)

    2014

  56. [56]

    Small violations of full-correlation Bell inequalities for multipartite pure random states

    R. C. Drumond and R. I. Oliveira. “Small violations of full-correlation Bell inequalities for multipartite pure random states”. Phys. Rev. A86, 012117 (2012)

    2012

  57. [57]

    Multipartite nonlocality and random measurements

    A. de Rosier, J. Gruca, F. Parisio, T. V´ ertesi, and W. Laskowski. “Multipartite nonlocality and random measurements”. Phys. Rev. A96(2017)

    2017

  58. [58]

    Towards an equivalence between max- imal entanglement and maximal quantum nonlocality

    V. Lipinska, F. J. Curchod, A. M´ attar, and A. Ac ´ ın. “Towards an equivalence between max- imal entanglement and maximal quantum nonlocality”. New J. Phys.20, 063043 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    Small violations of Bell inequalities for multipartite pure random states

    R. C. Drumond, C. Duarte, and R. I. Oliveira. “Small violations of Bell inequalities for multipartite pure random states”. J. Math. Phys.59, 052202 (2018)

    2018

  60. [60]

    Strength and typi- cality of nonlocality in multisetting and multipartite bell scenarios

    A. de Rosier, J. Gruca, F. Parisio, T. V´ ertesi, and W. Laskowski. “Strength and typi- cality of nonlocality in multisetting and multipartite bell scenarios”. Phys. Rev. A101, 012116 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Relationship between semi- and fully-device-independent protocols

    H. Li, P. Mironowicz, M. Paw lowski, Z. Yin, Y. Wu, S. Wang, W. Chen, H. Hu, G. Guo, and Z. Han. “Relationship between semi- and fully-device-independent protocols”. Phys. Rev. A87(2013)

    2013

  62. [62]

    Shadows and subsystems of generalized probabilistic theories: when tomographic incompleteness is not a loophole for contextuality proofs

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, V. P. Rossi, R. D. Baldij˜ ao, and A. B. Sainz. “Shadows and subsystems of generalized probabilistic theories: when tomographic incompleteness is not a loophole for contextuality proofs”. Quantum9, 1880 (2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    Generalized probability theories: what determines the structure of quantum theory?

    P. Janotta and H. Hinrichsen. “Generalized probability theories: what determines the structure of quantum theory?”. J. Phys. A: Math. Theo.47, 323001 (2014)

    2014

  64. [64]

    Acces- sible fragments of generalized probabilistic theories, cone equivalence, and applications to witnessing nonclassicality

    J. H. Selby, D. Schmid, E. Wolfe, A. B. Sainz, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. Spekkens. “Acces- sible fragments of generalized probabilistic theories, cone equivalence, and applications to witnessing nonclassicality”. Phys. Rev. A107, 062203 (2023)

    2023

  65. [65]

    Double description method revisited

    K. Fukuda and A. Prodon. “Double description method revisited”. Page 91–111. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. (1996). 21

    1996

  66. [66]

    cddlib Reference Manual

    K. Fukuda. “cddlib Reference Manual”. cddlib Project / ETH Zurich. Zurich. (2021). url:https://people.inf.ethz.ch/fukudak/cdd_home/cddlibman2021.pdf

    2021

  67. [67]

    How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups

    F. Mezzadri. “How to generate random matrices from the classical compact groups”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:math–ph/0609050 (2006)

    arXiv 2006

  68. [68]

    Random unitary matrices

    K. Zyczkowski and M. Kus. “Random unitary matrices”. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.27, 4235–4245 (1994)

    1994

  69. [69]

    Statistical ensembles of complex, quaternion, and real matrices

    J. Ginibre. “Statistical ensembles of complex, quaternion, and real matrices”. J. Math. Phys.6, 440–449 (1965)

    1965

  70. [70]

    Monte Carlo Statistical Methods

    C. P. Robert and G. Casella. “Monte Carlo Statistical Methods”. Springer New York. (2004)

    2004

  71. [71]

    Mutually unbiased mea- surements with arbitrary purity

    M. Salehi, S. J. Akhtarshenas, M. Sarbishaei, and H. Jaghouri. “Mutually unbiased mea- surements with arbitrary purity”. Quantum Inf. Process.20, 401 (2021)

    2021

  72. [72]

    Ex- perimentally bounding deviations from quantum theory for a photonic three-level system using theory-agnostic tomography

    M. J. Grabowecky, C. A. J. Pollack, A. R. Cameron, R. W. Spekkens, and K. J. Resch. “Ex- perimentally bounding deviations from quantum theory for a photonic three-level system using theory-agnostic tomography”. Phys. Rev. A105, 032204 (2022)

    2022

  73. [73]

    Experimental certification of contextuality, coherence, and dimension in a programmable universal photonic processor

    T. Giordani, R. Wagner, C. Esposito, A. Camillini, F. Hoch, G. Carvacho, C. Pentan- gelo, F. Ceccarelli, S. Piacentini, A. Crespi, N. Spagnolo, R. Osellame, E. F. Galv˜ ao, and F. Sciarrino. “Experimental certification of contextuality, coherence, and dimension in a programmable universal photonic processor”. Sci. Adv.9, eadj4249 (2023)

    2023

  74. [74]

    Theory-independent monitoring of the decoherence of a superconducting qubit with generalized contextuality

    A. Aloy, M. Fadel, T. D. Galley, C. L. Jones, and M. P. Mueller. “Theory-independent monitoring of the decoherence of a superconducting qubit with generalized contextuality”. Preprint inarXiv, arXiv:2411.13421 (2024). A Simplex embedding linear program The linear program provided in Ref. [32] relies on the equivalence between the existence of a noncontext...

    arXiv 2024