Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

A finite quantum experiment is logically contextual exactly when it contains a logical Hardy-type paradox—a set of events, one possible and the rest certain, that classical logic says cannot all occur.

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

2026-08-03 12:48 UTC pith:FS4N6Y5D

load-bearing objection A useful unification of Hardy-type paradoxes and logical contextuality, but the universality claim outruns the definitions, and the (2,2,2) classification is narrower than advertised. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.01445 v3 pith:FS4N6Y5D submitted 2026-01-04 quant-ph

A Logical Formalism of Hardy-type Paradox

Songyi Liu , Yongjun Wang , Baoshan Wang , Chang He , Yunyi Jia This is my paper
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1381P1003G12 PACS 03.65.Ta
keywords Hardy-type paradoxlogical contextualitystrong contextualitypartial Boolean algebraevent-based contextualityKCBS scenarioincidence matrixsuccess probability
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 aims to show that Hardy-type paradoxes—inequality-free demonstrations of quantum contextuality—are not scattered special cases but the single logical signature of contextuality. It defines a logical Hardy-type paradox as any set of events in a finite scenario for which classical logic dictates that one event cannot occur while all the others do, and quantum mechanics makes one of them occur. The central result, Theorem 3, states that a general system is logically contextual if and only if it witnesses such a paradox; Theorem 4 pins strong contextuality to paradoxes with success probability exactly 1. The authors build a paradox even in a (2,3,3) state previously claimed to be Hardy-free, classify the KCBS scenario as admitting exactly one type of quantum-observable paradox at success probability about 10.56%, and recover the original Hardy paradox among ten types on the (2,2,2) scenario. If correct, this turns paradox-hunting into a systematic, algorithmic search.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is an equivalence: for any finite general system (A,p) modeled by an exclusive partial Boolean algebra with a state, logical contextuality—the absence of a possibilistic global assignment matching all local certainties—occurs if and only if the system witnesses a logical Hardy-type paradox. The paradox is a finite set of events {e1,...,en} whose classical images have empty conjunction, with p(e_k)>0 for one k and p(e_i)=1 for all others. Strong contextuality is the special case where the success probability can be taken to be 1. The equivalence is constructive: the proof of Theorem 2 produces, from a violation of logical contextuality, an event e and, for each deter

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the classical embedding of the event algebra A into the power-set algebra A^c=P(s_d(A)) of its deterministic states, written e→e^c. It converts logic in the partial Boolean algebra into set-theoretic inclusion and lets 'classical logic says these events exclude each other' be stated as an empty intersection of the embedded events. Theorem 2 is the bridge: it characterizes logical contextuality as the existence of an event e with p(e)>0 such that every deterministic state in e^c must enforce some event that p forbids. Theorem 3 then rearranges those forbidden events into the logical Hardy paradox; the incidence matrix of the atom graph translates the whole condition

Load-bearing premise

The whole equivalence presumes that the scenario's partial Boolean algebra has at least one deterministic state, so that the classical embedding A^c=P(s_d(A)) is meaningful; the paper states the theorem for all general systems even though its own definition of a logical Hardy paradox quietly requires this embeddability.

What would settle it

A counterexample would be a finite atom graph with at least one deterministic state and a Boolean vector b that satisfies Lemma 6 and has no solution M(A)x=b, yet for which no subset of events {e1,...,en} exists with one positive, the rest certain, and empty classical intersection. Since both conditions are finitely checkable, exhaustive search over all atom graphs on up to six vertices with a SAT solver would settle whether Theorem 3 is true as stated.

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

If this is right

  • Paradox-hunting becomes algorithmic: any finite scenario can be searched by filtering Boolean vectors and testing M(A)x=b with a SAT solver; the 21 KCBS and 1240 (2,2,2) candidate vectors found in the paper illustrate the procedure.
  • The (2,3,3) state is resolved: it witnesses a six-event logical Hardy paradox, so the belief that general scenarios escape the equivalence is false.
  • Strong contextuality gets a quantitative marker: paradoxes can be graded by SP, with SP=1 exactly the strongly contextual systems (GHZ state, PR box, and Kochen-Specker scenarios).
  • The KCBS scenario is classified: exactly one type of quantum-observable logical Hardy paradox, with SP≈10.56% for the parameter setting; (2,2,2) has ten minimal types, one being the original Hardy paradox.
  • The construction extends to Cabello-type paradoxes by allowing two positive-probability events and a degree-of-success condition, as the authors note in their outlook.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the equivalence relies on the classical embedding A^c=P(s_d(A)), scenarios with no deterministic states (s_d(A)=∅) such as Kochen-Specker setups fall outside the theorem's stated scope; a natural test is to extend the construction by a limiting or relative notion of the classical algebra.
  • The SP≈10.56% for KCBS falls below the 1/9 upper bound for 5-cycle scenarios, so a dedicated optimization over the angle parameters in the KCBS construction may or may not reach 11.11%; the authors leave this open.
  • The incidence-matrix form suggests an automated catalogue: enumerating all finite atom graphs up to a small number of vertices and computing the maximal SP for each logical-contextual vector would yield a database of optimal inequality-free contextuality witnesses.
  • If logical contextuality is literally the same as a finite empty 'classical conjunction plus one positive probability,' then logical contextuality could be taught and verified as a purely combinatorial property, without invoking hidden-variable theories.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a logical formalism for Hardy-type paradoxes in the event-based partial Boolean algebra framework. It defines a 'logical Hardy-type paradox' as a finite set of events whose classical images have empty conjunction, with all but one event having probability 1 and one having positive probability (Definition 4). The main claims are Theorem 3 (logical contextuality iff witnessing such a paradox) and Theorem 4 (strong contextuality iff such a paradox with SP=1), stated for arbitrary finite general systems. Applications include a paradox for Mansfield's (2,3,3) state, a classification of KCBS paradoxes with SP≈10.56%, and a partial classification for (2,2,2). The paper also provides an incidence-matrix/SAT algorithm for finding logically contextual states.

Significance. If the main equivalence were correct, it would unify and generalize earlier scenario-specific results (Mansfield-Fritz, Santos-Amaral) and would give a systematic route from incidence matrices to Hardy-type paradoxes. The constructive proof for Mansfield's state is a valuable explicit example, and the KCBS analysis is interesting. However, the paper's formal definition of logical contextuality (Definition 6) is not the standard sheaf-theoretic one, and the proof of Theorem 2 has a gap; in addition, Theorems 3-4 are stated without the classical-embedding hypothesis required by Definition 4, leaving Kochen-Specker scenarios problematic. These issues affect the central claims as written. The algorithmic machinery and examples may still be useful after revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Definition 6; Section 4, Theorem 2] Definition 6 is not equivalent to the standard sheaf-theoretic notion of logical contextuality, and Theorem 2's proof does not establish the stated equivalence. Counterexample: let A be the four-element Boolean algebra with atoms a,b and let p(a)=p(b)=1/2. Then pbar(a)=pbar(b)=1 and s_d(A)={λ_a,λ_b}. A state p_A^c on A^c=P({λ_a,λ_b}) satisfies p_A^c({λ_a})+p_A^c({λ_b})=1, so it cannot assign probability 1 to both singletons. Hence Definition 6 declares this classical (completely noncontextual) state logically contextual. The standard definition (and the characterization in Theorem 2) says it is logically noncontextual, because λ_a is a deterministic state with λ_a(e)=1 ⇒ pbar(e)=1. The flaw in the proof is in the '⇒' direction: it constructs a {0,1}-valued possibilistic collapse p' of a uniform state on Λ and then uses p'(e^c)=pbar(e) as if p' itself were a state in s(A^c). A real-valued
  2. [Definition 4; Theorems 3-4; §4.2] Theorems 3 and 4 are stated for 'a general system (A,p)' without qualification, yet Definition 4 defines 'witnesses a logical Hardy-type paradox' only for a finite epBA A admitting a classical embedding i_A:A→A^c=P(s_d(A)). For a Kochen-Specker scenario, s_d(A)=∅, so A^c is the one-element Boolean algebra, no injective embedding exists, and e^c is degenerate (mapping every event to ∅). The paper itself notes in §4.2 that any state on such a scenario is trivially strongly contextual. But then Theorem 4 would assert a logical Hardy-type paradox with SP=1; the proof's candidate set {¬e_λ : λ∈s_d(A)} is empty, which cannot serve as a nonempty paradox required by Definition 4, and if one applied the formula anyway the embedding is not faithful. Thus the universal statements are false or ill-posed for a class the paper explicitly names. The theorems should be restricted to finite epBAs admitti
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2 and Conclusion] The paper claims to 'classify all 10 types of quantum-observable Hardy-type paradoxes' on (2,2,2), but the analysis only treats Boolean vectors with the minimal number of three zeros (64 vectors out of 1240 logically contextual vectors). No argument is given that vectors with more zeros cannot be quantum-realized or give rise to further paradoxes, so the classification is incomplete.
  2. [Section 6, Algorithm 1] The first filtering step uses only the necessary conditions of Lemma 6, not a sufficient condition for being a possibilistic collapse of a state on the atom graph. The pseudocode therefore may admit vectors that are not realizable possibilistic collapses; for the KCBS case the authors state the survivors were verified, but for (2,2,2) no such verification is shown.
  3. [Section 6.1] The non-realizability of b1-b3 is asserted via a 'similar contradiction' without details, and the uniqueness of the state realising b5 and the value SP≈10.56% rely on a numerical computation that is not fully specified.
  4. [Throughout] Notation inconsistencies: e^c vs ec; in §4.1 the conjunction '∧_{i=1}^6 e_i' is rendered as 'V6' in the text; Figure 4 lacks complete explanations; reference [28] is missing venue details.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Theorem 3 is a near-tautological reformulation of Theorem 2's characterization of logical contextuality; no fitted-input or self-citation circularity, but the universal statement is overbroad for s_d(A)=∅.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Definition 4 (Sec. 3); Theorem 3 proof (Sec. 4)]
    "Let A be a finite epBA admitting classical embedding and p∈s(A). The general system (A,p) witnesses a logical Hardy-type paradox if there exist events {e_1,...,e_n}⊆A such that: 1. e^c_1 ∧ ··· ∧ e^c_n = ⊥. 2. p(e_k)>0 for one k∈{1,...,n} and p(e_i)=1 for i≠k. ... We now demonstrate that the set {e}∪{¬e_λ:λ∈e^c}⊆A constitutes a logical Hardy-type paradox."

    Theorem 2 characterizes logical contextuality by an event e with p(e)>0 such that each λ∈e^c is killed by some p(e_λ)=0 with λ(e_λ)=1. Definition 4, with p(e_k)>0 and all other events certain and classically contradictory, is exactly this condition after negating the killer events. The proof of Theorem 3 maps Theorem 2's data into Definition 4 by the formula {e}∪{¬e_λ}, and the converse inverts the same construction. Hence the 'if and only if' is a restatement of Theorem 2 in new vocabulary, not an independent derivation; the definition was tailored to make the equivalence hold. This is definitional circularity, though mild, because the concept still has independent applications.

full rationale

No empirical parameter is fitted: KCBS success probability 10.56% is computed from a fixed pure state and the (2,2,2) SP is |<Ψ_Hardy|¬a1>|¬b1>|^2, not used to fit anything. Self-citations [35,45] provide algebraic background (embedding into P(s_d(A)), atom graphs) but do not assume the target equivalence; they are not machine-checked but are ordinary mathematical claims with stated proofs, so not circular. The main concern is the definitional near-tautology above: Definition 4 encodes exactly the possibilistic obstruction used in Theorem 2, making Theorems 3 and 4 nearly restatements. A separate non-circular scope gap: Theorems 3 and 4 are stated for 'a general system (A,p)' without qualification, while Definition 4 and the proofs require A to admit a classical embedding into A^c=P(s_d(A)). When s_d(A)=∅ (Kochen-Specker scenarios), e^c is undefined and the proofs' empty conjunctions are degenerate; Section 4.2 itself says such states are trivially strongly contextual. This is a correctness/qualification issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The load-bearing costs are the classical-embedding assumption and the deliberately broad definition of logical Hardy-type paradox; both shape the main equivalence and should be stated as hypotheses of the theorems.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Finite epBA A admits a classical embedding into A^c = P(s_d(A)) with s_d(A) nonempty.
    Invoked in Definition 4 and Theorems 2-4; fails for Kochen-Specker scenarios with no deterministic states, making the stated universal equivalence undefined.
  • domain assumption States on an epBA satisfy normalization and additivity, and quantum projectors form an epBA.
    Section 2 and Appendix A; needed to identify quantum systems with general systems via Theorem A1, citing the authors' prior work [45].
  • ad hoc to paper The definition of logical Hardy-type paradox (Definition 4) is the correct generalization of Hardy-type paradoxes.
    The equivalence is sensitive to this definitional choice; a narrower FTI-style definition would exclude Mansfield's state, so the 'misconception' resolution depends on adopting this broad definition.
  • standard math Boolean algebra embedding theorem and De Morgan laws.
    Used in the proofs of Theorems 2-4 to convert conjunctions into unions and to reason about classical embeddings.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21322 in / 15825 out tokens · 166426 ms · 2026-08-03T12:48:14.665077+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hardy-type paradoxes provide elegant, inequality-free proofs of quantum contextuality. We introduce a unified logical formalism for these paradoxes, termed logical Hardy-type paradoxes. For any finite quantum scenario of ideal measurements, we prove that the existence of a logical Hardy-type paradox is equivalent to logical contextuality. Specifically, strong contextuality is equivalent to logical Hardy-type paradoxes with success probability SP = 1. These results generalize prior work on (2,k,2), (2,2,d), and n-cycle scenarios. We analyze logical Hardy-type paradoxes in the Mansfield and Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovsky (KCBS) scenarios. In the KCBS scenario, we show that there is exactly one type of logical Hardy-type paradox, achieving SP\approx 10.56% for a specific parameter setting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01445 by Baoshan Wang, Chang He, Songyi Liu, Yongjun Wang, Yunyi Jia.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Atom graph Ga(Q(2,2,2)). Notations ai , bj and aibj represent ¬ai , ¬bj and ai ∧ bj respectively (i, j ∈ {0, 1}). Two atoms are adjacent if and only if they are compatible. Each straight line or circumference represents a maximal clique. Quantum scenario Q(2,2,2) has 16 deterministic states: sd(Q(2,2,2)) = {λ1, . . . , λ16}, 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Atom graph Ga(QKCBS). For projectors Pˆ and Qˆ, the notation ¬Pˆ¬Qˆ represents (¬Pˆ)∧(¬Qˆ). Two atoms are adjacent if and only if they are compatible. The graph Ga(QKCBS) comprises 10 vertices. Through enumeration, QKCBS admits exactly 11 deterministic states, which are represented in the incidence 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The Boolean vectors {bi} 5 i=1 corresponding five types of logically con￾textual states on QKCBS. It can be verified that {bi} 5 i=1 are all possibilistic collapses of states on Ga(QKCBS). Consequently, there exist exactly 5 distinct types of logically contextual states on QKCBS. It is important to note that not all types of logically contextual states admit a quantum mechanical realization. To identify ge… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Part 1. The Boolean vectors {bi} 10 i=1 corresponding the logically contex￾tual states on Q(2,2,2) (omitting the values 1). 35 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Part 2. 36 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hardy’s non-locality paradox and pos- sibilistic conditions for non-locality.Foundations of Physics, 42:709–719, 10 2012

    Shane Mansfield and Tobias Fritz. Hardy’s non-locality paradox and pos- sibilistic conditions for non-locality.Foundations of Physics, 42:709–719, 10 2012. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-012-9640-1,doi:10. 1007/s10701-012-9640-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10701-012-9640-1 2012

  2. [2]

    Simon Kochen and E. P. Specker. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics.J. Math. Mech., 17:59–87, 1967

    1967

  3. [3]

    Kochen-specker contextuality.Rev

    Costantino Budroni, Ad´ an Cabello, Otfried Guhne, Matthias Kleinmann, and Jan-˚Ake Larsson. Kochen-specker contextuality.Rev. Mod. Phys., 94:045007, Dec 2022. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94. 045007,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045007

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.94 2022

  4. [4]

    Bell nonlocality.Rev

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell nonlocality.Rev. Mod. Phys., 86:419–478, Apr 2014. 25 URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419,doi:10. 1103/RevModPhys.86.419

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.86.419 2014

  5. [5]

    On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox.Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3):195, 1964

    John S Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox.Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3):195, 1964

    1964

  6. [6]

    Clauser, Michael A

    John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 23:880–884, Oct 1969. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.23.880,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.23.880 1969

  7. [7]

    Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz- invariant realistic theories.Phys

    Lucien Hardy. Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz- invariant realistic theories.Phys. Rev. Lett., 68:2981–2984, May 1992. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2981,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2981

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.68.2981 1992

  8. [8]

    Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for al- most all entangled states.Phys

    Lucien Hardy. Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for al- most all entangled states.Phys. Rev. Lett., 71:1665–1668, Sep 1993. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1665,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1665

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.71.1665 1993

  9. [9]

    David Mermin

    N. David Mermin. Quantum mysteries refined.American Journal of Physics, 62(10):880–887, 10 1994. URL:https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17733,doi: 10.1119/1.17733

    work page doi:10.1119/1.17733 1994

  10. [10]

    Boschi, S

    D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, and L. Hardy. Ladder proof of nonlo- cality without inequalities: Theoretical and experimental results.Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:2755–2758, Oct 1997. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.79.2755,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.2755

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.79.2755 1997

  11. [11]

    William T. M. Irvine, Juan F. Hodelin, Christoph Simon, and Dirk Bouwmeester. Realization of hardy’s thought experiment with photons.Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:030401, Jul 2005. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.95.030401,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.030401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.030401 2005

  12. [12]

    Barbieri, C

    M. Barbieri, C. Cinelli, F. De Martini, and P. Mataloni. Test of quantum nonlocality by full collection of polarization entangledphoton pairs.The Eu- ropean Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics, 32:261–267

  13. [13]

    Experimental observation of hardy-like quantum contex- tuality.Phys

    Breno Marques, Johan Ahrens, Mohamed Nawareg, Ad´ an Cabello, and Mo- hamed Bourennane. Experimental observation of hardy-like quantum contex- tuality.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:250403, Dec 2014. URL:https://link.aps. 26 org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.250403,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett. 113.250403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.250403 2014

  14. [14]

    Experi- mental test of generalized hardy’s paradox.Science Bulletin, 63(24):1611– 1615, 2018

    Yi-Han Luo, Hong-Yi Su, He-Liang Huang, Xi-Lin Wang, Tao Yang, Li Li, Nai-Le Liu, Jing-Ling Chen, Chao-Yang Lu, and Jian-Wei Pan. Experi- mental test of generalized hardy’s paradox.Science Bulletin, 63(24):1611– 1615, 2018. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S2095927318305565,doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2018. 11.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scib.2018 2018

  15. [15]

    Wang, Xiao-chun Zhang, and Ying-qiu He

    Tong Hou, Dong Ding, Can. Wang, Xiao-chun Zhang, and Ying-qiu He. Quan- tum simulation of generalized hardy’s paradox and corresponding hardy’s inequality via quantum programming.International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 60:1972–1979

    1972

  16. [16]

    Hardy’s nonlocality for generalized n-particle ghz states.Physics Letters A, 327(5):433–437, 2004

    Jos´ e L Cereceda. Hardy’s nonlocality for generalized n-particle ghz states.Physics Letters A, 327(5):433–437, 2004. URL:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960104007777, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2004.06.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2004.06.004 2004

  17. [17]

    Duc Minh Tran, Van-Duy Nguyen, Le Bin Ho, and Hung Q. Nguyen. Increased success probability in hardy’s nonlocality: Theory and demonstration.Phys. Rev. A, 107:042210, Apr 2023. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.107.042210,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.042210

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.107.042210 2023

  18. [18]

    Jing-Ling Chen, Ad´ an Cabello, Zhen-Peng Xu, Hong-Yi Su, Chunfeng Wu, and L. C. Kwek. Hardy’s paradox for high-dimensional systems.Phys. Rev. A, 88:062116, Dec 2013. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.88.062116,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.062116

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.88.062116 2013

  19. [19]

    Hardy’s paradox for multisetting high-dimensional systems.Phys

    Hui-Xian Meng, Jie Zhou, Zhen-Peng Xu, Hong-Yi Su, Ting Gao, Feng-Li Yan, and Jing-Ling Chen. Hardy’s paradox for multisetting high-dimensional systems.Phys. Rev. A, 98:062103, Dec 2018. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062103,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.062103

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.98.062103 2018

  20. [20]

    Ladder proof of nonlocality without inequalities and with- out probabilities.Phys

    Ad´ an Cabello. Ladder proof of nonlocality without inequalities and with- out probabilities.Phys. Rev. A, 58:1687–1693, Sep 1998. URL:https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1687,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA. 58.1687

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.58.1687 1998

  21. [21]

    Simple hardy-like proof of quantum contextuality.Phys

    Ad´ an Cabello, Piotr Badziag, Marcelo Terra Cunha, and Mohamed Bouren- nane. Simple hardy-like proof of quantum contextuality.Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:180404, Oct 2013. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.111.180404,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.180404. 27

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.180404 2013

  22. [22]

    Conditions for logical con- textuality and nonlocality.Phys

    Leonardo Santos and Barbara Amaral. Conditions for logical con- textuality and nonlocality.Phys. Rev. A, 104:022201, Aug 2021. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022201,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022201

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.022201 2021

  23. [23]

    Bell’s theorem with and without inequalities for the three- qubit greenberger-horne-zeilinger and w states.Phys

    Ad´ an Cabello. Bell’s theorem with and without inequalities for the three- qubit greenberger-horne-zeilinger and w states.Phys. Rev. A, 65:032108, Feb

  24. [24]

    Nonlocality without inequalities for two-qubit mixed states based on cabello’s nonlocality.Physics Letters A, 335(5):371– 373, 2005

    Lin mei Liang and Cheng zu Li. Nonlocality without inequalities for two-qubit mixed states based on cabello’s nonlocality.Physics Letters A, 335(5):371– 373, 2005. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0375960104017591,doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2004. 12.046

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2004 2005

  25. [25]

    Choudhary, Ali Ahanj, and Pramod Joag

    Samir Kunkri, Sujit K. Choudhary, Ali Ahanj, and Pramod Joag. Non- locality without inequality for almost all two-qubit entangled states based on cabello’s nonlocality argument.Phys. Rev. A, 73:022346, Feb

  26. [26]

    Tabia, and Yeong-Cherng Liang

    Kai-Siang Chen, Shiladitya Mal, Gelo Noel M. Tabia, and Yeong-Cherng Liang. Hardy-type paradoxes for an arbitrary symmetric bipartite bell sce- nario.Phys. Rev. A, 109:042206, Apr 2024. URL:https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.042206,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.042206

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.042206 2024

  27. [27]

    The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality.New Journal of Physics, 13(11):113036, nov 2011

    Samson Abramsky and Adam Brandenburger. The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality.New Journal of Physics, 13(11):113036, nov 2011. URL:https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036 2011

  28. [28]

    The mathematical structure of non- locality and contextu- ality

    Shane Mansfield. The mathematical structure of non- locality and contextu- ality. 2013

    2013

  29. [29]

    Kurzy´ nski, R

    P. Kurzy´ nski, R. Ramanathan, and D. Kaszlikowski. Entropic test of quantum contextuality.Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:020404, Jul 2012. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.020404,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.109.020404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.020404 2012

  30. [30]

    Entropic inequalities and marginal problems

    Tobias Fritz and Rafael Chaves. Entropic inequalities and marginal problems. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 59(2):803–817, 2013.doi:10. 1109/TIT.2012.2222863. 28

    arXiv 2013

  31. [31]

    Graph-theoretic ap- proach to quantum correlations.Phys

    Ad´ an Cabello, Simone Severini, and Andreas Winter. Graph-theoretic ap- proach to quantum correlations.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:040401, Jan 2014. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.040401,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.112.040401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.040401 2014

  32. [32]

    A combinatorial approach to nonlocality and contextuality.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 334:533–628, 2015

    Antonio Acin, Tobias Fritz, Anthony Leverrier, and Ana Bel´ en Sainz. A combinatorial approach to nonlocality and contextuality.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 334:533–628, 2015. URL:https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00220-014-2260-1,doi:10.1007/s00220-014-2260-1

    doi:10.1007/s00220-014-2260-1 2015

  33. [33]

    The logic of quantum mechanics

    Garrett Birkhoff and John Von Neumann. The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37(4):823–843, 1936. URL:http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1968621

    arXiv 1936

  34. [34]

    The logic of contextuality

    Samson Abramsky and Rui Soares Barbosa. The logic of contextuality. In Christel Baier and Jean Goubault-Larrecq, editors,29th EACSL An- nual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2021), volume 183 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 5:1–5:18, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2021. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum f¨ ur Infor- matik...

    doi:10.4230/lipics.csl.2021.5 2021

  35. [35]

    Atom graph, partial boolean algebra and quantum contextuality.Quantum Infor- mation Processing, 24:12, 2025

    Songyi Liu, Yongjun Wang, Baoshan Wang, Jian Yan, and Heng Zhou. Atom graph, partial boolean algebra and quantum contextuality.Quantum Infor- mation Processing, 24:12, 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    Henry P. Stapp. Mind, matter, and quantum mechanics.Foundations of Physics, 12:363–399, 1982. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00726783, doi:10.1007/BF00726783

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00726783 1982

  37. [37]

    Spekkens, and Howard M

    Yeong-Cherng Liang, Robert W. Spekkens, and Howard M. Wiseman. Specker’s parable of the overprotective seer: A road to contextuality, nonlo- cality and complementarity.Physics Reports, 506(1):1–39, 2011. URL:https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157311001517, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2011.05.001 2011

  38. [38]

    Graph-theoretic strengths of contextuality.Phys

    Nadish de Silva. Graph-theoretic strengths of contextuality.Phys. Rev. A, 95:032108, Mar 2017. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.95.032108,doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.95.032108

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.032108 2017

  39. [39]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and Anton Zeilinger.Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem, pages 69–72. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,

  40. [40]

    Quantum nonlocality as an axiom.Foun- dations of Physics, 24:379–385, 10 1994

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom.Foun- dations of Physics, 24:379–385, 10 1994. URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02058098,doi:10.1007/BF02058098

    doi:10.1007/bf02058098 1994

  41. [41]

    Estebaranz, and Guillermo Garc ´ ıa-Alcaine

    Ad´ an Cabello, Jos´ eM. Estebaranz, and Guillermo Garc ´ ıa-Alcaine. Bell- Kochen-Specker theorem: A proof with 18 vectors.Physics Letters A, 212(4):183–187, 1996. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/037596019600134X,doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/0375-9601(96)00134-X

    arXiv 1996

  42. [42]

    Klyachko, M

    Alexander A. Klyachko, M. Ali Can, Sinem Binicioglu, and Alexander S. Shumovsky. Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:020403, Jul 2008. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.101.020403,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.020403

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.020403 2008

  43. [43]

    (non-)contextuality of physical theories as an axiom, 2010

    Ad´ an Cabello, Simone Severini, and Andreas Winter. (non-)contextuality of physical theories as an axiom, 2010. URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1010. 2163,arXiv:1010.2163

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Noncommutativity as a colimit

    Benno van den Berg and Chris Heunen. Noncommutativity as a colimit. Applied Categorical Structures, 20:393–414, 2012. URL:https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10485-011-9246-3,doi:10.1007/s10485-011-9246-3

    doi:10.1007/s10485-011-9246-3 2012

  45. [45]

    The logical structure of contextuality and nonclassicality, 2025

    Songyi Liu, Yongjun Wang, Baoshan Wang, Chang He, and Jincheng Wang. The logical structure of contextuality and nonclassicality, 2025. URL:https: //arxiv.org/abs/2506.15071,arXiv:2506.15071. A Event-based contextuality theory The mathematical framework of our work is provided here. Further discussions can be found in [2, 44, 34, 35] and [45]. Definition A...

    arXiv 2025

  46. [49]

    A reflexive and symmetric binary relation⊙ ⊆ A×A, called the compatibility relation

  47. [50]

    A (total) unary operation¬:A → A

  48. [51]

    A (partial) binary operation∧:⊙ → A; 30

  49. [52]

    The bottom and elements0 A,1 A ∈ A, which satisfies that: every subsetS⊆ Aof pairwise compatible elements (i.e., a⊙bfor alla, b∈S) is contained in some Boolean subalgebraB ⊆ A, where the operations ofBare defined as the restrictions of¬and∧toB. For convenience, the disjunction operation on a pBA is defined as the De Morgan dual of conjunction: a∨b:=¬(¬a∧ ...

  50. [53]

    Ifa⊙b, thenf(a)⊙f(b)

  51. [54]

    An injective homomorphism is called anembedding

    Ifa⊙b, thenf(a∧b) =f(a)∧f(b). An injective homomorphism is called anembedding. A bijective homomorphism fis called anisomorphismif it also reflects compatibility:a⊙bif and only if f(a)⊙f(b). If such an isomorphism exists, we sayA 1 andA 2 are isomorphic, denotedA 1 ∼= A2. Definition A3.LetAbe apBA. AstateonAis a functionp:A →[0,1] satisfying following con...

  52. [55]

    There exists a canonical bijection between the states onAand the states on its atom graphG a(A): ℓ:s(A) ∼ − →s(Ga(A)) p7→p| At(A)

  53. [56]

    Theorem A5 establishes that both the algebraic structure and the states of any finite epBA are completely determined by its atom graph

    TheepBAs are isomorphic if and only if their atom graphs are isomorphic: A ∼= A′ if and only ifG a(A) ∼= Ga(A′). Theorem A5 establishes that both the algebraic structure and the states of any finite epBA are completely determined by its atom graph. Consequently, experi- ments described by finite general systems (A, p) can be equivalently characterized by ...

  54. [1989]

    1007/978-94-017-0849-4_10

    URL:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4_10,doi:10. 1007/978-94-017-0849-4_10. 29

    doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4_10

  55. [2002]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032108, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.032108

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.65.032108

  56. [2006]

    URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022346, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.73.022346

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.73.022346