Accessible fragments of generalized probabilistic theories, cone equivalence, and applications to witnessing nonclassicality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formalism of generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs) was originally developed as a way to characterize the landscape of conceivable physical theories. Thus, the GPT describing a given physical theory necessarily includes all physically possible processes. We here consider the question of how to provide a GPT-like characterization of a particular experimental setup within a given physical theory. We show that the resulting characterization is not generally a GPT in and of itself, rather, it is described by a more general mathematical object that we introduce and term an accessible GPT fragment. We then introduce an equivalence relation, termed cone equivalence, between accessible GPT fragments (and, as a special case, between standard GPTs). We give a number of examples of experimental scenarios that are best described using accessible GPT fragments, and where moreover, cone-equivalence arises naturally. We then prove that an accessible GPT fragment admits of a classical explanation if and only if every other fragment that is cone equivalent to it also admits of a classical explanation. Finally, we leverage this result to prove several fundamental results regarding the experimental requirements for witnessing the failure of generalized noncontextuality. In particular, we prove that neither incompatibility among measurements nor the assumption of freedom of choice is necessary for witnessing failures of generalized noncontextuality, and moreover, that such failures can be witnessed even when using arbitrarily inefficient detectors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".