Noncontextuality inequalities for prepare-transform-measure scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide the first systematic technique for deriving witnesses of contextuality in prepare-transform-measure scenarios. More specifically, we show how linear quantifier elimination can be used to compute a polytope of correlations consistent with generalized noncontextuality in such scenarios. This polytope is specified as a set of noncontextuality inequalities that are necessary and sufficient conditions for observed data in the scenario to admit of a classical explanation relative to any linear operational identities, if one ignores some constraints from diagram preservation. While including these latter constraints generally leads to tighter inequalities, it seems that nonlinear quantifier elimination would be required to systematically include them. We also provide a linear program which can certify the nonclassicality of a set of numerical data arising in a prepare-transform-measure experiment. We apply our results to get a robust noncontextuality inequality for transformations that can be violated within the stabilizer subtheory. Finally, we give a simple algorithm for computing all the linear operational identities holding among a given set of states, of transformations, or of measurements.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".