- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Quantum contextuality from measurement invasiveness

A. Navoni1,2, M. G. Genoni1,3, and A. Smirne1,3

PDF

Phys. Rev. A 113, 042204 – Published 3 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hn92-4lcq

Abstract

Contextuality is a defining feature that separates the quantum from the classical descriptions of physical systems. Within the marginal-scenario framework, noncontextual models are characterized by the existence of a single joint probability distribution consistent with all measurable contexts, while contextual models violate this condition. Building on this approach, we introduce a general method to analyze contextuality in terms of stochastic linear maps that effectively model invasive measurements on an otherwise classical statistics. These maps transform probabilities within the noncontextuality polytope, which includes all classical probabilities, into probabilities that may lie outside the polytope, while preserving the compatibility structure of the scenario at hand. We derive general consistency conditions that such maps must satisfy to represent admissible invasive measurements, and we fully identify them for a paradigmatic example of contextuality for a single three-level quantum system. Furthermore, we introduce a quantifier of contextuality based on the minimal invasiveness required to reproduce a given probability distribution, which offers a distinct approach on how to evaluate the degree of contextuality in a general scenario.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (42)

  1. S. Kochen and E. P. Specker, The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967).
  2. C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. Gühne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Kochen-Specker contextuality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045007 (2022).
  3. R. Raussendorf, Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022322 (2013).
  4. M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, and J. Emerson, Contextuality supplies the ‘magic' for quantum computation, Nature (London) 510, 351 (2014).
  5. J. Bermejo-Vega, N. Delfosse, D. E. Browne, C. Okay, and R. Raussendorf, Contextuality as a resource for models of quantum computation with qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 120505 (2017).
  6. S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, R. König, and M. Tomamichel, Quantum advantage with noisy shallow circuits, Nat. Phys. 16, 1040 (2020).
  7. R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005).
  8. A. Khrennikov, Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism (Springer, Dordrecht, 2009).
  9. S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality, New J. Phys. 13, 113036 (2011).
  10. P. Kurzyński, R. Ramanathan, and D. Kaszlikowski, Entropic test of quantum contextuality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020404 (2012).
  11. R. Chaves and T. Fritz, Entropic approach to local realism and noncontextuality, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032113 (2012).
  12. A. Cabello, S. Severini, and A. Winter, Graph-theoretic approach to quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 040401 (2014).
  13. E. N. Dzhafarov, V. H. Cervantes, and J. V. Kujala, Contextuality in canonical systems of random variables, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 375, 20160389 (2017).
  14. M. P. Müller and A. J. P. Garner, Testing quantum theory by generalizing noncontextuality, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041001 (2023).
  15. T. Fritz and R. Chaves, Entropic inequalities and marginal problems, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 59, 803 (2013).
  16. N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014).
  17. A. Fine, Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291 (1982).
  18. A. A. Klyachko, M. A. Can, S. Binicioğlu, and A. S. Shumovsky, Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020403 (2008).
  19. R. Lapkiewicz, P. Li, C. Schaeff, N. K. Langford, S. Ramelow, M. Wieśniak, and A. Zeilinger, Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system, Nature (London) 474, 490 (2011).
  20. M. Araújo, M. T. Quintino, C. Budroni, M. T. Cunha, and A. Cabello, All noncontextuality inequalities for the n-cycle scenario, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022118 (2013).
  21. A. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, 1st ed., Publications of the Scuola Normale Superiore (Springer, Berlin, 2011).
  22. T. Heinosaari and M. Ziman, The Mathematical Language of Quantum Theory: From Uncertainty to Entanglement (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014).
  23. D. Avis, H. Imai, T. Ito, and Y. Sasaki, Deriving tight Bell inequalities for 2 parties with many 2-valued observables from facets of cut polytopes, arXiv:quant-ph/0404014.
  24. M. Richter, A. Smirne, W. Strunz, and D. Egloff, Classical invasive description of informationally-complete quantum processes, Ann. Phys. (NY) 536, 2300304 (2024).
  25. We are not taking into account explicitly the trivial contexts made of one single observable, since the corresponding probabilities can always be recovered via marginalization from the probabilities of the five contexts considered.
  26. This is the case since we are not setting any restriction on the (finite) dimension of the Hilbert space where states and measurements defining Q⃗ are settled.
  27. The values are those of Table 1.(a) in [19], taking into account that their values Ai=±1 correspond to ours Ai=∓1, and we are here identifying A1′ with A1, i.e., we are not dealing with deviations from the ideal case.
  28. A. Navoni, M. G. Genoni, and A. Smirne, Simulation of quantum contextuality with invasive-measurement maps [Data set], Zenodo (2025), doi:10.5281/zenodo.16566158.
  29. M. Kleinmann, O. Gühne, J. R. Portillo, J.-Å. Larsson, and A. Cabello, Memory cost of quantum contextuality, New J. Phys. 13, 113011 (2011).
  30. A. Grudka, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, P. Joshi, W. Kłobus, and A. Wójcik, Quantifying contextuality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120401 (2014).
  31. S. Abramsky, R. S. Barbosa, and S. Mansfield, Contextual fraction as a measure of contextuality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 050504 (2017).
  32. B. Amaral and M. T. Cunha, On geometrical aspects of the graph approach to contextuality, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 382, 20230008 (2024).
  33. B. Amaral, A. Cabello, M. T. Cunha, and L. Aolita, Noncontextual wirings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 130403 (2018).
  34. J. V. Kujala and E. N. Dzhafarov, Measures of contextuality and non-contextuality, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 377, 20190149 (2019).
  35. K. Horodecki, J. Zhou, M. Stankiewicz, R. Salazar, P. Horodecki, R. Raussendorf, R. Horodecki, R. Ramanathan, and E. Tyhurst, The rank of contextuality, New J. Phys. 25, 073003 (2023).
  36. H. Meng, H. Cao, W. Wang, Y. Fan, and L. Chen, Generalized robustness of contextuality, Entropy 18, 297 (2016).
  37. T. Fritz, Quantum correlations in the temporal Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt (CHSH) scenario, New J. Phys. 12, 083055 (2010).
  38. J. Hoffmann, C. Spee, O. Gühne, and C. Budroni, Structure of temporal correlations of a qubit, New J. Phys. 20, 102001 (2018).
  39. S. V. Moreira and M. T. Cunha, Quantifying quantum invasiveness, Phys. Rev. A 99, 022124 (2019).
  40. S. Milz, D. Egloff, P. Taranto, T. Theurer, M. B. Plenio, A. Smirne, and S. F. Huelga, When is a non-Markovian quantum process classical? Phys. Rev. X 10, 041049 (2020).
  41. G. Vitagliano and C. Budroni, Leggett-Garg macrorealism and temporal correlations, Phys. Rev. A 107, 040101 (2023).
  42. M. Zurel, C. Okay, and R. Raussendorf, Hidden variable model for universal quantum computation with magic states on qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 260404 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 113, 042204– Published 3 April, 2026
  • Received 30 July 2025
  • Revised 15 January 2026
  • Accepted 27 February 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation