https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02260 (or view on SciRate)

Main idea: A set of operators is noncontextual if commuting is transitive among the subset that do not commute with all other operators.

Noncontextuality is an extension of a classicality (where all operators pairwise commute).

It is easy to test for noncontextuality by checking if commuting is transitive.

This also means that noncontextuality implies commutativity is an equivalence relation (i.e. if operators commute, they are in a clique)

“Strongly contextual” means you can’t assign a consistent outcome to combinations of operators! The measurement set is not closed under multiplication.

For example: \((XI * IX) * (ZI * IZ)\) is YY, but \((XI * IZ) * (ZI * IX)\) is -YY

“Weakly contextual” means joint distributions don’t match a hidden variable theory: \(v(A)v(B) \ne v(AB)\)

- How does the PBR proof work, exactly?
- When can you tell if something is weakly contextual?
- What do these things mean quantitatively, outside of Pauli operators?
- What about computability (things can be classically hard but still noncontextual)