Measures of Preparation Contextuality


Leifer, M. (2018). Measures of Preparation Contextuality. Perimeter Institute. https://pirsa.org/18080032


Leifer, Matthew. Measures of Preparation Contextuality. Perimeter Institute, Aug. 01, 2018, https://pirsa.org/18080032


          @misc{ pirsa_PIRSA:18080032,
            doi = {10.48660/18080032},
            url = {https://pirsa.org/18080032},
            author = {Leifer, Matthew},
            keywords = {Quantum Foundations},
            language = {en},
            title = {Measures of Preparation Contextuality},
            publisher = {Perimeter Institute},
            year = {2018},
            month = {aug},
            note = {PIRSA:18080032 see, \url{https://pirsa.org}}

Matthew Leifer Chapman University


In a large medical trial, if one obtained a ridiculously small p-value like 10^-12, one would typically move from a plain hypothesis test to trying to estimate the parameters of the effect. For example, one might try to estimate the optimal dosage of a drug or the optimal length of a course of treatment. Tests of Bell and noncontextuality inequalities are hypotheses tests, and typical p-values are much lower than this, e.g. 12-sigma effects are not unheard of and a 7-sigma violation already corresponds to a p-value of about 10^-12. Why then, in quantum foundations, are we still obsessed with proposing and testing new inequalities rather than trying to estimate the parameters of the effect from the experimental data? Here, we will try to do this for preparation contextuality, but will also make some related comments on recent loophole-free Bell inequality tests. We introduce two measures of preparation contextuality: the maximal overlap and the preparation contextuality fraction. The latter is linearly related to the degree of violation of a preparation noncontextuality inequality, so can be estimated from experimental data. Although the measures are different in general, they can be equal for proofs of preparation contextuality that have sufficient symmetry, such as the timelike analogue of the CHSH scenario. We give the value of these measures for this scenario. Using our result, we can consider pairty-epsilon multiplexing, Alice must try to communicate two bits to Bob so that he can choose to determine either of them with high probability, but where Alice must ensure that Bob cannot guess the parity of the bits with probability greater than 1/2 + epsilon, and determine the range of epislon for which there is still an advantage in preparation contextual theories. If time permits, I will make some brief comments on how to robustify experimental tests of this result. joint work with Eric Freda and David Schmid