Abstract:Quantum 8, 1283 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-03-14-1283 It is useful to have a criterion for when the predictions of an operational theory should be considered classically explainable. Here we take the criterion to be that the theory admits of a generalized-noncontextual ontological model. Existing works on generalized noncontextuality have focused on experimental scenarios having a simple structure: typically, prepare-measure scenarios. Here, we formally extend the framework of ontological models as well as the principle of generalized noncontextuality to arbitrary compositional scenarios. We leverage a process-theoretic framework to prove that, under some reasonable assumptions, every generalized-noncontextual ontological model of a tomographically local operational theory has a surprisingly rigid and simple mathematical structure — in short, it corresponds to a frame representation which is not overcomplete. One consequence of this theorem is that the largest number of ontic states possible in any such model is given by the dimension of the associated generalized probabilistic theory. This constraint is useful for generating noncontextuality no-go theorems as well as techniques for experimentally certifying contextuality. Along the way, we extend known results concerning the equivalence of different notions of classicality from prepare-measure scenarios to arbitrary compositional scenarios. Specifically, we prove a correspondence between the following three notions of classical explainability of an operational theory: (i) existence of a noncontextual ontological model for it, (ii) existence of a positive quasiprobability representation for the generalized probabilistic theory it defines, and (iii) existence of an ontological model for the generalized probabilistic theory it defines.

Comment on a no-go theorem for $ψ$-ontic models

On the reality of the quantum state once again: A no-go theorem for $ψ$-ontic models

On the Reality of the Quantum State Once Again: A No-Go Theorem for -Ontic Models

Haag as a How-To Theorem

A structure theorem for generalized-noncontextual ontological models

Reconsidering No-Go Theorems from a Practical Perspective

Ontological models and the interpretation of contextuality

Comment on the GHZ variant of Bell's theorem without inequalities

A possibilistic no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox

No-go for fully unitary quantum mechanics from Bell's Theorem; comment on "Physics and Metaphysics of Wigner's Friends: Even performed pre-measurements have no results''

Physics, Philosophy, Observers and Multiverses

Comment on "Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory"

Comment on ``Consistent Sets Yield Contrary Inferences in Quantum Theory''

Comment on "Is a system's wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?" [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1111.6597" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.6597">arXiv:1111.6597</a>]

Weinberg's No Go Theorem in Quantum Gravity

Quantum reality with negative-mass particles

Comments on Unruh's Paper

Ontological States in Non-Interacting Quantum Field Theories

A critical analysis of `Relative facts do not exist. Relational quantum mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics' by Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz and Marek Źukowski

The prince and the pauper. A quantum paradox of Hilbert-space fundamentalism

An ontological description for relativistic, massive bosons