pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23898 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Contextuality from the Projector Overlap Matrix

Ali Can G\"unhan , Semahi Serhat Aksoy , Zafer Gedik
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords quantum contextualityKochen-Speckerprojector overlap matrixKCBS pentagonMaassen-Uffink boundcontextual fractionentropic witnessesCHSH inequality
0
0 comments X

The pith

The overlap matrix of joint-eigenspace projectors supplies a geometric witness S2 that is necessary for observable contextuality and remains informative where Maassen-Uffink bounds become trivial.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper organizes several contextuality indicators, including the KCBS correlator, contextual fraction, entropic n-cycle inequalities, and operational commutator witnesses, inside a single framework built from the overlap matrix of projectors belonging to compatible observable pairs. It proves that the derived quantity S2 is non-increasing under coarse-graining of the measurement configuration, that S2 greater than zero is a necessary condition at the level of the configuration itself for any observable contextuality to appear, and that S2 adds exactly across the five contexts of the KCBS pentagon. The same geometry shows why, in the spin-1 realization of KCBS, a shared m_s=0 eigenstate in every context forces the Maassen-Uffink extremal overlap to equal one, rendering all such uncertainty bounds trivial while S2 stays positive at approximately 2.7266 bits. Applied to both KCBS and CHSH, the framework locates regimes in which every state-dependent witness is silent yet S2 remains positive, set solely by the projector overlaps.

Core claim

The central claim is that the overlap matrix T_ij = d^{-1} tr[(P_i Q_j)^2], formed from the joint-eigenspace projectors of the two compatible pairs inside each context, carries the state-independent geometric content of contextuality through its two contractions: the mutual-information energy E = sum T_ij (or S2 = -log2 E) and the Maassen-Uffink extremal overlap c_MU. From this matrix the authors derive that S2 is monotonic under coarse-graining, that S2(G) > 0 is required for the configuration G to support observable contextuality, and that S2 composes additively for the KCBS pentagon. In the spin-1 embedding the shared eigenstate mechanism sets c_MU = 1, so every Maassen-Uffink-type bound

What carries the argument

The overlap matrix Tcal_ij built from joint-eigenspace projectors of compatible observable pairs, whose contractions define the mutual-information energy E and S2 = -log2 E together with the extremal overlap c_MU.

If this is right

  • Any configuration with S2 equal to zero cannot produce observable contextuality.
  • For the KCBS pentagon the total S2 equals the exact sum of the five individual context contributions.
  • In the spin-1 KCBS realization the Maassen-Uffink bounds are identically trivial while S2 stays positive and fixed by geometry.
  • There exist regimes of KCBS and CHSH in which the contextual fraction, KCBS correlator, and operational commutator all vanish yet S2 remains positive.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The exact additivity of S2 on KCBS suggests it could function as a composable resource quantifier when contexts are assembled into larger graphs.
  • Because S2 is determined solely by the projector geometry, the same matrix construction could be applied to other finite-dimensional contextuality scenarios to obtain state-independent lower bounds.
  • Experimental tests could compare the observed value of S2 against the amount of noise required to erase contextuality, checking whether the geometric quantity predicts robustness.

Load-bearing premise

That the trace-defined overlap matrix constructed from the projectors inside each context already encodes every geometric feature needed to decide whether observable contextuality is present.

What would settle it

An explicit quantum realization of a contextuality scenario (such as KCBS or CHSH) in which S2 evaluates to zero while a positive contextual fraction or inequality violation is still observed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23898 by Ali Can G\"unhan, Semahi Serhat Aksoy, Zafer Gedik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Three of the four state-dependent witnesses of Table I evaluated on the KCBS mixing family ˆρ view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Operational quantity view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: fig1.py view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We place several known indicators of Kochen--Specker contextuality -- the KCBS correlator $\chi$, the contextual fraction $\CF$, the Shannon-entropic $n$-cycle inequality of Chaves and Fritz, and the operational commutator witness $D$ of Paper~I -- into a single projector-geometric framework organized around the overlap matrix $\Tcal_{ij} = d^{-1}\tr[(\hat P_i \hat Q_j)^2]$, where $\hat P_i$ and $\hat Q_j$ are the joint-eigenspace projectors of the two compatible observable pairs within a measurement context. The state-independent scalar content of $\Tcal$ is carried by two independent contractions: the mutual information energy $E = \sum_{ij}\Tcal_{ij}$ of Paper~I (equivalently, its logarithmic form $S_2 = -\log_2 E$), and the Maassen--Uffink extremal overlap $c_\MU = \max_{i,j}|\langle a_i,b_i | c_j,b_j\rangle|$. We prove that $S_2$ is non-increasing under coarse-graining, that $S_2(\Gcal) > 0$ is a necessary configuration-level condition for observable contextuality, and that the additive composition $S_2(\Gcal) = \sum_\alpha S_2(\Gcal_\alpha)$ is exact for the KCBS pentagon. We further show that in the spin-$1$ realization of the KCBS pentagon, a shared $m_s=0$ eigenstate in each context forces $c_\MU = 1$, rendering every Maassen--Uffink-type bound trivial -- a structural mechanism that makes explicit why outcome-entropic uncertainty relations based on $c_\MU$ are silent on KCBS contextuality, while $S_2 \approx 2.7266$~bits throughout. Applied to KCBS and CHSH, the framework identifies regimes in which every state-dependent witness considered here is silent yet $S_2(\Gcal) > 0$ by an amount set by the projector geometry alone.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a projector-geometric framework for Kochen-Specker contextuality organized around the overlap matrix T_ij = d^{-1} tr[(P_i Q_j)^2], where P_i and Q_j are joint-eigenspace projectors of compatible observables within each context. It unifies the KCBS correlator χ, contextual fraction CF, Chaves-Fritz entropic n-cycle inequality, and the operational commutator D by extracting two state-independent contractions from T: the mutual-information energy E (equivalently S_2 = -log_2 E) and the Maassen-Uffink extremal overlap c_MU. The central claims are three explicit proofs: (i) S_2 is non-increasing under coarse-graining, (ii) S_2(G) > 0 is a necessary configuration-level condition for observable contextuality, and (iii) exact additivity S_2(G) = sum_α S_2(G_α) holds for the KCBS pentagon. The paper further shows that in the spin-1 KCBS realization a shared m_s=0 eigenstate forces c_MU = 1 (rendering all Maassen-Uffink bounds trivial) while S_2 remains positive at approximately 2.7266 bits, and identifies regimes of KCBS and CHSH where all listed state-dependent witnesses are silent yet S_2(G) > 0.

Significance. If the claimed proofs hold, the work supplies a clean geometric distinction between the state-independent content encoded in the projector-overlap matrix T and the state-dependent witnesses (χ, CF, D, MU bounds). The monotonicity, necessity, and exact additivity results for S_2 would be useful for compositional analysis of contextuality and for explaining why entropic uncertainty relations based on c_MU are silent on certain realizations such as spin-1 KCBS. The framework also supplies a concrete, falsifiable witness (S_2(G) > 0) that can detect contextuality in regimes where the other indicators vanish.

major comments (1)
  1. The three central proofs (monotonicity of S_2, necessity of S_2(G) > 0, and exact additivity for KCBS) are stated to follow directly from the trace definition of T_ij, yet the manuscript does not display the explicit trace identities or inequality steps used to establish them. Because these derivations are load-bearing for the claim that S_2 furnishes a configuration-level, state-independent witness, the full algebraic steps must be supplied (or referenced to a self-contained appendix) so that the absence of hidden dimension or state-preparation assumptions can be verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation: the symbol G is used both for the full contextuality graph and for its subgraphs G_α; a brief clarifying sentence or index convention would prevent confusion when the additivity relation is stated.
  2. The numerical value S_2 ≈ 2.7266 bits for the spin-1 KCBS realization should be accompanied by the explicit projector matrix or overlap values from which it is computed, to allow independent reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying the need for greater explicitness in the derivations of the three central results on S_2. We have revised the manuscript to supply the requested algebraic details in a self-contained appendix.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The three central proofs (monotonicity of S_2, necessity of S_2(G) > 0, and exact additivity for KCBS) are stated to follow directly from the trace definition of T_ij, yet the manuscript does not display the explicit trace identities or inequality steps used to establish them. Because these derivations are load-bearing for the claim that S_2 furnishes a configuration-level, state-independent witness, the full algebraic steps must be supplied (or referenced to a self-contained appendix) so that the absence of hidden dimension or state-preparation assumptions can be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the main text presents the three results at a summary level and that the explicit trace manipulations should be displayed for verification. In the revised version we have added a new Appendix A containing the complete derivations. These proceed solely from the definition T_ij = d^{-1} tr[(P_i Q_j)^2] together with the algebraic properties of projectors (idempotence, mutual orthogonality within each context, and trace linearity). No additional assumptions on Hilbert-space dimension (beyond the finite d appearing in the definition) or on any quantum state are used. We have inserted forward references to Appendix A at each of the three claims in the main text. The referee's suggestion of a self-contained appendix is therefore implemented. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central proofs derive independently from trace definitions

full rationale

The paper defines the overlap matrix T_ij via the trace formula on joint-eigenspace projectors and states that the three main results—S2 non-increasing under coarse-graining, S2(G) > 0 as a necessary condition for observable contextuality, and exact additivity S2(G) = sum S2(G_alpha) for the KCBS pentagon—follow directly from that definition. Although E (and thus S2) and the witness D are noted as originating in Paper I, the new claims are not obtained by renaming or re-using prior results by construction; the monotonicity, necessity, and additivity statements are presented as fresh derivations from the projector geometry of T. The spin-1 KCBS illustration further shows a regime where c_MU = 1 yet S2 remains positive, without any parameter fitting or hidden dependence on the earlier definitions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the standard definition of projectors and the trace inner product in finite-dimensional Hilbert space; no new free parameters, ad-hoc axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Projectors onto joint eigenspaces of compatible observables satisfy the usual algebraic relations P^2 = P, tr(P) = rank(P), and the overlap matrix entries are well-defined via the normalized trace.
    Invoked in the definition T_ij = d^{-1} tr[(P_i Q_j)^2] and in all subsequent contractions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5706 in / 1617 out tokens · 80961 ms · 2026-05-08T06:06:17.758704+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    cyclic orth

    sil. (1.5329) BCk n (Chaves–Fritz) sil.;≤−1.1667 bits sil. (−1.2018) act. (+0.2309) D(Paper I) 0 on ˆρ(p); act. on|+1 z⟩0 on|Φ +⟩0 on|Φ +⟩ −2 log2 cMU = 0 (Prop. 3) 1 bit≈0.1002 bits Berta EUR-QSI trivial nontrivial nontrivial TABLE II. Configuration-level quantities, defined from the overlap matrixT. CHSH columns are the same two angle choices as in Tabl...

    2018

  2. [2]

    D.7), the bound attained at ˆρ=|0 z⟩⟨0z|and further below it asp decreases, more than one bit below the noncontextual threshold

    silent (−1.2018) active ( √ 2−1) 0 on|Φ +⟩4 bits CHSH, E angles silent (1.5329) active (+0.2309) silent (0) 0 on|Φ +⟩ ≈0.9770 bits of Chaves and Fritz [8, 9], BCk n =H(X kXk+1)+ X j̸=k,k+1 H(X j)− X j̸=k H(X jXj+1)≤0 (21) for allk, is satisfied with strict margin everywhere along the family ˆρ(p): numerically max k BCk 5(ˆρ(p))≤ −1.1667 bits (tabulation i...

    2018

  3. [3]

    is required to detect the entropic-optimal regime. (b)Dvanishes on|Φ +⟩independent of angle.The commutator [ ˆAα−1, ˆAα+1] in each context is pure- imaginary Hermitian, and|Φ +⟩is invariant under the combined time-reversal of both qubits; hence ⟨[ ˆAα−1, ˆAα+1]⟩|Φ+⟩ = 0 identically, in both regimes. This is the CHSH analogue ofD’s silence on ˆρ(p) in the ...

    1929

  4. [4]

    S. B. Kochen and E. P. Specker, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics17, 59 (1967)

    1967

  5. [5]

    Budroni, A

    C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. G¨ uhne, M. Kleinmann, and J.-A. Larsson, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045007 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    N. N. Vorob’ev, Theory of Probability and its Applica- tions7, 147 (1962)

    1962

  7. [7]

    Abramsky and A

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, New Journal of Physics13, 113036 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    A. A. Klyachko, M. A. Can, S. Binicio˘ glu, and A. S. Shumovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 020403 (2008)

    2008

  9. [9]

    A. A. Klyachko, Coherent states, entanglement, and geo- metric invariant theory (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0206012 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2002

  10. [11]

    Chaves and T

    R. Chaves and T. Fritz, Phys. Rev. A85, 032113 (2012)

    2012

  11. [13]

    Kurzy´ nski, R

    P. Kurzy´ nski, R. Ramanathan, and D. Kaszlikowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 020404 (2012)

    2012

  12. [14]

    Amaral, C

    B. Amaral, C. Duarte, and M. Oszmaniec, J. Math. Phys. 59, 072202 (2018)

    2018

  13. [15]

    Amaral, Phil

    B. Amaral, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A377, 20190010 (2019)

    2019

  14. [16]

    Maassen and J

    H. Maassen and J. B. M. Uffink, Phys. Rev. Lett.60, 1103 (1988)

    1988

  15. [17]

    Berta, M

    M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J. M. Renes, and R. Renner, Nat. Phys.6, 659 (2010)

    2010

  16. [18]

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015002 (2017)

    2017

  17. [21]

    (2026), see Supplemental Material at [URL will be in- serted by publisher] for computational details of all table entries, derivations of the KCBS and CHSH scenario re- sults, proofs of Prop 1 (monotone), Prop 2 (necessary), Prop 3 (shared eigenstate), and numerical verification scripts

    2026

  18. [22]

    Onicescu, Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Sciences Series AB263, 841 (1966)

    O. Onicescu, Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Sciences Series AB263, 841 (1966)

    1966

  19. [23]

    R´ enyi, inProceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Sympo- sium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1960, Vol

    A. R´ enyi, inProceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Sympo- sium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1960, Vol. 4.1 (University of California Press, 1961) pp. 547– 561

    1960

  20. [26]

    Bj¨ orck and G

    ˚A. Bj¨ orck and G. H. Golub, Math. Comp.27, 579 (1973)

    1973

  21. [27]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  22. [30]

    E. N. Dzhafarov, J. V. Kujala, and V. H. Cervantes, in Quantum Interaction. QI 2015. Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, Vol. 9535 (Springer, 2016) pp. 12–23

    2015

  23. [31]

    Grudka, K

    A. Grudka, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, P. Joshi, W. K lobus, and A. W´ ojcik, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 120401 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Peres, Physics Letters A151, 107 (1990)

    A. Peres, Physics Letters A151, 107 (1990)

    1990

  25. [33]

    N. D. Mermin, Rev. Mod. Phys.65, 803 (1993)

    1993

  26. [34]

    Contextuality from the Projector Overlap Matrix

    S. Yu and C. H. Oh, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 030402 (2012). Supplemental Material for “Contextuality from the Projector Overlap Matrix” A. C. G¨ unhan,1,∗ S. S. Aksoy, 2 and Z. Gedik 3 1Department of Physics, Mersin University, C ¸ iftlikk¨ oy Merkez Yerle¸ skesi, Yeni¸ sehir, Mersin, 33343 T¨ urkiye 2S ¸ehit Mustafa G¨ oksal Anatolian High School, Ministry o...

    2012

  27. [35]

    ,5) lie on a cone of polar angleθ KCBS with respect to thez-axis, ˆℓα = (sinθ KCBS cosϕ α,sinθ KCBS sinϕ α,cosθ KCBS), (S9) with cyclic azimuthal spacingϕ α = (α−1)·6π/5

    Setup and observables In the spin-1 realizationH=C 3 (d= 3) with genera- tors ˆSx, ˆSy, ˆSz satisfying the standard [ ˆSa, ˆSb] =iϵ abc ˆSc commutation relations, the five KCBS directions ˆℓα (α= 1, . . . ,5) lie on a cone of polar angleθ KCBS with respect to thez-axis, ˆℓα = (sinθ KCBS cosϕ α,sinθ KCBS sinϕ α,cosθ KCBS), (S9) with cyclic azimuthal spacin...

  28. [36]

    ˆAα has eigenvalue−1 on the one-dimensional span of|0 α⟩and +1 on its two-dimensional orthogonal com- plement

    Mutual information energyE(G α) The joint-eigenspace projectors of each compatible pair, say the left pair ( ˆAα−1, ˆAα), decomposeC 3 as fol- lows. ˆAα has eigenvalue−1 on the one-dimensional span of|0 α⟩and +1 on its two-dimensional orthogonal com- plement. The neighbor ˆAα−1 splits the +1-eigenspace of ˆAα into two one-dimensional joint eigenspaces (co...

  29. [37]

    LetG α ={ ˆAα−1, ˆAα, ˆAα+1}be a KCBS context as defined in D 1

    Shared-eigenstate mechanism:c MU(Gα) = 1 We present the full argument behind Proposition 3 of the main text. LetG α ={ ˆAα−1, ˆAα, ˆAα+1}be a KCBS context as defined in D 1. Define|0 α⟩as them s = 0 eigenstate of ˆS· ˆℓα. Since ˆAα = ˆI−2|0 α⟩⟨0α|, we have ˆAα |0α⟩=− |0 α⟩immediately. For the outer observables we use cyclic orthogonality. Since ˆℓα−1 · ˆℓ...

  30. [38]

    Mixing thresholdp ⋆ and state familyˆρ(p) The state family of interest is the linear interpolation ˆρ(p) =p|0z⟩⟨0z|+ (1−p) ˆI/3, p∈[0,1],(S12) between the KCBS-maximizing state|0 z⟩(p= 1) and the maximally mixed stateˆI/3 (p= 0). The KCBS correlator χ(ˆρ) =P5 α=1 Tr( ˆAα ˆAα+1 ˆρ) is a linear functional of ˆρ, so its value on ˆρ(p) is χ(ˆρ(p)) =p χ(|0z⟩) ...

  31. [39]

    KCBS correlatorχ(|0 z⟩) Using ˆAα = ˆI−2|0 α⟩⟨0α|and cyclic orthogonality ⟨0α|0α+1⟩= 0, direct expansion gives ˆAα ˆAα+1 = (ˆI−2|0 α⟩⟨0α|)(ˆI−2|0 α+1⟩⟨0α+1|) = ˆI−2|0 α⟩⟨0α| −2|0 α+1⟩⟨0α+1|,(S15) since the cross term vanishes. Taking expectation in|0 z⟩, ⟨0z| ˆAα ˆAα+1|0z⟩= 1−2|⟨0 z|0α⟩|2 −2|⟨0 z|0α+1⟩|2.(S16) For the spin-1 rotation that maps|0 z⟩to|0 α⟩...

  32. [40]

    Contextual fractionCF(|0 z⟩) = 2( √ 5−2) The contextual fraction of Ref. [1] is defined as the smallest valueλ∈[0,1] such that the empirical distribu- tioneadmits a decompositione= (1−λ)e NC +λe ′, with eNC a noncontextual (deterministic hidden-variable) dis- tribution ande ′ any no-signaling distribution. For the KCBS 5-cycle this CF is related to the co...

  33. [41]

    The inequality is permutation-symmetric under cyclic shiftsk→k+ 1; by pentagonal symmetry of the KCBS pentagon and the ˆρ(p) family, BCk 5(ˆρ(p)) is independent ofk

    Chaves–F ritz entropic inequality:BC k 5 ≤ −1.1667 bits The Chaves–Fritzn-cycle entropic inequality reads BCk n(ˆρ) =H(XkXk+1)+ X j̸=k,k+1 H(X j)− X j̸=k H(X jXj+1)≤0 (S21) for every noncontextual model, where all entropies are Shannon entropies in bits of the corresponding single or joint outcome distributions obtained by measuring the observables ˆAj in...

  34. [42]

    Under the antiunitary time-reversal operator ˆT= ˆK(complex conjugation in this basis), ˆAα is TR-even and [ ˆAα−1, ˆAα+1] therefore flips sign

    OperationalDonˆρ(p)and on|+1 z⟩ The operational witness of Paper I is D(Gα,ˆρ) = ⟨[ ˆAα−1, ˆAα+1]⟩ˆρ ,(S22) D(G,ˆρ) = 5X α=1 D(Gα,ˆρ).(S23) Vanishing onˆρ(p).The commutator [ ˆAα−1, ˆAα+1] is anti-Hermitian (a property of any commutator of Hermi- tian operators), and since ˆAα are real symmetric matrices in the spin-1 basis{|+1 z⟩,|0 z⟩,|−1 z⟩}, the commu...

  35. [43]

    II.D, S2(G) =−log 2 NY α=1 E(Gα),(S26) a priori over-counts any shared ordered joint-projector pair that appears in the families of more than one con- text

    Additive exactness ofS 2 for KCBS The multi-context composition of the main text Sec. II.D, S2(G) =−log 2 NY α=1 E(Gα),(S26) a priori over-counts any shared ordered joint-projector pair that appears in the families of more than one con- text. The exactness criterion (C) requires either (i) no shared ordered pair, or (ii) every shared pair has zero overlap...

    2067

  36. [44]

    Setup: the CHSH 4-cycle on|Φ +⟩ The CHSH 4-cycle is realized on two qubits (H=C 2 ⊗ C2,d= 4) in the Bell state|Φ +⟩= (|00⟩+|11⟩)/ √

  37. [45]

    Adjacent pairs in the 4-cycle commute automatically because each contains one Al- ice operator and one Bob operator

    The four observables are ˆA1 = ˆσa0 ⊗ ˆI, ˆA2 = ˆI⊗ˆσb0 , ˆA3 = ˆσa1 ⊗ ˆI, ˆA4 = ˆI⊗ˆσb1 , (S30) where ˆσt = cos(t)ˆσz + sin(t)ˆσx is the equatorial-plane Pauli observable at anglet. Adjacent pairs in the 4-cycle commute automatically because each contains one Al- ice operator and one Bob operator. The context-shared “middle” observable ˆAα therefore also...

  38. [46]

    Bell-optimal angles.The assignment (a0, b0, a1, b1) = (0, π/4, π/2,−π/4) (S32) is the standard CHSH choice

    Two angle regimes The main text examines two representative choices of (a0, b0, a1, b1). Bell-optimal angles.The assignment (a0, b0, a1, b1) = (0, π/4, π/2,−π/4) (S32) is the standard CHSH choice. Substituting in the Bell- state correlators,⟨ˆσa ⊗ˆσb⟩= cos(a−b): ⟨ ˆA1 ˆA2⟩= cos(0−π/4) = 1/ √ 2,(S33) ⟨ ˆA2 ˆA3⟩= cos(π/2−π/4) = 1/ √ 2,(S34) ⟨ ˆA3 ˆA4⟩= cos(...

  39. [47]

    Configuration-level quantities (E,c MU,S 2) are deter- mined by the observables alone; state-dependent quan- tities (χCHSH, BCk 4, CF,D) are evaluated on|Φ +⟩

    Cell values per regime We collect the per-cell derivations for each angle choice. Configuration-level quantities (E,c MU,S 2) are deter- mined by the observables alone; state-dependent quan- tities (χCHSH, BCk 4, CF,D) are evaluated on|Φ +⟩. E.3.1. Bell-optimal angles:(0, π/4, π/2,−π/4) χCHSH = 2 √ 2.Derived in E 2. CF = √ 2−1.For the CHSH 4-cycle, the co...

    2018

  40. [48]

    Abramsky, R

    S. Abramsky, R. S. Barbosa, and S. Mansfield, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 050504 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Liang, R

    Y.-C. Liang, R. W. Spekkens, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rep.506, 1 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    Cabello, S

    A. Cabello, S. Severini, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 040401 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Ara´ ujo, M

    M. Ara´ ujo, M. T. Quintino, C. Budroni, M. Terra Cunha, and A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. A88, 022118 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    A. C. G¨ unhan and Z. Gedik, arXiv:2512.11049 [quant-ph] (2026), companion paper (Paper I); accepted, J. Phys. A

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [53]

    B. S. Cirel’son, Letters in Mathematical Physics4, 93 (1980)

    1980

  46. [54]

    Popescu and D

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Foundations of Physics24, 379 (1994)

    1994

  47. [55]

    Chaves, Phys

    R. Chaves, Phys. Rev. A87, 022102 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt,et al., Nature585, 357 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    J. D. Hunter, Comput. Sci. Eng.9, 90 (2007)

    2007