Table of Links
-
Contextuality for general probabilistic theories
3.2 Operational theory associated to a GPT system
-
Hierarchy of contextuality and 4.1 Motivation and the resource theory
4.2 Contextuality of composite systems
-
Discussion
A Physicality of the Holevo projection
6 Conclusion
Generalized contextuality, a leading notion of nonclassicality, is of crucial importance both in the foundations of quantum theory and in quantum information processing. Despite this, there is no complete characterisation of generalised contextuality as a resource. In this work we address this shortcoming.
Based on recent developments formulating noncontextuality of GPT systems via simplex embeddability, we have defined a resource theory of contextuality of GPT systems in prepare-and-measure scenarios. The free resources are the noncontextual systems and the free operations are univalent simulations with free access to classical systems. Using these notions, we motivate a hierarchy of contextuality for GPT systems. A new contextuality monotone arises naturally from our considerations— the classical excess, which expresses the minimum error of a univalent simulation by the countably-infinite classical system. We have also shown how a standard witness of contextuality, in the form of the POM success probability, can be used to define a contextuality monotone.
We have also discussed how GPT simulations could describe a physical process of information erasure that would explain the fine-tuning associated with contextuality[8] in a similar way to how the quantum equilibration process proposed by Valentini explains the fine-tuning associated with nonlocality in Bohmian mechanics. We have argued that the information erasure in this case would be different than a simple coarse-graining. An interesting avenue for future research would be to further characterize this kind of information erasure and propose a test to detect heat dissipation in experiments manifesting contextuality. Even though such a proposal is undoubtedly radical, we believe that it could explain the fine-tuning associated with contextuality without abandoning the ontological models framework.
Another direction for further investigation is to develop a solid interpretation and establish the use-cases of the resource theory of GPT-contextuality that we provide. It is known that a resource theory of a given notion need not be unique. We have examples of this fact, like the resource theories of entanglement based on LOCC [81] and LOSR [82, 83] free operations, respectively. This does not mean that only one of them is “the correct resource theory of entanglement”. Rather, these resource theories may be applicable in different contexts or for different purposes. In the case of entanglement, one can say that LOCC operations are relevant for communication tasks in the context of quantum internet and LOSR operations are relevant for the study of entanglement in Bell scenarios.
In this respect, we have discussed the relation of our work with other studies of generalized contextuality for GPTs in section 5.2. One that we did not mention is [72]. It would be interesting to find a relationship between our classical excess and the simulation cost of contextuality defined therein. Finally, it would be also interesting to extend the methods developed here to the realm of resource theories of more general fine-tunings [4], such as violations of time symmetry [84] and bounded ontological distinctness [85].
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the participants of the PIMan workshop – Orange (CA), March 2019 – where the idea of this project originated. In particular, Luke Burns and Justin Dressel, who were part of the initial discussions on the project. The authors further thank Rafael Wagner for insightful explanations regarding the approach of Duarte and Amaral [44]. LC thanks Farid Shahandeh and TGa thanks Markus M¨uller for helpful discussions. This project started when LC was supported by the Fetzer Franklin Fund of the John E. Fetzer Memorial Trust and by the Army Research Office (ARO) (Grant No. W911NF-18-1-0178). LC also acknowledges funding from the Einstein Research Unit “Perspectives of a Quantum Digital Transformation” and from the Horizon Europe project FoQaCiA, GA no.101070558. TGa acknowledges support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via project P 33730-N. TGo acknowledges support from the Austrian Science Fund. This research was funded in whole or in part by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) via the START Prize Y1261-N. This research was supported in part by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Research at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.
For open access purposes, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any accepted manuscript version arising from this submission.
References
[1] David Schmid. Generalized noncontextuality. Solstice of Foundations, ETH Zurich, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3qn3EHWdOg.
[2] R. W. Spekkens. Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Phys. Rev. A, 71:052108, May 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.71.052108.
[3] Robert Spekkens. The ontological identity of empirical indiscernibles: Leibniz’s methodological principle and its significance in the work of einstein. arXiv:1909.04628, 2019. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1909.04628.
[4] Lorenzo Catani and Matthew Leifer. A mathematical framework for operational fine tunings. Quantum, 7:948, March 2023. doi:10.22331/q-2023-03-16-948.
[5] Christopher Ferrie and Joseph Emerson. Frame representations of quantum mechanics and the necessity of negativity in quasi-probability representations. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41(35):352001, jul 2008. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/35/352001.
[6] Robert W. Spekkens. Negativity and contextuality are equivalent notions of nonclassicality. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101:020401, Jul 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.020401.
[7] J. S. Bell. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1(3):195–200, 1964. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195.
[8] Michael D. Mazurek, Matthew F. Pusey, Ravi Kunjwal, Kevin J. Resch, and Robert W. Spekkens. An experimental test of noncontextuality without unphysical idealizations. Nature Communications, 7(1):ncomms11780, 2016. doi:10.1038/ncomms11780.
[9] Michael D. Mazurek, Matthew F. Pusey, Kevin J. Resch, and Robert W. Spekkens. Experimentally bounding deviations from quantum theory in the landscape of generalized probabilistic theories. PRX Quantum, 2:020302, Apr 2021. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020302.
[10] Robert W. Spekkens, D. H. Buzacott, A. J. Keehn, Ben Toner, and G. J. Pryde. Preparation Contextuality Powers Parity-Oblivious Multiplexing. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102(1):010401, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.010401.
[11] Alley Hameedi, Armin Tavakoli, Breno Marques, and Mohamed Bourennane. Communication games reveal preparation contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:220402, Nov 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.220402.
[12] David Schmid and Robert W. Spekkens. Contextual advantage for state discrimination. Phys. Rev. X, 8:011015, Feb 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011015.
[13] Debashis Saha and Anubhav Chaturvedi. Preparation contextuality as an essential feature underlying quantum communication advantage. Phys. Rev. A, 100:022108, Aug 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.100.022108.
[14] Matteo Lostaglio and Gabriel Senno. Contextual advantage for state-dependent cloning. Quantum, 4:258, April 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-04-27-258.
[15] Matteo Lostaglio. Certifying quantum signatures in thermodynamics and metrology via contextuality of quantum linear response. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125:230603, Dec 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.230603.
[16] Shiv Akshar Yadavalli and Ravi Kunjwal. Contextuality in entanglement-assisted one-shot classical communication. Quantum, 6:839, October 2022. doi:10.22331/q-2022-10-13-839.
[17] Kieran Flatt, Hanwool Lee, Carles Roch I Carceller, Jonatan Bohr Brask, and Joonwoo Bae. Contextual advantages and certification for maximum-confidence discrimination. PRX Quantum, 3:030337, Sep 2022. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.030337.
[18] Carles Roch i Carceller, Kieran Flatt, Hanwool Lee, Joonwoo Bae, and Jonatan Bohr Brask. Quantum vs noncontextual semi-device-independent randomness certification. Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:050501, Jul 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.050501.
[19] Lorenzo Catani, Matthew Leifer, Giovanni Scala, David Schmid, and Robert W. Spekkens. What is nonclassical about uncertainty relations? Phys. Rev. Lett., 129:240401, Dec 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.240401.
[20] Rafael Wagner, Anita Camillini, and Ernesto F. Galvao. Coherence and contextuality in a mach-zehnder interferometer. Quantum, 8:1240, February 2024. doi:10.22331/q-2024-02-05-1240.
[21] Lorenzo Catani, Matthew Leifer, Giovanni Scala, David Schmid, and Robert W. Spekkens. Aspects of the phenomenology of interference that are genuinely nonclassical. Phys. Rev. A, 108:022207, Aug 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.108.022207.
[22] Bob Coecke, Tobias Fritz, and Robert W. Spekkens. A mathematical theory of resources. Information and Computation, 250:59–86, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2016.02.008. Quantum Physics and Logic.
[23] Eric Chitambar and Gilad Gour. Quantum resource theories. Rev. Mod. Phys., 91:025001, Apr 2019. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.91.025001.
[24] Gilad Gour. Resources of the quantum world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05474, 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.05474.
[25] Ryszard Horodecki, Pawe l Horodecki, Micha l Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, Jun 2009. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865.
[26] Tom´aˇs Gonda. Resource theories as quantale modules. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.02349, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.02349.
[27] Lucien Hardy. Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms. arXiv:quant-ph/0101012, 2001. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0101012.
[28] Jonathan Barrett. Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories. Phys. Rev. A, 75:032304, Mar 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032304.
[29] Peter Janotta and Haye Hinrichsen. Generalized probability theories: what determines the structure of quantum theory? Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(32): 323001, jul 2014. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/32/323001.
[30] Martin Pl´avala. General probabilistic theories: An introduction. Physics Reports, 1033:1–64, 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.001. General probabilistic theories: An introduction.
[31] Daniel Gottesman. Stabilizer codes and quantum error correction. PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, 1997. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9705052.
[32] Markus P. M¨uller and Andrew J. P. Garner. Testing quantum theory by generalizing noncontextuality. Phys. Rev. X, 13:041001, Oct 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041001.
[33] Simon Kochen and E. P. Specker. The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics, pages 293–328. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1975. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1795-4 17.
[34] Samson Abramsky, Rui Soares Barbosa, and Shane Mansfield. Contextual fraction as a measure of contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:050504, Aug 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.050504.
[35] Rui Soares Barbosa, Martti Karvonen, and Shane Mansfield. Closing Bell Boxing Black Box Simulations in the Resource Theory of Contextuality, pages 475–529. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24117-8 13.
[36] Martti Karvonen. Neither contextuality nor nonlocality admits catalysts. Phys. Rev. Lett., 127:160402, Oct 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.160402.
[37] Samson Abramsky and Adam Brandenburger. The sheaf-theoretic structure of nonlocality and contextuality. New Journal of Physics, 13(11):113036, nov 2011. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113036.
[38] Matthias Kleinmann, Otfried G¨uhne, Jos´e R Portillo, Jan-˚Ake Larsson, and Ad´an Cabello. Memory cost of quantum contextuality. New Journal of Physics, 13(11):113011, nov 2011. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113011.
[39] Karl Svozil. How much contextuality? Natural Computing, 11(2):261–265, 2012. doi:10.1007/s11047-012-9318-9.
[40] A. Grudka, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, R. Horodecki, P. Joshi, W. K lobus, and A. W´ojcik. Quantifying contextuality. Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:120401, Mar 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.120401.
[41] Lu Li, Kaifeng Bu, and Junde Wu. Contextual robustness: An operational measure of contextuality. Phys. Rev. A, 101:012120, Jan 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.101.012120.
[42] Karol Horodecki, Jingfang Zhou, Maciej Stankiewicz, Roberto Salazar, Pawe l Horodecki, Robert Raussendorf, Ryszard Horodecki, Ravishankar Ramanathan, and Emily Tyhurst. The rank of contextuality. New Journal of Physics, 25(7):073003, jul 2023. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/acdf78.
[43] Barbara Amaral. Resource theory of contextuality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 377(2157):20190010, 2019. doi:10.1098/rsta.2019.0010.
[44] Cristhiano Duarte and Barbara Amaral. Resource theory of contextuality for arbitrary prepare-and-measure experiments. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 59(6):062202, 06 2018. doi:10.1063/1.5018582.
[45] David Schmid, Robert W. Spekkens, and Elie Wolfe. All the noncontextuality inequalities for arbitrary prepare-and-measure experiments with respect to any fixed set of operational equivalences. Phys. Rev. A, 97:062103, Jun 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.97.062103.
[46] Rafael Wagner, Roberto D Baldij˜ao, Alisson Tezzin, and B´arbara Amaral. Using a resource theoretic perspective to witness and engineer quantum generalized contextuality for prepareand-measure scenarios. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 56(50):505303, nov 2023. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad0bcc.
[47] David Schmid, John H. Selby, Elie Wolfe, Ravi Kunjwal, and Robert W. Spekkens. Characterization of noncontextuality in the framework of generalized probabilistic theories. PRX Quantum, 2:010331, Feb 2021. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010331.
[48] Victor Gitton and Mischa P. Woods. Solvable Criterion for the Contextuality of any Prepareand-Measure Scenario. Quantum, 6:732, June 2022. doi:10.22331/q-2022-06-07-732.
[49] Victor Gitton and Mischa P. Woods. On the system loophole of generalized noncontextuality. arXiv:2209.04469, 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.04469.
[50] Farid Shahandeh. Contextuality of general probabilistic theories. PRX Quantum, 2:010330, Feb 2021. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010330.
[51] John H. Selby, David Schmid, Elie Wolfe, Ana Bel´en Sainz, Ravi Kunjwal, and Robert W. Spekkens. Accessible fragments of generalized probabilistic theories, cone equivalence, and applications to witnessing nonclassicality. Phys. Rev. A, 107:062203, Jun 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062203.
[52] John H. Selby, Elie Wolfe, David Schmid, Ana Bel´en Sainz, and Vinicius P. Rossi. Linear program for testing nonclassicality and an open-source implementation. Phys. Rev. Lett., 132: 050202, Jan 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.050202.
[53] Nicholas Harrigan and Robert W. Spekkens. Einstein, Incompleteness, and the Epistemic View of Quantum States. Foundations of Physics, 40(2):125–157, 2010. doi:10.1007/s10701-009-9347-0.
[54] E. Brian Davies and John T. Lewis. An operational approach to quantum probability. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 17(3):239–260, 1970.
[55] G¨unther Ludwig. An Axiomatic Basis for Quantum Mechanics: Volume 1 Derivation of Hilbert Space Structure. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985. OCLC: 858930098.
[56] Ludovico Lami. Non-classical correlations in quantum mechanics and beyond. arXiv:1803.02902, 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.02902.
[57] Roberto Beneduci and Leon Loveridge. Incompatibility of effects in general probabilistic models. 55(25):254005, may 2022. doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac6f9d.
[58] Martin Pl´avala. General probabilistic theories: An introduction. Physics Reports, 1033:1–64, 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2023.09.001. General probabilistic theories: An introduction. [
59] Aleksandr S. Holevo. Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory. Number 1 in Quaderni Monographs. Edizioni della normale, Pisa, 2., english ed edition, 2011. OCLC: 746305136.
[60] E G Beltrametti and S Bugajski. A classical extension of quantum mechanics. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 28(12):3329, jun 1995. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/28/12/007.
[61] Bob Coecke, Tobias Fritz, and Robert W. Spekkens. A mathematical theory of resources. Information and Computation, 250:59–86, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ic.2016.02.008. Quantum Physics and Logic.
[62] Nicholas Gauguin Houghton-Larsen. A mathematical framework for causally structured dilations and its relation to quantum self-testing. arXiv:2103.02302, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.02302.
[63] Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano, Marco Erba, and Paolo Perinotti. Classical theories with entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 101:042118, Apr 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.101.042118. [64] Tobias Fritz. Resource convertibility and ordered commutative monoids. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 27(6):850–938, 2017. doi:10.1017/S0960129515000444.
[65] Tom´aˇs Gonda and Robert W. Spekkens. Monotones in General Resource Theories. Compositionality, 5, August 2023. doi:10.32408/compositionality-5-7.
[66] Robert W. Spekkens. Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory. Phys. Rev. A, 75:032110, Mar 2007. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032110.
[67] Manik Banik, Some Sankar Bhattacharya, Amit Mukherjee, Arup Roy, Andris Ambainis, and Ashutosh Rai. Limited preparation contextuality in quantum theory and its relation to the cirel’son bound. Phys. Rev. A, 92:030103, Sep 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.92.030103.
[68] Andr´e Chailloux, Iordanis Kerenidis, Srijita Kundu, and Jamie Sikora. Optimal bounds for parity-oblivious random access codes. New Journal of Physics, 18(4):045003, apr 2016. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/4/045003.
[69] Shouvik Ghorai and A. K. Pan. Optimal quantum preparation contextuality in an n-bit parity-oblivious multiplexing task. Phys. Rev. A, 98:032110, Sep 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.032110.
[70] Debashis Saha, Pawe l Horodecki, and Marcin Paw lowski. State independent contextuality advances one-way communication. New Journal of Physics, 21(9):093057, sep 2019. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab4149.
[71] Andris Ambainis, Manik Banik, Anubhav Chaturvedi, Dmitry Kravchenko, and Ashutosh Rai. Parity oblivious d-level random access codes and class of noncontextuality inequalities. Quantum Information Processing, 18(4):111, 2019. doi:10.1007/s11128-019-2228-3.
[72] Armin Tavakoli, Emmanuel Zambrini Cruzeiro, Roope Uola, and Alastair A. Abbott. Bounding and simulating contextual correlations in quantum theory. PRX Quantum, 2:020334, Jun 2021. doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.020334.
[73] Lorenzo Catani, Ricardo Faleiro, Pierre-Emmanuel Emeriau, Shane Mansfield, and Anna Pappa. Connecting xor and xor∗ games. Phys. Rev. A, 109:012427, Jan 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.012427.
[74] Massy Khoshbin, Lorenzo Catani, and Matthew Leifer. Alternative robust ways of witnessing nonclassicality in the simplest scenario. Phys. Rev. A, 109:032212, Mar 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.032212.
[75] Antony Valentini. Signal-locality, uncertainty, and the subquantum h-theorem. i. Physics Letters A, 156(1):5 – 11, 1991. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(91)90116-P.
[76] David Schmid, John H. Selby, and Robert W. Spekkens. Addressing some common objections to generalized noncontextuality. Phys. Rev. A, 109:022228, Feb 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.109.022228.
[77] Robert W. Spekkens. Quasi-Quantization: Classical Statistical Theories with an Epistemic Restriction, pages 83–135. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2016. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7303-4 4.
[78] Lorenzo Catani and Dan E Browne. Spekkens’ toy model in all dimensions and its relationship with stabiliser quantum mechanics. New Journal of Physics, 19(7):073035, jul 2017. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa781c.
[79] Lorenzo Catani and Dan E. Browne. State-injection schemes of quantum computation in spekkens’ toy theory. Phys. Rev. A, 98:052108, Nov 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.98.052108.
[80] Alberto Montina and Stefan Wolf. Realism and causality imply information erasure by measurements. arXiv:2307.03134, 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.03134.
[81] Charles H. Bennett, Herbert J. Bernstein, Sandu Popescu, and Benjamin Schumacher. Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations. Phys. Rev. A, 53:2046–2052, Apr 1996. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.53.2046.
[82] Francesco Buscemi. All entangled quantum states are nonlocal. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:200401, May 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.200401.
[83] David Schmid, Thomas C. Fraser, Ravi Kunjwal, Ana Belen Sainz, Elie Wolfe, and Robert W. Spekkens. Understanding the interplay of entanglement and nonlocality: motivating and developing a new branch of entanglement theory. Quantum, 7:1194, December 2023. doi:10.22331/q-2023-12-04-1194.
[84] Matthew S. Leifer and Matthew F. Pusey. Is a time symmetric interpretation of quantum theory possible without retrocausality? Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 473(2202):20160607, 2017. doi:10.1098/rspa.2016.0607.
[85] Anubhav Chaturvedi and Debashis Saha. Quantum prescriptions are more ontologically distinct than they are operationally distinguishable. Quantum, 4:345, October 2020. doi:10.22331/q-2020-10-21-345.
A Physicality of the Holevo projection
Authors:
(1) Lorenzo Catani, International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Av. Mestre Jose Veiga s/n, 4715-330 Braga, Portugal ([email protected]);
(2) Thomas D. Galley, Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria and Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ([email protected]);
(3) Tomas Gonda, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Innsbruck, Austria ([email protected]).
This paper is
[8] A recent work that connects preparation contextuality and information erasure is [80], where the authors show that any ontological model reproducing the statistics of a sequential protocol involving incompatible projective measurements involves more information erasure than what operational quantum theory predicts. This fact is strictly related to the presence of preparation contextuality, as the same final quantum state in the protocol is represented by two different ontic distributions. This result can be seen as an example of fine-tuning of information erasure (i.e. more erasure at the ontological level than at the operational level), which, despite being interesting, differs from our idea of viewing contextuality as arising from a process of information erasure that explains the operational equivalences of distinct ontological representations.