Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
The Equivalence between Hardy-type paradox and Logical Contextuality
arXiv
Authors: Songyi Liu, Yongjun Wang, Baoshan Wang, Chang He, Yunyi Jia
Year
2026
Paper ID
4260
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
127
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Hardy-type paradoxes offer elegant, inequality-free proof of quantum contextuality. In this work, we introduce a unified logical formulation for general Hardy-type paradoxes, which we term logical Hardy-type paradoxes. We prove that for any finite scenario, the existence of a logical Hardy-type paradox is equivalent to logical contextuality. Specially, strong contextuality is equivalent to logical Hardy-type paradoxes with success probability SP = 1. These results generalize prior work on (2,k,2), (2,2,d), and n-cycle scenarios, and resolve a misconception that such equivalence does not hold for general scenarios [1]. We analyse the logical Hardy-type paradoxes on the (2,2,2) and (2,3,3) Bell scenarios, as well as the Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovsky (KCBS) scenario. We show that the KCBS scenario admits only one kind of Hardy-type paradox, achieving a success probability of SP \approx 10.56% for a specific parameter setting.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Hardy-type paradoxes offer elegant, inequality-free proof of quantum contextuality.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.