Dear ReScience C Editors,
I am considering an independent, open-source reimplementation of the computational component of:
E. Håkansson et al., “Experimental Implementation of Dimension-Dependent Contextuality Inequality,” Physical Review Letters 134, 200202 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.200202.
The proposed work would not repeat the photonic experiment. It would independently implement the alternating PPT-semidefinite see-saw calculation used to obtain the reported CGLMP4 value, using an open-source Python solver stack, predeclared numerical tolerances, primal/dual and feasibility checks, and reproducible environments.
A bounded clean-room feasibility check has also identified two plausible outcome-label readings of the published formulas. Both can be implemented consistently, but they give different direct values before the see-saw iteration. I would retain both readings and report this as a neutral semantic issue rather than treating either reading as an error without further evidence.
Could you please advise whether ReScience C would consider this computational subset of a mixed experimental/computational paper eligible as a partial replication? If so, does the current board have an editor able to cover quantum information and semidefinite optimization, or would a guest editor be needed?
I am asking only about scope and editorial availability, not requesting scientific assessment.
Best regards,
Jing Xu
ORCID: 0009-0004-6447-2573
Dear ReScience C Editors,
I am considering an independent, open-source reimplementation of the computational component of:
E. Håkansson et al., “Experimental Implementation of Dimension-Dependent Contextuality Inequality,” Physical Review Letters 134, 200202 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.200202.
The proposed work would not repeat the photonic experiment. It would independently implement the alternating PPT-semidefinite see-saw calculation used to obtain the reported CGLMP4 value, using an open-source Python solver stack, predeclared numerical tolerances, primal/dual and feasibility checks, and reproducible environments.
A bounded clean-room feasibility check has also identified two plausible outcome-label readings of the published formulas. Both can be implemented consistently, but they give different direct values before the see-saw iteration. I would retain both readings and report this as a neutral semantic issue rather than treating either reading as an error without further evidence.
Could you please advise whether ReScience C would consider this computational subset of a mixed experimental/computational paper eligible as a partial replication? If so, does the current board have an editor able to cover quantum information and semidefinite optimization, or would a guest editor be needed?
I am asking only about scope and editorial availability, not requesting scientific assessment.
Best regards,
Jing Xu
ORCID: 0009-0004-6447-2573