A parity proof of the Kochen–Specker theorem is a set of observables arranged in contexts of commuting observables whose products are ±I with an odd number of minus signs along a dependency. We study the exact noise threshold of such a proof at the maximally mixed state when every observable outcome is flipped independently with probability η/2 (model F). Contexts may have different sizes s_c. We prove that for every parity proof η*F ≥ max_T (1 − x_T), where T runs over sub-proofs, k_T ≥ 1 is the least number of contexts of T that a noncontextual assignment must violate, and x_T ∈ (0,1) is the root of Σ{c∈T} xs_c = |T| − 2k_T (1 − x_T := 1 if |T| ≤ 2k_T). Under a symmetrisation condition (condition L, automatic for Pauli proofs with minimal contexts), and with s_c the row weights of the incidence matrix, equality holds when the space K of dependencies is one-dimensional and, by a block reduction to a coset of a short code, whenever the contexts fall into at most dim K + 1 nonzero incidence classes — in particular for every proof with dim K = 2 — and for direct sums of such proofs. Beyond this range the equality can fail for abstract proofs with condition L: for the simplex proof [7,3] (dim K = 4) η*_F = 1 − 5^(−1/4) > max_T (1 − x_T) = 1 − 3^(−1/4). For Pauli proofs with more than dim K + 1 incidence classes it is open; an exact search over 360 abstract proofs with dim K = 2, 3, 4 found no discrepancy (random sampling did not meet the simplex example). The variant with a single root taken over the whole proof is false. Examples with mixed sizes give exact thresholds such as η*_F = 0.1011287750… (4x^5 + x^4 = 3) for a four-qubit Mermin star. For uniform mixing we relate the equal-size value 2k_min/m to the robustness measure of Trandafir, Lisoněk and Cabello and treat a qudit Mermin–Peres square. The methods are standard (parity polytopes, linear programming with exact certificates); what is new is the exact form of the thresholds, the reduction for overlapping dependencies and the certified values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Igor Postanovskyi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: