Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Machine Learning
The Grothendieck Constant is Strictly Larger than Davie-Reeds' Bound
arXiv
Authors: Chris Jones, Giulio Malavolta
Year
2026
Paper ID
38919
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
125
Citations
N/A
Abstract
The Grothendieck constant KG is a fundamental quantity in functional analysis, with important connections to quantum information, combinatorial optimization, and the geometry of Banach spaces. Despite decades of study, the value of KG is unknown. The best known lower bound on KG was obtained independently by Davie and Reeds in the 1980s. In this paper we show that their bound is not optimal. We prove that KG ge KDR + 10-12, where KDR denotes the Davie-Reeds lower bound. Our argument is based on a perturbative analysis of the Davie-Reeds operator. We show that every near-extremizer for the Davie-Reeds problem has Ω(1) weight on its degree-3 Hermite coefficients, and therefore introducing a small cubic perturbation increases the integrality gap of the operator.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Machine Learning research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- The Grothendieck constant KG is a fundamental quantity in functional analysis, with important connections to quantum information, combinatorial optimization, and the geometry...
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.