The real Grothendieck constant of order , denoted
, is defined by allowing arbitrary finite matrix sizes
while restricting the vectors to
. Let
be an
real matrix, where
is a positive
integer, such that
|
(1)
|
for all real numbers , ...,
and
, ...,
satisfying
. The constant
is the smallest number for which
|
(2)
|
holds for every such matrix and all vectors
with
.
Rectangular matrices give the same constant by adding
zero rows or columns to obtain a square matrix (Designolle
et al. 2026). Grothendieck (1953) proved that these constants have a finite
universal upper bound independent of
.
For example, bounds for small are
|
(3)
|
(Krivine 1977, 1979; König 1992; Finch 2003, p. 236; Designolle et al. 2023, 2026).
Now consider the limit
|
(4)
|
which is sometimes also denoted . Classical bounds include
|
(5)
|
and Krivine (1977, 1979) postulated that
|
(6)
|
(OEIS A088367; Finch 2003, p. 236). The conjecture was refuted in 2011 by Yury Makarychev, Mark Braverman, Konstantin Makarychev,
and Assaf Naor, who showed that is strictly less than Krivine's bound (Makarychev 2011,
Braverman et al. 2013).
Heilman et al. (2026a) reported the improved real bounds
|
(7)
|
Their lower bound is certified using a finite optimization certificate and their upper bound using interval arithmetic. A numerical estimate near 1.779 is heuristic and is not a proved value. Heilman et al. (2026a) report AI assistance with the search and certification. The certificates have not been independently rerun here.
Peng (2026) improved the real universal upper bound to
|
(8)
|
The proof applies to all finite matrix sizes and vector dimensions and combines interval arithmetic with an exact rational certificate. Peng (2026) reports substantive assistance from OpenAI Codex with the argument and certification.
Similarly, if the numbers and
and matrix
are complex and the vectors are
in
,
then the corresponding constants
are defined using the complex inner
product. These are known to satisfy
|
(9)
| |||
|
(10)
| |||
|
(11)
|
(Krivine 1977, 1979; König 1990, 1992; Finch 2003, p. 236).
The limit
|
(12)
|
satisfies
|
(13)
|
(Krivine 1977, 1979; Haagerup 1987; Finch 2003, p. 236; Guo et al. 2026), where Haagerup's upper bound (OEIS A088374)
is given by
with
|
(14)
| |||
|
(15)
|
a complete elliptic integral
of the second kind,
a complete
elliptic integral of the first kind, and
(OEIS A088373)
the root of
|
(16)
|
Haagerup (1987) doubted that this upper bound is the exact value of and proposed the smaller candidate
|
(17)
| |||
|
(18)
|
(OEIS A088375; Finch 2003, pp. 236-237). Guo et al. (2026) obtained the strict lower bound using an analytic reduction followed by numerical inequalities certified using interval arithmetic. The authors credit the Odin Automatic AI Research Agent with discovering the lower bound and proof. Independent review of the analytic argument had not been reported as of Sep. 12, 2026.
Heilman et al. (2026b) reported the sharper complex bounds
|
(19)
|
Their proof reduces both bounds to inequalities certified by numerical computation. The supporting certificates have not been independently rerun here. Haagerup's proposed exact value remains a conjecture.