Separating the NP-Hardness of the Grothendieck Problem from the Little-Grothendieck Problem

Authors Vijay Bhattiprolu, Euiwoong Lee, Madhur Tulsiani

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.79 MB
  • 17 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Vijay Bhattiprolu
  • Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA
  • Princeton University, NJ, USA
Euiwoong Lee
  • University of Michigan, Ann-Arbor, USA
Madhur Tulsiani
  • Toyota Technological Institute Chicago, IL, USA


We thank the anonymous ITCS'22 referees for suggesting useful corrections to the manuscript.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Vijay Bhattiprolu, Euiwoong Lee, and Madhur Tulsiani. Separating the NP-Hardness of the Grothendieck Problem from the Little-Grothendieck Problem. In 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2022). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 215, pp. 22:1-22:17, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2022)


Grothendieck’s inequality [Grothendieck, 1953] states that there is an absolute constant K > 1 such that for any n× n matrix A, ‖A‖_{∞→1} := max_{s,t ∈ {± 1}ⁿ}∑_{i,j} A[i,j]⋅s(i)⋅t(j) ≥ 1/K ⋅ max_{u_i,v_j ∈ S^{n-1}}∑_{i,j} A[i,j]⋅⟨u_i,v_j⟩. In addition to having a tremendous impact on Banach space theory, this inequality has found applications in several unrelated fields like quantum information, regularity partitioning, communication complexity, etc. Let K_G (known as Grothendieck’s constant) denote the smallest constant K above. Grothendieck’s inequality implies that a natural semidefinite programming relaxation obtains a constant factor approximation to ‖A‖_{∞ → 1}. The exact value of K_G is yet unknown with the best lower bound (1.67…) being due to Reeds and the best upper bound (1.78…) being due to Braverman, Makarychev, Makarychev and Naor [Braverman et al., 2013]. In contrast, the little Grothendieck inequality states that under the assumption that A is PSD the constant K above can be improved to π/2 and moreover this is tight. The inapproximability of ‖A‖_{∞ → 1} has been studied in several papers culminating in a tight UGC-based hardness result due to Raghavendra and Steurer (remarkably they achieve this without knowing the value of K_G). Briet, Regev and Saket [Briët et al., 2015] proved tight NP-hardness of approximating the little Grothendieck problem within π/2, based on a framework by Guruswami, Raghavendra, Saket and Wu [Guruswami et al., 2016] for bypassing UGC for geometric problems. This also remained the best known NP-hardness for the general Grothendieck problem due to the nature of the Guruswami et al. framework, which utilized a projection operator onto the degree-1 Fourier coefficients of long code encodings, which naturally yielded a PSD matrix A. We show how to extend the above framework to go beyond the degree-1 Fourier coefficients, using the global structure of optimal solutions to the Grothendieck problem. As a result, we obtain a separation between the NP-hardness results for the two problems, obtaining an inapproximability result for the Grothendieck problem, of a factor π/2 + ε₀ for a fixed constant ε₀ > 0.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Computational complexity and cryptography
  • Mathematics of computing → Mathematical optimization
  • Mathematics of computing → Functional analysis
  • Grothendieck’s Inequality
  • Hardness of Approximation
  • Semidefinite Programming
  • Optimization


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Noga Alon and Assaf Naor. Approximating the cut-norm via grothendieck’s inequality. In Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 72-80, 2004. Google Scholar
  2. Vidmantas Bentkus. A lyapunov-type bound in R^d. Theory of Probability & Its Applications, 49(2):311-323, 2005. Google Scholar
  3. Vijay Bhattiprolu, Mrinalkanti Ghosh, Venkatesan Guruswami, Euiwoong Lee, and Madhur Tulsiani. Approximability of p→ q matrix norms: generalized krivine rounding and hypercontractive hardness. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1358-1368. SIAM, 2019. Google Scholar
  4. Mark Braverman, Konstantin Makarychev, Yury Makarychev, and Assaf Naor. The Grothendieck constant is strictly smaller than Krivine’s bound. In Forum of Mathematics, Pi, volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 2013. Conference version in FOCS '11. Google Scholar
  5. Jop Briët, Oded Regev, and Rishi Saket. Tight hardness of the non-commutative Grothendieck problem. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on, pages 1108-1122. IEEE, 2015. Google Scholar
  6. Alexander Davie. A lower bound for k_g. Manuscript, 1984. Google Scholar
  7. Amit Deshpande, Madhur Tulsiani, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. Algorithms and hardness for subspace approximation. In Proceedings of the twenty-second annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 482-496. SIAM, 2011. Google Scholar
  8. Alexandre Grothendieck. Résumé de la théorie métrique des produits tensoriels topologiques. Soc. de Matemática de São Paulo, 1953. Google Scholar
  9. Venkatesan Guruswami, Prasad Raghavendra, Rishi Saket, and Yi Wu. Bypassing UGC from some optimal geometric inapproximability results. ACM Transactions on Algorithms (TALG), 12(1):6, 2016. Conference version in SODA '12. Google Scholar
  10. Prahladh Harsha, Adam Klivans, and Raghu Meka. An invariance principle for polytopes. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 59(6):1-25, 2013. Google Scholar
  11. Johan Håstad. Some optimal inapproximability results. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 48(4):798-859, 2001. Google Scholar
  12. Subhash Khot. Hardness results for coloring 3-colorable 3-uniform hypergraphs. In Foundations of Computer Science, 2002. Proceedings. The 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on, pages 23-32. IEEE, 2002. Google Scholar
  13. Subhash Khot and Assaf Naor. Approximate kernel clustering. Mathematika, 55(1-2):129-165, 2009. Google Scholar
  14. Subhash Khot and Assaf Naor. Grothendieck-type inequalities in combinatorial optimization. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 65(7):992-1035, 2012. Google Scholar
  15. Subhash Khot and Ryan O'Donnell. SDP gaps and UGC-hardness for Max-Cut-Gain. Theory OF Computing, 5:83-117, 2009. Google Scholar
  16. Guy Kindler, Assaf Naor, and Gideon Schechtman. The UGC hardness threshold of the Lp Grothendieck problem. Mathematics of Operations Research, 35(2):267-283, 2010. Conference version in SODA '08. Google Scholar
  17. Jean-Louis Krivine. Sur la constante de Grothendieck. CR Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. AB, 284(8):A445-A446, 1977. Google Scholar
  18. Yurii Nesterov. Semidefinite relaxation and nonconvex quadratic optimization. Optimization methods and software, 9(1-3):141-160, 1998. Google Scholar
  19. Ryan O'Donnell. Analysis of boolean functions. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Google Scholar
  20. Gilles Pisier. Grothendieck’s theorem, past and present. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 49(2):237-323, 2012. Google Scholar
  21. Prasad Raghavendra and David Steurer. Towards computing the Grothendieck constant. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 525-534. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2009. Google Scholar
  22. JA Reeds. A new lower bound on the real Grothendieck constant. Manuscript, 1991. URL:
  23. Ronald E Rietz. A proof of the grothendieck inequality. Israel journal of mathematics, 19(3):271-276, 1974. Google Scholar