Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

The spectral properties of Vandermonde matrices with clustered nodes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For clustered nodes, the column subspaces of a Vandermonde matrix are nearly orthogonal, so its full spectrum splits into per-cluster spectra.

desk verdict Solid spectral reduction for clustered Vandermonde matrices, with a real but fixable gap between the abstract's claims and the τ>0 condition the per-cluster estimates need. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01927 v2 pith:JZTBCPGW submitted 2019-09-04 math.NA cs.NA

Dmitry Batenkov , Benedikt Diederichs , Gil Goldman , Yosef Yomdin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 15A1865T4065F20
keywords VandermondematricesclustersubspacesprincipalanglessingularvaluesleastsquaresconditionnumbernonuniformFouriersuper-resolutionsub-Rayleighresolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that when the nodes of a rectangular Vandermonde matrix cluster into well-separated groups on the unit circle, the column subspaces belonging to distinct clusters are nearly orthogonal: the minimal principal angle between two clusters is at least $\pi/2 - C_4/(N\theta) - C_3 N h$, where $\theta$ is the inter-cluster separation, $h$ is the largest cluster width, and the constants depend only on the cluster multiplicities. If true, the singular values of the whole matrix are a small multiplicative perturbation of the union of the per-cluster singular values (Theorem 2.2). For clusters whose nodes are spread approximately uniformly, each cluster contributes singular values on the ladder $N^{1/2}(Nh)^0, N^{1/2}(Nh)^1, \ldots, N^{1/2}(Nh)^{\ell-1}$, and the count at each rung equals the number of clusters with at least that many nodes. The same principle yields componentwise least-squares condition numbers that grow exponentially only in the local cluster multiplicity and linearly in the total number of nodes, instead of exponentially in the full node count.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the divided-difference basis of a cluster subspace. Starting from the exponential columns $v_k=(e^{ikx_1},\ldots,e^{ikx_s})$, the paper forms $w_j=(j-1)![x_1,\ldots,x_j]v_N(x)$, a basis that is $O(Nh)$-close to the limit basis $u_j=(ik)^{j-1}e^{ik\zeta}$, where all nodes are collapsed to one point $\zeta$. The limit basis is uniformly well conditioned for large $N$ because its Gram matrix tends to a normalized Hilbert matrix, and two limit spaces at separated points are nearly orthogonal, with inner product bounded by $C_{19}/(\Delta(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)N)$. These two facts control the angle between actual cluster subspaces. For the single-cluster spectrum, the proof expands the normalized Dirichlet-kernel Gram matrix in a Taylor series and applies a lemma on the alternating signs of distance powers, which forces the $N^{1/2}(Nh)^{j-1}$ scaling of the $j$-th singular value.

What would settle it

Take a single cluster of $s$ equispaced nodes and measure the smallest singular value of $N^{-1/2}V_N(X)$ as $Nh$ varies from, say, $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-1}$; Theorem 2.3 predicts a log-log slope of exactly $s-1$ for that singular value, and any systematic deviation falsifies the uniform-cluster scaling. A second, theory-specific test: for two well-separated clusters with $N\theta$ large and $Nh$ decreasing, the complementary principal angle $\pi/2-\theta_{\min}$ should decay like a constant over $N\theta$ plus a term proportional to $Nh$; if it saturates at a larger value, Theorem 2.1's bound is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is its Theorem 2.1: for two clusters $X$ and $Y$ in arcs of width at most $h$ separated by at least $\theta$, the minimal principal angle satisfies $\theta_{\min}(L(X,N),L(Y,N)) \ge \pi/2 - C_4/(N\theta) - C_3 N h$ whenever $C_1 \le N \le C_2/h$, with constants depending only on the cluster multiplicities. This near-orthogonality needs no assumption on how nodes sit inside a cluster. Theorem 2.2 then shows the singular values of $V_N(X)$ lie between $(1 - C_7/(N\theta)-C_8Nh)^{1/2}$ and $(1 + C_7/(N\theta)+C_8Nh)^{1/2}$ times the singular values of the cluster submatrices, so the spectrum is a union of cluster spectra up to a small multiplicative factor. Under the extra assumption that nodes within each cluster are approximately uniform ($\tau>0$), Theorem 2.3 gives $\sigma_j(V_N(X)) \asymp N^{1/2}(Nh)^{j-1}$ for the $j$-th singular value of a cluster, and Corollary 2.1 counts exactly how many singular values sit at each scale: the number of clusters with multiplicity at least $j$. Theorem 2.4 converts the same structural fact into componentwise least-squares bounds, showing the coefficient for a node in a cluster of multiplicity $\ell$ has condition number of order $(Nh)^{1-\ell}$, with the proportionality constant linear in $s$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise for the singular-value and least-squares claims is that inside each cluster any two nodes are at least a fixed positive fraction $\tau h$ of the cluster width apart; if nodes can collapse to arbitrarily small distances, sub-clusters create extra tiny singular values and the predicted $(Nh)^{j-1}$ ladder and componentwise condition numbers can break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The full set of singular values of a clustered Vandermonde matrix is determined, up to small multiplicative factors, by the spectra of the individual cluster submatrices (Theorem 2.2).
  • For approximately uniform clusters of common width $h$, the spectrum has a simple ladder: exactly $\ell_j$ singular values scale like $N^{1/2}(Nh)^{j-1}$, where $\ell_j$ is the number of clusters with multiplicity at least $j$ (Corollary 2.1).
  • The smallest singular value is bounded below by a constant times $(N\eta)^{\ell-1}$, where $\eta$ is the global minimal separation and $\ell$ the largest cluster multiplicity, recovering known super-resolution stability rates under weaker geometric conditions.
  • In the least-squares problem, the error in a coefficient belonging to a cluster of multiplicity $\ell$ is amplified by at most $C s (Nh)^{1-\ell}$; thus ill-conditioning is local, not global.
  • Theorem 2.1's near-orthogonality holds even when nodes within each cluster are arranged arbitrarily, so the reduction to per-cluster analysis is robust to intra-cluster geometry.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The near-orthogonality of cluster subspaces suggests the singular vectors are approximately supported on individual clusters; a complete description of the singular vectors, along the lines of spectral concentration, would be a natural next step.
  • If the $\tau>0$ assumption fails, a re-clustering at a finer scale might produce a hierarchical version of the spectrum: the $(Nh)^{j-1}$ ladder would be refined by sub-cluster multiplicities, giving a multi-scale condition estimate.
  • The componentwise bounds translate directly to super-resolution recovery: for a sparse measure with a few clustered atoms, the recovery error of a cluster's amplitude should degrade only with that cluster's multiplicity, which is testable numerically against existing minimax rates.
  • The same divided-difference/limit-space argument may extend to nodes lying in a thin annulus around the unit circle or to other structured matrices with displacement symmetry; the main obstacle would be controlling the analogue of $Nh$ closeness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies rectangular Vandermonde matrices with nodes on the unit circle under a partial-clustering model: nodes are partitioned into clusters of diameter at most h, with inter-cluster separation at least θ, where h ≲ 1/N and θ ≳ 1/N. The central result, Theorem 2.1, states that the column subspaces of two clusters are nearly orthogonal, with minimal principal angle bounded below by π/2 − O(1/(Nθ)) − O(Nh), with constants depending only on cluster multiplicities. This near-orthogonality is then used to reduce the spectral analysis of the full matrix to that of its cluster submatrices (Theorem 2.2), to derive a full description of the singular values under an additional approximate-uniformity condition inside each cluster (Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.1), and to prove componentwise bounds for the linear least squares problem (Theorem 2.4). Numerical experiments illustrate the predicted scalings. The proof strategy is coherent: divided-difference bases, limit spaces and limit bases, conditioning of the normalized Hilbert matrix, near-orthogonality of limit spaces, and perturbation arguments.

Significance. If the results hold in the stated form, this is a valuable contribution to the numerical analysis and applied harmonic analysis of nonuniform Fourier/Vandermonde matrices. The reduction of a multi-cluster matrix to its cluster submatrices via a quantitative subspace-angle estimate is a clean structural insight, and the resulting singular value descriptions scale exponentially only in the local cluster multiplicities rather than in the total number of nodes. The paper is largely self-contained: the proofs of Theorems 2.1–2.4 proceed from standard ingredients (divided differences, Weyl inequalities, the Micchelli lemma, trigonometric cancellation) and the numerical experiments support the stated asymptotic scalings. The main caveats are that the full singular-value and least-squares claims require the intra-cluster uniformity condition τ > 0, which is omitted from the abstract, and that one step in the proof of Theorem 2.4 uses Theorem 2.3 outside its stated validity range.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Theorem 2.3 / Definition 2.2] The abstract describes a cluster only by the condition that elements are separated by at most h, and then claims accurate estimates for all singular values and for componentwise least-squares condition numbers. These claims are proven only for (h, τ, s)-clusters (Definition 2.2), where any two nodes in the cluster are at least τh apart. Without τ > 0 the asserted lower bound σ_j ≥ C10 N^{1/2}(Nh)^{j-1} in (2.4) is false in general: if two nodes coincide, V_N is rank-deficient and the spectrum collapses. Section 1.3 and Remark 2.1 do contain the qualification 'approximately uniformly distributed', but the abstract and the unqualified statement 'Consequently we derive accurate estimates for 1) all the singular values ... and 2) componentwise condition numbers' overstate what is proven. The abstract should either carry the τ condition explicitly or restrict its claims to Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.2, which do not require τ.
  2. [Theorem 2.4 / Proposition 5.2] In the proof of Proposition 5.2, the bound on the pseudoinverse row norms invokes Theorem 2.3 to estimate σ_min(R_j) ≥ C27 N^{1/2}(N h(j))^{s(j)-1}, but Theorem 2.3 is stated only under the condition N h(j) ≤ C9(τ(j),s(j)). The range C14/θ ≤ N ≤ C15/h used in Proposition 5.2 does not enforce this condition: C15 is defined as min(C6, 1/(4sC26)), independent of τ(j), while C9(τ,s) can be much smaller for small τ. As written, the estimate (5.19) and hence Theorem 2.4 are not proven over the stated range. Either add the missing range condition N h(j) ≤ C9(τ(j),s(j)) to Theorem 2.4 and Proposition 5.2, or modify the statement so that the validity range and constants explicitly depend on the τ(j).
  3. [Theorem 2.3 / Remark 4.1] The constants in Theorem 2.3 are non-constructive in a way that affects the advertised practical content of the paper. In particular, C9(τ,s) is defined through the non-explicit ε*(τ,m,s) from Proposition 4.1, and Remark 4.1 admits that C9 cannot be given explicitly; similarly, Proposition 3.2 provides only an existential N1(s) and an asymptotic lower bound for Ξ(s). For a numerical analysis paper, the statement 'accurate estimates' should be accompanied by a clear statement of which constants are effective and which are not, or by a discussion of the actual (even if pessimistic) quantitative scales that follow from the proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the minimal principal angle 'is at most π/2 − c1/(Nθ) − c2Nh'; this is the wrong direction. Theorem 2.1 proves the angle is at least that quantity. Please replace 'is at most' with 'is at least'.
  2. [Section 6] Several figure labels contain corrupted LaTeX artifacts, for example 's/uni2081=4', 'Nh=1₂0e -10', and '1₂Nθ=0₁1'. These should be regenerated as readable labels such as 's₁=4, s₂=2' and 'Nh=1.0e-10'.
  3. [Remark 2.4 / Remark 4.1] Remark 2.4 says that all constants in Theorem 2.1 except C1 can be given explicitly, but Remark 4.1 later says C9 in Theorem 2.3 could not be given explicitly. The two remarks should be reconciled with a clear statement about which constants in the paper are effective.
  4. [Proposition 5.2, proof] In the application of Lemma 5.3 to V_N^+ = R^{-1}Q^+, the factor √(sN) should strictly be √(s(N+1)) if one counts the N+1 rows; the difference is immaterial asymptotically but the notation could be made exact.
  5. [Section 4, Proposition 4.1] The definition of C24 involves a minimum over Y(τ,s), but the set should be described as compact modulo translation; otherwise the minimum might be over a non-compact set. The argument works because D depends only on differences, but this compactness should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central theorems are proved from independent lemmas, and the only self-citations are contextual comparisons.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. Theorem 2.1 is proved directly using divided differences, the limit-basis conditioning argument via the normalized Hilbert matrix, and the trigonometric cancellation estimate Lemma C.1; no external theorem about Vandermonde clustered-node conditioning is assumed for the angle bound. Theorem 2.2 follows from Theorem 2.1 through the general Lemma 5.1, which is proved from the QR decomposition and Weyl's inequality, and Lemma 5.2. Theorem 2.3 is proved from the Micchelli lemma and a Taylor expansion of the Dirichlet kernel following the external reference [46]; the quantity tau is an explicit assumption in Definition 2.2, not a fitted input. Theorem 2.4 follows from the pseudoinverse row-norm estimate, which uses Theorem 2.3 and the block QR structure. The paper's self-citations, such as [6] and [7], appear in the introduction and related-work discussion as context and comparison for the resulting scaling, not as load-bearing premises for the proofs. The skeptical concern that the abstract omits the intra-cluster uniformity condition tau > 0 needed for Theorems 2.3 and 2.4 is a statement about scope or rigor, not circularity: the weakened condition would change the theorem, but does not make the derivation circular. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters. All constants are existential bounds derived in the proofs. The domain assumptions describe the clustered geometry that defines the regime of interest. The limit space is a mathematical tool with no independent empirical content.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The node set X forms an (h(j), τ(j), s(j)) clustered configuration: nodes inside a cluster are within h(j) of each other and at least τ(j) h(j) apart, and different clusters are at least θ apart (Definition 2.3).
    This is the geometric model under which all theorems are stated. The restrictions h ≲ 1/N and θ ≳ 1/N define the near-Rayleigh clustering regime studied in super-resolution.
  • domain assumption Each cluster is approximately uniformly distributed internally (τ > 0), i.e., a lower bound on the relative spacing inside a cluster exists.
    Theorem 2.3 and Theorem 2.4 depend on this to get matching lower bounds for all singular values and componentwise condition numbers. Without it, sub-clusters could create additional tiny singular values.
  • standard math Standard results of matrix perturbation theory: Weyl's inequality, Courant-Fischer minimax, singular value product inequalities (Lemma 5.2).
    Used in Section 5 to convert subspace angle bounds into singular value closeness and in Section 3 for conditioning of the limit basis.
  • standard math The normalized Hilbert matrix has a uniformly positive smallest eigenvalue for each fixed s.
    Proposition 3.2 relies on this to prove the limit basis is well-conditioned for large N; the paper cites [47] for the asymptotic decay of λ_min.
invented entities (1)
  • Cluster limit space and limit basis (Definitions 3.3 and 3.4)
    purpose: Technical construction for approximating a cluster subspace by a universal space spanned by derivatives at the cluster's first node, enabling angle estimates independent of the internal node arrangement.
    This is a proof device only; it is not an empirical entity and has no falsifiable content outside the paper. It does not carry an independent explanatory burden, so it is not a 'graviton problem'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The spectral properties of Vandermonde matrices with clustered nodes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZTBCPGW

@misc{pith2026190901927,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The spectral properties of Vandermonde matrices with clustered nodes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZTBCPGW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01927}
}
abstract

We study rectangular Vandermonde matrices $\mathbf{V}$ with $N+1$ rows and $s$ irregularly spaced nodes on the unit circle, in cases where some of the nodes are "clustered" together -- the elements inside each cluster being separated by at most $h \lesssim {1\over N}$, and the clusters being separated from each other by at least $\theta \gtrsim {1\over N}$. We show that any pair of column subspaces corresponding to two different clusters are nearly orthogonal: the minimal principal angle between them is at most $$\frac{\pi}{2}-\frac{c_1}{N \theta}-c_2 N h,$$ for some constants $c_1,c_2$ depending only on the multiplicities of theclusters. As a result, spectral analysis of $\mathbf{V}_N$ is significantly simplified by reducing the problem to the analysis of each cluster individually. Consequently we derive accurate estimates for 1) all the singular values of $\mathbf{V}$, and 2) componentwise condition numbers for the linear least squares problem. Importantly, these estimates are exponential only in the local cluster multiplicities, while changing at most linearly with $s$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01927 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Complementary subspace angle β. Nh and θ fixed, varying N. 1% 1% 1% 1%  1% 1% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Complementary subspace angle β. N, θ fixed, varying h. According to the estimate (2.2) from Theorem 2.1, we have the bound β pL1, L2q ď C4 Nθ ` C3Nh. (6.1) In the first set of experiments, we kept the value of θ fixed, and changed N, h simultaneously so that the product Nh remained fixed. We chose 3 different values Nh “ 10´10 , 10´5 , 0.1. The dependence of β on N is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Singular values of ? 1 N VN as a function of Nh. (left) A single cluster with s “ 4. (right) 2 nontrivial clusters (and 4 overall), multiplicities = 2, 1, 3, 1. The slopes of the lines, computed by a linear fit, are written in the respective legend labels. 6.2. Spectra of multi-cluster Vandermonde matrices. We normalize the Vandermonde ma￾trix and compute the spectra of the matrices ? 1 N VN pX q. For each experimen… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy of least squares reconstruction. 2 nontrivial clusters (and 3 overall), multiplicities = 2, 3, 1. The slopes of the lines, computed by a linear fit, are written in the respective legend labels. Appendix A. Divided differences Recall Definition 3.1. The followi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Akinshin, D

    A. Akinshin, D. Batenkov, and Y. Yomdin. Accuracy of spik e-train Fourier reconstruction for colliding nodes. In 2015 International Conference on Sampling Theory and Appli cations (SampTA), pages 617–621, May 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Geometry of error amplification in solving Prony system with near-colliding nodes

    A. Akinshin, G. Goldman, and Y. Yomdin. Geometry of error amplification in solving Prony system with near- colliding nodes. arXiv:1701.04058 [math] , Jan. 2017

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Aubel and H

    C. Aubel and H. B¨ olcskei. Vandermonde matrices with nod es in the unit disk and the large sieve. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis , Aug. 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Batenkov

    D. Batenkov. Stability and super-resolution of general ized spike recovery. Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 45(2):299–323, Sept. 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Batenkov, A

    D. Batenkov, A. Bhandari, and T. Blu. Rethinking Super-r esolution: The Bandwidth Selection Problem. In ICASSP 2019 - 2019 IEEE International Conference on Acousti cs, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 5087–5091, May 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Batenkov, L

    D. Batenkov, L. Demanet, G. Goldman, and Y. Yomdin. Condi tioning of Partial Nonuniform Fourier Matrices with Clustered Nodes. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 44(1):199–220, Jan. 2020. 25

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Batenkov, G

    D. Batenkov, G. Goldman, and Y. Yomdin. Super-resolutio n of near-colliding point sources. To appear in Infor- mation and Inference

    work page

  8. [8]

    Batenkov and Y

    D. Batenkov and Y. Yomdin. Geometry and Singularities of the Prony mapping. Journal of Singularities , 10:1–25, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    F. Baz´ an. Conditioning of rectangular Vandermonde mat rices with nodes in the unit disk. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 21:679, 2000

    2000

  2. [10]

    Beckermann

    B. Beckermann. The condition number of real Vandermond e, Krylov and positive definite Hankel matrices. Numerische Mathematik , 85(4):553–577, 2000

    2000

  3. [11]

    Beckermann and E

    B. Beckermann and E. B. Saff. The sensitivity of least squ ares polynomial approximation. In Applications and Computation of Orthogonal Polynomials , pages 1–19. Springer, 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    Beckermann and A

    B. Beckermann and A. Townsend. Bounds on the Singular Va lues of Matrices with Displacement Structure. SIAM Review , 61(2):319–344, Jan. 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Ben-Israel and T

    A. Ben-Israel and T. N. E. Greville. Generalized Inverses: Theory and Applications . Number 15 in CMS Books in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2nd ed edition, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    Bj¨ orck

    ˚ A. Bj¨ orck. Component-wise perturbation analysis and erro r bounds for linear least squares solutions. BIT, 31(2):237–244, 1991

    1991

  7. [15]

    Bj¨ orck and G

    ˚ A. Bj¨ orck and G. H. Golub. Numerical methods for computing a ngles between linear subspaces. Mathematics of computation, 27(123):579–594, 1973

    1973

  8. [16]

    M.-D. Choi. Tricks or treats with the Hilbert matrix. The American Mathematical Monthly , 90(5):301–312, 1983

    1983

  9. [17]

    Cordova, W

    A. Cordova, W. Gautschi, and S. Ruscheweyh. Vandermond e matrices on the circle: Spectral properties and conditioning. Numerische Mathematik , 57(1):577–591, Dec. 1990

    1990

  10. [18]

    C. deBoor. Divided differences. Surveys in Approximation Theory , 1:46–69, 2005. [Online article at] http://www.math.technion.ac.il/sat

    2005

  11. [19]

    Demanet and N

    L. Demanet and N. Nguyen. The recoverability limit for s uperresolution via sparsity. 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Diederichs

    B. Diederichs. Well-Posedness of Sparse Frequency Est imation. arXiv:1905.08005 [math] , May 2019

    1905 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. Donoho. Superresolution via sparsity constraints. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 23(5):1309–1331, 1992

    1992

  14. [22]

    Eisinberg, P

    A. Eisinberg, P. Pugliese, and N. Salerno. Vandermonde matrices on integer nodes: The rectangular case. Numerische Mathematik , 87(4):663–674, Feb. 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    Gautschi

    W. Gautschi. On inverses of Vandermonde and confluent Va ndermonde matrices. Numerische Mathematik , 4(1):117–123, 1962

    1962

  16. [24]

    Gautschi

    W. Gautschi. On inverses of Vandermonde and confluent Va ndermonde matrices. II. Numerische Mathematik , 5(1):425–430, 1963

    1963

  17. [25]

    Gautschi

    W. Gautschi. Norm estimates for inverses of Vandermond e matrices. Numerische Mathematik , 23(4):337–347, 1974

    1974

  18. [26]

    Gautschi

    W. Gautschi. On inverses of Vandermonde and confluent Va ndermonde matrices III. Numerische Mathematik , 29(4):445–450, 1978

    1978

  19. [27]

    N. J. Higham. A survey of componentwise perturbation th eory in numerical linear algebra. In Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics , volume 48, pages 49–77, 1994

    1994

  20. [28]

    J. A. Hogan and J. D. Lakey. Duration and Bandwidth Limiting: Prolate Functions, Sampl ing, and Applications . Springer Science & Business Media, Dec. 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson. Matrix Analysis . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2nd ed edition, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    A. V. Knyazev and M. E. Argentati. Principal angles betw een subspaces in an A-based scalar product: Algorithms and perturbation estimates. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing , 23(6):2008–2040, 2002

    2008

  23. [31]

    Kunis and D

    S. Kunis and D. Nagel. On the condition number of Vanderm onde matrices with pairs of nearly-colliding nodes. arXiv:1812.08645 [math] , Dec. 2018

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kunis and D

    S. Kunis and D. Nagel. On the smallest singular value of m ultivariate Vandermonde matrices with clustered nodes. arXiv:1907.07119 [cs, math] , July 2019

    1907 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H. B. Lee. Eigenvalues and eigenvectors of covariance m atrices for signals closely spaced in frequency. IEEE Transactions on signal processing , 40(10):2518–2535, 1992

    1992

  26. [34]

    Li and W

    W. Li and W. Liao. Stable super-resolution limit and sma llest singular value of restricted Fourier matrices. arXiv:1709.03146 [cs, math] , Sept. 2017

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    W. Li, W. Liao, and A. Fannjiang. Super-resolution limi t of the ESPRIT algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , pages 1–1, 2020. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Inf ormation Theory

    2020

  28. [36]

    C. A. Micchelli. Interpolation of scattered data: Dist ance matrices and conditionally positive definite function s. Constructive Approximation , 2(1):11–22, Dec. 1986. 26

    1986

  29. [37]

    A. Moitra. Super-resolution, Extremal Functions and t he Condition Number of Vandermonde Matrices. In Pro- ceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on The ory of Computing , STOC ’15, pages 821–830, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM

    2015

  30. [38]

    V. Y. Pan. How Bad Are Vandermonde Matrices? SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 37(2):676– 694, Jan. 2016

    2016

  31. [39]

    D. Slepian. A numerical method for determining the eige nvalues and eigenfunctions of analytic kernels. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , 5(3):586–600, 1968

    1968

  32. [40]

    D. Slepian. Prolate spheroidal wave functions, fourie r analysis, and uncertainty – V: The discrete case. Bell System Technical Journal, The , 57(5):1371–1430, May 1978

    1978

  33. [41]

    G. W. Stewart. Matrix perturbation theory . Academic Press, 1990

    1990

  34. [42]

    Stoica and R

    P. Stoica and R. Moses. Spectral Analysis of Signals . Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2005

    2005

  35. [43]

    J. Todd. The condition of the finite segments of the Hilbe rt matrix. Contributions to the solution of systems of linear equations and the determination of eigenvalues , 39:109–116, 1954

    1954

  36. [44]

    T. E. Tuncer and B. Friedlander. Classical and Modern Direction-of-Arrival Estimation . Academic, London,

  37. [45]

    E. E. Tyrtyshnikov. How bad are Hankel matrices? Numerische Mathematik , 67(2):261–269, Mar. 1994

    1994

  38. [46]

    A. J. Wathen and S. Zhu. On spectral distribution of kern el matrices related to radial basis functions. Numerical Algorithms, 70(4):709–726, Dec. 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    H. S. Wilf. Finite sections of some classical inequalities , volume 52. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Z. Yang, J. Li, P. Stoica, and L. Xie. Chapter 11 - Sparse m ethods for direction-of-arrival estimation. In R. Chel- lappa and S. Theodoridis, editors, Academic Press Library in Signal Processing, Volume 7 , pages 509–581. Academic Press, Jan. 2018. Department of Applied Mathe...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.