Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 37 references

Mixed Multiple Orthogonal Laurent Polynomials on the Unit Circle

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mixed multiple orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle are built from CMV moment matrices via Gauss–Borel factorization, with banded recurrences and explicit Christoffel/Geronimus formulas as quasi-determinants.

desk verdict Main CMV Gauss–Borel framework is new and mostly sound; singular-part Geronimus section has a load-bearing mass inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10834 v1 pith:UZ5RWVPX submitted 2024-11-16 math.CA math-phmath.CVmath.MP

Edmundo J. Huertas , Manuel Mañas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath-phmath.CVmath.MP MSC 33C4533C4742C0515A23
keywords MixedmultipleorthogonalLaurentpolynomialsunitcircleChristoffel–DarbouxformulasABCtheoremrecurrencerelationsChristoffelperturbationsGeronimusGauss–Borelfactorization
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

The paper sets out to build a theory of mixed multiple orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle (MOLPUC), a many-measure analogue of the classical Szegő/CMV theory. It starts from a $q\times p$ matrix of complex measures on the unit circle, arranges its moments in a CMV-type block matrix, and uses the Gauss–Borel factorization of that moment matrix to define two families of block Laurent polynomials $B(z)$ and $A(z^{-1})$. The paper proves that these families satisfy simultaneous biorthogonality and mixed multiple orthogonality relations, have sharp degree bounds, and obey finite-band recurrences of the form $T B(z)=z B(z)$ and $\bar A(z^{-1})T=z\bar A(z^{-1})$. On top of this, it derives Christoffel–Darboux kernels with a reproducing property and an ABC-type representation, and then gives explicit Christoffel formulas for diagonal Christoffel and Geronimus perturbations of the measure matrix, written as quasi-determinants. If the construction is correct, it provides a single algebraic framework that contains the scalar unit-circle theory and extends it to a genuinely multiple-measure setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of semi-infinite CMV moment matrices $M=\oint_{\mathbb T} Z_{[q]}(z)\,\mathrm d\mu(z)\,Z_{[p]}^{\top}(z^{-1})$ and its counterpart $\mathcal M$, together with their Gauss–Borel factorizations $M=L^{-1}\bar U^{-1}$ and $\mathcal M=\bar{\mathcal L}^{-1}\mathcal U^{-1}$. The CMV monomial matrix $Z_{[r]}(z)$ alternates blocks $I_r, z^{-1}I_r, zI_r, z^{-2}I_r,\dots$; multiplying it by the sparse banded spectral matrix $\Upsilon_{[r]}$ gives $\Upsilon_{[r]}Z_{[r]}(z)=zZ_{[r]}(z)$. The conjugation $T=L\Upsilon_{[q]}L^{-1}=\bar U^{-1}\Upsilon_{[p]}\bar U$ converts this monomial eigenrelation into a finite-band recurrence for the actual Laurent polynomials. For perturbations, the key object is the connector (connection) matrix $N_C=\hat L W L^{-1}=\hat U^{-1}U$, whose upper $(2dq+1)$-banded structure is forced by the balanced form of $W$, together with the quasi-determinant (Schur complement) that encodes the Christoffel formulas.

What would settle it

Pick the scalar case $q=p=1$ with a measure $\mathrm d\mu=w(\theta)\,\mathrm d\theta/(2\pi)$ for a smooth positive weight, compute the first $N$ moments, perform the Gauss–Borel factorization, and check numerically that $T$ is pentadiagonal and $TB(z)=zB(z)$ holds for large $N$. Then take a prepared perturbation $W(z)=z^{-1}(z-z_1)(z-z_2)$ with two distinct zeros, form the $2\times 2$ matrix $\mathbb B_n=\begin{pmatrix} B_n(z_1)&B_n(z_2)\\ B_{n+1}(z_1)&B_{n+1}(z_2)\end{pmatrix}$, and compare the quasi-determinantal output of Proposition 3.3 with polynomials obtained by direct orthogonalization of the perturbed measure $W\,\mathrm d\mu$. If $\det \mathbb B_n=0$ for some $n$ or the two computations disagree, the paper's central formula fails in the stated generality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the Gauss–Borel factorization of the left and right CMV moment matrices $M$ and $\mathcal M$ produces Laurent polynomial matrices $B(z)=LZ_{[q]}(z)$ and $A(z^{-1})=Z_{[p]}^{\top}(z^{-1})U$ that are biorthogonal with respect to the matrix of measures and satisfy the banded eigenmatrix recurrences $T B(z)=z B(z)$ and $\bar A(z^{-1})T=z\bar A(z^{-1})$, where $T=L\Upsilon_{[q]}L^{-1}=\bar U^{-1}\Upsilon_{[p]}\bar U$ has exactly $2(p+q)+1$ diagonals (Propositions 2.24 and 2.25). The companion Szegő matrices $R,S,\mathcal R,\mathcal S$ factor $T$ as $T=SR$ and $T^{-1}=\mathcal R\mathcal S$. Using these recurrences, the paper constructs Christoffel–Darboux kernels that reproduce under the matrix measure and admit the ABC representation $K^{[n]}(x,y)=(Z_{[p]}^{\top}(x^{-1}))^{[n]}(M^{[n]})^{-1}(Z_{[q]}(y))^{[n]}$. For a diagonal perturbation by a balanced Laurent polynomial $W$ with $2dq$ simple zeros, the perturbed polynomials $\hat B$ and $\hat A$ are expressed as quasi-determinants built from $B$ and $A$ evaluated at those zeros; the Geronimus analogue uses Cauchy transforms and second-kind functions. A scalar reduction recovers the classical Szegő recurrences with Verblunsky-type coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the matrix of moments can be factored as a lower times an upper triangular matrix (all leading principal minors nonzero), and the perturbation results further assume that the perturbation's $2dq$ zeros are simple, distinct, and chosen so that the evaluation matrices $\mathbb B_n$ and $\Pi$ are nonsingular; when those determinants vanish the stated Christoffel and Christoffel–Geronimus formulas do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The recurrences $TB(z)=zB(z)$ and $\bar A(z^{-1})T=z\bar A(z^{-1})$ are valid with $T$ a banded matrix of $2(p+q)+1$ diagonals, so the full sequence of block Laurent polynomials is governed by a finite-width recursion.
  • The Christoffel–Darboux kernel $K^{[n]}(x,y)$ satisfies the reproducing property under the matrix measure and admits the ABC-type inverse-moment representation $K^{[n]}(x,y)=(Z_{[p]}^{\top}(x^{-1}))^{[n]}(M^{[n]})^{-1}(Z_{[q]}(y))^{[n]}$.
  • Under a diagonal Christoffel perturbation by a matrix balanced Laurent polynomial $W$, the perturbed polynomials $\hat B$ and $\hat A$ are expressed as quasi-determinants divided by $W_b(z)$ and by the appropriate evaluation matrix, giving explicit finite-dimensional formulas.
  • Under a Geronimus perturbation with singular part, the biorthogonal polynomials $\check A$ and $\check B$ are given by quasi-determinantal Christoffel–Geronimus formulas involving Cauchy transforms and second-kind functions.
  • In the scalar case $p=q=1$ with real measure, the general machinery reduces to the classical Szegő recurrences with Verblunsky-type coefficients, so the paper contains the scalar CMV theory as a special case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the banded eigenmatrix $T$ exists for any matrix of measures admitting the Gauss–Borel factorization, the same mechanism should yield a spectral theorem for banded operators with positive bidiagonal factorization in the mixed multiple setting, parallel to the known one-measure result.
  • The quasi-determinantal Christoffel formulas suggest a practical numerical route for perturbed problems: one only needs to invert the $2dq\times 2dq$ evaluation matrix at the zeros of $W$, rather than rerun the full orthogonalization; this computational claim goes beyond what the paper states.
  • The off-circle support of the Geronimus singular part in Section 4.2 indicates that the resulting object is a matrix of functionals rather than a measure on $\mathbb T$; this may connect the theory to spectral measures of non-unitary operators or to related multi-measure systems on the circle.
  • The authors' remark that their orthogonality relates to a weighted variant of earlier multiple orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle suggests that a change-of-measure identity could make the prior construction a special case; verifying such an identity would be a direct testable extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a theory of mixed multiple orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle (MOLPUC) from the Gauss–Borel factorization of a semi-infinite CMV moment matrix associated with a q×p matrix of measures. It introduces left and right families of Laurent polynomial matrices B(z) and A(z^{-1}), proves matrix biorthogonality and entrywise mixed orthogonality relations, states degree bounds, and derives banded recurrence relations T B(z)=zB(z) and \bar A(z^{-1})T=z\bar A(z^{-1}), together with Szegő-type recurrences and Christoffel–Darboux kernels with a reproducing property and an ABC-type identity. The second half studies diagonal Christoffel and Geronimus perturbations of the moment matrix and derives quasi-determinantal Christoffel formulas for the perturbed polynomials. The central structural results follow by explicit linear algebra from the stated factorization, but the Geronimus section with singular part contains an internal inconsistency: the singular part is supported off the unit circle and hence does not contribute to the moment matrix, yet the Christoffel–Geronimus formulas depend on its masses.

Significance. If the Geronimus issue is resolved, the paper would be a useful unified treatment of multiple orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle, with explicit banded recurrences and concrete Christoffel and Geronimus formulas. The derivations are mostly transparent and are not fitted to the conclusions; the Christoffel perturbation formulas in Propositions 3.3 and 3.6 are explicit and could be checked numerically. However, the degree-bound lemmas rely on an absent appendix, and the mass-dependent Geronimus formulas are not connected to the moment matrix as defined. The paper therefore cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (94), Remark after Eq. (96), Props. 4.1 and 4.7] The singular part dμ_s is supported at the zeros of W[q], which the text explicitly says are not on T. Hence ∫_T f dμ_s = 0 for every integrand f, so the moment matrix \tilde M in Proposition 4.1 is independent of the masses m_{b,a,j}. Consequently the Gauss–Borel factors \tilde L, \tilde U and the polynomials \tilde B, \tilde A are mass-independent. Proposition 4.7 nevertheless gives a Christoffel–Geronimus formula for \tilde A whose entries F^{(b)}_{n,j} contain the masses m_{b,a,j}, and Section 4.5 does the same for \tilde B. Unless those mass terms cancel identically—which is neither shown nor plausible—the formula cannot describe the \tilde A defined from \tilde M. This is a load-bearing inconsistency, not a minor gap; the Geronimus section needs to either place the singular part on T or redefine the moment matrix and all integrals over the full support of d\tilde μ.
  2. [Lemma 2.7 and Lemma 2.9] The proof of Lemma 2.7 is deferred with the words 'See Appendix,' but no appendix appears in the arXiv v1, and Lemma 2.9 is stated without proof as analogous. These degree bounds are load-bearing: Corollary 2.16 uses them to write the mixed orthogonality index ranges, and Proposition 4.6 uses them to locate the vanishing of the orthogonality integrals in the Geronimus argument. The authors must include the appendix or provide the proofs in the main text before the degree claims can be verified.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eq. (96)] The Cauchy transform \tilde C(z) is written as an integral over T plus a functional pairing against dμ_s. If dμ_s is supported off T, the integral over T gives zero and the pairing is not the same object as the moment integral used in Proposition 4.1. The text should define rigorously whether all moment-type integrals are over T or over the full support of d\tilde μ; the current mixed convention is the source of the inconsistency flagged above.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Corollary 2.14] The proof is omitted as 'straightforward'; please include a short proof or at least specify the exact truncation used, since this corollary underpins the reproducing property in Theorem 2.42.
  2. [Section 4, notation] The Geronimus moment matrix is sometimes denoted \check M and sometimes \tilde M, and the perturbed polynomials are denoted \check B, \check A in (84) but \tilde B, \tilde A elsewhere; please unify the notation throughout Section 4.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor infelicities, such as 'wan to' in the Acknowledgments and a dangling reference to a non-existent Appendix in Lemma 2.7; these should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the Geronimus off-circle singular part is a consistency flaw, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. B(z)=LZ and A(z)=Z^T U are defined from the Gauss–Borel factorization M=L^{-1}\bar U^{-1}; biorthogonality (Prop. 2.12), the recurrences TB=zB and \bar A(z^{-1})T=z\bar A(z^{-1}) (Prop. 2.25), the banded structure (Prop. 2.24), the Christoffel–Darboux kernel and the ABC theorem (Props. 2.41–2.43) all follow algebraically from these definitions plus the identities \Upsilon Z=zZ, with no fitted parameters and no appeal to the target conclusions. The Christoffel formulas (Props. 3.3, 3.6) are derived from the connector matrix N_C=\hat U^{-1}U=\hat L W L^{-1} by solving the determined linear system at the zeros of W; the nonzero-determinant restrictions (Rems. 3.4–3.5) are explicit hypotheses, not circular inputs. Self-citations to [4,6,8,26] are to prior framework papers but are not load-bearing: the 'prepared Laurent polynomial' notion is redefined in (65)–(66) and quasi-determinants are defined in (81). The one serious flaw is an internal consistency gap rather than circularity: in Section 4.2, d\tilde\mu = W^{-1}d\mu + d\mu_s with d\mu_s supported at the zeros of W, and the paper states those zeros are not on T. Because \tilde M is defined as \oint_T Z\,d\tilde\mu\,Z^T, the singular part contributes zero, so \tilde B,\tilde A from (84) depend only on W^{-1}d\mu; yet Proposition 4.7's Christoffel–Geronimus formula depends on the masses m_{b,a,j} through F^{(b)}_{n,j}, so it is disconnected from the \tilde A actually defined by the stated moment matrix. This is a correctness/consistency problem, not a reduction of a prediction to its own input. Lemma 2.7's proof also refers to an Appendix that is absent, a completeness issue. Neither issue makes the central derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the analytic assumptions of the matrix measures (support, factorization normality) and on explicit genericity conditions for perturbation zeros. No free parameters are fitted; p, q, d, and the zero sets are inputs, not fitted constants.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gauss-Borel factorization of M and M exists (all leading principal minors nonzero).
    Invoked in Section 2.1 after Definition 2.2 to define L, U, L, and U; the paper states existence iff leading principal minors are nonzero, but does not prove normality for the matrix measures.
  • domain assumption Support of each of the q x p matrix measures is an infinite subset of T.
    Stated in Section 2.1 before the moment matrices; needed for full-rank moment sequences.
  • ad hoc to paper The perturbation entries W_b are balanced Laurent polynomials of equal degrees ±d with 2d simple distinct zeros; zero sets chosen so that B_n and Pi are invertible.
    Remarks 3.4 and 3.5 explicitly exclude zero sets making the denominator determinants vanish; these exclusions are part of the perturbation construction, not derived from the measure.
  • ad hoc to paper The Geronimus singular part dμ_s is a sum of Dirac deltas at the zeros of W[q](z), satisfying W[q] dμ_s = 0, even though those zeros may lie off T.
    Section 4.2 defines dμ_tilde = W^{-1} dμ + dμ_s and requires W dμ_s = 0; the paper notes dμ_s is not supported on T but uses it as a functional in Cauchy transforms, without establishing a measure on T.
  • standard math Cauchy-Hadamard convergence of the Fourier series of the matrix measure in the annulus A(0; R_-, R_+).
    Stated in Section 2.1 to justify the moment series; standard complex analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mixed Multiple Orthogonal Laurent Polynomials on the Unit Circle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZ5RWVPX

@misc{pith2026241110834,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mixed Multiple Orthogonal Laurent Polynomials on the Unit Circle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZ5RWVPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10834}
}
read the original abstract

Mixed orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle of CMV type are constructed utilizing a matrix of moments and its Gauss--Borel factorization and employing a multiple extension of the CMV ordering. A systematic analysis of the associated multiple orthogonality and biorthogonality relations, and an examination of the degrees of the Laurent polynomials is given. Recurrence relations, expressed in terms of banded matrices, are found. These recurrence relations lay the groundwork for corresponding Christoffel-Darboux kernels and relations, as well as for elucidating the ABC theorem. The paper also develops the theory of diagonal Christoffel and Geronimus perturbations of the matrix of measures. Christoffel formulas are found for both perturbations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Álvarez-Fernández, U

    C. Álvarez-Fernández, U. Fidalgo, and M. Mañas, Multiple orthogonal polynomials of mixed type: Gauss-Borel factorization and the multi-component 2D Toda hierarchy, Advances in Mathematics 227 (2011) 1451–1525

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    C. Álvarez-Fernández and M Mañas, Orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle, extended CMV ordering and 2D Toda type integrable hierarchies, Advances in Mathematics 240 (2013), 132–193

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Ariznabarreta and M Mañas, Matrix orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle and Toda type integrable systems,Advances in Mathematics 264 (2014) 396–463

    G. Ariznabarreta and M Mañas, Matrix orthogonal Laurent polynomials on the unit circle and Toda type integrable systems,Advances in Mathematics 264 (2014) 396–463

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Ariznabarreta, J

    G. Ariznabarreta, J. C. García-Ardila, M. Mañas, and F. Marcellán, Matrix biorthogonal polynomials on the real line: Geronimus transformations. Bulletin of Mathematical Sciences 9 (02) (2019), 1950007, 68p

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Ariznabarreta and M

    G. Ariznabarreta and M. Mañas, Christoffel transformations for multivariate orthogonal polynomials Journal of Approximation Theory 225 (2018) 242-283

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Ariznabarreta, M

    G. Ariznabarreta, M. Mañas, and A. Toledano, CMV biorthogonal Laurent polynomials: perturbations and Christoffel formulas Studies in Applied Mathematics 140 (2018) 333–400

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Ariznabarreta and M

    G. Ariznabarreta and M. Mañas, Multivariate orthogonal Laurent polynomials and integrable systems, Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University58 (2022) 79–185

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Multiple orthogonal polynomials: Pearson equations and Christoffel formulas , Analysis and Mathematical Physics 12 (2022) paper 129

    work page 2022

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Spectral theory for bounded banded matrices with positive bidiagonal factoriza- tion and mixed multiple orthogonal polynomials. Advances in Mathematics 434 (2023), 109313

    2023

  2. [10]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Oscillatory banded Hessenberg matrices, multiple orthogonal polynomials and random walks. Physica Scripta 98 (2023), 105223

    2023

  3. [11]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Banded totally positive matrices and normality for mixed multiple orthogonal polynomials, 2024. arXiv:2404.13965

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Orthogonal Polynomials, Special Functions and Applications – Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium, Montreal, Canada, In honor to Richard Askey

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. Díaz, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Markov Chains and Multiple Orthogonality , to appear in “Orthogonal Polynomials, Special Functions and Applications – Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium, Montreal, Canada, In honor to Richard Askey” i...

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. Díaz, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Finite Markov chains and multiple orthogonal polynomials, to appear in Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, arXiv:2308.001823

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. Díaz, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas, Hypergeometric multiple orthogonal polynomials and random walks, 2021. arXiv:2107.00770

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. J. Cantero, L. Moral, L. Velázquez, Five-diagonal matrices and zeros of orthogonal polynomials in the unit circle, Linear Algebra and its Applications 362 (2003) 29-56

    2003

  8. [16]

    Cruz-Barroso, C

    R. Cruz-Barroso, C. Díaz-Mendoza, R. Orive, Multiple orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. Normality and recurrence relations, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 284 (2015), 115–132

    2015

  9. [17]

    Daems and A

    E. Daems and A. B. J. Kuijlaars, Multiple orthogonal polynomials of mixed type and non-intersecting Brownian motions , Journal of Approximation Theory 146 (2007) 91-114

    2007

  10. [18]

    Cassatella-Contra and M

    G. Cassatella-Contra and M. Mañas, Riemann-Hilbert problem and matrix discrete Painlevé II systems , Studies in Applied Mathe- matics 143 (2019) 273–314

    2019

  11. [19]

    Fidalgo Prieto, A

    U. Fidalgo Prieto, A. López García, G. López Lagomasino, V.N. Sorokin, C Mixed type multiple orthogonal polynomials for two Nikishin systems, Constructive Approximation 32 (2010) 255–306

    2010

  12. [20]

    Fidalgo Prieto, S

    U. Fidalgo Prieto, S. Medina Peralta, and J. Minguez, Mixed type multiple orthogonal polynomials: Perfectness and interlacing properties of zeros, Linear Algebra and its Applications 438 (2013) 1229–1239. MIXED MULTIPLE ORTHOGONAL LAURENT POLYNOMIALS ON THE UNIT CIRCLE 49

    2013

  13. [21]

    J. C. García-Ardila, M. Mañas, and F. Marcellán, Christoffel transformation for a matrix of bi-variate measures Complex Analysis and Operator Theory 13 (2019) 3979–4005

    2019

  14. [22]

    Gelfand, S

    I. Gelfand, S. Gelfand, V. Retakh, R. L. Wilson, Quasideterminants, Advances in Mathematics 193 (1) (2005) 56-141

    2005

  15. [23]

    M. E. Ismail, Classical ands Quantum Orthogonal Polynomials in One Variable. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and ots Applications

  16. [24]

    Kozhan, Nikishin systems on the unit circle, 2024

    R. Kozhan, Nikishin systems on the unit circle, 2024. arXiv:2410.20813

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kozhan, and M

    R. Kozhan, and M. Vaktnäs, Laurent Multiple Orthogonal Polynomials on the Unit Circle, 2024. arXiv:2410.12094

    2024

  18. [26]

    Mañas, Revisiting biorthogonal polynomials: An LU factorization discussion

    M. Mañas, Revisiting biorthogonal polynomials: An LU factorization discussion . In: Marcellán F., Huertas E.J. (eds) Orthogonal Polynomials: Current Trends and Applications. SEMA SIMAI Springer Series, vol.22, (2021), 273–307

    2021

  19. [27]

    Mañas and M

    M. Mañas and M. Rojas, General Christoffel perturbations for mixed multiple orthogonal polynomials, 2024.arXiv:2405.11630

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mañas and M

    M. Mañas and M. Rojas, General Geronimus perturbations for mixed multiple orthogonal polynomials, 2024. To appear

    2024

  21. [29]

    Mínguez-Ceniceros, and W

    J. Mínguez-Ceniceros, and W. Van Assche, Multiple orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle , Constructive Approximation 28 (2008) 173–197

    2008

  22. [30]

    E. M. Nikishin and V. N. Sorokin. Rational Approximations and Orthogonality. AMS Translations of Mathematical Monographs 92, Providence, 1991

    1991

  23. [31]

    Simon, Orthogonal Polynomials on Unit Circle, two volumes

    B. Simon, Orthogonal Polynomials on Unit Circle, two volumes. AMS Colloquium Publications 54. AMS, Providence, 2005

    2005

  24. [32]

    Simon, The Christoffel–Darboux kernel, in: Perspectives in Partial Differential Equations, Harmonic Analysis and Appli- cations: A Volume in Honor of Vladimir G

    B. Simon, The Christoffel–Darboux kernel, in: Perspectives in Partial Differential Equations, Harmonic Analysis and Appli- cations: A Volume in Honor of Vladimir G. Maz’ya’s 70th Birthday, in: Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.,79, (2008), 295–336

    2008

  25. [33]

    V. N. Sorokin, Hermite–Padé approximants of polylogarithms , Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Matematika 5 (1994) 49–59; Russian Math. (Iz. VUZ), 38:5 47–57 (1994), in Russian

    1994

  26. [34]

    V. N. Sorokin and J. Van Iseghem, Algebraic Aspects of Matrix Orthogonality for Vector Polynomials , Journal of Approximation Theory 90 (1997) 97–116

    1997

  27. [35]

    V. N. Sorokin and J. Van Iseghem, Matrix Continued Fractions, Journal of Approximation Theory 96 (1999), 237–257

    1999

  28. [36]

    V. N. Sorokin and J. Van Iseghem, Matrix Hermite–Padé problem and dynamical systems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics 122 (2000) 275–295

    2000

  29. [98]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.