Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Bessel-Like Multiple Orthogonal Polynomials of Mixed Type

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A matrix of Bessel-like weights on the unit circle makes every balanced near-diagonal mixed-type orthogonality problem explicitly solvable.

desk verdict A serious, largely self-contained construction of explicit mixed-type Bessel-like multiple orthogonal polynomials; the core orthogonality and normality proofs hold up, but the bidiagonal factorization results depend on unpublished companion work and should be conditioned on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00781 v1 pith:HPBH3KPW submitted 2026-08-01 math.CA math-phmath.MP

Manuel Mañas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath-phmath.MP MSC 33C4542C0533C2015A2347B36
keywords mixed-typemultipleorthogonalpolynomialsBesselmatrixweightsontheunitcirclereciprocal-Gammamomentsnear-diagonalmulti-indicesbidiagonalChristoffelfactorizationHahnGamma–Pochhammerpairing
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 constructs a q×p matrix of weights on the unit circle that behaves like a Bessel weight in mixed-type multiple orthogonality: each entry is a base hypergeometric moment-generating function with shifted Gamma parameters, so its Laurent moments are reciprocal-Gamma quotients. Unlike a separable product weight, this matrix has generic rank min{q,p} away from finitely many points. The paper proves that for balanced near-diagonal index pairs, both the A- and B-polynomial vectors are given explicitly by terminating generalized hypergeometric formulas, that their solution spaces are unique up to a scalar (weak normality), and that strong normality holds except on explicit algebraic loci. It then derives finite Gamma–Pochhammer formulas for recurrence coefficients and a bidiagonal Christoffel factorization of the banded step-line recurrence matrix. If correct, the paper makes every balanced near-diagonal mixed orthogonality problem for this family, including its recurrences and Christoffel factors, explicitly computable.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the reciprocal-Gamma moment pairing (21), with M_{(u,j),(v,i)} = Γ(u+v+1+κ_i+a)/Γ(u+v+1+κ_i+b+e_j), together with the matrix weight W whose entries are the hypergeometric generating function f_0 with shifted parameters. The proofs run through partial-fraction decompositions of the rational function R(t) = -∏(κ_i+1-t)_{n_i}/∏(t+b_j)_{m_j} (Lemma 3.2), the finite reconstruction of a simple fraction (Lemma 3.3), and a residue/interpolation characterization that forces any solution to coincide with the explicit vector (Proposition 3.5). Rank maximality of the weight is established by a Cauchy determinant of the residues (Proposition 2.8). The later sections are carried

What would settle it

Run the Example 3.10 computation in exact arithmetic: for p=q=2, r=1, n=(2,2), m=(3,2), b1=1/10, κ1=1/5, κ2=19/20, a1=3/10, and b2 the real root in (−0.81,−0.80) of 12800 x^3+171520 x^2−1674878 x−1447069, the rational identity of Theorem 3.1 must give top coefficients β_{1,2}≠0 and β_{2,1}=0; any exact rational calculation giving β_{2,1}≠0 would refute the exceptional-equation description of Proposition 3.9. More generally, evaluating the claimed hypergeometric A- and B-vectors at a regular admissible parameter tuple and numerically checking that the moment integrals (22)–(23) vanish would set

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the q×p Bessel-like matrix weight W with entries w_{j,i}(z)=f_0(z; a+κ_i 1_r, b+κ_i 1_q+e_j), whose moments are reciprocal-Gamma quotients (8), supports an explicitly solvable mixed-type orthogonality theory. Theorem 3.1 gives terminating hypergeometric formulas for the A- and B-polynomial vectors satisfying the orthogonality conditions (22)–(23) for every balanced near-diagonal index pair; Proposition 3.5 proves the solution spaces are one-dimensional, and Propositions 3.6 and 3.9 characterize strong normality componentwise, including the exceptional loci where a B-component loses its maximal degree. The B-components also admit finite Kampé de Fériet representation

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the parameters being regular and admissible: no two b-parameters and no two κ-parameters may differ by an integer, and every Gamma factor appearing in the displayed formulas must be finite; the paper explicitly says that without analytic continuation every formula-based assertion is restricted to that domain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every balanced near-diagonal mixed orthogonality problem for this Bessel-like matrix weight has explicit polynomial vectors, so the A- and B-vectors on the step-line and their duals are obtained by evaluating terminating hypergeometric sums rather than solving linear systems.
  • Weak normality is guaranteed on the regular admissible parameter domain; strong normality is guaranteed except on the finite union of explicit algebraic hypersurfaces F_j=0 where a B-component drops one degree.
  • The step-line recurrence matrix and the local near-diagonal recurrences of length p+q+1 have coefficients given by finite Pochhammer sums, so the banded recurrence is computable entry by entry.
  • The banded recurrence matrix admits a bidiagonal Christoffel factorization; for q=1 the factorization is complete in terms of Gamma–Vandermonde determinants, giving positive, O(n^{-1}) bidiagonal coefficients in the ordered chamber and hence a bounded banded operator.
  • In the one-row reduction, the type-II multiple Bessel polynomial is expressed as a terminating generalized hypergeometric polynomial whose unit-difference parameters are the roots of a reflected type-II multiple Hahn polynomial, connecting the Bessel and Hahn worlds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same confluence route — rank-one interval weights to a Markov–Stieltjes contour representative that survives while the interval measure does not — may produce full-rank matrix weights for other classical hypergeometric families with non-integer exponents, not just Bessel.
  • Editorial inference: because the exceptional loci F_j=0 are explicit algebraic equations, one could locate parameter regions where B-components systematically lose degree and then test whether those regions correspond to zeros of the associated multiple Hahn polynomials or to changes in the banded recurrence matrix.
  • Editorial inference: the explicit Gamma–Pochhammer form of the recurrence coefficients invites an asymptotic and spectral analysis of the banded matrix, potentially yielding large-degree limits for the mixed-type polynomials, although asymptotics are not developed in the paper.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines a q×p Bessel-like matrix weight W on the unit circle with entries w_{j,i}(z)=f_0(z; a+κ_i 1_r, b+κ_i 1_q+e_j), whose moments are reciprocal Gamma quotients. For balanced near-diagonal indices it obtains explicit terminating hypergeometric formulas for the A- and B-polynomial vectors (Theorem 3.1), proves weak normality (Proposition 3.5) and characterizes strong normality componentwise, including exceptional degree-loss loci (Propositions 3.8, 3.9). It also gives Kampé de Fériet representations, a Rodrigues-type formula, reductions to the multiple Bessel and Wolfs systems, finite Gamma–Pochhammer formulas for near-diagonal and step-line recurrence coefficients, and a bidiagonal Christoffel factorization of the banded recurrence matrix. Sections 2–6 are largely self-contained and contain detailed residue, partial-fraction, and finite-difference proofs. Section 7, however, relies on the unpublished companion paper [5] for the central factorization identity (92) and the upper-factor formula (93).

Significance. If correct, the paper gives an explicit, parameter-free family of mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials for a genuinely matrix-valued weight, recovering the multiple Bessel and Wolfs systems at the two boundary cases. The strengths are substantial: Theorem 3.1 is proved by direct residue computations, Lemma 3.3 is a long telescoping barycentric identity, Proposition 3.5 gives a finite rational characterization of weak normality, Theorem 2.11 provides a quantitative locally uniform confluence proof, and the recurrence coefficients in Section 6 are evaluated by explicit finite Pochhammer sums. The explicit exceptional loci of Proposition 3.9 are a useful, checkable output. The main caveat is that the bidiagonal factorization asserted in Section 7 is imported from [5] ('to appear') and [6] ('in preparation'), so the strongest form of the paper's central claim is not independently verifiable from this manuscript alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.2, Eqs. (92)–(93)] The factorization T_N = L_1...L_p U_q...U_1 and the upper-factor formula (93) are asserted by invoking 'the general mixed Christoffel–Gauss–Borel factorization of [5]', with [5] listed as 'to appear'. The numerical check in Section 7.5 covers only one 5×5 truncation. Because the abstract and conclusions present the bidiagonal factorization as part of the main result, this is load-bearing. Please either provide a self-contained proof of (92)–(93) adapted to the present hypotheses, or explicitly label Section 7 as conditional and remove the factorization from the abstract/conclusion claims.
  2. [Section 7.2, Gauss–Borel assumption] The section begins by assuming that the moment matrix and the Christoffel-perturbed moment matrices admit Gauss–Borel factorizations. For the closed column chain, Lemma 7.1 supplies the moment closure, but for the intermediate row chain the perturbed matrices are not shown to lie in the Bessel-like family or to satisfy an explicit nonvanishing determinant condition. Thus the hypotheses of the imported factorization theorem are not verified. Please prove these hypotheses for the Bessel-like weights, or state them as explicit additional assumptions and delimit their scope.
  3. [Section 7.5, numerical example] The p=3, q=2 numerical check verifies the factorization only for a 5×5 truncation, reports a residual of 1.1×10^-73, and ships no code or data. This is reasonable supporting evidence but cannot validate the general factorization theorem, particularly since (92)–(93) are imported from an unpublished reference. It should be presented as an illustration rather than as independent verification of the general statement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Definition 2.1, admissibility convention] The paper clearly states that every formula-based assertion is made on the F-admissible subset and that no analytic continuation is intended. This is a legitimate scope restriction, but it means the explicit formulas exclude integer separations b_j-b_h∈Z and κ_i-κ_h∈Z as well as Gamma-denominator poles. The abstract could say this more prominently, since the word 'explicit' is otherwise easy to overread.
  2. [Section 2.2, Jacobi-like system of [6]] The confluence theorem is self-contained once the beta-convolution weights are defined, but the claim that the starting system is the Jacobi-like system of [6] cannot be checked because [6] is listed as 'in preparation'. This does not affect the main theorems, but it makes the historical/comparative statement unverifiable.
  3. [Section 5, Eq. (59) vs. Eq. (8)] The multiple Bessel reduction q=1 identifies α_j=b_1+κ_j. The moment formula (59) is consistent with (8), but the notation L_j[z^n] is introduced before the functional is defined; a short pointer to (8) would improve readability.
  4. [Notation, Section 1.3] The displayed definition of 1_d is typeset as [1 1] rather than [1 ... 1]; this is a minor typographical issue. Also, the double use of * for deletion of a component (®c_*i) and for step-line quantities could be flagged in the notation section.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central hypergeometric derivation is self-contained; the only load-bearing self-citation is the Section 7 bidiagonal factorization imported from the to-appear companion [5].

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 7.2, after eq. (92) and eq. (93)]
    "The general mixed Christoffel–Gauss–Borel factorization of [5] then gives T_N = L_1 ··· L_p U_q ··· U_1. ... Formula (93) is the finite Christoffel formula of [5] specialized to the non-closed row chain."

    The bidiagonal factorization is presented as the completion of the paper's explicit-solvability claim for the recurrence matrix. Equations (92) and (93) are not derived from the Bessel-like setup in this manuscript; they are asserted by direct appeal to [5], an unpublished 'to appear' companion by overlapping authors. The only in-paper evidence is a 5×5 numerical check in Section 7.5, which cannot establish the general factorization. Thus the strongest form of the claim—that the recurrence matrix admits the explicit bidiagonal factorization—rests on a self-citation chain rather than on a proof contained in this paper. This is a verifiability and self-citation issue, though, not a construction-level reduction, and it does not undermine the independently derived polynomial-vector, normality,

full rationale

The core derivation is self-contained: the matrix weight is defined in (6), its moments are computed directly in (8), Theorem 3.1 constructs the A- and B-polynomial vectors via explicit residues/partial fractions and proves orthogonality, and Proposition 3.5 proves weak normality using interpolation and rational reconstruction without any external uniqueness theorem. The reductions to Wolfs (p=1) and ABV multiple Bessel (q=1) are verified against independent moment formulas (Exton-type integrals and ABV's double sum), not obtained by renaming the paper's own definitions. Sections 6 derives recurrence coefficients from the same explicit vectors and pairing block. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no defining quantity is equivalent to its alleged output. The only significant self-citation is Section 7's bidiagonal Christoffel factorization, which is imported from [5] (to appear, with overlapping authorship). That makes the full factorization claim unverifiable from this manuscript alone and is properly flagged, but it is not a circularity in the constructions themselves; hence a low score of 2 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data or chosen ad hoc. The variables a, b, and κ are the defining parameters of the family, like parameters of a hypergeometric function. The concrete values in Example 3.10 and Section 7.5 are instantiations chosen to exhibit a phenomenon or run a check, not fits. The choices made in proofs (the word ω in the Rodrigues product, the scalar γ in the seed) are normalization choices that cancel in the final statements.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Complex-analysis toolkit: residue theorem, identity theorem, Cauchy integral formula on the unit circle, Laurent coefficient extraction, analytic continuation of hypergeometric series.
    Used throughout: Proposition 2.8 (rank via Cauchy determinant and identity theorem), Proposition 3.5 (residue theorem with O(t^-2) decay), Lemma 3.2 (partial fractions), Theorem 2.11 (locally uniform convergence).
  • domain assumption Parameter domain restrictions: 0 ≤ r < q, b_j - b_h ∉ Z, κ_i - κ_h ∉ Z (Definition 2.1), plus the standing admissibility convention that every Gamma factor in a displayed formula is finite.
    All theorems are stated only on this domain; the paper explicitly does not extend by analytic continuation. This is load-bearing for the simple-pole and distinct-node arguments in Lemmas 3.2-3.3 and Proposition 3.5.
  • standard math Mellin transform and Mellin convolution properties for the beta weights in Section 2.2, with real branches of powers on (0,1).
    Defines the Jacobi-like weights; the identity ∫ x^{s-1} B_{u,v}(x) dx = Γ(s+u)/Γ(s+v) is standard and used to form the rank-one interval system.
  • domain assumption Existence of Gauss-Borel factorization, i.e., non-singularity of leading principal truncations of the moment matrix M and of the Christoffel-perturbed moment matrices.
    Proposition 1.3 states 'Assuming that the leading principal truncations of M are nonsingular'; Section 7.2 states 'Assume that the moment matrix and the Christoffel-perturbed moment matrices used below admit Gauss-Borel factorizations'. By [15] this is equivalent to normality and nonvanishing determinants, which the paper proves only on its admissible near-diagonal domain.
  • domain assumption General mixed Christoffel-Gauss-Borel factorization theorem of [5] (Branquinho, Foulquié-Moreno, Mañas, arXiv:2603.21345, to appear): T_N = L_1...L_p U_q...U_1 and the tau-determinant formulas for the upper factors.
    Formula (92) and the upper-factor formula (93) in Section 7.2 are imported from [5], the author's own unpublished work; Section 7 is conditional on it.
  • domain assumption Branch conventions for the Exton-type contour functional in Proposition 5.5: a cut Γ from the origin, a branch of log z in C\Γ, and the jump interpretation of the contour.
    Proposition 5.5 and Remark 5.4 specify that the q=1 moments are defined by the single-valued reciprocal-Gamma functionals (59), with the Exton realization as an interpretation under fixed branch conventions.
  • standard math Rational-continuation removal of temporary dense-domain restrictions, e.g., condition (58) in Proposition 4.8.
    Laurent coefficients are rational functions of the parameters, so vanishing on a dense open set implies vanishing on the admissible domain; this is a standard continuation argument.
invented entities (3)
  • Bessel-like q×p matrix weight W and its reciprocal contour representative C independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a maximal-rank matrix of contour measures realizing mixed-type multiple orthogonality for the Bessel family, going beyond rank-one product weights.
    A mathematical construction rather than a physical postulate. It has checkable handles: the explicit numerical example (p=3, q=2, Section 7.5), where the recurrence matrix and the Christoffel-Gauss-Borel factorization agree to 1e-73, and the honest reductions to Wolfs (p=1) and ABV (q=1) systems as external consistency checks.
  • Exceptional functions F_j and exceptional loci E_{n,m} (Definition 3.7, Proposition 3.9)
    purpose: Characterize exactly when a B-component loses its maximal degree in near-diagonal B-balanced problems.
    Internal bookkeeping objects encoding the failure of B-strong normality; Example 3.10 shows they are nonvacuous conditions on regular parameters, but they are defined only through the paper's own formulas.
  • Finite Laurent seed S_{n,m} (Definition 4.7)
    purpose: Seed vector for the matrix Rodrigues-type formula in the general r>0 case.
    Internal construction defined recursively via residues; its role is to make the differential product produce the correct polynomial vector.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bessel-Like Multiple Orthogonal Polynomials of Mixed Type." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPBH3KPW

@misc{pith2026260800781,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bessel-Like Multiple Orthogonal Polynomials of Mixed Type},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPBH3KPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00781}
}
abstract

This article constructs a Bessel-like family of mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials for a $q\times p$ matrix weight on the unit circle. Unlike a rank-one product weight, this matrix has generic rank $\min\{q,p\}$ outside a finite subset of the circle. Its reciprocal-Gamma moments recover the multiple Bessel system when $q=1$ and the Bessel-like system of Wolfs when $p=1$. The same matrix is obtained as a scaled Markov-Stieltjes limit of a rank-one Jacobi-like system, although the interval measures themselves have no finite limit. For balanced near-diagonal indices, explicit formulas are obtained for the mixed $A$ and $B$ polynomial vectors. Their orthogonality and weak normality are proved, and componentwise strong normality is characterized. The components have terminating generalized hypergeometric representations; the $B$ components also admit finite Kamp\'e de F\'eriet representations and a matrix Rodrigues-type formula. In the one-row reduction, the bivariate representation becomes a generalized hypergeometric polynomial governed by a reflected type-II multiple Hahn polynomial. Finite Gamma-Pochhammer formulas give the near-diagonal and step-line recurrence coefficients. The corresponding banded recurrence matrix has a bidiagonal Christoffel factorization: the lower factors are evaluated from transformed polynomial vectors, while the upper factors are expressed through finite tau determinants. When $q=1$, every Christoffel step remains within the multiple Bessel family, and Gamma-Vandermonde determinants yield the complete factorization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Linear Algebra and its Applications (2026)

    A.Branquinho,A.Foulquié-Moreno,andM.Mañas.Bidiagonalfactorizationofbanded recursion matrices for mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials. Linear Algebra and its Applications (2026). arXiv: 2603.21345. To appear

    arXiv 2026

  2. [6]

    Jacobi-like and Laguerre-like mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas. “Jacobi-like and Laguerre-like mixed-type multiple orthogonal polynomials”. In preparation

    work page

  3. [1]

    Álvarez-Fernández, U

    C. Álvarez-Fernández, U. Fidalgo Prieto, and M. Mañas.Multiple orthogonal polynomi- alsofmixedtype:Gauss–Borelfactorizationandthemulti-component2DTodahierarchy. Advances in Mathematics227(2011) 1451–1525.doi: 10.1016/j.aim.2011.03.008

    doi:10.1016/j.aim.2011.03.008 2011

  4. [2]

    A. I. Aptekarev, A. Branquinho, and W. Van Assche.Multiple orthogonal polynomials for classical weights. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society355(2003) 3887–3914.doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-03-03330-0

    doi:10.1090/s0002-9947-03-03330-0 2003

  5. [3]

    Arvesú, J

    J. Arvesú, J. Coussement, and W. Van Assche.Some discrete multiple orthogonal polynomials. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics153(2003) 19–45. doi: 10.1016/S0377-0427(02)00597-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0377-0427(02)00597-6 2003

  6. [4]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. Díaz, A. Foulquié-Moreno, M. Mañas, and T. Wolfs.Integral and hypergeometric representations for multiple orthogonal polynomials. International Mathematics Research Notices2025(2025) rnaf168.doi: 10.1093/imrn/rnaf168

    work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnaf168 2025

  7. [7]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. Díaz, A. Foulquié-Moreno, and M. Mañas.Hahn multiple orthogonalpolynomialsoftypeI:Hypergeometricexpressions.JournalofMathematical Analysis and Applications528(2023).doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2023.127471

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    J. L. Burchnall.The Bessel polynomials. Canadian Journal of Mathematics3(1951) 62–68.doi: 10.4153/CJM-1951-009-3

    work page doi:10.4153/cjm-1951-009-3 1951

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Daems and A

    E. Daems and A. B. J. Kuijlaars.Multiple orthogonal polynomials of mixed type and non-intersecting Brownian motions. Journal of Approximation Theory146(2007) 91– 114.doi: 10.1016/j.jat.2006.12.001

    2007 doi

  2. [10]

    Exton.On the orthogonality of the Bessel polynomials

    H. Exton.On the orthogonality of the Bessel polynomials. Rivista di Matematica della Università di Parma12(1986) 213–215

    1986

  3. [11]

    Fidalgo, A

    U. Fidalgo, A. López-García, G. López-Lagomasino, and V. N. Sorokin.Mixed type multiple orthogonal polynomials for two Nikishin systems. Constructive Approximation 32(2010) 255–306.doi: 10.1007/s00365-009-9077-8

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    M. E. H. Ismail.Classical and Quantum Orthogonal Polynomials in One Variable. Vol. 98. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107325982

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    D. B. Karp and E. G. Prilepkina.Extensions of Karlsson–Minton summation theorem and some consequences of the first Miller–Paris transformation. Integral Transforms and Special Functions29(2018) 955–970.doi: 10.1080/10652469.2018.1526793

    2018

  6. [14]

    Transactions of the American Mathematical Society65(1949) 100–115.doi: 10.1090/ S0002-9947-1949-0028473-1

    H.L.KrallandO.Frink.Anewclassoforthogonalpolynomials:theBesselpolynomials. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society65(1949) 100–115.doi: 10.1090/ S0002-9947-1949-0028473-1

    1949

  7. [15]

    Mañas and M

    M. Mañas and M. Rojas.General Christoffel perturbations for multiple orthogonal polynomials of the mixed type on the step-line. Numerical Algorithms102(2026) 1829– 1868.doi: 10.1007/s11075-025-02230-6. 81

    2026 doi

  8. [16]

    Martínez-Finkelshtein and W

    A. Martínez-Finkelshtein and W. Van Assche.What is ... a multiple orthogonal polynomial?Notices of the American Mathematical Society63(2016) 1029–1031.doi: 10.1090/noti1430

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 43(2013) 291–327.doi: 10.1216/RMJ-2013-43-1-291

    A.R.MillerandR.B.Paris.Transformationformulasforthegeneralizedhypergeometric function with integral parameter differences. Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 43(2013) 291–327.doi: 10.1216/RMJ-2013-43-1-291

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Mínguez Ceniceros and W

    J. Mínguez Ceniceros and W. Van Assche.Multiple orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. Constructive Approximation28(2008) 173–197.doi: 10.1007/s00365-007- 0680-2

    2008 doi

  11. [19]

    A. F. Nikiforov, S. K. Suslov, and V. B. Uvarov.Classical Orthogonal Polynomials of a Discrete Variable. Springer Series in Computational Physics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1991.doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-74748-9

    1991 doi

  12. [20]

    E. M. Nikishin and V. N. Sorokin.Rational Approximations and Orthogonality. Vol. 92. Translations of Mathematical Monographs. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1991

    1991

  13. [21]

    V. N. Sorokin and J. Van Iseghem.Algebraic aspects of matrix orthogonality for vector polynomials. Journal of Approximation Theory90(1997) 97–116.doi: 10.1006/jath. 1996.3064

    1997

  14. [22]

    V.N.SorokinandJ.VanIseghem.Matrixcontinuedfractions.JournalofApproximation Theory96(1999) 237–257.doi: 10.1006/jath.1998.3232

    1999

  15. [23]

    V. N. Sorokin and J. Van Iseghem.Matrix Hermite–Padé problem and dynamical systems. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics122(2000) 275–295.doi: 10.1016/S0377-0427(00)00354-X

    2000 doi

  16. [24]

    H. M. Srivastava and P. W. Karlsson.Multiple Gaussian Hypergeometric Series. Ellis Horwood Series in Mathematics and its Applications. Halsted Press, New York. Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1985

    1985

  17. [25]

    Wolfs.Applications of multiple orthogonal polynomials with hypergeometric moment generating functions

    T. Wolfs.Applications of multiple orthogonal polynomials with hypergeometric moment generating functions. Advances in Applied Mathematics158(2024).doi: 10.1016/j. aam.2024.102709. 82

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.