Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Strong asymptotics for Jacobi-Pi\~neiro orthogonal polynomials

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Deift–Zhou steepest-descent analysis of a 3×3 Riemann–Hilbert problem gives explicit uniform asymptotics for Jacobi–Piñeiro polynomials of degree 2n, with relative errors O(1/n) away from the zeros and near all three endpoints.

desk verdict The headline is real: this is the first strong uniform asymptotics for Jacobi-Piñeiro polynomials with two weights, and the double-matching construction for the 3x3 RHP at the origin is a genuine technical achievement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.20594 v1 pith:RQE33XZ7 submitted 2026-08-20 math.CA math.CV

Sergei Kalmykov , Vladimir Lysov , Vinay Shukla This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.CV MSC 42C0531A1534M50
keywords multipleorthogonalpolynomialsJacobi-PiñeirostrongasymptoticsRiemann-HilbertproblemMeijerG-functionsDeift-Zhousteepestdescentvectorequilibriumdoublematching
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 attacks an open problem: the strong, Plancherel–Rotach-type asymptotics of Jacobi–Piñeiro polynomials, the canonical type-II multiple orthogonal polynomials on [0,1]. It claims that for two Jacobi weights with exponents α1, α2, β, and for balanced multi-indices with n1+n2=2n and n2/(n1+n2)=θ∈(0,1/2), θn∈Z, the degree-2n polynomials have explicit uniform asymptotics in the whole complex plane with relative error O(1/n), stated for β=0. The proof proceeds through a 3×3 Riemann–Hilbert characterization and the Deift–Zhou steepest descent method: weak asymptotics from a vector equilibrium problem, a global parametrix built from an explicit algebraic function, and local parametrices from Meijer G, Bessel, and Airy functions. If correct, this provides the first strong asymptotic formulas for the Jacobi–Piñeiro family and a worked template for higher-rank Riemann–Hilbert analyses.

What carries the argument

The engine is a 3×3 Riemann–Hilbert problem whose solution Y contains the polynomial and its two second-kind functions, run through the transformation chain Y→X→U→T→R. The first transformations normalize the problem at infinity and introduce a jump on the negative real axis; opening lenses converts oscillatory jumps into exponential decay. The global parametrix N is built from the conformal mapping of a three-sheeted genus-zero Riemann surface, namely the algebraic function $R(s)=4s^3/(((2+\theta)s-\theta)((4-\theta)s-2+\theta))$, together with three functions F0, F1, F2 with explicit jump behavior. The H-functions, defined as integrals of the three branches h0, h1, h2 of an explicitly constructed meromorphic function h with prescribed divisor, provide the exponential exponents, and Lemma 5.1 identifies them with complex vector potentials of the equilibrium measures. Near the origin the local parametrix is a bare Meijer-G model Ψ(ξ), matched to N through the double matching technique: an inner circle |z|=$n^{{-3/2}}$ and an outer circle |z|=r0, with iteratively constructed analytic prefactors $E_n^{0}$ and E_n^∞. Near 1 and x* the local parametrices are modified Bessel and Airy models. The load-bearing object is therefore the explicit algebraic/H-function data: once it is known, all jumps and parametrices are explicit and the Riemann–Hilbert error estimates yield the O(1/n) uniform asymptotics.

What would settle it

Fix θ∈(0,1/2) with θn∈Z, β=0, and α1,α2>-1 with α1-α2∉Z; compute P_n(z) exactly, for instance through the explicit recurrence or hypergeometric representation, at a point off [0,1], and compare with the right-hand side of (7.1). If the relative error does not decay like C/n, the steepest-descent analysis is wrong. A second check is to compute the empirical zero-counting measure of P_n and compare it with the density dλ1 from (4.6)–(4.7); a discrepancy near 0 would falsify the touching-support weak-asymptotics statement on which the exponential normalization depends.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the long-standing absence of strong asymptotics for the Jacobi–Piñeiro family is now filled. For degrees 2n with n2/(n1+n2)=θ∈(0,1/2), θn∈Z, and β=0, it asserts that P_{n1,n2}(z) equals an explicit expression $$P_{\vec n}(z)=\frac{$4^{{\alpha_1}}$(\varphi_0(z)-\theta_1)(\varphi_0(z)-\theta_2)^{\alpha_2-\alpha_1+1}\varphi_0(z)^{2\alpha_1-\alpha_2}}{[(2+\$\theta$)(4-\$\theta$)]^{\alpha_1}$z^{{\alpha_1}}$\sqrt{D(\varphi_0(z))}}$e^{{n\tilde H_0(z)}}$\left(1+O\left(\frac1n\right)\right)$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\mathbb{C}\setminus[0,1]$, where $\varphi_0$ is a branch of the cubic algebraic function (4.1), $\theta_1,\theta_2$ are explicit constants, and $\tilde H_0=H_0-C_0$ is the exponent coming from the H-functions. On the two arcs of the support the formula acquires a second oscillatory term, and near the endpoints 1, x*, and 0 the behavior is instead governed by Bessel, Airy, and Meijer-G local parametrices. The same construction also determines the matching constants and analytic prefactors explicitly, which is what turns the abstract steepest-descent scheme into concrete uniform error estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the claim that the distribution of zeros and the growth of the associated second-kind functions are exactly the ones predicted by an explicit two-measure equilibrium problem whose supports touch at 0, a statement asserted here to extend an earlier result proved only for separated supports.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With θn∈Z and β=0, the monic polynomial P_{n1,n2} is asymptotic to an explicit prefactor times e^{n\tilde H_0(z)} with relative error O(1/n), uniformly on compact subsets of C\setminus[0,1] (Theorem 7.1).
  • Across the intervals Δ=[0,1] and Γ*=[x*,0] the asymptotics includes a second term oscillating with e^{n(H_1-H_0)}, giving a two-term formula on the two sides of the support (Theorem 7.2).
  • Near the endpoint 1 the expansion is expressed through a Bessel model with argument 2n(-f_1(z))^{1/2} and an explicit prefactor B_0(z), with O(1/n) error (Theorem 7.3).
  • Near x* the leading term matches the global formula with the same O(1/n) error, while inside the shrinking disk |z|<n^{-3/2} the local behavior is described by a Meijer-G model whose first matching constant K1 is computed explicitly (Theorems 7.4 and 7.6).
  • These formulas upgrade the previously known weak and ratio asymptotics for Jacobi–Piñeiro polynomials to full strong asymptotics with explicit prefactors and uniform error terms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the bare Meijer-G model determines K1 and the analytic prefactors E_n^0, E_n^∞ exactly, the same construction should yield next-order corrections in powers of n^{-1/3} or n^{-1} by taking more terms in the expansion (6.53).
  • Beyond the paper: the double-matching template should transfer to multiple orthogonal polynomials with more than two Jacobi weights, where the local model would be a higher-rank Meijer-G parametrix, and to the θ=1 case with non-compact second support that the paper says is upcoming.
  • Beyond the paper: a direct numerical check of (7.1) is feasible: compute P_n exactly by its recurrence, evaluate both sides at a fixed point off [0,1] for θ=1/4 and convenient α1, α2, and confirm that the relative error decays like C/n with the constant matching the explicit K1 contributions.
  • Beyond the paper: although the final theorems are stated for β=0, the endpoint-1 parametrix is already constructed with Bessel functions of order β, so the same paper contains most of the ingredients for a β≠0 analogue.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Deift-Zhou steepest descent analysis for a 3x3 Riemann-Hilbert problem to obtain strong asymptotics for Jacobi-Piñeiro polynomials of degree 2n orthogonal on [0,1] with respect to two weights w_j(x)=x^{α_j}(1-x)^β. The central objects are a vector equilibrium problem with touching supports Δ=[0,1] and Γ*=[x*,0], an explicit algebraic solution of the equilibrium problem in terms of a three-sheeted Riemann surface, auxiliary H-functions, and a chain of RH transformations. The global parametrix is built from a rational parametrization of the Riemann surface, and local parametrices are constructed at 0 with Meijer G-functions, at 1 with Bessel functions, and at x* with Airy functions; the origin parametrix uses a double-matching procedure. The main theorems (7.1-7.6) give uniform strong asymptotics with explicit prefactors and relative O(1/n) errors away from zeros, near the intervals, and near the branch points, for β=0 and for a constant θ∈(0,1/2) with θn an integer.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a meaningful advance: it provides the first strong asymptotic description for this touching-support multiple-orthogonal-polynomial problem, with explicit prefactors and a uniform error rate, and it demonstrates how the double-matching technique from the Muttalib-Borodin setting can be adapted to a 3x3 problem. The explicit algebraic construction of the equilibrium measures and H-functions is elegant, and the derivation of the global parametrix via the rational map R(s) is concrete and checkable. The manuscript also makes a genuine effort to verify the hypotheses of the double-matching theorem, including an explicit computation of the first correction coefficient K1. However, the validity of the main theorems is contingent on a weak-asymptotic statement that is imported from an unpublished preprint with only an asserted extension of a non-touching-support result, and the proved results cover only β=0 and a restricted sequence of degrees, which is substantially narrower than the abstract advertises. These issues must be resolved before the paper is publication-ready.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Theorem 4.1] The weak asymptotics of the Hermite-Padé approximants for the touching supports Δ=[0,1] and Γ*=[x*,0] is asserted by citing the authors' preprint [50, Theorem 1] and the sentence 'it turns out that the result of [33] is still valid.' Reference [33] treats non-overlapping intervals, so this is an unproved extension, not a consequence of the cited theorem. Proposition 4.2 verifies only that the explicit algebraic functions solve the equilibrium relations; it does not prove that P_n, R_{n,1}, R_{n,2} have those potentials as logarithmic limits. This is load-bearing: the H-functions in Section 5, the normalization U in (6.2), and the exponential decay estimates in Proposition 6.27 all depend on identifying H_j with the relevant potentials and on the equilibrium inequalities (3.1)-(3.2). Consequently every theorem in Section 7 inherits Theorem 4.1. A proof of the touching-support weak asymptotics, or a precise reference to a published proof, must be supplied.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6.5] The abstract states strong asymptotics for α1, α2, β > -1, but the local analysis at the origin explicitly restricts to β=0 ('To carry out the local analysis at 0, we have assumed β=0'), and all main theorems, Theorems 7.1-7.6, are stated only for β=0. The Bessel parametrix at the endpoint 1 is written for general β, but no strong asymptotic theorem is proved for β≠0. This is a mismatch between the advertised and the established scope. Either the general β case must be proved, or the abstract and introduction must clearly state that the strong asymptotics are obtained for β=0 only.
  3. [Equations (6.43) and (6.55)] There is an inconsistency in the definition of the local variable ξ and in the formula for the coefficient C(z). Equation (6.43) defines ξ = z(f0(z))^3/(27 n^3), but the immediately following line and later estimates use ξ^{1/3} = n z^{1/3} f0(z)/3, which corresponds to ξ = n^3 z(f0(z))^3/27. In addition, (6.55) claims n^3 z/ξ = 27/f0(z), whereas from either version of (6.43) the ratio is 27/f0(z)^3. Since the analytic prefactors E_n^0(z) and the expressions in Theorem 7.6 depend on C(z) and hence on K1, this discrepancy must be corrected and the subsequent matching and error estimates rechecked.
  4. [Lemma 6.15] The proof of Lemma 6.15 appears to use an incorrect bound for |z-w|. On the circle |z|=n^{-3/2}, two points z,w can be at distance O(n^{-3/2}), not O(n^{-5/2}); the text states '|z-w|≤n^{-5/2}<n^{-3/2}', which is not valid on that contour. The estimate E(z)^{-1}E(w)=I+O(n^{5/2}(z-w)) is a hypothesis of Theorem 6.10, so this is a load-bearing point in the double-matching argument. The proof needs revision or a more careful small-arc argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.5.5] After (6.56), the text says 'we identify c=3(<d)', but Theorem 6.10 requires d<min(b,c), so the intended inequality is c>d; this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Section 6.2 and Theorem 7.1] The transformation U assumes θn and (2−θ)n are integers, but Theorem 7.1 states only that θn is an integer. The full divisibility condition and the resulting restriction to a subsequence of n should be stated explicitly in the theorem hypotheses.
  3. [Throughout] The notation for the analytic completion of the global parametrix at the origin is used inconsistently: N, [N, and \(\widehat{N}\) appear in nearby formulas. Please choose one consistent notation.
  4. [References] Theorem 4.1 is attributed to the preprint [50]; if this remains the only basis for the touching-support weak asymptotics, the dependency should be made explicit in the introduction rather than only in Section 4.
  5. [Theorem 7.3] The prefactors B0(z) and B0^*(z) in (7.3) contain factors involving \(\sqrt{D(\theta_1)}\) in the numerator and denominator in a way that is easy to misread; please clarify whether these are intentional or typos.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The proof imports the touching-support weak asymptotics from the authors' preprint [50, Thm 1] via the unproved assertion that [33] still applies; the steepest-descent chain is self-citation-dependent at its normalization, though the strong-asymptotic derivation itself is not circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Theorem 4.1; used in Sections 5–6 and Proposition 6.27]
    "For the problem under consideration, the capacitors ∆ and Γ are touching. However, it turns out that the result of [33] is still valid. ... Theorem 4.1. [50, Theorem 1] If n2/(n1+n2) → θ/2 ∈ (0,1/2], then the following asymptotic formulas hold: ..."

    Section 5 defines H_j from h_j with H0(z)=2 ln z+..., H1(z)=(θ−2) ln z+..., H2(z)=−θ ln z+... in (5.1), encoding masses λ1(Δ)=2 and λ2(Γ*)=θ from Theorem 4.1. Proposition 4.2 only checks that the algebraic h_j solve the equilibrium relations; it does not prove that (P_n, R_{n,1}, R_{n,2}) has those potentials as weak limits. Proposition 6.27 then uses the equilibrium inequalities (3.1)–(3.2) to get Re(H1−H0)≤0 and Re(H2−H1)≤0 on the lenses, so Theorems 7.1–7.6 inherit Theorem 4.1. The touching-support passage is justified only by 'it turns out that the result of [33] is still valid' and by the authors' preprint [50, Theorem 1]; if that weak-limit normalization failed, the lens-opening and error analysis would rest on the wrong g-function. This is a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

No parameter is fitted and no asymptotic formula in Section 7 is obtained by renaming a previously known result. The Deift–Zhou chain — first transformation, lens opening, outer parametrix, Meijer-G/Bessel/Airy local parametrices, and the double-matching iteration — is carried out explicitly and does not reduce by construction to the target asymptotics. The central dependency is the weak-asymptotic input: the H-functions that normalize the RHP at infinity and the exponential-decay estimates in Proposition 6.27 come from the equilibrium measures whose identification with the actual polynomial sequence is stated as Theorem 4.1 = [50, Theorem 1], a preprint by the same author, with the touching-support validity justified only by the sentence 'it turns out that the result of [33] is still valid.' This is a genuine load-bearing self-citation and a proof gap, but it is not a circular derivation: the weak asymptotics are a strictly weaker, parameter-free input whose assumptions do not include the paper's strong uniform O(1/n) conclusions. Accordingly, the score is 2 rather than 0: the paper's central claim still has independent content, but the derivation chain rests at one essential point on an unproved, author-overlapping citation.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical or mathematical entities. Its main burden is the set of analytic and asymptotic assumptions needed to run the steepest descent method, especially the unproved touching-support weak asymptotics and the imported double matching estimates.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard logarithmic potential theory and existence and uniqueness of vector equilibrium measures via convexity and Kuhn-Tucker conditions.
    Section 3 relies on classical results in [63] and [15] for the equilibrium problem with Nikishin interaction matrix.
  • domain assumption The touching-interval weak asymptotics from [50, Theorem 1] is valid.
    Section 4 states 'it turns out that the result of [33] is still valid' for touching supports and cites the author's own preprint [50]; this is load-bearing for the H-function normalization in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Final theorems hold only for beta=0 and for theta in (0,1/2) with theta n and (2-theta)n integers.
    Theorems 7.1 through 7.6 explicitly assume beta=0; Section 6.2 assumes theta n and (2-theta)n are integers. The abstract's beta>-1 claim is not covered by the proofs.
  • domain assumption Technical estimates from [43, Proposition 5.15] and the double matching theorem [58, Theorem 2.1] apply to the present 3x3 Riemann-Hilbert problem.
    Sections 6.5.7 through 6.5.10 import these estimates without proof; the constants a,b,c,d,e are chosen to satisfy the hypotheses, but the estimates themselves are not re-derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong asymptotics for Jacobi-Pi\~neiro orthogonal polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RQE33XZ7

@misc{pith2026260820594,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong asymptotics for Jacobi-Pi\~neiro orthogonal polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RQE33XZ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.20594}
}
abstract

We investigate the asymptotic behavior of Jacobi-Pi\~neiro polynomials of degree $2n$ orthogonal on $[0,1]$ with respect to weights $w_j(x) = x^{\alpha_j}(1-x)^{\beta}$, $j=1,2$ where $\alpha_1,\alpha_2, \beta>-1$, and $\alpha_1-\alpha_2 \notin \mathbb{Z}$. These polynomials are characterized by a Riemann-Hilbert problem for a $3 \times 3$ matrix-valued function. We use the Deift-Zhou steepest descent method for Riemann-Hilbert problems to obtain strong uniform asymptotics in the complex plane. The local parametrix around the origin is constructed using Meijer G-functions. We match the local parametrix around the origin with the global parametrix with a double matching, a technique that was recently introduced.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.20594 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The three-sheeted Riemann surface R 0 s ∗ 1 R−1 (R2) R−1 (R1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Inverse images of sheets Rj under the mapping R As z → ∞, the three branches s0(z), s1(z), s2(z) to (4.1) which we choose are given as s0(z) = z c0 − (θ1 + θ2) − c0(θ 2 1 + θ1θ2 + θ 2 2 ) z + O  1 z 2  , s1(z) = θ1 + c1 z + c 2 (2θ1 − 3θ2) θ 5 1 (θ1 − θ2) 3z 2 + O [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Open lenses Choose smooth paths ∆± connecting 0 and 1 with ∆+ in the upper half plane and ∆− in the lower half plane. Similarly, choose Γ∗+ and Γ∗− enclosing 0 and x ∗ . The paths ∆± and Γ∗± around the intervals [0, 1] and [x ∗ , 0], respectively, constitute four bounded regions called the lenses around [0, 1], [x ∗ , 0] as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The jump contours for the model RH problem for Ψ 6.5.2. Bare local parametrix problem. The bare parametrix problem has the following form: • Ψ is analytic on C\{R ∪ e ± iπ 4 R+ ∪ e ± 3iπ 4 R+} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The three regions of Bessel parametrix The structure of the jump matrices simplifies the Riemann-Hilbert problem to a 2 × 2 case, as only the upper 2 × 2 block contains non-trivial entries. For hard edge scaling limits, the local parametrix construction typically emplo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The four regions of Airy parametrix Since only the 2 × 2 lower block of the jump matrices is non-trivial, the Riemann–Hilbert problem effectively reduces to a 2 × 2 problem. The jumps are of a standard form, and the local parametrix can therefore be constructed using A…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The jump contours for the matrix R Proposition 6.27. As n → ∞, we have R+(z) = R−(z)  I + O  1 n , z ∈ ∂D(0, r0) ∪ ∂D(0, rn) ∪ ∂D(1, δ) ∪ ∂D(x ∗ , δ), (6.88) R+(z) = R−(z)(I + O(e −d2 √ n )), z ∈ ∆ ±(or Γ∗±) ∩ A(0; rn, r0), (6.89) R+(z) = R−(z)(I + O(e −d1n )), on …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    V. G. Lysov. Strong asymptotics of hermite–pade approximants for the nikishin system of jacobi weights.Keldysh Institute preprints, 085:1–35, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [33]

    A. A. Gonchar, E. A. Rakhmanov, and V. N. Sorokin. On Hermite-Pad´ e approximants for systems of functions of Markov type.Mat. Sb., 188(5):33–58, 1997

    work page 1997

  3. [1]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun.Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables. National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series, No. 55. U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1964. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

    work page 1964

  4. [2]

    Adler, P

    M. Adler, P. van Moerbeke, and D. Wang. Random matrix minor processes related to percolation theory.Random Matrices Theory Appl., 2(4):1350008, 72, 2013

    work page 2013

  5. [3]

    Akemann, J

    G. Akemann, J. R. Ipsen, and M. Kieburg. Products of rectangular random matrices: singular val- ues and progressive scattering.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 88(5):052118, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [4]

    Alqahtani and L

    H. Alqahtani and L. Reichel. Multiple orthogonal polynomials applied to matrix function evaluation. BIT, 58(4):835–849, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [5]

    A. I. Aptekarev, A. Branquinho, and W. Van Assche. Multiple orthogonal polynomials for classical weights.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 355(10):3887–3914, 2003

    work page 2003

  8. [6]

    A. I. Aptekarev, G. Lopes Lagomasino, and A. Mart´ ınez-Finkelshtein. On Nikishin systems with discrete components and weak asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials.Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 72(3(435)):3–64, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    J. Baik, T. Kriecherbauer, K. D. T.-R. McLaughlin, and P. D. Miller. Uniform asymptotics for polynomials orthogonal with respect to a general class of discrete weights and universality results for associated ensembles: announcement of results.Int. Math. Res. Not., (15):821–858, 2003

    2003

  2. [8]

    Beals and J

    R. Beals and J. Szmigielski. MeijerG-functions: a gentle introduction.Notices Amer. Math. Soc., 60(7):866–872, 2013

    2013

  3. [9]

    Beckermann, J

    B. Beckermann, J. Coussement, and W. Van Assche. Multiple Wilson and Jacobi-Pi˜ neiro polynomi- als.J. Approx. Theory, 132(2):155–181, 2005

    2005

  4. [10]

    Bertola and T

    M. Bertola and T. Bothner. Universality conjecture and results for a model of several coupled positive-definite matrices.Comm. Math. Phys., 337(3):1077–1141, 2015

    2015

  5. [11]

    Bertola, M

    M. Bertola, M. Gekhtman, and J. Szmigielski. Strong asymptotics for Cauchy biorthogonal polyno- mials with application to the Cauchy two-matrix model.J. Math. Phys., 54(4):043517, 25, 2013

    2013

  6. [12]

    P. M. Bleher and A. B. J. Kuijlaars. Largenlimit of Gaussian random matrices with external source. III. Double scaling limit.Comm. Math. Phys., 270(2):481–517, 2007

    2007

  7. [13]

    A. I. Bogolyubskii and V. G. Lysov. Constructive solution of one vector equilibrium problem.Dokl. Math., 101(2):90–92, 2020. Translation of Dokl. Akad. Nauk491(2020), 15–18

    2020

  8. [14]

    Borodin and D

    A. Borodin and D. Boyarchenko. Distribution of the first particle in discrete orthogonal polynomial ensembles.Comm. Math. Phys., 234(2):287–338, 2003

    2003

  9. [15]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe.Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  10. [16]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. D´ ıaz, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, and M. Ma˜ nas. Hypergeometric expressions for type I Jacobi-Pi˜ neiro orthogonal polynomials with arbitrary number of weights.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B, 11:200–210, 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. D´ ıaz, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, and M. Ma˜ nas. Classical multiple orthogonal polynomials for arbitrary number of weights and their explicit representation.Stud. Appl. Math., 154(3):Paper No. e70033, 21, 2025

    2025

  12. [18]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. D´ ıaz, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, and M. Ma˜ nas. Finite Markov chains and multiple orthogonal polynomials.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 463:Paper No. 116485, 31, 2025

    2025

  13. [19]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. D´ ıaz, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, M. Ma˜ nas, and C.´Alvarez Fern´ andez. Jacobi- Pi˜ neiro Markov chains.Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas F´ ıs. Nat. Ser. A Mat. RACSAM, 118(1):Paper No. 15, 29, 2024

    2024

  14. [20]

    Branquinho, J

    A. Branquinho, J. E. F. D´ ıaz, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, M. Ma˜ nas, and T. Wolfs. Integral and hypergeo- metric representations for multiple orthogonal polynomials.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (12):Paper No. rnaf168, 22, 2025. 54 SERGEI KALMYKOV 1,2, VLADIMIR LYSOV 3, AND VINAY SH...

    2025

  15. [21]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, A. Fradi, and M. Ma˜ nas. Matrix orthogonal polynomials: a Riemann-Hilbert approach. InOrthogonal polynomials and special functions, volume 3 ofCoimbra Math. Texts, pages 23–49. Springer, Cham, [2024]©2024

    2024

  16. [22]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, M. Ma˜ nas, C.´Alvarez-Fern´ andez, and J. E. Fern´ andez-D´ ıaz. Multiple orthogonal polynomials and random walks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.13715, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Branquinho, A

    A. Branquinho, A. Foulqui´ e-Moreno, and K. Rampazzi. Generalized semiclassical orthogonal poly- nomials on the unit circle: A riemann–hilbert perspective.Numerical Algorithms, pages 1–25, 2025

    2025

  18. [24]

    G. A. Cassatella-Contra and M. Ma˜ nas. Riemann-Hilbert problems, matrix orthogonal polynomials and discrete matrix equations with singularity confinement.Stud. Appl. Math., 128(3):252–274, 2012

    2012

  19. [25]

    Chen and M

    Y. Chen and M. Ismail. Jacobi polynomials from compatibility conditions.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 133(2):465–472, 2005

    2005

  20. [26]

    Daems and A

    E. Daems and A. B. J. Kuijlaars. Multiple orthogonal polynomials of mixed type and non-intersecting Brownian motions.J. Approx. Theory, 146(1):91–114, 2007

    2007

  21. [27]

    D. Dai. Asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials and the Painlev´ e transcendents. InFrontiers in orthogonal polynomials andq-series, volume 1 ofContemp. Math. Appl. Monogr. Expo. Lect. Notes, pages 189–212. World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2018

    2018

  22. [28]

    Deift, T

    P. Deift, T. Kriecherbauer, K. T.-R. McLaughlin, S. Venakides, and X. Zhou. Uniform asymptotics for polynomials orthogonal with respect to varying exponential weights and applications to univer- sality questions in random matrix theory.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 52(11):1335–1425, 1999

    1999

  23. [29]

    Deift and X

    P. Deift and X. Zhou. A steepest descent method for oscillatory Riemann-Hilbert problems. Asymp- totics for the MKdV equation.Ann. of Math. (2), 137(2):295–368, 1993

    1993

  24. [30]

    P. A. Deift.Orthogonal polynomials and random matrices: a Riemann-Hilbert approach, volume 3 ofCourant Lecture Notes in Mathematics. New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999

    1999

  25. [31]

    A. S. Fokas, A. R. Its, and A. V. Kitaev. The isomonodromy approach to matrix models in 2D quantum gravity.Comm. Math. Phys., 147(2):395–430, 1992

    1992

  26. [32]

    A. A. Gonchar and E. A. Rakhmanov. Equilibrium distributions and the rate of rational approxi- mation of analytic functions.Mat. Sb. (N.S.), 134(176)(3):306–352, 447, 1987

    1987

  27. [34]

    F. A. Gr¨ unbaum and M. D. de la Iglesia. An urn model for the Jacobi-Pi˜ neiro polynomials.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 150(8):3613–3625, 2022

    2022

  28. [35]

    Hedenmalm

    H. Hedenmalm. Soft Riemann-Hilbert problems and planar orthogonal polynomials.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 77(4):2413–2451, 2024

    2024

  29. [36]

    Hedenmalm and A

    H. Hedenmalm and A. Wennman. Riemann-Hilbert hierarchies for hard edge planar orthogonal polynomials.Amer. J. Math., 146(2):371–403, 2024

    2024

  30. [37]

    Huang, L

    X.-M. Huang, L. Cao, and X.-S. Wang. Asymptotic expansion of orthogonal polynomials via differ- ence equations.J. Approx. Theory, 239:29–50, 2019

    2019

  31. [38]

    M. E. H. Ismail.Classical and quantum orthogonal polynomials in one variable, volume 98 ofEncy- clopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. With two chapters by Walter Van Assche, With a foreword by Richard A. Askey

    2005

  32. [39]

    Joshi and T

    N. Joshi and T. Lasic Latimer. On a class ofq-orthogonal polynomials and theq-Riemann-Hilbert problem.Proc. A, 477(2254):Paper No. 20210452, 15, 2021

    2021

  33. [40]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars. Multiple orthogonal polynomials in random matrix theory. InProceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians. Volume III, pages 1417–1432. Hindustan Book Agency, New Delhi, 2010

    2010

  34. [41]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars, A. Mart´ ınez-Finkelshtein, and F. Wielonsky. Non-intersecting squared Bessel paths and multiple orthogonal polynomials for modified Bessel weights.Comm. Math. Phys., 286(1):217–275, 2009

    2009

  35. [42]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars, K. T.-R. McLaughlin, W. Van Assche, and M. Vanlessen. The Riemann-Hilbert approach to strong asymptotics for orthogonal polynomials on [−1,1].Adv. Math., 188(2):337–398, 2004

    2004

  36. [43]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars and L. D. Molag. The local universality of Muttalib-Borodin biorthogonal ensem- bles with parameterθ= 1 2.Nonlinearity, 32(8):3023–3081, 2019

    2019

  37. [44]

    A. B. J. Kuijlaars and L. Zhang. Singular values of products of Ginibre random matrices, multiple orthogonal polynomials and hard edge scaling limits.Comm. Math. Phys., 332(2):759–781, 2014. JACOBI-PI ˜NEIRO ORTHOGONAL POLYNOMIALS 55

    2014

  38. [45]

    M. A. Lapik. An equilibrium measure in an external field for a vector potential with the Nikishin interaction matrix.Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 67(3(405)):179–180, 2012

    2012

  39. [46]

    Laudadio, N

    T. Laudadio, N. Mastronardi, W. Van Assche, and P. Van Dooren. A Matlab package computing si- multaneous Gaussian quadrature rules for multiple orthogonal polynomials.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 451:Paper No. 116109, 17, 2024

    2024

  40. [47]

    Laudadio, N

    T. Laudadio, N. Mastronardi, and P. Van Dooren. Computational aspects of simultaneous Gaussian quadrature.Numer. Algorithms, 100(2):621–643, 2025

    2025

  41. [48]

    K. Lu, E. Mukhin, and A. Varchenko. On the Gaudin model associated to Lie algebras of classical types.J. Math. Phys., 57(10):101703, 23, 2016

    2016

  42. [49]

    Lysov and F

    V. Lysov and F. Wielonsky. Strong asymptotics for multiple Laguerre polynomials.Constr. Approx., 28(1):61–111, 2008

    2008

  43. [51]

    V. G. Lysov. Asymptotics of Jacobi-Pineiro polynomials and functions of the second kind.Mat. Zametki, 103(3):471–474, 2018

    2018

  44. [52]

    V. G. Lysov. Integral representations for the Jacobi-Pi˜ neiro polynomials and the functions of the second kind.Probl. Anal. Issues Anal., 8(26)(3):83–95, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    Mart´ ınez-Finkelshtein, K

    A. Mart´ ınez-Finkelshtein, K. T.-R. McLaughlin, and E. B. Saff. Szeg´’o orthogonal polynomials with respect to an analytic weight: canonical representation and strong asymptotics.Constr. Approx., 24(3):319–363, 2006

    2006

  46. [54]

    Mart´ ınez-Finkelshtein, R

    A. Mart´ ınez-Finkelshtein, R. Morales, and D. Perales. Zeros of generalized hypergeometric polynomi- als via finite free convolution: applications to multiple orthogonality.Constr. Approx., 63(1):153–222, 2026

    2026

  47. [55]

    K. T.-R. McLaughlin and P. D. Miller. The∂steepest descent method and the asymptotic behavior of polynomials orthogonal on the unit circle with fixed and exponentially varying nonanalytic weights. IMRP Int. Math. Res. Pap., pages Art. ID 48673, 1–77, 2006

    2006

  48. [56]

    H. Miki, L. Vinet, and A. Zhedanov. Non-Hermitian oscillator Hamiltonians and multiple Charlier polynomials.Phys. Lett. A, 376(2):65–69, 2011

    2011

  49. [57]

    L. D. Molag. The local universality of Muttalib-Borodin ensembles when the parameterθis the reciprocal of an integer.Nonlinearity, 34(5):3485–3564, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    L. D. Molag. The matching condition for larger size Riemann-Hilbert problems.J. Approx. Theory, 263:Paper No. 105536, 36, 2021

    2021

  51. [59]

    Mukhin and A

    E. Mukhin and A. Varchenko. Multiple orthogonal polynomials and a counterexample to the Gaudin Bethe ansatz conjecture.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 359(11):5383–5418, 2007

    2007

  52. [60]

    Ndayiragije and W

    F. Ndayiragije and W. Van Assche. Multiple Meixner polynomials and non-Hermitian oscillator Hamiltonians.J. Phys. A, 46(50):505201, 17, 2013

    2013

  53. [61]

    Neuschel and W

    T. Neuschel and W. Van Assche. Asymptotic zero distribution of Jacobi-Pi˜ neiro and multiple La- guerre polynomials.J. Approx. Theory, 205:114–132, 2016

    2016

  54. [62]

    L. R. Pi˜ neiro-D´ ıaz. On simultaneous approximations for some collection of markov functions.Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 1. Matematika. Mekhanika, (2):67–70, 1987

    1987

  55. [63]

    E. B. Saff and V. Totik.Logarithmic potentials with external fields, volume 316 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1997. Appendix B by Thomas Bloom

    1997

  56. [64]

    G. L. F. Silva and L. Zhang. Largenlimit for the product of two coupled random matrices.Comm. Math. Phys., 377(3):2345–2427, 2020

    2020

  57. [65]

    Smet and W

    C. Smet and W. Van Assche. Mellin transforms for multiple Jacobi-Pi˜ neiro polynomials and aq- analogue.J. Approx. Theory, 162(4):782–806, 2010

    2010

  58. [66]

    V. Totik. Orthogonal polynomials.Surv. Approx. Theory, 1:70–125, 2005

    2005

  59. [67]

    Van Assche

    W. Van Assche. Mehler-Heine asymptotics for multiple orthogonal polynomials.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 145(1):303–314, 2017

    2017

  60. [68]

    Van Assche

    W. Van Assche. Orthogonal and multiple orthogonal polynomials, random matrices, and Painlev´ e equations. InOrthogonal polynomials, Tutor. Sch. Workshops Math. Sci., pages 629–683. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, [2020]©2020

    2020

  61. [69]

    Van Assche and E

    W. Van Assche and E. Coussement. Some classical multiple orthogonal polynomials.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 127(1-2):317–347, 2001. Numerical analysis 2000, Vol. V, Quadrature and orthogonal polynomials. 56 SERGEI KALMYKOV 1,2, VLADIMIR LYSOV 3, AND VINAY SHUKLA 4,5,#

    2001

  62. [70]

    Vanlessen

    M. Vanlessen. Strong asymptotics of Laguerre-type orthogonal polynomials and applications in ran- dom matrix theory.Constr. Approx., 25(2):125–175, 2007

    2007

  63. [71]

    R. Wong. Asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials.Int. J. Numer. Anal. Model., 15(1-2):193–212, 2018

    2018

  64. [72]

    Wong and Y

    R. Wong and Y. Zhao. Asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials via the Riemann-Hilbert approach. Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B (Engl. Ed.), 29(4):1005–1034, 2009. 1School of Mathematical Sciences, CMA-Shanghai, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 800 Dongchuan RD, Shanghai 200240, China 2Khab...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.