Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Dilation and Functional Models for Pure $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$-Contractions and the von Neumann Inequality on Distinguished Varieties in $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes a determinantal representation for every distinguished variety in the domain Θ_n, and uses it to prove polynomial convexity, dilations, functional models, and a von Neumann inequality for pure Θ_n-contractions.

desk verdict A real but conditional extension of distinguished variety theory to Θ_n; the converse of the determinantal representation leans on an unproved transfer from Pal's earlier work, and the abstract overstates the von Neumann theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13366 v1 pith:ZP53K32G submitted 2026-08-13 math.FA math.CV

Aparna Gupta , Shubhankar Mandal Avijit Pal , Bhaskar Paul This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.FAmath.CV MSC 14H5014M1047A2047A2532A6032M15
keywords Theta_n-contractionsdistinguishedvarietiesdeterminantalrepresentationTaylorjointspectrumvonNeumanninequalityfunctionalmodelcompleteintersectionspolynomialconvexity
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 introduces distinguished varieties in the domain Θ_n, a family of n-dimensional domains that generalizes the symmetrized polydisc. Its central result is a determinantal representation: every distinguished variety in Θ_n can be written as the set of points where the first n−1 coordinates lie in the Taylor joint spectrum of n−1 commuting matrix polynomials evaluated at the last coordinate. The representation makes each distinguished variety part of an affine algebraic curve that is a set-theoretic complete intersection, and it implies the closure is polynomially convex. The same machinery yields a minimal pure Θ_n-isometric dilation and a functional model for pure Θ_n-contractions whose fundamental operators satisfy a natural adjoint relation. As a consequence, matrix polynomials evaluated at such contractions obey a von Neumann inequality with the supremum taken over the distinguished boundary of the associated distinguished variety.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the determinantal curve Ω = {(θ_1,...,θ_n) ∈ Θ_n : (θ_1,...,θ_{n−1}) ∈ σ_T(Φ_1(θ_n),...,Φ_{n−1}(θ_n))}, with Φ_i(z) = Σ_{l=0}^p $A_l^{{(i)}}$ z^l. This representation converts the geometry of a distinguished variety into the joint spectrum of finite commuting matrices, so polynomial convexity becomes separation by determinants and the von Neumann inequality becomes a normal-boundary dilation estimate. The companion mechanism is the fundamental-operator family $A_l^{{(i)}}$ on the defect space D_{T_n^*}, which satisfies the symmetry relation and the equations D_{T_n^*}T_i^* = Σ $A_l^{{(i)*}}$D_{T_n^*}$T_n^{{*l}}$; these make the model operators V_i = Σ_{l=0}^p M_z^l ⊗ $A_l^{{(i)}}$ and V_n = M_z ⊗ I_{D_{T_n^*}} commute and give the Θ_n-isometry relations V_i = V_{n−i}^* V_n^p. The model space H_{T_n} = ($H^{2}$(D) ⊗ D_{T_n^*}) ⊖ M_{Θ_{T_n}}($H^{2}$(D) ⊗ D_{T_n}) then supports the unitary intertwining with the original contraction.

What would settle it

Exhibit a distinguished variety Ω in Θ_n for which $H^{2}$(μ) ⊖ Ran M_{θ_n} is infinite-dimensional, or for which some fibre over a point θ_n' ∈ D is infinite; either would refute the complete-intersection and determinantal claims of Theorem 2.6.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Theorem 2.6: distinguished varieties in Θ_n are exactly the sets of points (θ_1,...,θ_n) ∈ Θ_n for which (θ_1,...,θ_{n−1}) lies in the Taylor joint spectrum of the commuting matrix polynomials Φ_i(θ_n) = Σ_{l=0}^p $A_l^{{(i)}}$ θ_n^l, where the coefficient matrices satisfy the symmetry $A_l^{{(i)}}$ = A_{p−l}^{(n−i)*}, the commutator condition Σ_{l=0}^k [$A_l^{{(i)}}$, A_{k−l}^{(j)}] = 0, a spectral condition connecting joint eigenvectors to the symmetrized (n−1)-disc, and the conditions that the determinantal polynomials f_i(θ) = det(Φ_i(θ_n) − θ_i I) form a regular sequence and generate an irreducible algebraic set. Conversely, every distinguished variety in Θ_n admits such a representation, is contained in an affine algebraic curve that is a set-theoretic complete intersection, and is the image under the map θ of a distinguished variety in the polydisc D^n. From this structure the paper derives polynomial convexity of the closure, a minimal pure Θ_n-isometric dilation and functional model for pure Θ_n-contractions satisfying D_{T_n^*}T_i^* = Σ $A_l^{{(i)*}}$ D_{T_n^*} $T_n^{{*l}}$, and the matricial von Neumann inequality ||P(T_1,...,T_n)|| ≤ sup_{θ ∈ Ω_T ∩ bΘ_n} ||P(θ)||, with the same bound for the adjoint tuple.

Load-bearing premise

The converse of the determinantal representation rests on a cited algebraic-dependence lemma, proved for a different family of domains, which forces each slice of a distinguished variety to be finite; if that lemma does not transfer to Θ_n, the complete-intersection and determinantal conclusions for every distinguished variety collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every distinguished variety in Θ_n has finite fibres over the θ_n-coordinate and lies inside an algebraic curve cut out by n−1 polynomials.
  • The closure of every distinguished variety is polynomially convex, so the distinguished boundary is a natural spectral set for tuples whose spectrum lies on the variety.
  • Pure Θ_n-contractions satisfying the fundamental-operator relation admit a minimal pure Θ_n-isometric dilation of the form (Σ M_z^l ⊗ A_l^{(1)},...,M_z ⊗ I), and a functional model on the defect space H_{T_n}.
  • For such contractions, every matrix polynomial P obeys ||P(T)|| ≤ sup_{θ ∈ Ω_T ∩ bΘ_n} ||P(θ)||, and likewise for P(T*), so the boundary of the associated variety is a complete spectral set for the tuple.
  • Both T and T* admit normal boundary dilations whose joint spectra lie in the distinguished boundary of Θ_n and, more precisely, in the distinguished varieties Ω_T ∩ bΘ_n and Ω_T^* ∩ bΘ_n.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the determinantal representation holds for all distinguished varieties, the distinguished-variety programme developed for the bidisc—interpolation, reproducing kernels, complete spectral sets—can likely be pushed through on Θ_n; the first testable step is whether every point of a distinguished variety is a bounded point evaluation for H^2(μ) with dense evaluation vectors.
  • The pointwise Γ_{n−1}-contraction hypothesis in Theorems 3.4 and 4.1 may be redundant: if the fundamental equations (1.4) together with the symmetry A_l^{(i)} = A_{p−l}^{(n−i)*} already force the matrices to satisfy that condition on the circle, the dilation and von Neumann inequality would cover all pure Θ_n-contractions whose fundamental operators exist.
  • When dim D_{T_n^*} is infinite, a finite-rank approximation argument using compressions of the fundamental operators may extend the von Neumann inequality to the full class, with the boundary variety replaced by a limit variety.
  • The determinantal representation suggests an algorithmic test for whether a given algebraic set is distinguished: check whether its defining ideal is generated by n−1 determinants of commuting matrix polynomials satisfying conditions (1)–(4).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an operator-theoretic and complex-geometric theory for the generalized symmetrized domains Θ_n. Its main structural claim, Theorem 2.6, is a determinantal representation for every distinguished variety in Θ_n: each such variety is contained in an affine algebraic curve that is a set-theoretic complete intersection, and the variety is described by joint spectra of matrix-valued polynomials built from coefficient matrices A_l^{(i)}. On this basis the paper proves polynomial convexity of closures of distinguished varieties (Theorem 2.8), establishes a correspondence between distinguished varieties in Θ_n and in the polydisc (Theorem 2.7), constructs minimal Θ_n-isometric dilations and functional models for pure Θ_n-contractions satisfying equations (3.4) (Theorems 3.4 and 3.6), and proves a matricial von Neumann inequality on distinguished varieties for Θ_n-contractions with pure T_n^* under additional coefficient hypotheses (Theorem 4.1).

Significance. If the structural theorem and the von Neumann inequality are correct, the paper would be a substantial contribution, extending Agler–McCarthy distinguished varieties and Pal's program to the Θ_n family. The dilation and functional-model sections are cleanly written and the intertwining computations in Theorem 3.4 are explicit and verifiable. The potential strength of the paper, however, is conditional: the central theorem rests on a circularly used complete-intersection assumption in Lemma 2.2, on an imported algebraic-dependence lemma from [32] whose hypotheses are not checked for Θ_n, and on an unstated or circularly used polynomial-convexity property in Lemma 2.3. Because these issues affect the foundation of the determinantal representation, the significance of the paper cannot be assessed until they are resolved.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Lemma 2.2] The proof begins by choosing linearly independent polynomials f_1,...,f_{n-1} such that Ω = { (θ_1,...,θ_n) ∈ Θ_n : f_i(θ)=0 }. This assumes that every one-dimensional distinguished algebraic variety in Θ_n is a complete intersection cut out by n−1 polynomials. That assumption is exactly one of the conclusions of Theorem 2.6, whose converse proof uses Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.4, which in turn depend on Lemma 2.2. No independent proof of the complete-intersection representation is given before Lemma 2.2. Thus the existence of the measure μ, the space H^2(μ), and the subsequent joint-eigenvalue argument are not established for an arbitrary distinguished variety.
  2. [Section 2, Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.8] The converse half of Lemma 2.3 argues that the inequality |f(θ')| ≤ sup_Ω |f| implies θ' ∈ Ω by invoking 'the polynomial convexity of Ω.' Polynomial convexity of the closure of a distinguished variety is the statement of Theorem 2.8, whose proof uses the determinantal representation of Theorem 2.6, and Theorem 2.6's converse uses Lemma 2.3. If polynomial convexity is part of the definition of distinguished variety in Θ_n, that definition is nowhere stated; if it is not part of the definition, the argument is circular. The manuscript also never formally defines 'distinguished variety in Θ_n,' so the logical status of Lemma 2.3 and Theorem 2.8 cannot be checked.
  3. [Section 2, Theorem 2.6, converse] The load-bearing step is the invocation of [32, Lemma 3.4] to conclude θ_i^k ∈ span{1,θ_i,...,θ_i^{k-1}} + θ_n H^2(μ) from the vanishing of q_i on the finite fibre over θ'_n. This inclusion is then used verbatim to obtain H^2(μ) = span{θ_1^{l_1}...θ_{n-1}^{l_{n-1}} : 0≤l_i<k} + θ_n H^2(μ), hence finite-dimensional H^2(μ)⊖Ran M_{θ_n}. That finite-dimensionality is the entire source of the N×N matrices A_l^{(i)} and representation (2.2). No proof of [32, Lemma 3.4] is given, and its hypotheses are not verified for Θ_n; the lemma was proved for a different family of domains in Pal's program. This step is not a routine application, since it converts a single-fibre algebraic statement into a global algebraic dependence modulo θ_n H^2(μ). Without an adapted proof, the converse of Theorem 2.6, Theorem 2.8, and the geometric input to Theorem 4.1 collapse. The earlier use of [32, Lemma 3.5] to conclude dim Ω = 1 from finiteness of fibres is imported with the same lack of verification.
  4. [Section 2, Theorem 2.6, forward direction] The proof applies condition (2) only for |θ_n|<1 and unit joint eigenvectors, and then asserts: 'By the description of Θ_n and the symmetry condition ... the closure of Ω can meet ∂Θ_n only on bΘ_n.' This is not demonstrated. Condition (2) controls the quadratic forms ⟨A_l^{(i)}v,v⟩ only for interior θ_n, and no limiting argument is given to show that points of the algebraic curve lying over |θ_n|=1 belong to bΘ_n. Since the distinguished-boundary-exit condition is part of the definition of a distinguished variety, the forward direction of Theorem 2.6 is incomplete at exactly this point.
  5. [Section 2, Theorem 2.7] The proof of the forward direction asserts that if dim Ω̂ > 1, then 'by the same argument used in the proof of Theorem 2.6, an algebraic set of dimension greater than one cannot exit D^n only through the distinguished boundary T^n.' The argument in Theorem 2.6 uses the specific map F(α) = (α_1+α_{n-1}θ'_n{}^p, ...), the homeomorphism property of F, and [12, Theorem 2.5]; none of these steps is reproduced or adapted to the polydisc. The claimed dimension-one conclusion for Ω̂ is therefore unsupported as written.
  6. [Section 4, Theorem 4.1] The proof begins 'Since dim D_{T_n^*}<∞, put m=dim D_{T_n^*},' but the theorem statement does not assume T_n^* has finite defect. A pure contraction can have infinite defect space, and in that case the operators A_l^{(i)} need not be matrices and the distinguished variety Ω_T constructed from them is not defined. Either the finite-defect assumption must be added to the hypotheses or the theorem must be proved for operator-valued coefficients. Additionally, the hypothesis that the A_l^{(i)} 'determine a distinguished variety Ω_T through the determinantal representation of Theorem 2.6' is conditional and no verifiable criterion is supplied, so the applicability of the theorem is unclear.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Theorem 1.2 is cited as Sz.-Nagy [35], but the bibliography entry [35] is V. Paulsen's book; the Sz.-Nagy–Foiaş book is [26] and should be cited instead.
  2. [Section 1, Definition 1.4] The distinguished boundary bΘ_n is used without being defined. A definition or a reference for the distinguished boundary of Θ_n should be included.
  3. [Section 3, opening] The first sentence of Section 3 is grammatically incomplete: 'Every Θ_n-isometry is the restriction of a Θ_n-unitary to a joint invariant subspace, it follows immediately...' should be rephrased.
  4. [Section 2, Lemma 2.2] The proof speaks of 'linearly independent polynomials' f_1,...,f_{n-1}, but linear independence is not what is needed for a regular sequence; if this is intended to be part of the hypotheses, it should be stated as such.
  5. [Section 2, Theorem 2.6, converse] The convention A_l^{(i)}=0 for l∉{0,...,p} is introduced only at the coefficient-comparison step; it should be stated before equation (2.5).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Lemma 2.3 assumes the polynomial convexity that Theorem 2.8 derives from Theorem 2.6, making the converse of the determinantal representation circular, with additional load-bearing self-citations to [23] and [24].

  1. other [Section 2, Lemma 2.3 (converse); circular dependency with Theorem 2.6 and Theorem 2.8]
    "Therefore θ ′ ∈ ˆΩ,the polynomially convex hull of Ω. By the polynomial convexity of Ω, ˆΩ = Ω. Thus θ ′ ∈ Ω."

    Lemma 2.3 concludes θ′∈Ω from 'the polynomial convexity of Ω.' The paper's only proof of polynomial convexity for distinguished varieties in Θ_n is Theorem 2.8, whose proof begins 'By Theorem 2.6, every distinguished variety Ω in Θ_n admits a representation' and then uses that representation to separate points. In the converse of Theorem 2.6, Lemma 2.3 is used to identify Ω with the joint point spectrum of (M^*_{θ_1},...,M^*_{θ_n}), which is precisely the step converting the algebraic curve into the determinantal representation. Thus the converse of Theorem 2.6 assumes the polynomial convexity that Theorem 2.8 derives from Theorem 2.6; no independent proof of polynomial convexity is supplied, so the derivation chain is circular.

  2. self citation load bearing [Theorem 2.6, forward and converse directions; use of [24, Theorem 3.1]]
    "Now, since (θ 1,...,θ n−1,θ′ n)∈Θ n,by [24, Theorem 3.1] there exists (α 1,...,α n−1)∈G n−1 such that θ i =α i +αn−i(θ′ n)p,1≤i≤n−1."

    The slice characterization of Θ_n over a fixed θ_n—namely that (θ_1,...,θ_{n-1},θ_n)∈Θ_n iff θ_i=α_i+α_{n-i}θ_n^p for some α∈G_{n-1}—is imported from [24, Theorem 3.1], a companion preprint whose author list overlaps with the present authors (A. Pal and B. Paul). This criterion is used in the forward half of Theorem 2.6 to show V_S∩(C^{n-1}×D)⊆Θ_n, in the converse half to produce the boundary contradiction, and to verify condition (2). Since the criterion is not proved or independently derived in the present paper, a load-bearing premise of the determinantal-representation theorem is supported only by a same-group citation.

full rationale

Within the paper's own derivation chain there is a genuine circular dependency: Lemma 2.3 uses the polynomial convexity of Ω to conclude θ′∈Ω from eigenvalue data, but the paper's proof of polynomial convexity (Theorem 2.8) invokes the determinantal representation of Theorem 2.6, and the converse half of Theorem 2.6 invokes Lemma 2.3 to obtain that representation. Thus the converse of the main structural theorem assumes the very theorem it is used to prove. In addition, two load-bearing geometric/operator facts are imported from same-group preprints without proof: [24, Theorem 3.1] (slice characterization of Θ_n) and [23, Theorem 3.5] (Θ_n-contraction/isometry characterizations), used in the forward and converse halves of Theorem 2.6. The transfer of [32, Lemma 3.4] to Θ_n is also asserted rather than verified, and it is the step that produces finite-dimensionality of H^2(µ)⊖Ran M_{θ_n}; this is a serious correctness gap, although [32] is an external citation rather than a self-citation. The von Neumann inequality in Theorem 4.1 is conditional and is not itself circular: it proves an inequality on the variety Ω_T built from the A_l satisfying (4.1), so the variety and the inequality are both consequences of the same assumed coefficients rather than a fitted quantity being renamed a prediction. Theorem 4.1 also assumes without proof that dim D_{T_n^*} is finite despite the statement not stipulating it, which is a separate correctness gap. Because the central representation is not definitionally equivalent to its inputs but the proof has a circular dependency and leans on same-group preprint results, the circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the paper's burden is carried by assumed operator coefficients and imported structural theorems. The free parameters are the coefficient matrices A_l and the finite dimension of the defect space. The axioms include standard operator theory and commutative algebra, but also several nonstandard assumptions from same-group preprints ([23], [24]) and from Pal's program ([32]).

free parameters (2)
  • coefficient matrices A_l^(i) = unspecified, only constrained by (3.4) and (4.1)
    The dilation, functional model, and von Neumann inequality results assume a family of matrices A_l^(i) on D_{T_n^*} exists satisfying intertwining, symmetry, commutation, and Gamma-contraction conditions. No existence theorem is proved, so the entire operator-theoretic construction depends on these unquantified coefficients.
  • defect-space dimension m = dim D_{T_n^*} = assumed finite in Theorem 4.1
    Theorem 4.1 assumes dim D_{T_n^*} < infinity so the A_l are m by m matrices. The hypotheses of the theorem do not appear to imply finite-dimensionality, so this is an extra domain restriction.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Sz.-Nagy dilation theorem and Sz.-Nagy-Foias functional model for pure contractions
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to construct the minimal isometric dilation of T_n and the model space H_{T_n}.
  • standard math Cohen-Macaulay regular sequence criterion for complete intersections
    Invoked as Theorem 1.8 and used in Theorem 2.6 to conclude that the determinantal polynomials define a set-theoretic complete intersection curve.
  • domain assumption Characterization of Theta_n by theta_i = alpha_i + alpha_{n-i} theta_n^p with (alpha_1,...,alpha_{n-1}) in G_{n-1}
    This characterization, stated as [24, Theorem 3.1], is used repeatedly in the proofs of Theorems 2.6, 2.7, and 4.1. The reference is a same-group arXiv preprint.
  • domain assumption Theta_n-isometry and Theta_n-contraction structural characterizations from [23, Theorem 3.5] and [12, Theorem 3.10]
    These cited results are the tools that certify that the constructed tuple V is a Theta_n-isometry in Theorem 3.4 and that the multiplication tuple in Theorem 4.1 is a Theta_n-unitary or dilation.
  • domain assumption Pal's lemmas [32, Lemmas 3.4, 3.5, 5.8] transfer to Theta_n
    The proof of Theorem 2.6 uses [32, Lemma 3.4] to obtain finite-dimensionality of H^2(mu) minus Ran M_{theta_n}, and Theorem 4.1 uses [32, Lemma 5.8]. These lemmas were proved for other domains in Pal's program, not for Theta_n.
  • standard math Polynomial convexity of the closed domain Theta_n
    Used in Lemma 2.5 and Theorem 2.8 to convert polynomial spectral-set inequalities into functional calculus inequalities and to separate points from the polynomial hull.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of fundamental operator tuples A_l satisfying equation (3.4)
    Sections 3 and 4 assume such tuples exist. The paper notes uniqueness is open and gives no existence proof, so the main operator-theoretic results are conditional on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Condition (2) of Theorem 2.6: eigenvector quadratic forms lie in G_{n-1} plus theta_n^p
    In the forward direction of Theorem 2.6 this condition is assumed. In the converse it is derived using the imported characterization [24, Theorem 3.1], so the burden is on that cited theorem.
invented entities (1)
  • fundamental operator tuple (A_0^(i),...,A_p^(i))
    purpose: Coefficients for the Theta_n-isometric dilation V_i, the functional model, and the determinantal variety Omega_T in Theorem 4.1.
    The tuple is postulated by equation (3.4) and is used to build the dilation and the variety. No construction or existence proof for arbitrary Theta_n-contractions is given, and the paper states that uniqueness of the associated fundamental operators remains open.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dilation and Functional Models for Pure $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$-Contractions and the von Neumann Inequality on Distinguished Varieties in $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZP53K32G

@misc{pith2026260813366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dilation and Functional Models for Pure $\mathbf\Theta_n$-Contractions and the von Neumann Inequality on Distinguished Varieties in $\mathbf\Theta_n$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZP53K32G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13366}
}
abstract

In this paper, we introduce the notion of a distinguished variety in the domain $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$. One of the main results of the paper is a determinantal representation for every distinguished variety in $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$. We also show that the closure of every distinguished variety is polynomially convex. Furthermore, we obtain a dilation and a functional model for a class of pure $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$-contractions. Finally, we show that for a $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$-contraction $\mathbf{T}=(T_1,\dots,T_n)$ such that $T_n^*$ is a pure contraction, there exists an algebraic variety in $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$ for which the von Neumann inequality holds on the intersection of the closure of the variety with the distinguished boundary of $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Biswas, G

    S. Biswas, G. Ghosh, E. K. Narayanan and S. Shyam Roy,Contractive Hilbert Modules on Quotient Domains, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.11101

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.11101

  2. [22]

    Ghosh and S

    G. Ghosh and S. S. RoyBrown-Halmos type Theorems on the proper images of bounded symmetric domains, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.08002

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.08002

  3. [23]

    On the Dilation Theory and Canonical Decomposition of $\mathbf{\Theta}_n$-Contractions

    A. Gupta, A. Pal and B. Paul,On the Dilation Theory and Canonical Decomposition ofΘ n-Contractions, https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03574v1

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [24]

    D. K. Keshari, S. Nayak, A. Pal, B. Paul,RationalΘ n-Inner Function and its Application in Interpolation Problem

    work page

  5. [32]

    Pal,Distinguished varieties in a family of domains associated with spectral interpolation and operator theory, Ann

    S. Pal,Distinguished varieties in a family of domains associated with spectral interpolation and operator theory, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci.5, (2024), 1399-1430

    work page 2024

  6. [1]

    A. A. Abouhajar, M. C. White and N. J. Young,A Schwarz Lemma for a Domain Related toµ-Synthesis, J. Geom. Anal,17, (2007),

    work page 2007

  7. [2]

    Agler and J

    J. Agler and J. E. M cCarthy,Distinguished varieties, Acta Math.,194(2005), no. 2, 133 – 153

    work page 2005

  8. [3]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,A commutant lifting theorem for a domain inC 2 and spectral interpolation, J. Funct. Anal.161, (1999), 452-477

    work page 1999

Show all 37 references
  1. [4]

    Agler and N

    J. Agler and N. J. Young,A model theory forΓ-contractions, J. Oper. Theory49,(1), (2003), 45-60

    2003

  2. [5]

    Agler and J

    J. Agler and J. E. McCarthy,Pick Interpolation and Hilbert Function Spaces, Grad. Stud. Math.,44, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,( 2002)

    2002

  3. [6]

    Agler, J

    J. Agler, J. E. McCarthy and N. J. Young,Operator Analysis: Hilbert Space Methods in Complex Analysis, Second Edition, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, (2020)

    2020

  4. [7]

    Agler, Zinaida A

    J. Agler, Zinaida A. Lykova and N. Young,The complex geometry of a domain related toµ-synthesis, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Application,422(2015) 508-543

    2015

  5. [8]

    Ando,On a Pair of Commutative Contractions, Acta Sci

    T. Ando,On a Pair of Commutative Contractions, Acta Sci. Math.24(1963) 88-90

    1963

  6. [9]

    B. V. R. Bhat and T. Bhattacharyya,Dilations, Completely Positive Maps and Geometry, Texts and Readings in Mathematics 84, Hindustan Book Agency, Springer, (2023). 24 APARNA GUPTA, SHUBHANKAR MANDAL AVIJIT PAL, AND BHASKAR PAUL

    2023

  7. [10]

    Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2007)

    Rajendra Bhatia,Positive Definite Matrices, Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2007)

    2007

  8. [11]

    Biswas and S

    S. Biswas and S. Shyam Roy,Functional models forΓ n-contractions and characterization ofΓ n-isometries,J. Func. Anal.,266(2014), 6224–6255

    2014

  9. [13]

    Bhattacharyya,The Tetrablock as a Spectral Set,Indiana Univ

    T. Bhattacharyya,The Tetrablock as a Spectral Set,Indiana Univ. Math. J.,63(2014), 1601–1629

    2014

  10. [14]

    Bhattacharyya, S

    T. Bhattacharyya, S. Pal and S. S. Roy,Dilations ofΓ-Contractions by Solving Operator Equations, Advances in Mathematics230(2012) 577-606

    2012

  11. [15]

    Costara,On the spectral Nevanlinna-Pick problem,Studia Math.,170(2005), 23–55

    C. Costara,On the spectral Nevanlinna-Pick problem,Studia Math.,170(2005), 23–55

    2005

  12. [16]

    Eisenbud and E

    D. Eisenbud and E. Graham Evans, Jr.,Every algebraic set inn-space is the intersection ofnhypersurfaces, Inventiones Math.,19(1973), 107 – 112

    1973

  13. [17]

    Fischer,Plane algebraic curves, Stud

    G. Fischer,Plane algebraic curves, Stud. Math. Libr.,15, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (2001)

    2001

  14. [18]

    Griffiths,Introduction to algebraic curves, Transl

    P. Griffiths,Introduction to algebraic curves, Transl. Math. Monographs,76, Amer. Math. Soc., (1989)

    1989

  15. [19]

    Griffiths and J

    P. Griffiths and J. Harris,Principles of Algebraic Geometry, Wiley, New York, (1978)

    1978

  16. [20]

    Kunj,Introduction to commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, (1985)

    E. Kunj,Introduction to commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, (1985)

    1985

  17. [21]

    T. W. Gamelin,Uniform Algebras,Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., (1969)

    1969

  18. [25]

    Mandal and A

    S. Mandal and A. Pal,Necessary Conditions ofΓ n-Isometry Dilation and the Dilation of a Certain Family of Γ3-Contractions, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory, (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    Sz.-Nagy, C

    B. Sz.-Nagy, C. Foias, H. Bercovici and L. Kerchy,Harmonic Analysis of Operators on Hilbert Space, Universitext, Springer, (2010)

    2010

  20. [27]

    N. K. Nikolski,Operators, Functions, and Systems: an Easy Reading. Volume I, Math. Surveys Monogr.92, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (2002)

    2002

  21. [28]

    Pal and Orr Moshe Shalit,Spectral sets and distinguished variety in the symmetrized bidisc, J

    S. Pal and Orr Moshe Shalit,Spectral sets and distinguished variety in the symmetrized bidisc, J. Func. Anal., 266, 5779–5800 (2014)

    2014

  22. [29]

    Pal,Subvarieties of the Tetrablock and von Neumann’s Inequality, Indiana Univ

    S. Pal,Subvarieties of the Tetrablock and von Neumann’s Inequality, Indiana Univ. Math. J.,65, No. 6, 2051–2079 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    Pal,The Fundamental Operator Tuples Associated with the Symmetrized Polydisc, New York J

    S. Pal,The Fundamental Operator Tuples Associated with the Symmetrized Polydisc, New York J. Math.,27 (2021) 349-362

    2021

  24. [31]

    Pal,Dilation, functional model and a complete unitary invariant forC .0-contractions, Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics,26, No

    S. Pal,Dilation, functional model and a complete unitary invariant forC .0-contractions, Infinite Dimensional Analysis, Quantum Probability and Related Topics,26, No. 01, 2250020 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Pal,Distinguished varieties in the polydisc and dilation of commuting contractions, Mathematische Zeitschrift (2025), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-025-03793-9

    S. Pal,Distinguished varieties in the polydisc and dilation of commuting contractions, Mathematische Zeitschrift (2025), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-025-03793-9

    2025 doi

  26. [34]

    Pal,OnΓ n-Contractions and Their Conditional Dilations, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Application, 510(2022) 1-36

    A. Pal,OnΓ n-Contractions and Their Conditional Dilations, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Application, 510(2022) 1-36

    2022

  27. [35]

    Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras,Cambridge Univ

    V. Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras,Cambridge Univ. Press, (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    J. J. Sch¨ affer,On Unitary Dilations of Contractions, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, (1954). FUNCTIONAL MODELS AND VON NEUMANN INEQUALITY ON DISTINGUISHED VARIETIES 25

    1954

  29. [37]

    F. H. Vasilescu,Analytic Functional Calculus and Spectral Decompositions, Mathematics and its Applications (East European Series), vol. 1, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht; Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, Bucharest, (1982). Translated from theRomanian. (A. ...

    1982

Pith tools

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