Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Using the wrong orthogonal basis for Volterra identification costs a closed-form excess risk that vanishes exactly when the input is symmetric.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 14:13 UTC pith:WM4QBLN6

load-bearing objection Clean closed-form skew penalty for mismatched Wiener diagonals; basis is classical aPC, but the paper owns that and ships a tight Prop. 4 plus Lean and de-confounded experiments. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.12884 v2 pith:WM4QBLN6 submitted 2026-06-11 stat.ME eess.SP

A Closed-Form Skew Penalty for Volterra Cross-Correlation Identification under Non-Gaussian Input

Serhii Zabolotnii This is my paper
classification stat.ME eess.SP MSC 62J0233C4562F1265F3568V20
keywords Volterra seriesWiener–Hermite expansionorthogonal polynomialsarbitrary polynomial chaosnon-Gaussian system identificationmisspecification penaltyskew coefficientfinite-memory Volterra
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Finite-memory Volterra models are polynomials in lagged inputs, but ordinary power features are badly conditioned once the driving noise is non-Gaussian. The classical Wiener–Hermite fix works only for Gaussian white noise. This paper builds the coordinate system that is orthonormal under the actual input law—by Gram–Schmidt on the moments of that law—and uses it for identification. The analytic core is an order-two misspecification theorem: if you keep the familiar variance-matched Gaussian diagonal estimator while the true input is skewed, the excess L2 risk is an explicit function of the skew coefficient and is zero if and only if the third central moment vanishes. Experiments confirm that the matched basis keeps the diagonal cross-correlation estimator honest under skew, improves design-matrix conditioning by orders of magnitude relative to raw powers, and recovers classical orthogonal polynomials (Hermite, Krawtchouk, etc.) as special cases. Full least-squares over a fixed span is basis-invariant, so the gain is not universal prediction power; it is a stable, inexpensive coordinate-wise estimator and a well-conditioned regularized fit.

Core claim

When a degree-2 signal is expanded in the distribution-matched orthonormal basis, the self-normalized diagonal estimator that instead uses the variance-matched Gaussian (Wiener) features incurs the excess risk (γ₂λ)² + (γ₂ρ − β₂)², where λ = μ₃/σ and γ₂ is the explicit skew-weighted mixing coefficient. The penalty vanishes for every non-degenerate signal if and only if μ₃ = 0.

What carries the argument

The order-2 misspecification-penalty formula (Proposition 4) together with the oriented Gram–Schmidt VWK basis: the unique positive-leading orthonormal polynomials generated by the input moments, tensorized across independent lags so that diagonal cross-correlation recovers the projection coefficients.

Load-bearing premise

The lagged inputs are treated as independent and identically distributed; if successive lags are correlated, the tensor product basis loses orthonormality and the diagonal estimator is no longer exact.

What would settle it

Generate a degree-2 signal under a centered exponential input, run the self-normalized Gaussian diagonal estimator, and check whether the observed excess risk equals the closed-form value 0.5 predicted by the formula for the paper’s parameters; any systematic deviation falsifies the penalty theorem.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a distribution-matched Volterra–Wiener–Kunchenko (VWK) orthonormal polynomial basis via oriented Gram–Schmidt in L²(P) and applies it as an arbitrary-polynomial-chaos coordinate system for finite-memory Volterra identification under product input laws. The analytic core is Proposition 4: for a degree-2 signal written in the matched basis, the self-normalized variance-matched Gaussian/Wiener diagonal estimator incurs a closed-form excess L²(P) risk (γ₂λ)²+(γ₂ρ−β₂)² governed by the skew coefficient δ=μ₃/σ², vanishing for every nondegenerate signal iff μ₃=0. Supporting material includes a coefficient bijection between monomial and matched coordinates, conditioning diagnostics that separate the population identity Gram from the finite-sample design Gram, a machine-checked Lean 4 proof of the Binomial(N,p)→Krawtchouk row for arbitrary N, and synthetic/real-world experiments that de-confound diagonal projection from full least squares. The authors explicitly disclaim universal prediction superiority and restrict the analysis to moment-based, finite-memory, product-input regimes.

Significance. If Proposition 4 holds as stated—and the derivation from the explicit g₂↔(ψ₁,ψ₂) change of basis plus orthonormality appears tight—the paper supplies a clean, parameter-light account of what the classical Lee–Schetzen/Wiener cross-correlation estimator loses under asymmetric input. That closed form, the machine-checked Krawtchouk instance, the reproducible de-confounding of span versus estimator (full LS identical across bases; large W/V only under skew for diagonal fits), and the honest separation of population versus empirical Gram conditioning are genuine strengths. The contribution is not the matched basis itself (classical aPC/gPC) but the Volterra-estimation reading and the quantified misspecification cost. Within the declared scope this is a useful, carefully scoped addition to non-Gaussian Volterra identification rather than a sweeping methodological overhaul.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7, Proposition 4 / Abstract] Proposition 4 (Section 7, Eq. (1)) is a univariate order-2 result: the excess-risk identity uses only the scalar change-of-basis g₂=(ρψ₂+λψ₁)/(σ²√2) and orthonormality of {ψ₁,ψ₂}. The abstract and introduction present this as the lead contribution for “finite-memory Volterra identification,” yet the multi-lag case (tensor features Ψ_α, d=3 experiments in §9.5–9.6 and Table 8) has no analogous closed-form penalty—only empirical W/oracle and W/emp ratios. Either derive a multi-index extension of (1) under product Pd, or revise the abstract/intro framing so that the analytic claim is clearly univariate order-2 and the finite-memory material is labeled diagnostic/experimental.
  2. [Section 9.5, Table 8 / Figure 2] Table 8 and Figure 2 show that empirical-moment VWK can beat oracle VWK even in the Gaussian control (W/emp=1.367 while W/oracle=1). The text attributes this to adaptation to the realized design, but that mechanism is not quantified and blurs the interpretation of the finite-memory “misspecification penalty.” A short analysis (or ablation) of when the empirical basis gains from design adaptation versus when moment estimation error dominates would make the finite-memory claims load-bearing rather than suggestive.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4 / Remark 2] Table 4 reports sub-nominal β₂ coverage (0.875) under centered-exponential skew. Remark 2 correctly flags finite-sample plug-in SE behavior, but a one-sentence note in the table caption or §9.2 that coverage is diagnostic of the variance estimator—not of Prop. 4—would prevent misreading.
  2. [Section 9.4, Table 7] Table 7 (ridge diagnostic) shows that CV-tuned η can reverse the fixed-η advantage (centered-exponential s=5 ratio 0.58). The discussion already cautions against overclaiming; consider moving the CV column into the main narrative of §9.4 rather than leaving it as a table-only caveat.
  3. [Table 1 / Proposition 4] Notation table (Table 1) introduces ρ with “ρ²=μ₄−σ⁴−μ₃²/σ²≥0” then uses ρ as a positive square root in Prop. 4. A single clarifying line that ρ:=√ρ² would remove ambiguity in Eq. (1).
  4. [Section 2] Related work (§2) cites Carini–Sicuranza and Cheng et al. on distribution-matched orthogonal polynomial filters; a sharper one-paragraph contrast of what those works already achieve for diagonal estimation versus what Prop. 4 newly quantifies would help priority-conscious readers.
  5. [Section 10, Table 9] The real-world screen (Table 9) is appropriately labeled diagnostic, but the residual-skew columns are training residuals from a monomial span fit, not driver moments. A footnote restating that distinction would avoid conflation with the δ of Prop. 4.
  6. [Introduction / References] Minor typography: “Thispapertakesthematchedcoordinatesystem” (p. 2, line break artifact) and “EstemPMM” package name in the references should be cleaned in production.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Prop. 4 excess-risk formula is a direct L2(P) change-of-basis calculation; population Gram = I is labeled constructional, not sold as evidence.

full rationale

The paper’s analytic core (Proposition 4) derives the closed-form excess L2(P) risk of the self-normalized variance-matched Gaussian diagonal estimator from the explicit order-2 change of basis g2 = (ρψ2 + λψ1)/(σ²√2) and orthonormality of {ψ1, ψ2} under P. The matched projection recovers f exactly only because f is expanded in the orthonormal matched basis—standard Hilbert-space projection, not a hidden fit. The identity Ts Hs T⊤s = I is stated as constructional and is deliberately separated from the finite-sample design Gram reported in Table 6. Synthetic signals are written in the matched basis by design so that W/V isolates basis mismatch; this is disclosed experimental protocol, not a free parameter fitted and then “predicted.” Classical Askey/Hermite reductions follow from uniqueness of oriented orthonormal polynomials (Lemma 1), a standard fact, and the Binomial→Krawtchouk row is machine-checked in Lean 4. Self-citations to Kunchenko/PMM are interpretive and not load-bearing for the penalty identity. Full least squares is correctly declared basis-invariant, so no prediction superiority is claimed by renaming. Within the stated moment-based, product-input scope the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

Central claim rests on standard L2 orthogonal-polynomial existence under positive-definite Hankel moments, the product lag law for tensor orthonormality, and finite raw moments through order 2s. No free parameters are fitted into Prop. 4; experimental ridge η and DGP coefficients are protocol choices, not claim parameters. VWK is a named packaging of classical aPC, not a new physical entity.

free parameters (1)
  • optional ridge level η = 10^{-2} relative or validation-tuned
    Used only in the ridge diagnostic table (fixed η = 10^{-2} tr(G)/(s+1) or CV-tuned); not part of the Prop. 4 penalty formula.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Raw moments m0..m2s exist and Hankel Hs is positive definite (monomials linearly independent in L2(P)).
    Assumption 1 A1–A3; required for oriented Gram–Schmidt and existence of ψk through degree s.
  • domain assumption Finite-memory lag vector has product law Pd (independent coordinates).
    Assumption 1 A4; used for tensor orthonormality of Ψα and diagonal asymptotics; stated limitation if violated.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of orthonormal polynomials from a positive-definite moment sequence (oriented Gram–Schmidt).
    Lemma 1; classical (Chihara, Szegő); paper claims no novelty.
  • domain assumption Degree-2 nondegeneracy ρ² > 0 so ψ2 exists (excludes two-point laws).
    Stated in Prop. 4 setup; needed for the order-2 matched basis.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-sample self-normalized diagonal estimator uses P-norms of Gaussian features, not classical Gaussian normalizing constants.
    Prop. 4 and Remark 3; makes the Wiener baseline slightly more favorable; classical Lee–Schetzen constants would give a different mismatch.
invented entities (1)
  • Volterra–Wiener–Kunchenko (VWK) basis independent evidence
    purpose: Name for the distribution-matched orthonormal polynomial basis used as Volterra coordinates.
    Functionally identical to oriented aPC / gPC polynomials; independent classical evidence exists, but the Volterra-estimation packaging and penalty reading are paper-specific.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 23015 in / 2998 out tokens · 37073 ms · 2026-07-12T14:13:09.675346+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The monomial parameterization of finite-memory Volterra identification is ill-conditioned under non-Gaussian input, and the Wiener--Hermite expansion removes this ill-conditioning only for Gaussian white-noise input. We construct the distribution-matched Volterra--Wiener--Kunchenko (VWK) basis by oriented Gram--Schmidt orthogonalization of monomials in $L^2(P)$ and use it as an arbitrary-polynomial-chaos coordinate system for finite-memory Volterra identification from data, following the generalized polynomial chaos of Xiu and Karniadakis (2002) and the data-driven arbitrary polynomial chaos of Oladyshkin and Nowak (2012). The basis itself is classical; the contribution is the Volterra-estimation reading. First, an order-2 misspecification-penalty theorem shows that a self-normalized diagonal estimator in the variance-matched Gaussian basis incurs an excess $L^2(P)$ risk governed by the skew coefficient $\delta=\mu_3/\sigma^2$, vanishing exactly for symmetric inputs. Second, conditioning experiments separate the constructional fact that the population matched Gram is the identity from the finite-sample design Gram: at $n=2000$, the centered-exponential empirical VWK Gram remains far better conditioned than the power Gram, although it degrades with degree. Third, a machine-checked Lean 4 proof establishes the Binomial$(N,p)$ Krawtchouk row for arbitrary $N$. Full least squares over a fixed span is basis-invariant, so VWK stabilizes diagonal cross-correlation and regularized coordinate fits rather than claiming universal prediction superiority. The analysis is moment-based, finite-memory, and restricted to product input laws.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12884 by Serhii Zabolotnii.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Finite-memory Volterra–Wiener–Kunchenko (VWK) pipeline: the input law determines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Sample-efficiency curve for the finite-memory experiment. The skew regime shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Exact Computation of Non-Gaussian Mismatch Penalties in Wiener-Hermite Cross-Correlation Identification

    stat.ME 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 partial

    Using a Gaussian Hermite basis under a non-Gaussian input produces an exactly quantifiable mismatch penalty, computable in O(s^3) from moments through order 2s.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle regression.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(6):2345–2367, 2011

    Géraud Blatman and Bruno Sudret. Adaptive sparse polynomial chaos expansion based on least angle regression.Journal of Computational Physics, 230(6):2345–2367, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.021

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.021 2011

  2. [2]

    Brillinger

    David R. Brillinger. An introduction to polyspectra.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 36(5):1351–1374, 1965

    1965

  3. [3]

    Brillinger.Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory

    David R. Brillinger.Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1975

    1975

  4. [4]

    R. H. Cameron and W. T. Martin. The orthogonal development of non-linear functionals in series of Fourier–Hermite functionals.Annals of Mathematics, 48(2):385–392, 1947. https://doi.org/10.2307/1969178

    doi:10.2307/1969178 1947

  5. [5]

    Ricardo J. G. B. Campello, Gérard Favier, and Wagner Caradori do Amaral. Optimal expansions of discrete-time Volterra models using Laguerre functions.Automatica, 40(5): 815–822, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2003.11.016

    doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2003.11.016 2004

  6. [6]

    Sicuranza

    Alberto Carini and Giovanni L. Sicuranza. Selection of a closed-form expression polynomial orthogonal basis for robust nonlinear system identification.Journal of Signal Processing Systems, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11265-014-0948-2

    doi:10.1007/s11265-014-0948-2 2014

  7. [7]

    Sicuranza

    Alberto Carini, Stefania Cecchi, Laura Romoli, and Giovanni L. Sicuranza. Legendre nonlin- ear filters.Signal Processing, 109:84–94, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2014.10.037

    doi:10.1016/j.sigpro.2014.10.037 2015

  8. [8]

    Generalization of GMM to a continuum of moment conditions.Econometric Theory, 16(6):797–834, 2000

    Marine Carrasco and Jean-Pierre Florens. Generalization of GMM to a continuum of moment conditions.Econometric Theory, 16(6):797–834, 2000

    2000

  9. [9]

    C. M. Cheng, Z. K. Peng, W. M. Zhang, and G. Meng. Volterra-series-based nonlinear system modeling and its engineering applications: A state-of-the-art review.Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 87:340–364, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.10.029

    doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.10.029 2017

  10. [10]

    Chihara.An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials

    Theodore S. Chihara.An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials. Gordon and Breach, New York, 1978

    1978

  11. [11]

    Ernst, Antje Mugler, Hans-Jörg Starkloff, and Elisabeth Ullmann

    Oliver G. Ernst, Antje Mugler, Hans-Jörg Starkloff, and Elisabeth Ullmann. On the convergence of generalized polynomial chaos expansions.ESAIM: Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis, 46(2):317–339, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1051/m2an/2011045

    doi:10.1051/m2an/2011045 2012

  12. [12]

    On the efficiency of empirical characteristic function procedures.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 43(1):20–27, 1981

    Andrey Feuerverger and Philip McDunnough. On the efficiency of empirical characteristic function procedures.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 43(1):20–27, 1981

    1981

  13. [13]

    Advances in Industrial Control

    Luigi Fortuna, Salvatore Graziani, Alessandro Rizzo, and Maria Gabriella Xibilia.Soft Sensors for Monitoring and Control of Industrial Processes. Advances in Industrial Control. Springer, London, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-480-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-480-9 2007

  14. [14]

    On generating orthogonal polynomials.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 3(3):289–317, 1982

    Walter Gautschi. On generating orthogonal polynomials.SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 3(3):289–317, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1137/0903018

    doi:10.1137/0903018 1982

  15. [15]

    Ghanem and Pol D

    Roger G. Ghanem and Pol D. Spanos.Stochastic Finite Elements: A Spectral Approach. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3094-6. 18

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3094-6 1991

  16. [16]

    Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators

    Lars Peter Hansen. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica, 50(4):1029–1054, 1982

    1982

  17. [17]

    Peter J. Huber. Robust estimation of a location parameter.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 35(1):73–101, 1964

    1964

  18. [18]

    Predicting CO and NOx emissions from gas turbines: novel data and a benchmark PEMS.Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, 27(6):4783–4796, 2019

    Heysem Kaya, Pınar Tüfekci, and Erdinç Uzun. Predicting CO and NOx emissions from gas turbines: novel data and a benchmark PEMS.Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, 27(6):4783–4796, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3906/elk-1807-87

    doi:10.3906/elk-1807-87 2019

  19. [19]

    Giannakis

    Vassilis Kekatos and Georgios B. Giannakis. Sparse Volterra and polynomial regression models: Recoverability and estimation.IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 59(12): 5907–5920, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2011.2165952

    doi:10.1109/tsp.2011.2165952 2011

  20. [20]

    Lesky, and René F

    Roelof Koekoek, Peter A. Lesky, and René F. Swarttouw.Hypergeometric Orthogonal Polynomials and Their q-Analogues. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, 2010

    2010

  21. [21]

    Korenberg

    Michael J. Korenberg. Identifying nonlinear difference equation and functional expansion representations: The fast orthogonal algorithm.Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 16(1): 123–142, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02367385

    doi:10.1007/bf02367385 1988

  22. [22]

    Y. P. Kunchenko.Polynomial Parameter Estimations of Close to Gaussian Random Variables. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, 2002

    2002

  23. [23]

    Y. P. Kunchenko.Stochastic Polynomials. Naukova Dumka, Kyiv, 2006

    2006

  24. [24]

    Y. W. Lee and M. Schetzen. Measurement of the Wiener kernels of a non-linear system by cross-correlation.International Journal of Control, 2(3):237–254, 1965

    1965

  25. [25]

    Marmarelis.Nonlinear Dynamic Modeling of Physiological Systems

    Vasilis Z. Marmarelis.Nonlinear Dynamic Modeling of Physiological Systems. Wiley-IEEE Press, Hoboken, NJ, 2004

    2004

  26. [26]

    John Mathews and Giovanni L

    V. John Mathews and Giovanni L. Sicuranza.Polynomial Signal Processing. Wiley, New York, 2000

    2000

  27. [27]

    Nikias and Athina P

    Chrysostomos L. Nikias and Athina P. Petropulu.Higher-Order Spectra Analysis: A Nonlinear Signal Processing Framework. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993

    1993

  28. [28]

    Data-driven uncertainty quantification using the arbitrary polynomial chaos expansion.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 106: 179–190, 2012

    Sergey Oladyshkin and Wolfgang Nowak. Data-driven uncertainty quantification using the arbitrary polynomial chaos expansion.Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 106: 179–190, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2012.05.002

    doi:10.1016/j.ress.2012.05.002 2012

  29. [29]

    Wiley, New York, 1980

    Martin Schetzen.The Volterra and Wiener Theories of Nonlinear Systems. Wiley, New York, 1980

    1980

  30. [30]

    Springer, New York, 2000

    Wim Schoutens.Stochastic Processes and Orthogonal Polynomials, volume 146 ofLecture Notes in Statistics. Springer, New York, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-1170-9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1170-9 2000

  31. [31]

    Physical systems with random uncertainties: Chaos representations with arbitrary probability measure.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 26(2):395–410, 2004

    Christian Soize and Roger Ghanem. Physical systems with random uncertainties: Chaos representations with arbitrary probability measure.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 26(2):395–410, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827503424505

    doi:10.1137/s1064827503424505 2004

  32. [32]

    Ameri- can Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1939

    Gábor Szegő.Orthogonal Polynomials, volume 23 ofAMS Colloquium Publications. Ameri- can Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1939. 19

    1939

  33. [33]

    Data-driven polynomial chaos expansion for machine learning regression.Journal of Computational Physics, 388: 601–623, 2019

    Emiliano Torre, Stefano Marelli, Paul Embrechts, and Bruno Sudret. Data-driven polynomial chaos expansion for machine learning regression.Journal of Computational Physics, 388: 601–623, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2019.03.039

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2019.03.039 2019

  34. [34]

    Blackie, London, 1930

    Vito Volterra.Theory of Functionals and of Integral and Integro-Differential Equations. Blackie, London, 1930

    1930

  35. [35]

    Beyond Wiener–Askey expansions: Handling arbitrary PDFs.Journal of Scientific Computing, 27(1–3):455–464, 2006

    Xiaoliang Wan and George Em Karniadakis. Beyond Wiener–Askey expansions: Handling arbitrary PDFs.Journal of Scientific Computing, 27(1–3):455–464, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-005-9038-8

    doi:10.1007/s10915-005-9038-8 2006

  36. [36]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1958

    Norbert Wiener.Nonlinear Problems in Random Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1958

    1958

  37. [37]

    Jeroen A. S. Witteveen and Hester Bijl. Modeling arbitrary uncertainties using gram-schmidt polynomial chaos. In44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-896

    doi:10.2514/6.2006-896 2006

  38. [38]

    The Wiener–Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 24(2):619–644,

    Dongbin Xiu and George Em Karniadakis. The Wiener–Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 24(2):619–644,

  39. [39]

    https://doi.org/10.1137/S1064827501387826

    doi:10.1137/s1064827501387826

  40. [40]

    Empirical characteristic function estimation and its applications.Econometric Reviews, 23(2):93–123, 2004

    Jun Yu. Empirical characteristic function estimation and its applications.Econometric Reviews, 23(2):93–123, 2004

    2004

  41. [41]

    S. W. Zabolotnii, Z. L. Warsza, and O. Tkachenko. Polynomial estimation of linear regression parameters for the asymmetric pdf of errors. InAdvances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, volume 743, pages 709–722. Springer, 2018

    2018

  42. [42]

    EstemPMM: Polynomial maximization method estimation

    Serhii Zabolotnii. EstemPMM: Polynomial maximization method estimation. https: //cran.r-project.org/package=EstemPMM, 2026. R package version 0.4.0

    2026

  43. [43]

    Zabolotnii

    Serhii V. Zabolotnii. From Volterra series to Kunchenko stochastic polynomials: Half a century of non-Gaussian estimation methodology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.22354, 2026. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026