2022
DOI: 10.1007/s00029-022-00762-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Asymptotics of Muttalib–Borodin determinants with Fisher–Hartwig singularities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There exists also a vast literature on other structured determinants with Fisher-Hartwig singularities, see e.g. [25,26] for Fredholm determinants, [7,35,23] for Toeplitz+Hankel determinants, and [19] for a biorthogonal generalization of Hankel determinants.…”
Section: Introduction and Statement Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There exists also a vast literature on other structured determinants with Fisher-Hartwig singularities, see e.g. [25,26] for Fredholm determinants, [7,35,23] for Toeplitz+Hankel determinants, and [19] for a biorthogonal generalization of Hankel determinants.…”
Section: Introduction and Statement Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this regard, the formulation of a (3 × 3) Riemann-Hilbert problem corresponding to these bi-orthogonal polynomial systems, both as a means of founding the whole theory upon this and deriving key results but also to pave the way for a suitable Deift-Zhou analysis will be the topic of a future publication. At a later stage, the asymptotic description of these determinants can be investigated when the symbol w is of Fisher-Hartwig type, similar to what has been done for Toeplitz [26], Hankel [18,20], and Muttalib-Borodin [19] determinants.…”
Section: Prospects Of Future Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By combining lemmas 5.1 and 5.2, we arrive at the following result (the proof is very similar to [15,Proof of (1.38)], so we omit it). Lemma 5.3.…”
Section: 6)mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Proof. A naive adaptation of [15,Lemma 8.1] (an important difference between [15] and our situation is that σ n = √ log n √ 2π in [15] while here we have…”
Section: 6)mentioning
confidence: 96%