Matricial Gaussian quadrature rules: nonsingular case
Alja\v{z} Zalar, Igor Zobovi\v{c}

TL;DR
This paper characterizes the existence of minimal matrix-valued measures with prescribed atoms and ranks, providing a constructive proof for the nonsingular truncated Hamburger matrix moment problem and advancing the understanding of matrix moment problems.
Contribution
It extends recent scalar results to the matrix case, characterizing minimal measures with prescribed atoms and ranks, and offers a constructive proof for the nonsingular truncated Hamburger matrix moment problem.
Findings
Characterization of minimal representing measures with prescribed atoms and ranks.
Constructive linear algebraic proof of the nonsingular truncated Hamburger matrix moment problem.
Implications for the study of the truncated univariate rational matrix moment problem.
Abstract
Let be a linear operator on univariate polynomials of bounded degree, mapping into real symmetric matrices, such that its moment matrix is positive definite. It is known that admits a finitely atomic positive matrix-valued representing measure . Any with the smallest sum of the ranks of the matricial masses is called minimal. In this paper, we characterize the existence of a minimal representing measure containing a prescribed atom with prescribed rank of the corresponding mass, thus extending a recent result (2020) for the scalar-valued case. As a corollary, we obtain a constructive, linear algebraic proof of the strong truncated Hamburger matrix moment problem in the nonsingular case. The results will be important in the study of the truncated univariate rational matrix moment problem.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical functions and polynomials · Random Matrices and Applications · Matrix Theory and Algorithms
Matricial Gaussian quadrature rules: nonsingular case
Aljaž Zalar1
Aljaž Zalar, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana & Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana & Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
and
Igor Zobovič2
Igor Zobovič, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana & Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
(Date: August 29, 2025)
Abstract.
Let be a linear operator on univariate polynomials of bounded degree, mapping into real symmetric matrices, such that its moment matrix is positive definite. It is known that admits a finitely atomic positive matrix-valued representing measure . Any with the smallest sum of the ranks of the matricial masses is called minimal. In this paper, we characterize the existence of a minimal representing measure containing a prescribed atom with prescribed rank of the corresponding mass, thus extending a recent result [BKRSV20] for the scalar-valued case. As a corollary, we obtain a constructive, linear algebraic proof of the strong truncated Hamburger matrix moment problem [Sim06] in the nonsingular case. The results will be important in the study of the truncated univariate rational matrix moment problem.
Key words and phrases:
Gaussian quadrature, truncated moment problem, matrix measure, moment matrix, localizing moment matrix.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 65D32, 47A57, 47A20, 44A60; Secondary 15A04, 47N40.
1Supported by the ARIS (Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency) research core funding No. P1-0288 and grants No. J1-50002, J1-60011.
2Supported by the ARIS (Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency) research core funding No. P1-0222 and grant No. J1-50002.
1. Introduction
In this paper we study matricial Gaussian quadrature rules for a linear operator on univariate polynomials of bounded degree, mapping into real symmetric matrices, such that the corresponding moment matrix is positive definite. More precisely, we fix a real number and a natural number and characterize, when there is a minimal representing measure for containing in the support with the rank of the corresponding mass equal to . Apart from being interesting on its own extending a recent result [BKRSV20] from scalars to matrices, the results will be importantly used in the solution to the truncated univariate matrix rational moment problem, analogous to the scalar case [NZ25].
Let and . We denote by the vector space of univariate polynomials of degree at most and by the set of real symmetric matrices of size . For a given linear operator
[TABLE]
denote by , , its matricial moments and by
[TABLE]
the corresponding –th truncated moment matrix. Assume that is positive definite. It is known (see Theorem 2.1 below), that admits a positive -valued measure (see (2.1)), such that
[TABLE]
Every measure satisfying (1.3) is a representing measure for .
A representing measure for , where each is positive semidefinite and stands for the Dirac measure supported in , is minimal, if is minimal among all representing measures for . In this case, (1.3) is equal to
[TABLE]
and (1.4) is a matricial Gaussian quadrature rule for . The points are atoms of the measure . If are pairwise distinct, then for each , the matrix is the mass of at and its rank is the multiplicity of in , which we denote by . If is not an atom of , then .\
The motivation of the paper is to settle the following problem.\
Problem. Let be as in (1.1) such that (see (1.2)) is positive definite. Given and , characterize when there exists a minimal representing measure for such that .\
In [BKRSV20, Theorem 1.4], the authors solved the scalar version (i.e., in (1.1)) of the Problem in terms of symmetric determinantal representations involving moment matrices. They also showed how to determine other atoms of based on the determinant of some univariate matrix polynomial. Their proof uses convex analysis and algebraic geometry, while an alternative proof, using moment theory, and an extension to minimal measures with finitely many prescribed atoms, appears in [NZ+]. We mention that in [BKRSV20], a version of the Problem with an atom at , called evaluation at , is also studied. The corresponding quadrature rules are called generalized Gaussian quadrature rules. We also mention that in the scalar case, the restriction to the case where is positive definite is natural. Namely, if is positive semidefinite but not positive definite, then the minimal representing measure is uniquely determined [CF91, Theorems 3.9 and 3.10]. This fact does not generalize to the matrix case and a version of the Problem with positive semidefinite is relevant. Moreover, it turns out that this version is technically more involved and will be treated in our forthcoming work [ZZ+]. \
The main result of the paper is the solution to the Problem above.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let and be a linear operator such that is positive definite. Fix and . Let Then the following statements are equivalent:
- (1)
There exists a minimal representing measure for such that . 2. (2)
.
In the case , Theorem 1.1 simplifies to the following result.
Corollary 1.2**.**
Let and be a linear operator such that is positive definite. Fix . Then there exists a minimal representing measure for such that .
A simple consequence of Corollary 1.2 is a solution to a strong truncated matrix Hamburger moment problem in the nonsingular case (i.e., the matrix in (1.5) below is invertible).
Corollary 1.3**.**
Let and for . Assume that the matrix
[TABLE]
is positive definite. Then there exists a measure such that for each .
Corollary 1.3 is a special case of [Sim06, Theorem 3.3] under the assumption that the matrix in (1.5) is positive definite. The techniques in [Sim06] use involved operator theory, by studying self-adjoint extensions of certain, not necessarily everywhere defined, linear operator on the finite dimensional Hilbert space of vector-valued Laurent polynomials. Our contribution is a constructive, linear algebraic proof, in the sense that representing measures can be easily computed following the steps in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (see Examples 1 and 2). To extend Corollary 1.3 to the singular case (i.e., the matrix in (1.5) is only positive semidefinite and not necessarily definite), Theorem 1.1 needs to be extended to the case is positive semidefinite [ZZ+]. In the scalar case an alternative proof of [Sim06, Theorem 3.3] is [Zal22, Theorem 3.1].
Matricial Gaussian quadrature rules have been studied by several authors (e.g., [DD02, DLR96, DS03]). These works address the question of computing atoms and masses of a representing measure, which is uniquely determined after the odd matricial moment is fixed. The formulas are in terms of the roots of the corresponding orthogonal matrix polynomial. A novelty of our results is that we do not specify , but characterize, when there is a suitable , that leads to a minimal measure containing a prescribed atom with prescribed multiplicity. In the proof, we essentially construct with the required properties such that the extended moment matrix , with , has a suitable block column relation (see Section 2.5).
Recently, a question related to the Problem was studied in [FKM24]. Namely, the authors describe for , the set of all possible masses at over all representing measures for . In particular, the maximal mass is determined. The focus of our work is on minimal representing measures with fixed multiplicity of the mass at . In a multivariate setting, the set of possible atoms in a representing measure has been charactarized in [MS24a], while the question of possible masses in a given point was studied in [MS24b].
1.1. Reader’s guide
In Section 2 we introduce the notation and some preliminary results. In Section 3 we present proofs of our main results, i.e., Theorem 1.1 and Corollaries 1.2, 1.3. In Section 4 we demonstrate the application of Theorem 1.1 on numerical examples (see Examples 1 and 2). In particular, we show that a minimal representing measure containing a prescribed atom with prescribed multiplicity is not unique and that a given atom can be a part of minimal representing measures with different multiplicities. Finally, in Section 5 we allow the evaluation at and prove a sufficient condition for the existence of a generalized matricial Gaussian quadrature rule containing real atoms, among which a prescribed atom has a prescribed multiplicity (see Theorem 5.1).
2. Preliminaries
Let . We write for the set of real matrices and for short. For a matrix we call the linear span of its columns a column space and denote it by . We denote by the identity matrix and by the zero matrix, while for short. We use to denote matrices over . The elements of are called matrix polynomials.
Let . For the notation (resp. ) means is positive semidefinite (psd) (resp. positive definite (pd)). We use for the subset of all psd matrices in .
Given a polynomial , we write for the set of its zeros.
2.1. Matrix measures
Let be the Borel -algebra of . We call
[TABLE]
a Borel matrix-valued measure supported on (or positive -valued measure) if
- (1)
is a real measure for every and 2. (2)
for every .
A positive -valued measure is finitely atomic, if there exists a finite set such that or equivalently, for some , , . Let be a positive -valued measure and denote its trace measure. A polynomial is -integrable if . We define its integral by
[TABLE]
2.2. Riesz mapping
Equivalently, one can define as in (1.1) by a sequence of its values on monomials , . Throughout the paper we will denote these values by . If is given, then we denote the corresponding linear mapping on by and call it a Riesz mapping of .
2.3. Moment matrix and localizing moment matrices
For and
[TABLE]
we denote by as in (1.2) its –th truncated moment matrix. For , , we also write
[TABLE]
Given and a linear operator , we define an –localizing linear operator by
[TABLE]
We call the -th truncated moment matrix of the –th truncated –localizing moment matrix of and denote it by . Defining
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
In particular, for with , we have
[TABLE]
For , , we also write
[TABLE]
2.4. Solution to the truncated matrix Hamburger moment problem
Theorem 2.1** ([BW11, Theorem 2.7.6]).**
Let and
[TABLE]
be a given sequence. Then the following statements are equivalent:
- (1)
There exists a representing measure for . 2. (2)
There exists a –atomic representing measure for . 3. (3)
* is positive semidefinite and where is as in (2.2).*
Remark 2.2**.**
The truncated matrix Hamburger moment problem was also considered in [Bol96, Dym89, DFKM09].
2.5. Support of the representing measure
Given a matrix polynomial , we define the evaluation on the moment matrix (see (1.2)) to be a matrix, obtained by replacing each monomial of by the corresponding column of and multiplying with the matrix coefficients from the right, i.e.,
[TABLE]
where are as in (2.2) above. If , then is a block column relation of .
The following lemma connects of a representing measure for as in (2.1) with a block column relation of .
Lemma 2.3** ([KT22, Lemma 5.53]).**
Let and
[TABLE]
be a given sequence with a representing measure . If is a block column relation of , then
[TABLE]
2.6. Evaluation at
We recall the definition of the evaluation at from [BKRSV20, Definition 1.1]. The evaluation at is the linear functional , defined by
[TABLE]
Let be as in (1.1). We say is a finitely atomic –representing measure for if it is of the form
[TABLE]
where , , and , . If , we say that is an –atomic –representing measure for .
3. Proofs of Theorem 1.1
In the proof of Theorem 1.1 we will need the following lemma on the determinant of a matrix polynomial.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let , , and let
[TABLE]
be a nonzero matrix polynomial, where . We define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
Clearly, if , there exists a nonzero vector such that , which implies (3.1). From now on we assume that . Let be a basis of such that the set is a basis of . Let us define an invertible matrix
[TABLE]
For define matrices
[TABLE]
and let
[TABLE]
where the last equality follows by . Define a matrix polynomial
[TABLE]
By (3.2) and (3.3), it follows that the first columns of are of the form
[TABLE]
while the last columns of are equal to
[TABLE]
Observe that the first columns of have a common factor . Using this observation and upon factoring the determinant of column-wise we obtain
[TABLE]
which proves (3.1). Since , also holds. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Let be as in (2.2) and as in (2.3) for . Note that from the statement of the theorem is equal to . First we establish the following claim.\
Claim. \operatorname{rank}\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{v}_{0}^{(n)}&\begin{array}[]{c}\mathcal{H}_{x-t}(n-1)\\ {\big{(}{((x-t)\cdot\mathbf{v})}_{n}^{(n-1)}\big{)}}^{T}\end{array}\end{pmatrix}=(n+1)p.\
Proof of Claim. We have
[TABLE]
where we used that is positive definite in the last equality. \
Next we prove the implication Let be a representing measure for such that the atoms are pairwise distinct, , , and . We compute with respect to the measure , i.e., . By the Claim,
[TABLE]
Define . Note that and
[TABLE]
Let be a linear operator, defined by
[TABLE]
Let . We have
[TABLE]
where the first inequality follows from the fact that the difference is a sum of matrices of rank 1. The inequalities (3.5) imply that whence all inequalities in (3.5) must be equalities. In particular,
[TABLE]
For every we have
[TABLE]
Let be the –localizing moment matrix of ,
[TABLE]
By (3.7), it follows that
[TABLE]
Hence,
[TABLE]
It follows from (3.4) and (3.9) that
[TABLE]
where are columns of the block . We have
[TABLE]
Write
[TABLE]
By (3.10) and (3.11), for every , there exist and , such that
[TABLE]
Hence, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Writing for each , we have
[TABLE]
and hence,
[TABLE]
Using (3.4) in (3.12) concludes the proof of the implication .\
It remains to prove the implication (2) (1). Let us first describe the main idea of the proof. The aim is to construct a matrix such that
[TABLE]
It will then follow from
[TABLE]
that there are columns in , which are in the span of the other columns of . By the Claim, the matrix
[TABLE]
is invertible. This fact and (3.13) will imply that there exists a polynomial
[TABLE]
where and , which is a block column relation of the matrix M(n+1)=\begin{pmatrix}M(n)&\mathbf{v}_{n+1}^{(n)}\\ \big{(}\mathbf{v}_{n+1}^{(n)}\big{)}^{T}&S_{2n+2}\end{pmatrix}, where is uniquely determined by . Hence,
[TABLE]
for some polynomial of degree with . Thus, Theorem 1.1.(1) will follow from (3.15), Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.3. Moreover, the constructed measure will satisfy .\
Let
[TABLE]
where we used that from (3.14) is invertible in the last equality. By assumption (2), we have
[TABLE]
or equivalently
[TABLE]
In order to simplify the technical structure of the proof, we make the following modification. We permute the columns of using a permutation matrix to obtain a matrix
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
By (3.18), it follows that
[TABLE]
for some or equivalently
[TABLE]
We will now define such that
[TABLE]
By (3.20), it suffices to establish the equality
[TABLE]
Let us decompose as
[TABLE]
where , and are of sizes , and , respectively. In this notation, (3.21) becomes
[TABLE]
We choose so that
[TABLE]
and define
[TABLE]
By (3.25), it is clear that satisfies (3.21). It remains to show that is symmetric. Since , we only need to show that . But this follows by the following computation:
[TABLE]
Defining the vectors by
[TABLE]
and the matrix by
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
and are linearly independent. Indeed,
[TABLE]
Defining
[TABLE]
the equality (3.13) holds. Since from (3.14) is invertible, it follows that
[TABLE]
is also invertible, where
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
for some real matrices and with
[TABLE]
or equivalently
[TABLE]
By (3.20), (3.25) and (3.29), we have that
[TABLE]
where Therefore
[TABLE]
Using (3.27) and
[TABLE]
in (3.30), we get
[TABLE]
where and Since is invertible, (3.31) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
We now define the matrix polynomial
[TABLE]
Observe that is monic of degree and represents the block column relation in the matrix
[TABLE]
where is uniquely determined by . Note that
[TABLE]
whence
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1 used for from (3.32), we get that
[TABLE]
for some polynomial of degree . By Theorem 2.1, there exists a representing measure for of the form , where , are pairwise distinct, and . By Lemma 2.3, the atoms are exactly pairwise distinct zeros of . Hence, for some , and . We now need to show that . Suppose on the contrary that for some
[TABLE]
Let us define the measure By analogous reasoning as for in the proof of implication , we obtain an equality of type (3.11), where is replaced by , and are columns of the block , where . The equality is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for some matrices and . Hence, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
Combining (3.35) and (3.36), we get , which is a contradiction with (3.34). Therefore and . This completes the proof. ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.2.
Let be as in (2.2) and as in (2.3). Since is invertible, it follows that the matrix
[TABLE]
is also invertible. Therefore
[TABLE]
whence By Theorem 1.1, the corollary follows. ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.3.
Define a sequence , where . By assumption (1.5), is positive definite. By Corollary 1.2, has a minimal representing measure for some and . Namely, for each . But then
[TABLE]
whence is a representing measure in Corollary 1.3. ∎
Remark 3.2**.**
- (1)
The polynomial (see (3.32)), which is a block column relation of the matrix in (3.33), can also be obtained by computing
[TABLE]
to obtain 2. (2)
The zeroes of the polynomial from (3.15) correspond to the other atoms in the representing measure, while the multiplicity of the atom as the zero of coincides with the multiplicity of the atom. 3. (3)
Assume a linear operator has a representing measure , where the atoms are pairwise distinct, and . Assume that we know the atoms . It remains to compute the masses . We denote by the Vandermonde matrix. Since are pairwise distinct, it follows that is invertible. The masses are obtained via
[TABLE]
where denotes the Kronecker product of two matrices, i.e., V^{-1}\otimes I_{p}=(V\otimes I_{p})^{-1}=\big{(}(x_{j}^{i-1}I_{p})_{i,j=1}^{\ell}\big{)}^{-1} . Note that if , then not all are given. In particular, need to be computed recursively by
[TABLE]
for , where are as in (1) above. 4. (4)
If in Theorem 1.1, then must be 0 in (3.16) and there are no blocks (see (3.17)) and , (see (3.22)). Moreover, implies that
[TABLE]
whence is invertible. Further, in (3.19) is equal to
[TABLE]
while in (3.19) is equal to
[TABLE]
Therefore, the measure for , with , is unique. 5. (5)
If in Theorem 1.1, then in (3.16) and we have a free choice of selecting and different possibilities for in (3.19). To be precise, can be chosen arbitrarily from the set
[TABLE]
where denotes the Moore-Penrose pseudoinverse of the matrix . Therefore, in this case, a measure for such that is not unique, as can be seen in Example 1 below.
4. Examples
In this section we demonstrate the application of Theorem 1.1 on numerical examples.\
The following example considers a moment sequence with as defined in (3.16). We construct two distinct –atomic representing measures for . In both cases, the measures include [math] in the support with largest multiplicity allowed by Theorem 1.1, namely , demonstrating that a representing measure for containing an atom with is not unique whenever .
Example 4.1**.**
111The Mathematica file with numerical computations can be found on the link https://github.com/ZobovicIgor/Matricial-Gaussian-Quadrature-Rules/tree/main.
Let , and
[TABLE]
We can easily check that . Let . We have that
[TABLE]
We observe that and , therefore in (3.16). In this case, we can take a trivial permutation in (3.17) since , where , satisfies
[TABLE]
Let . We check that
[TABLE]
We will now construct the matrix (see (3.22)), which is used in the proof of Theorem 1.1 to obtain a polynomial (see (3.32)), being a block column relation of and such that is precisely the set of atoms in some minimal representing measure for . Note that since , we have . For every , the matrix
[TABLE]
where Z_{2}=\begin{pmatrix}\big{(}{(x\cdot\mathbf{v})}_{1;1}^{(0)}\big{)}^{T}&Z_{1}\end{pmatrix}J and Z_{3}=\begin{pmatrix}\big{(}{(x\cdot\mathbf{v})}_{1;2}^{(0)}\big{)}^{T}&Z_{2}^{T}\end{pmatrix}J, is symmetric and satisfies (3.21).
Let and . Computing
[TABLE]
for , we get and . We can obtain the coefficients of the corresponding matrix polynomials
[TABLE]
by computing (see Remark 3.2.(1))
[TABLE]
for . The polynomials are the following:
[TABLE]
with the determinants
[TABLE]
Therefore the sets and represent the atoms of two distinct matrix measures for . Note that both determinants only have zeroes of multiplicity , therefore the multiplicities of all the atoms from both sets are . We confirm this by computing the corresponding masses for both sets of atoms. It turns out (using Remark 3.2.(3)) that the masses for the atoms in the first measure are , , respectively, and the masses for the atoms in the second measure are , respectively.
The next example illustrates that the inequality in Theorem 1.1.(2) can be strict. Namely, starting from a measure whose atom [math] has multiplicity strictly smaller than , we build a new representing measure in which the multiplicity of the atom [math] is the highest possible, i.e., equal to .
Example 4.2**.**
222The Mathematica file with numerical computations can be found on the link https://github.com/ZobovicIgor/Matricial-Gaussian-Quadrature-Rules/tree/main.
Let be a finitely atomic matrix measure with and , and let be a linear operator, defined by for every . We define
[TABLE]
The measure contains the atom [math] with . However, the localizing matrix is invertible, therefore
[TABLE]
Since , it follows from Theorem 1.1 that there exists a –atomic representing matrix measure for which contains the atom [math] with . Such measure is unique (see Remark 3.2.(4)) and we will now find its atoms. We first compute
[TABLE]
Then we obtain the polynomial , which is a block column relation of and such that is precisely the set of atoms in some minimal represenitng measure for . Namely, where
[TABLE]
Thus, it follows that
[TABLE]
The atoms of the measure are the zeroes of
[TABLE]
therefore
[TABLE]
where and . By Remark 3.2.(3), the masses of the atoms are
[TABLE]
5. Generalized matricial Gaussian quadrature rules with prescribed atom
In this section we allow the evaluation at (see (2.6)) as a measure and prove a sufficient condition for the existence of a generalized matricial Gaussian quadrature rule for a linear operator , containing real atoms, among which a prescribed atom has a prescribed multiplicity (see Theorem 5.1).\
Let and
[TABLE]
where , , and . The Schur complement [Zha05] of in is defined by \mathcal{M}\big{/}D=A-BD^{-1}C.
Theorem 5.1**.**
Let and be a linear operator such that is positive definite. Fix and . Assume the notation from §2. If
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
then there exists a –atomic –representing measure for such that and .
Proof.
By the same proof as for the implication of Theorem 1.1, (5.1) implies that the sequence has a –atomic –representing measure such that . Let and . Since , it follows that M_{\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}}(n)\big{/}M_{\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}}(n-1)=\mathbf{0}_{p}. Moreover,
[TABLE]
By (5.2), and thus has a –representing measure
[TABLE]
This concludes the proof of Theorem 5.1. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BKRSV 20] G. Blekherman, M. Kummer, C. Riener, M. Schweighofer, C. Vinzant, Generalized eigenvalue methods for Guassian quadrature rules . Ann. H. Lebesgue 3 (2020), 1327–1341.
- 2[BW 11] M. Bakonyi, H.J. Woerdeman: Matrix Completions, Moments, and Sums of Hermitian Squares , Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2011
- 3[Bol 96] V. Bolotnikov, On degenerate Hamburger moment problem and extensions of nonnegative Hankel block matrices , Integral Equ. Oper. Theory 25 (1996), 253–276.
- 4[CF 91] R. Curto, L. Fialkow, Recursiveness, positivity, and truncated moment problems. Houston J. Math. 17 (1991), 603–635.
- 5[DS 03] H. Dette, W.J. Studden, Quadrature formulas for matrix measures—a geometric approach , Linear Algebra Appl. 364 (2003), 33–64.
- 6[DD 02] A.J. Durán, E. Defez, Orthogonal matrix polynomials and quadrature formulas , Linear Algebra Appl. 345 (2002), 71–84.
- 7[DLR 96] A.J. Duran, P. Lopez-Rodriguez, Orthogonal Matrix Polynomials: Zeros and Blumenthal’s Theorem , J. Approx. Theory 84 (1996), 96–118.
- 8[Dym 89] H. Dym, On Hermitian block Hankel matrices, matrix polynomials, the Hamburger moment problem, interpolation and maximum entropy , Integral Equ. Oper. Theory 12 (1989) 757–812.
