REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 18 references
On an application of the Boundary control method to classical moment problems
T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Truncated Hamburger, Stieltjes, and Hausdorff moment problems are equivalent to generalized spectral problems for Hankel moment matrices, whose eigenpairs supply the spectral data needed to reconstruct the measure.
desk verdict A useful de Branges reformulation of the BC method for moment problems, but the Section 3 norming constants are inverted, so the reconstruction procedure fails as written on a simple example. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central object is the generalized spectral pencil $S^N_1 g = \lambda S^N_0 g$, with $S^N_0$ and $S^N_1$ Hankel matrices of moments, together with the factorization identities $C^N = \tilde\Lambda_N S^N_0 \tilde\Lambda_N^*$ and $B^N = \tilde\Lambda_N S^N_1 \tilde\Lambda_N^*$. Here $\tilde\Lambda_N$ is the Chebyshev-polynomial change-of-basis matrix conjugated by the reversal matrix, so the same linear transformation converts the boundary-control operators of the dynamical system into Hankel moment matrices. The pencil replaces the earlier spectral problem $B^N f = \lambda C^N f$ for the connecting and spectral operators; its eigenpairs give the Dirichlet spectral data of the Jacobi matrix directly from moments. The identification of the polynomial space with the moment inner product as a de Branges space $B^N_J$ is what ties the moment problem to the boundary-control inverse problem and provides the reproducing kernel and Christoffel symbols.
What would settle it
Solve $S^N_1 g = \lambda S^N_0 g$ numerically for a measure whose moment sequence and Jacobi coefficients are known, and compare the resulting eigenvalues with the zeros of the polynomial $\phi_{N+1}(\lambda)$ generated by that Jacobi matrix; a mismatch for some $N$ would refute the claimed equivalence.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that solving a truncated moment problem of order $N$ is equivalent to solving the generalized spectral problem $S^N_1 g_k = \lambda_k S^N_0 g_k$, where $S^N_0$ and $S^N_1$ are Hankel matrices formed from the moments $s_0,\dots,s_{2N-1}$. The eigenvectors $g_k$ are related to the boundary controls $f_k$ by $g_k = (\tilde\Lambda_N)^* f_k$; the controls drive the discrete dynamical system into the eigenfunctions of the $N\times N$ Jacobi matrix, and the eigenvalues $\lambda_k$ are the Dirichlet eigenvalues of that matrix. From these eigenpairs the norming constants $\rho_k$ are obtained through the connecting operator, and the measure $d\rho_N$ is assembled as the spectral sum in (2.3). The same machinery factorizes the connecting operator and the spectral operator as $C^N = \tilde\Lambda_N S^N_0 \tilde\Lambda_N^*$ and $B^N = \tilde\Lambda_N S^N_1 \tilde\Lambda_N^*$, and identifies the polynomial space with the moment inner product as a de Branges space.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that a finite list of moments up to order $2N-2$ determines the $N\times N$ Jacobi matrix (equivalently, the response vector of the dynamical system), a recovery result the paper borrows from earlier work rather than proving here.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Truncated moment problems can be solved as a single generalized eigenvalue computation on moment Hankel matrices, without a separate reconstruction of the Jacobi coefficients.
- The finite spectral data of the truncated Jacobi matrix—eigenvalues and norming constants—are exactly the eigenpairs of the Hankel pencil, so any generalized eigenvalue solver yields the approximate measure.
- The de Branges-space identification expresses reproducing kernels and Christoffel symbols in terms of moments, connecting orthogonal-polynomial quantities to boundary-control data.
- The determinacy criteria for the Hamburger and Stieltjes problems are rewritten as limits of ratios of Hankel determinants, checkable directly from the moment sequence.
- The interlacing construction shows that the Stieltjes problem and the associated Hamburger problem are determinate together, with eigenvalues paired as $\pm\sqrt{\mu}$ between the two pencils.
Reading between the lines
- The explicit Hankel structure suggests that truncated moment problems could be tackled with structured generalized eigenvalue algorithms that exploit Toeplitz/Hankel low-rank structure, a practical direction the paper does not develop.
- The $\pm\sqrt{\mu}$ correspondence between the Stieltjes and Hamburger pencils hints at a broader duality: determinacy of an even Hamburger measure with vanishing odd moments may be equivalent to determinacy of its compressed Stieltjes moment sequence beyond the specific interlacing used in Proposition 9.
- The determinant formula for the reproducing kernel in Remark 7 could be used to compute orthogonal-polynomial recurrence coefficients numerically from moment matrices alone, rather than from the Jacobi matrix.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript studies classical moment problems (Hamburger, Stieltjes, Hausdorff) via the boundary control method for discrete-time dynamical systems associated with Jacobi matrices. The authors introduce de Branges spaces of polynomials, express the reproducing kernel and Christoffel functions through the connecting operator, and reduce the truncated moment problem to the generalized spectral problem S^N_1 g = λ S^N_0 g for Hankel matrices of moments. They then propose a procedure to recover the spectral measure of the finite Jacobi matrix from the eigenvectors of this pencil, and use the spectral formulation to re-derive conditions for determinacy and indeterminacy of the full moment problems, including a new proof of the simultaneous determinacy of Hamburger and Stieltjes problems.
Significance. If the recovery procedure is corrected, the reduction of the truncated moment problem to a single Hankel pencil eigenvalue problem is a clean and potentially useful computational formulation. The paper also gives a dynamic-system interpretation of de Branges spaces and reproduces classical determinacy criteria as ratios of determinants of Hankel matrices, connecting them to the boundary control method. The main mathematical chain is consistent with the classical theory of Jacobi matrices and orthogonal polynomials. However, the norming-constant step in the recovery procedure contains an algebraic error that must be fixed before the central claim of the paper is valid. The paper relies substantially on prior work by the same authors, but that reliance is acknowledged; the main new idea is the direct reduction to Hankel pencils.
major comments (3)
- [Section 3, procedure after Theorem 4] Steps 1-3 of the norming procedure are inconsistent with the definitions in Section 2. Since (C^N f,g)_{F^N} = (W^N f, W^N g)_{H^N} by (2.12)-(2.13), the normalization (C^N f_k, f_k)=1 gives ||W^N f_k||^2=1. Step 2 states W^N f_k = α_k φ_k, where by Definition 2 we have (φ_k,φ_k)=ρ_k. Hence 1 = α_k^2 ρ_k, so ρ_k = α_k^{-2}, not α_k^2 as written in Step 3. Because the spectral function (2.3) has jumps 1/ρ_k, the paper's formula assigns masses α_k^{-2} instead of α_k^2. For the free Jacobi matrix A_2 with a_1=1, b_1=b_2=0, the moments are s_0=1, s_1=0, s_2=1, and the pencil (3.10) gives α_k^2=1/2 for both eigenvalues; the paper's rule yields ρ_k=1/2 and hence the measure 2δ_1+2δ_{-1}, whose moments are s_0=4, s_2=4, not the prescribed (1,0,1). The correct constant ρ_k=2 gives the desired measure (1/2)δ_1+(1/2)δ_{-1}. The formula in Step 3 must be changed to ρ_k = α_k^{-2}.
- [Section 3, Theorem 4] Theorem 4 is a load-bearing assertion: it states that the dynamic matrices C^N and B^N are congruent via \tilde Λ^N to the Hankel matrices S^N_0 and S^N_1, and this is precisely what converts the dynamic pencil (3.9) into the Hankel pencil (3.10). No proof or derivation is given in the manuscript. This step is essential to the central claim of the paper and should be proved in the text; it is likely an elementary computation from (2.7), (2.8), and (3.1)-(3.3), but the authors need to show it rather than leave it as an unproved statement.
- [Section 3, Step 2 and Remark 4] The identification W^N f_k = α_k φ_k for the eigenvectors obtained from (3.9) is asserted without justification, and the constant α_k is defined only through the undefined symbol (R f_k)_N. This identification is what links the algebraic spectral problem to the spectral data of the Jacobi matrix A_N. The authors should either prove this fact directly or state precisely which result from [11,13] guarantees it, and give the definition of R appearing in α_k = (R f_k)_N.
minor comments (6)
- [Section 3, Step 2] The symbol R in α_k = (R f_k)_N is not defined; only R^T and R^T_N are introduced in Section 2. Please define R explicitly or replace this expression with a concrete formula.
- [Section 4, Proposition 7 and its proof] The matrices H^{2T-1}_2 and H^{2T}_0 are used without definition. The tilded matrices \tilde H^{2T}_0 and \tilde H^{2T}_1 are defined in (4.11), but the plain H and the subscript 2 are never introduced; please state the definitions explicitly.
- [Section 4, Proposition 8 and proof of Proposition 9] The matrix S^{T+1}_{0,0} appears without definition. If it is the (T+1)-dimensional analogue of S^T_{0,0} defined after (4.9), please say so and give its explicit form.
- [Section 2, equations (1.2), (2.12)-(2.13)] The bilinear form (1.2) and the scalar products (2.12)-(2.13) are written without complex conjugation. For complex polynomials this is not a positive-definite scalar product; please specify that the polynomials are real, or insert complex conjugates in the appropriate places.
- [Throughout] There are numerous typos and slips, including 'Jacoi' in Section 3, 'Stiltjes' in Section 4, 'stetement' before Proposition 9, 'thethe' in the text, and 'week' for 'weak' in the Conclusion. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
- [Section 3, Theorems 3 and 5] Theorems 3 and 5 are quoted from [14], which is an arXiv preprint. Please clarify whether [14] has been published in its current form and, if so, update the reference to the published version.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the Hankel-pencil reduction is explicit algebra, and the self-citations are to parameter-free prior theorems rather than to fitted inputs.
full rationale
The derivation chain is not circular. The input is the finite moment sequence and the output is a measure; the central Section 3 reduction is a concrete algebraic equivalence: Theorem 4 states C_N = eLambda_N S_0^N (eLambda_N)^* and B_N = eLambda_N S_1^N (eLambda_N)^*, which transforms the BCM pencil B_N f = lambda C_N f into the Hankel pencil S_1^N g = lambda S_0^N g. This is a genuine reduction, not a renaming or a fit. The spectral data obtained from the pencil are then used to build a quadrature measure via (2.3); the consistency of that measure with the prescribed moments is a theorem about Gaussian quadrature, not an identity imposed by definition. The self-citations — Remark 4 and Theorems 3, 5, 6, and 7 from [11], [13], and [14] — supply general Jacobi-matrix, response-representation, and classical determinacy facts that are parameter-free and do not themselves assume the target moment problem; they are cited without proof here, which is a dependency/omitted-proof concern but not a circular one. Remark 4's recovery of A_N from moments is used only as an alternative route, not in the direct Hankel-pencil procedure. The apparent algebraic slip in Section 3, Step 3 (rho_k = alpha_k^2 rather than the value forced by the normalization (C_N f_k, f_k) = 1, namely rho_k = alpha_k^{-2}) is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction; a wrong formula is not an input relabeled as a prediction. No step defines its output in terms of the very quantity it claims to recover.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- a_0 =
1
assumptions (4)
- standard math The Jacobi operator A has a self-adjoint extension with spectral measure d\rho used in the Fourier transform (2.10)
- domain assumption In the limit circle case, any self-adjoint extension may be chosen for A
- domain assumption The response vector determines the N x N Jacobi matrix A_N (Remark 4)
- standard math The matrices S^N_0 are positive definite for admissible moment sequences (Theorem 5)
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of On an application of the Boundary control method to classical moment problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTIRAS6P
@misc{pith2026250507570,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: On an application of the Boundary control method to classical moment problems},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTIRAS6P}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07570}
}
read the original abstract
We establish relationships between the classical moments problems which are problems of a construction of a measure supported on a real line, on a half-line or on an interval from prescribed set of moments with the Boundary control approach to a dynamic inverse problem for a dynamical system with discrete time associated with Jacobi matrices. We show that the solution of corresponding truncated moment problems is equivalent to solving some generalized spectral problems.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Akhiezer N 1965The classical moment problem and some related questions in analysis(Ed- inburgh: Oliver and Boyd)
-
[2]
Atkinson F 1964Discrete and Continuous Boundary Problems(New York/London: Aca- demic Press)
-
[3]
Avdonin S, Mikhaylov V 2010The boundary control approach to inverse spectral theory Inverse Problems26, 045009
-
[4]
Avdonin S, Mikhaylov A and Mikhaylov V 2015On some applications of the Boundary Con- trol method to spectral estimation and inverse problemsNanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics663–78
-
[5]
Inverse Ill-Posed Probl.9547–65
Belishev M 2001On relations between spectral and dynamical inverse dataJ. Inverse Ill-Posed Probl.9547–65
-
[6]
Belishev M 2007Recent progress in the boundary control methodInverse Problems23R1–R67
-
[7]
Belishev M 2017Boundary control and tomography of Riemannian manifolds (the BC- method)Russian Mathematical Surveys72581–644
-
[8]
Belishev M, Mikhaylov V 2012Unified approach to classical equations of inverse problem theoryJournal of Inverse and Ill-Posed Problems20461–88
Show all 18 references
-
[9]
Petersburg Mathematical Journal.29227–48
Belishev M, Simonov S 2018Wave model of the Sturm-Liouville operator on the half-lineSt. Petersburg Mathematical Journal.29227–48
-
[10]
Belishev M, Simonov S 2019A Wave Model of Metric SpacesFunctional Analysis and its Applications5379–85
-
[11]
2016Dynamical inverse problem for the discrete Schr¨ odinger operatorNanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics7842–54
Mikhaylov A, Mikhaylov V. 2016Dynamical inverse problem for the discrete Schr¨ odinger operatorNanosystems: Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics7842–54
-
[12]
Schr¨ odinger operator, Dirac system, discrete Schr¨ odinger operatorJournal of Mathemati- cal Analysis and Applications460927–53
Mikhaylov A, Mikhaylov V 2018Boundary Control method and de Branges spaces. Schr¨ odinger operator, Dirac system, discrete Schr¨ odinger operatorJournal of Mathemati- cal Analysis and Applications460927–53
-
[13]
Mikhaylov A, Mikhaylov V 2019Dynamic inverse problem for Jacobi matricesInverse Prob- lems and Imaging13431–47
-
[14]
Mikhaylov A, Mikhaylov V 2019 Dynamic inverse problem for special system associated with Jacobi matrices and classical moment problemsPrprinthttps://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11153
2019 arXiv
-
[15]
Mikhaylov A, Mikhaylov V and Simonov S. 2018On the relationship between Weyl functions of Jacobi matrices and response vectors for special dynamical systems with discrete time Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences416401–08
-
[16]
Romanov R 2014 Canonical systems and de Branges spacesPreprint http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.6022
2014 arXiv
-
[17]
Schm¨ udgen K 2017The moment problem(Cham:Springer international publishing)
-
[18]
1998The classical moment problem as a self-adjoint finite difference operator Advances in Math.13782–203 1St
Simon B. 1998The classical moment problem as a self-adjoint finite difference operator Advances in Math.13782–203 1St. Petersburg Department of V.A. Steklov Institute of Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 7, Fontanka, 191023 St. Petersburg, Russia 2Saint Petersbur...
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.