Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Self-improvement of fractional Hardy inequalities in metric measure spaces via hyperbolic fillings

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that fractional Hardy inequalities self-improve in both parameters at once, in every complete doubling metric measure space, with a proof that routes through hyperbolic fillings and weighted local Hardy inequalities.

desk verdict Strong paper: proves the natural two-parameter self-improvement for fractional Hardy inequalities in doubling metric measure spaces via a genuinely new hyperbolic-filling equivalence; the trace-theory worry in the stress test is a misreading, and the remaining issues are typo-level. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02848 v1 pith:MRESPPKI submitted 2024-12-03 math.AP math.CAmath.MG

Sylvester Eriksson-Bique , Josh Kline This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.CAmath.MG MSC 35R1126D1028A7530L1531C1531E0535A2346E35
keywords fractionalHardyinequalityself-improvementmetricmeasurespacehyperbolicfillingBesovNewton-Sobolevweightedregularizableweights
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

This paper proves that fractional Hardy inequalities self-improve in both parameters at once. Specifically, if $Z$ is a complete doubling metric measure space and $E$ is closed with bounded complement $Z\setminus E$, and $Z\setminus E$ satisfies a $(\theta_0,p_0)$-Hardy inequality, then it satisfies a $(\theta,p)$-Hardy inequality for every $(\theta,p)$ in a neighborhood of $(\theta_0,p_0)$. The improvement radius depends only on the structural constants, and no geodesicity or reverse-doubling assumption is needed. The proof works by an extension-problem argument: the fractional inequality on $Z$ is equivalent, through the hyperbolic filling of $Z$, to a classical $p$-Hardy inequality in a geodesic filling space with a weighted measure. This bridge, together with a new weighted self-improvement theorem for $p$-Hardy inequalities, yields the two-parameter result and new examples such as the punctured ball. The authors note the results are for the integral case $p=q$, leaving the pointwise $(\theta,p,q)$-Hardy setting outside the scope.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the uniformized hyperbolic filling $(X_\varepsilon, d_\varepsilon, \mu_\beta)$ of a compact doubling space $Z$, a geodesic metric graph whose boundary is bi-Lipschitz equivalent to $Z$. A trace theorem identifies the Besov space $B^{\theta}_{p,p}(Z,\nu)$ (a fractional Sobolev-type space) with the traces of the Newton-Sobolev space $N^{1,p}(X_\varepsilon,\mu_\beta)$ (a Sobolev space defined via upper gradients), with comparable energies, precisely when $\beta/\varepsilon = p(1-\theta)$; this identity is the bridge that turns the nonlocal Hardy inequality into a local one. The second mechanism is the weighted self-improvement theorem: a domain satisfying a $p$-Hardy inequality with respect to $\mu$ also satisfies it with respect to any $p$-admissible weight that is $\delta$-regularizable at Whitney scales for sufficiently small $\delta$. The weights needed to change $\beta$ are of the form $d_\varepsilon(\cdot,Z)^{\sigma}$, and they are shown to be $\delta$-regularizable because $Z$ is porous in the filling. The parameter relation then transfers the improved $p$ and $\beta$ back to improved $\theta$ and $p$ on $Z$.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier is a counterexample: a complete doubling space $Z$, a closed $E$ with $Z\setminus E$ bounded, and a parameter point $(\theta_0,p_0)$ at which the fractional Hardy inequality holds, together with a sequence $(\theta_k,p_k)$ converging to $(\theta_0,p_0)$ at which it fails. The theorem asserts no such sequence exists. A concrete place to look is a Euclidean domain with a tangential cusp or a porous boundary, where the validity set of fractional Hardy inequalities is known or suspected to have a non-open boundary; if any such domain shows a failure sequence, Theorem 1.3 is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the equivalence stated in Theorem 1.4: for a compact doubling space $Z$ with $\mathrm{diam}(Z)<1$, a closed set $E$, and parameters satisfying $\beta/\varepsilon = p(1-\theta)$, the complement $Z\setminus E$ satisfies the $(\theta,p)$-fractional Hardy inequality if and only if the complement $X_\varepsilon\setminus E$ satisfies the classical $p$-Hardy inequality in the uniformized hyperbolic filling $X_\varepsilon$ with respect to the measure $\mu_\beta$. The trace and extension operators between the Newton-Sobolev space $N^{1,p}(X_\varepsilon,\mu_\beta)$ and the Besov space $B^{\theta}_{p,p}(Z,\nu)$ provide the norm comparisons that make the equivalence two-sided. From this, the authors obtain Theorem 1.3 by combining two self-improvement mechanisms in the filling: the classical open-endedness of $p$-Hardy inequalities, and a new weighted self-improvement result (Theorem 1.7) for $p$-admissible, $\delta$-regularizable weights. Since changing $\theta$ while keeping $p$ fixed corresponds to perturbing the parameter $\beta$, the weighted result is exactly what is needed to turn the one-parameter curve into a full two-parameter neighborhood.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the trace/extension theorem for hyperbolic fillings: a two-sided energy comparability between the Besov space on $Z$ and the Newton-Sobolev space on the filling, at the exact parameter relation $\beta/\varepsilon = p(1-\theta)$. If that comparability fails for some parameter range, the equivalence between fractional and local Hardy inequalities breaks and the main theorem has no bridge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In every complete doubling metric measure space, a bounded domain satisfying a fractional Hardy inequality at one parameter point automatically satisfies it on a whole open neighborhood of that point in the $(\theta,p)$-plane.
  • The equivalence with local Hardy inequalities in the hyperbolic filling is a transfer principle: results for classical $p$-Hardy inequalities immediately yield fractional Hardy inequalities; the paper demonstrates this by deriving a sufficient condition in terms of Assouad codimensions and showing the punctured unit ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfies $(\theta,p)$-Hardy exactly when $\theta p < n$.
  • The new weighted self-improvement theorem stands on its own: $p$-Hardy inequalities are stable under replacing the measure by a $p$-admissible, $\delta$-regularizable weight, which generalizes the previously known stability for distance weights to a broader class including powers of distance to porous sets.
  • The results are new even in Euclidean, sub-Riemannian, and manifold settings, where no geodesicity or reverse-doubling restriction was previously required for two-parameter self-improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same filling equivalence could transfer other local results to nonlocal ones, for instance fractional Poincar\'e or Sobolev inequalities, whenever the trace relation $\beta/\varepsilon = p(1-\theta)$ is available.
  • The paper explicitly limits itself to the integral case $p=q$; extending the filling machinery to Triebel-Lizorkin energies with $p \neq q$ is a natural next step that would likely require a multi-parameter weighted self-improvement.
  • The $\delta$-regularizability condition is local and checkable; because distance-to-porous-set weights satisfy it, the proof gives a concrete recipe for building new weighted Hardy inequalities in the filling and hence new fractional Hardy inequalities on the boundary, beyond the examples in Section 7.
  • On the punctured ball, the theorem predicts the best constant $C_{\theta,p}$ stays finite on a full neighborhood of any point with $\theta p < n$; numerically tracking this constant as $\theta p$ approaches $n$ could probe the sharp quantitative dependence of the improvement radius $\varepsilon_0$ on the structural constants.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a simultaneous self-improvement result for fractional Hardy inequalities in complete doubling metric measure spaces: if a bounded open set Z\E satisfies a (θ0,p0)-Hardy inequality, then it satisfies (θ,p)-Hardy inequalities for all (θ,p) in a neighborhood of (θ0,p0). The proof is built on a Caffarelli-Silvestre-type equivalence (Theorem 1.4) between the fractional Hardy inequality on Z\E and a classical p-Hardy inequality on a uniformized hyperbolic filling X_ε\E with measure μ_β, where β/ε = p(1−θ). This equivalence is obtained from trace/extension theory of Björn-Björn-Shanmugalingam. To move θ independently of p, the authors develop a new weighted self-improvement theory for p-Hardy inequalities with δ-regularizable weights (Theorem 1.7) and combine it with the Koskela-Zhong self-improvement in p. A localization argument reduces the general complete case to the compact case. Applications include a sufficient condition in terms of Assouad codimensions and the example of the punctured unit ball.

Significance. The result is significant: it removes geodesicity and reverse-doubling assumptions that were present in the recent work [36], and it gives self-improvement in both the differentiability parameter θ and the integrability p simultaneously, with a radius depending only on structural constants. The hyperbolic-filling equivalence is a conceptual contribution with likely further applications, and the weighted self-improvement theorem for regularizable weights is a new tool of independent interest. The paper is written in a careful, theorem-proof style; all arguments are derivations from stated assumptions, with explicit constant dependencies and no fitted or empirical input. The main weaknesses are a small number of local proof gaps and notational ambiguities that I believe are repairable without altering the central claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5, Proposition 5.15, Eq. (5.17)] Proposition 5.15, Eq. (5.17): The step 'by the boundedness of the extension operator' relies on the estimate ∫ g_{Eu}^p dμ_β ≲ ∫∫ |u(z)-u(w)|^p / (d(z,w)^{θp} ν(B(z,d(z,w)))) dν(w)dν(z), i.e. an energy-only extension bound. With the notation fixed in (2.2), Theorem 4.2 states exactly this bound, but the accompanying phrase 'bounded extension operators' suggests a full Besov-norm bound. Since the equivalence Theorem 1.4 and hence Theorem 1.3 pass through this estimate, please clarify the norm convention and confirm that [5, Theorem 1.1] indeed provides the energy-only bound, or add a direct proof for this case.
  2. [Section 6.1, Proposition 6.3(i)] In Proposition 6.3(i), the absorption of the exterior term into (1/2)∫ |u|^p/d(z,E)^{θp} dν requires a bound on sup_{z∈supp u} d(z,E)^{θp} relative to R; the condition 'R > (2 C_{θ,p} C_1 (1+C_ν))^{1/(θp)}' alone does not ensure this. The argument should either choose R large relative to the diameter of Z\E and the distance from the reference point to E, or first rescale so that d(z,E) is uniformly controlled. Without this, the localization to a compact doubling subset is not fully justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6.2, Eq. (6.5)] Equation (6.5): the displayed δ_p is p/C0 (2C1)^{-1/p}, but the absorption in the proof of Theorem 1.7 requires p/(2C0)(2C1)^{-1/p}. Please correct the factor of 2.
  2. [Theorem 1.7 statement] The concluding constant in Theorem 1.7 should depend on Cp (the Hardy constant in the assumption), not only on p, Cμ, and the p-admissibility constants of w; the proof in Section 3 exhibits this dependence, so the statement should be amended.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2.2)] Using the notation ||u||^p_{B^θ_{p,p}(X,μ)} for the energy seminorm conflicts with the standard norm meaning of the symbol; consider denoting the energy by [u]^p_{B^θ} or E_p(u) to avoid ambiguity, especially in Theorem 4.2.
  4. [Proposition 5.15 statement] Proposition 5.15 states 1 ≤ p < ∞, whereas the Hardy inequality in Definition 2.7 is stated for 1 < p < ∞; please align the ranges.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main derivations rest on stated assumptions and independent external theorems, with only minor background self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The paper's new weighted self-improvement theorem (Theorem 1.7) is proved from scratch using Whitney decompositions, Poincaré inequalities, maximal-function bounds, and the new notion of δ-regularizable weights; it does not presuppose the fractional Hardy inequality being proved. The central equivalence Theorem 1.4 is proved in Propositions 5.6 and 5.15 using the externally cited trace/extension theorem [5, Theorem 1.1], quoted as Theorem 4.2, together with the parameter relation β/ε = p(1−θ); the cited theorem is by different authors and does not assume any Hardy inequality. The final self-improvement Theorem 1.3 then combines this equivalence with the independently cited Koskela–Zhong self-improvement theorem [44], the new Theorem 1.7, and porosity estimates for the boundary Z inside the filling. There are no fitted parameters, no quantity is defined in terms of the target inequality, and no empirical input is renamed as a prediction. The first author's self-citations [21], [22], and [23] appear only as background context for Caffarelli–Silvestre extensions and pointwise Hardy inequalities; they are not used to prove the main results. The skeptic's concern about Proposition 5.15 using only the Besov energy seminorm while Theorem 4.2 states full-norm extension bounds is a potential correctness gap in applying an external theorem, not a circular reduction, because the external theorem does not itself encode the fractional Hardy inequality being derived. Accordingly, the paper merits a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof uses no empirical or fitted input. It rests on standard structural assumptions (doubling, Poincare) and on external theorems: the Bjorn-Bjorn-Shanmugalingam trace/extension theory for hyperbolic fillings, Koskela-Zhong p-Hardy self-improvement, Keith-Zhong Poincare self-improvement, and a porosity measure-decay estimate. The only hand-chosen constants, such as alpha = e^{1/4}, are proof devices that disappear from the final theorem's dependence statement.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The trace and extension theorem of Bjorn-Bjorn-Shanmugalingam [5, Thm 1.1] (Thm 4.2): for beta/epsilon = p(1 - theta), N^{1,p}(X_epsilon, mu_beta) traces boundedly onto B^theta_{p,p}(Z,nu) with comparable energies.
    Unproved deep external result on which the equivalence Theorem 1.4 is built; cited from published work [5].
  • standard math Koskela-Zhong self-improvement (Thm 2.5): a p-Hardy inequality in a doubling metric measure space with (1,p)-Poincare implies q-Hardy inequalities for q near p.
    Used in Section 6 to improve the exponent p in the filling after passing through Theorem 1.4.
  • standard math Keith-Zhong Poincare self-improvement: in a doubling metric measure space, a (1,p)-Poincare inequality implies a (1,q)-Poincare inequality for some q < p.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.7 and in Section 5 to obtain higher integrability for Poincare estimates.
  • standard math Measure-decay estimate for porous sets [8, Thm 2.8] (Lemma 3.15): nu({y in B(x,r) : d(y,E) < rho}) <= C (rho/r)^kappa nu(B(x,r)).
    Used in Proposition 3.16 to show powers of distance to porous sets are delta-regularizable.
  • domain assumption Structural assumptions of Theorem 1.3: (Z,d,nu) complete doubling and Z\E bounded.
    The ambient setting for the main theorem; boundedness of the domain is needed for the localization argument in Proposition 6.3.
  • standard math The uniformized hyperbolic filling (X_epsilon, d_epsilon, mu_beta) is geodesic, doubling, and supports a (1,1)-Poincare inequality (Thm 4.2, from [5]).
    Ensures the filling is a valid setting for p-Hardy self-improvement and for the weighted Theorem 1.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-improvement of fractional Hardy inequalities in metric measure spaces via hyperbolic fillings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRESPPKI

@misc{pith2026241202848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-improvement of fractional Hardy inequalities in metric measure spaces via hyperbolic fillings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRESPPKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02848}
}
abstract

In this paper, we prove a self-improvement result for $(\theta,p)$-fractional Hardy inequalities, in both the exponent $1<p<\infty$ and the regularity parameter $0<\theta<1$, for bounded domains in doubling metric measure spaces. The key conceptual tool is a Caffarelli-Silvestre-type argument, which relates fractional Sobolev spaces on $Z$ to Newton-Sobolev spaces in the hyperbolic filling $\overline{X}_{\varepsilon}$ of $Z$ via trace results. Using this insight, it is shown that a fractional Hardy inequality in an open subset of $Z$ is equivalent to a classical Hardy inequality in the filling $\overline{X}_{\varepsilon}$. The main result is then obtained by applying a new weighted self-improvement result for $p$-Hardy inequalities. The exponent $p$ can be self-improved by a classical Koskela-Zhong argument, but a new theory of regularizable weights is developed to obtain the self-improvement in the regularity parameter $\theta$. This generalizes a result of Lehrb\"ack and Koskela on self-improvement of $d_\Omega^\beta$-weighted $p$-Hardy inequalities by allowing a much broader class of weights. Using the equivalence of fractional Hardy inequalities with Hardy inequalities in the fillings, we also give new examples of domains satisfying fractional Hardy inequalities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. For each point (θ, p) lying on the above curve in the (θ, p)-plane, Z \ E satisfies a (θ, p)-Hardy inequality. For such σ, we have that β0 + εσ ε = p(1 − (θp − σ/p)). Note that our choice of σp < min{θ0p0/2, p0(1 − θ0)} ensures that 0 < θp − σ/p < 1 for all such σ. From Theorem 1.4, it then follows that Z \ E satisfies a (θp − σ/p, p)-Hardy inequality for all σ ∈ R with |σ| < σp. We note from Proposition 3.16 and (6… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. For each point (θ, p) lying in the shaded region of the (θ, p)-plane, Z \ E satisfies a (θ, p)-Hardy inequality. Proposition 7.2 below, in an attempt to illustrate how results for fractional Hardy inequalities can be readily obtained from their p-Hardy inequality counterparts by using Theorem 1.4. We first recall the definitions of the upper and lower Assouad codimensions. Given a metric measure space (X, d, µ), a s… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Medians, Oscillations, and Distance Functions

    math.CA 2025-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A set E is median porous exactly when some power of dist(·,E) lies in A_∞, giving the exact α-range for A_p membership and the first Hardy-Sobolev inequalities beyond porous sets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [36]

    Fractional Hardy inequalities and capacity density

    L. Ihnatsyeva, K. Mohanta and A. V. Vähäkangas.Fractional Hardy inequalities and capacity density.Preprint. (2024) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.05222

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    R. A. Adams.Sobolev spaces.Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 65, Academic Press, New York-London, 1975

    work page 1975

  3. [2]

    H. A. Aimar, M. Carena, R. Durán, M. Toschi.Powers of distances to lower dimensional sets as Muckenhoupt weights. Acta Math. Hungar.143 (2014), no. 1, 119–137

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Powers Of Generators On Dirichlet Spaces And Applications To Harnack Principles

    F. Baudoin, Q. Lang and Y. Sire,Powers Of Generators On Dirichlet Spaces And Applications To Harnack Principles. Preprint, 2020.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.01036

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Björn, J

    A. Björn, J. Björn. Nonlinear potential theory on metric spaces.EMS Tracts in Mathematics, 17. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Björn, J

    A. Björn, J. Björn, N. Shanmugalingam.Extension and trace results for doubling metric measure spaces and their hyperbolic fillings.J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)159 (2022), 196–249

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    J. Björn. Poincaré inequalities for powers and products of admissible weights, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 26 (2001), no. 1, 175–188

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    Björn, S

    J. Björn, S. Buckley, S. Keith.Admissible measures in one dimension,Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 134 (2006) 703–705

    work page 2006

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Björn, N

    J. Björn, N. Shanmugalingam. Poincaré inequalities, uniform domains and extension properties for Newton- Sobolev functions in metric spaces.J. Math. Anal. Appl. 332 (2007) 190–208

    2007

  2. [9]

    M. Bonk, B. Kleiner.Quasisymmetric parametrizations of two-dimensional metric spheres.Invent. Math. 150 (2002) 127–183

    2002

  3. [10]

    Bonk and E

    M. Bonk and E. Saksman.Sobolev spaces and hyperbolic fillings, J. Reine Angew. Math.737 (2018), 161–187

    2018

  4. [11]

    Bourdon, H

    M. Bourdon, H. Pajot.Cohomologie ℓp et espaces de Besov.J. Reine Angew. Math. 558 (2003) 85–108

    2003

  5. [12]

    H. R. Brezis and M. M. Marcus,Hardy’s inequalities revisited.Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4)25 (1997), no. 1-2, 217–237 (1998)

    1997

  6. [13]

    L. Á. Caffarelli and L. E. Silvestre,An extension problem related to the fractional Laplacian.Comm. Partial Differential Equations 32 (2007), no. 7-9, 1245–1260

    2007

  7. [14]

    Canto and A

    J. Canto and A. V. Vähäkangas,The Hajłasz capacity density condition is self-improving, J. Geom. Anal. 32 (2022), no. 11, Paper No. 276, 42 pp

    2022

  8. [15]

    Cheeger.Differentiability of Lipschitz functions on metric measure spaces.Geometric & Functional Analysis 9 (1999): 428-517

    J. Cheeger.Differentiability of Lipschitz functions on metric measure spaces.Geometric & Functional Analysis 9 (1999): 428-517

    1999

  9. [16]

    E. B. Davies, A review of Hardy inequalities, inThe Mazýa anniversary collection, Vol. 2 (Rostock, 1998), 55–67, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 110, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1999

    1998

  10. [17]

    Di Nezza, G

    E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci and E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), no. 5, 521–573

    2012

  11. [18]

    B. S. Dyda.A fractional order Hardy inequality.Illinois J. Math.48 (2004), no. 2, 575–588

    2004

  12. [19]

    B. S. Dyda, J. Lehrbäck and A. V. Vähäkangas.Fractional Poincaré and localized Hardy inequalities on metric spaces.Adv. Calc. Var.16 (2023), no. 4, 867–884. 42 SYL VESTER ERIKSSON-BIQUE AND JOSH KLINE

    2023

  13. [20]

    B. S. Dyda, L. Ihnatsyeva, J. Lehrbäck, H. Tuominen and A. Vähäkangas.Muckenhoupt Ap-properties of distance functions and applications to Hardy-Sobolev–type inequalities.Potential Anal. 50 (2019), no. 1, 83–105

    2019

  14. [21]

    Eriksson-Bique, G

    S. Eriksson-Bique, G. Giovannardi, R. Korte, N. Shanmugalingam and G. Speight,Regularity of solutions to the fractional Cheeger-Laplacian on domains in metric spaces of bounded geometry.J. Differential Equations 306 (2022), 590–632

    2022

  15. [22]

    Eriksson-Bique, S

    S. Eriksson-Bique, S. and A. V. Vähäkangas,Self-improvement of pointwise Hardy inequality. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 372(3), 2235–2250 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Eriksson-Bique, J

    S. Eriksson-Bique, J. Lehrbäck and A.V. Vähäkangas,Self-improvement of weighted pointwise inequalities on open sets.J. Funct. Anal. 279(7), 108691 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    G. H. Hardy.Note on a theorem of Hilbert.Mathematische Zeitschrift 6.3 (1920): 314-317

    1920

  18. [25]

    Gagliardo

    E. Gagliardo. Caratterizzazioni delle tracce sulla frontiera relative ad alcune classi di funzioni in n variabili. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova 27 (1957) 284–305

    1957

  19. [26]

    Gogatishvili, P

    A. Gogatishvili, P. Koskela, N. Shanmugalingam.Interpolation properties of Besov spaces defined on metric spaces.Math. Nachr. 283 (2010) No. 2, 215–231

    2010

  20. [27]

    Gromov.Hyperbolic groups.Essays in Group theory, S

    M. Gromov.Hyperbolic groups.Essays in Group theory, S. M. Gersten, ed., Springer (1987), 72–263

    1987

  21. [28]

    Hajłasz, Pointwise Hardy inequalities, Proc

    P. Hajłasz, Pointwise Hardy inequalities, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.127 (1999), no. 2, 417–423

    1999

  22. [29]

    Hajłasz, P

    P. Hajłasz, P. Koskela.Sobolev met Poincaré.Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2000)

    2000

  23. [30]

    Heinonen.Lectures on analysis on metric spaces.Universitext, Springer, New York, 2001

    J. Heinonen.Lectures on analysis on metric spaces.Universitext, Springer, New York, 2001

    2001

  24. [31]

    Heinonen, T

    J. Heinonen, T. Kilpeläinen and O. Martio,Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations, Dover, Mineola, NY, 2006

    2006

  25. [32]

    Heinonen, P

    J. Heinonen, P. Koskela, N. Shanmugalingam, J.T. Tyson.Sobolev spaces on metric measure spaces: An approach based on upper gradients.Cambridge New Mathematical Monographs 27, Cambridge University Press, 2015

    2015

  26. [33]

    Hurri-Syrjänen, J

    R. Hurri-Syrjänen, J. C. Martínez-Perales, C. Pérez and A. V. Vähäkangas,On the BBM-phenomenon in frac- tional Poincaré-Sobolev inequalities with weights, IMRN 2023, no. 20, 17205–17244

    2023

  27. [34]

    Ihnatsyeva, J

    L. Ihnatsyeva, J. Lehrbäck and A. V. Vähäkangas.Hardy-Sobolev inequalities and weighted capacities in metric spaces.Math. Scand. 128 (2022), no. 3, 611–633

    2022

  28. [35]

    Ihnatsyeva, J

    L. Ihnatsyeva, J. Lehrbäck, H. Tuominen, A. Vähäkangas.Fractional Hardy inequalities and visibility of the boundary. Stud. Math. 224 (2014) 47-80

    2014

  29. [37]

    Jonsson, H

    A. Jonsson, H. Wallin.Function spaces on subsets ofRn. Math. Rep. 2 (1984), xiv+221

    1984

  30. [38]

    Keith.Modulus and the Poincaré inequality on metric measure spaces.Math

    S. Keith.Modulus and the Poincaré inequality on metric measure spaces.Math. Z. 245 (2003), no. 2, 255–292

    2003

  31. [39]

    Keith, X

    S. Keith, X. Zhong.The Poincaré inequality is an open-ended condition.Ann. of Math. 167 (2008), 575–599

    2008

  32. [40]

    Kilpeläinen, P

    T. Kilpeläinen, P. Koskela, H. Masaoka.Lattice property of p-admissible weights.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (2015) 2427–2437

    2015

  33. [41]

    Kinnunen and O

    J. Kinnunen and O. Martio, Hardy’s inequalities for Sobolev functions, Math. Res. Lett.4 (1997), no. 4, 489–500

    1997

  34. [42]

    Kline and A

    J. Kline and A. V. Vähäkangas.Characterization of the upper Assouad codimension.(to appear) J. Math. Soc. Japan. (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Korte, J

    R. Korte, J. Lehrbäck and H. Tuominen.The equivalence between pointwise Hardy inequalities and uniform fatness. Math. Ann. 351(3), 711–731 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Koskela, X

    P. Koskela, X. Zhong.Hardy’s inequality and the boundary size. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 131(4), 1151–1158 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Kufner and L.-E

    A. Kufner and L.-E. Persson,Weighted inequalities of Hardy type, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2003

    2003

  38. [46]

    Lehrbäck.Hardy inequalities and Assouad dimensions.J

    J. Lehrbäck.Hardy inequalities and Assouad dimensions.J. Anal. Math. 131, 367–398 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Lehrbäck.Self-improving properties of weighted Hardy inequalities.Advances in Calculus of Variations, vol

    J. Lehrbäck.Self-improving properties of weighted Hardy inequalities.Advances in Calculus of Variations, vol. 1, no. 2, 2008, pp. 193-203

    2008

  40. [48]

    Lehrbäck, Juha, K

    J. Lehrbäck, Juha, K. Mohanta and A. V. Vähäkangas.Classifying Triebel-Lizorkin capacities in metric spaces. Preprint. (2024) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.12513

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. L. Lewis, Uniformly fat sets, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 308 (1988), no. 1, 177–196

    1988

  42. [50]

    L. Malý. Trace and extension theorems for Sobolev-type functions in metric spaces.Preprint. (2017) https: //arxiv.org/abs/1704.06344

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    SELF-IMPROVEMENT OF FRACTIONAL HARDY INEQUALITIES 43

    Muckenhoupt, Benjamin.Hardy’s inequality with weights.Studia Mathematica 44.1 (1972): 31-38. SELF-IMPROVEMENT OF FRACTIONAL HARDY INEQUALITIES 43

    1972

  44. [52]

    Opic and A

    B. Opic and A. Kufner,Hardy-type inequalities, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, 219, Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow, 1990

    1990

  45. [53]

    Rajala,Approximation by uniform domains in doubling quasiconvex metric spaces, Complex Anal

    T. Rajala,Approximation by uniform domains in doubling quasiconvex metric spaces, Complex Anal. Synerg.7 (2021), no. 1, Paper No. 4

    2021

  46. [54]

    Shanmugalingam

    N. Shanmugalingam. Newtonian spaces: an extension of Sobolev spaces to metric measure spaces, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 16 (2000), no. 2, 243–279

    2000

  47. [55]

    E. M. Stein,Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals, Princeton Math- ematical Series Monographs in Harmonic Analysis, 43 III, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993

    1993

  48. [56]

    Wannebo.Hardy inequalities.Proc

    A. Wannebo.Hardy inequalities.Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 109(1), 85–95 (1990) Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä Email address: sylvester.d.eriksson-bique@jyu.fi Department of Mathematical Sciences, P.O. Box 210025, University of ...

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.