Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Layer potentials for elliptic operators with DMO-type coefficients: big pieces $Tb$ theorem, quantitative rectifiability, and free boundary problems

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the gradient of the single layer potential forces uniform rectifiability for elliptic operators with Dini mean oscillation coefficients, and transfers one- and two-phase free boundary theorems from harmonic to…

desk verdict The operator-theoretic core is solid and genuinely new, but the advertised free boundary theorems rest on a key theorem whose proof is deferred, so referee time is warranted with major revision expected. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23478 v1 pith:RS5ZGRXM submitted 2025-05-29 math.AP math.CA

Andrea Merlo , Mihalis Mourgoglou , Carmelo Puliatti This is my paper
classification math.APmath.CA MSC 42B3742B2035J1528A7533C55
keywords ellipticmeasuresinglelayerpotentialDinimeanoscillationquantitativerectifiabilityuniformRiesztransformTbtheoremfreeboundaryproblems
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 asks whether the modern harmonic-analysis route to free boundary problems — rectifiability detected through a singular integral operator — survives when the Laplacian is replaced by a uniformly elliptic operator $-\operatorname{div}(A\nabla)$ whose coefficient matrix $A$ has only Dini mean oscillation (DMO), a class that strictly contains Hölder continuous matrices. Its central claim is a quantitative criterion (Theorem 1.1): on a ball $B$ where the measure lies close to an $n$-plane, where $T_\mu 1$ is nearly constant in $L^2$, and where a scale-invariant decay condition (Poisson-type doubling) holds, a definite positive fraction of $\mu$ must sit on a uniformly $n$-rectifiable set $\Gamma$. A companion big-pieces $Tb$ theorem (Theorem 1.2) produces large subsets on which the suppressed single-layer gradient is $L^2$-bounded. From these two tools the authors derive both qualitative and quantitative one-phase and two-phase free boundary theorems for elliptic measure in Wiener regular domains, extending results previously known for harmonic measure and for Hölder-coefficient elliptic operators. If the paper is right, the object that decides uniform rectifiability for general elliptic operators is still the gradient of the single layer potential, and its $L^2$ behaviour alone is enough.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the perturbation kernel $K_A(x,y) := \nabla_1\Gamma_A(x,y) - \nabla_1\Theta(x,y;\bar{A}_B)$, which subtracts from the gradient of the DMO fundamental solution the kernel of the constant-coefficient operator with the ball-averaged matrix $\bar{A}_B$; comparing these two kernels is how DMO regularity becomes usable cancellation information. The paper's key novelty inside that comparison is to use $A(x)$, the uniformly continuous representative of the coefficient matrix, in place of truncated scale averages $\bar{A}_{x,\delta}$: since $A(x)$ exists at every point rather than only Lebesgue-almost everywhere, the pointwise estimates for $K_A$ hold for all $x \neq y$, principal values of $T_\mu$ exist, and the Lebesgue differentiation theorem applies on measure-zero supports. The decisive quantitative input is the Hörmander-type estimate (1.21): for a Poisson-doubling ball, $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\setminus 2B} |K_A(x,y) - K_A(x,y_B)|\,d\mu(x) \lesssim \Theta^n_\mu(B)\,(I_{w_A}(r(B)) + L^{1-\gamma}_{w_A}(r(B)))$, a quantity that vanishes as $r(B) \to 0$. That bound feeds the duality estimate of Lemma 6.5, which shows the $L^2$ mean oscillation of $T_\mu$ on $B$ is controlled by $I_{w_A}(r(B))^{1/2}\|R_\mu\|$ plus an infinitesimal error — exactly the input the quantitative Riesz-transform criterion requires. For the $Tb$ pillar, the paper axiomatises 'good' singular integral operators: kernels with DMO Calderón–Zygmund bounds whose suppression is almost antisymmetric, with the antisymmetry defect being an $L^2$-bounded remainder; the suppressed $Tb$ theorem then runs on the classical martingale-difference machine.

What would settle it

The estimate to test is (1.21), the crux of the perturbation argument: take $\mu$ to be $\mathcal{H}^n$ on an $n$-plane with a single heavy spike of additional measure placed inside $B$ so that $P_{\gamma,\mu}(B) \lesssim \Theta^n_\mu(B)$ fails while flatness and near-constancy of $T_\mu 1$ still hold, and compute whether $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\setminus 2B}|K_A(x,y) - K_A(x,y_B)|\,d\mu(x)$ decays like $\Theta^n_\mu(B)\,(I_{w_A}(r(B)) + L^{1-\gamma}_{w_A}(r(B)))$ as $r(B) \to 0$; if the bound fails on such a measure, the proof of Theorem 1.1 cannot run and the criterion would need a different smallness mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1, a quantitative rectifiability criterion in the DMO setting. Let $A$ be a uniformly elliptic matrix with $A \in \widehat{DMO}_{1-\alpha}$ for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$, let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Radon measure on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, $n \geq 2$, and let $B$ be a ball centred at $\operatorname{supp}(\mu)$. The theorem asserts: if $B$ is Poisson-doubling, meaning the weighted density sum $P_{\alpha,\mu}(B) := \sum_{j\geq 0} 2^{-\alpha j}\Theta^n_\mu(2^j B)$ is comparable to $\Theta^n_\mu(B)$; if local densities are bounded, the boundary of $B$ is thin for $\mu$, and $T_\mu$ is $L^2$-bounded on $B$ at the size $\Theta^n_\mu(B)$; and if $\mu$ is $\delta$-flat with respect to an $n$-plane through the centre while $T_\mu 1$ is $\tau$-nearly constant in $L^2(B,\mu)$ — then, for $\delta$, $\tau$, and the radius small enough, there is a uniformly $n$-rectifiable set $\Gamma$ with $\mu(B \cap \Gamma) \gtrsim \mu(B)$. The proof transfers the smallness of the $L^2$ mean oscillation of $T_\mu$ to the same smallness for the Riesz transform $R_\mu$ and then invokes the known quantitative Riesz-transform rectifiability criterion; the bridge is a Hörmander-type estimate for the perturbation kernel $K_A(x,y) = \nabla_1\Gamma_A(x,y) - \nabla_1\Theta(x,y;\bar{A}_B)$ that holds exactly under Poisson doubling. The paper's second pillar, Theorem 1.2, is a big-pieces $Tb$ theorem for suppressed single-layer gradients, and the two tools together yield the one-phase and two-phase free boundary theorems for elliptic measure, Theorems 1.3–1.6.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the scale-invariant Poisson-type doubling condition $P_{\gamma,\mu}(B) \lesssim \Theta^n_\mu(B)$: the measure-weighted sum of densities over all dyadic enlargements of the ball must be comparable to the density on the ball itself, and the Hörmander estimate (1.21), the buffer-zone bounds of Lemmas 6.4 and 6.5, and hence the perturbation argument all depend on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Qualitative one-phase (Theorem 1.3): for $A \in \widehat{DMO}_{n-1}$ and a Wiener regular domain, if elliptic measure on a boundary set $E$ with $0 < \mathcal{H}^n(E) < \infty$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mathcal{H}^n|_E$, then $E$ is $n$-rectifiable.
  • Quantitative one-phase (Theorem 1.4): the scale-invariant comparison (1.26) between elliptic measure and $\mu$ on every doubling ball forces $T_\mu$ to be bounded on $L^2(\mu)$, so $\mu$ is $n$-rectifiable; with a matching lower growth bound it is uniformly $n$-rectifiable.
  • Two-phase (Theorems 1.5 and 1.6): mutual absolute continuity of two elliptic measures on a common boundary portion implies rectifiability of that portion in the qualitative case, and in the quantitative case yields a uniformly $n$-rectifiable set carrying a positive fraction of both elliptic measures.
  • Big pieces (Theorem 1.2): under growth and control of the maximal truncated operator off a small exceptional set, there is a large subset $G$ with $n$-growth on which the single-layer gradient is $L^2$-bounded — the suppressed $Tb$ conclusion in the DMO setting.
  • The Hörmander-type estimate (1.21) is a new scale-invariant regularity statement on its own: the kernel of the DMO operator differs from its frozen constant-coefficient counterpart by a measure-integrable defect that vanishes as the ball shrinks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the perturbation comparison is made at every point via the continuous representative $A(x)$, the same mean-oscillation bridge should transfer further Riesz-transform results — $L^p$ bounds, interpolation, higher-order rectifiability criteria — to DMO-elliptic operators; the paper does not prove these.
  • The qualitative two-phase theorem (Theorem 1.5) is proved under the extra sub-Hölder assumption (1.27)/(1.28), and the text explicitly leaves open whether that condition can be dropped; a reader could test whether the mean-oscillation control (8.16) follows from a purely scale-invariant hypothesis instead of a modulus bound.
  • The 'good SIO' axioms indicate the big-pieces $Tb$ theorem is not specific to single layer potentials: any almost-antisymmetric integral operator with Dini-modulus kernel and $L^2$-bounded antisymmetry defect should satisfy the same conclusion — the double layer potential of the same elliptic operator is the natural first test object.
  • Because estimate (1.21) is written against an arbitrary measure, it can be read as defining a quantitative defect for measures — a DMO-Hörmander functional — and a testable extension is whether this defect alone, without passing through the Riesz transform, controls the $\beta_2$ coefficients and hence uniform rectifiability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops singular-integral and quantitative-rectifiability tools for the gradient of the single layer potential associated with a uniformly elliptic operator whose coefficients have Dini-type mean oscillation (the DMO setting). The main analytic results are: a local quantitative rectifiability criterion (Theorem 1.1), in which L2-boundedness and small L2 mean oscillation of T_mu on a flat, doubling, thin-boundary ball force a large uniformly rectifiable piece of mu; a big-pieces Tb theorem for a class of 'good' singular integral operators (Theorem 1.2), which is then specialized to the gradient of the single layer potential; and applications to qualitative and quantitative one- and two-phase free boundary problems for elliptic measure (Theorems 1.3-1.6). Sections 3-6 contain detailed proofs of the suppressed-operator estimates, the perturbation kernel estimates, the Hormander-type condition (Lemma 6.1), the buffer-zone bounds (Lemma 6.4), and the L2 mean-oscillation transfer (Lemma 6.5), leading to a proof of Theorem 1.1. The free-boundary applications in Sections 7-8 are only sketched or deferred, and in particular the bridge theorem used for the two-phase results, Theorem 6.6, is stated without proof.

Significance. If the analytic core is correct, this is a substantial advance: it replaces Holder-continuous coefficient assumptions in the elliptic Riesz-transform/rectifiability theory with DMO-type coefficients, and it proves a genuinely useful big-pieces Tb theorem for operators whose kernels are only Dini-smooth, not double Dini. The paper is careful about hypotheses: no constants are fitted to conclusions, the P-gamma,mu-doubling condition is explicit and shown to be indispensable, and the perturbation argument leading to Theorem 1.1 is written in detail with the Hormander-type estimate (1.21) as a clearly isolated novelty. The reliance on [MMPT23, (1.14)] is legitimate: that is a separate published theorem, so the central Tb/rectifiability argument is not circular. However, the advertised free-boundary theorems are not demonstrated in the submitted text. Theorem 6.6, which is the exact tool invoked for the two-phase results, is left to the reader, and large parts of Section 8 are sketches or references to prior papers. Thus the significance is real but conditional on substantial omitted proof.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.5, Theorem 6.6] Theorem 6.6 is stated and then its proof is deferred with the sentence 'Theorem 6.6 follows from Theorem 1.1 by adapting the proof of [AMT17, Theorem 3.3] and incorporating the results from Sections 3 and 4, which are essential to the proof. We leave the details to the interested reader.' This is not a routine corollary: Theorem 6.6 replaces the L2-boundedness hypothesis (5) of Theorem 1.1 with a pointwise maximal-truncation estimate on a subset G_B (hypothesis (6)), and it must return a UR set contained in G_B. The perturbation machinery of Lemma 6.5 controls L2 mean oscillations of T_mu 1, not a maximal operator on an exceptional set, so a substantial Cotlar-type and big-pieces argument is needed. Because Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 rely directly on Theorem 6.6, this omitted proof is load-bearing for the paper's main advertised applications.
  2. [Section 8.1-8.2, Theorems 1.3 and 1.4] The one-phase results are only sketched. Lemma 8.1, which is the key reduction for Theorem 1.3, is given as a 'Sketch of the proof' and ends with 'standard regularized kernel estimates'. Theorem 1.4 is said to 'follow almost verbatim' from [MoTo17, Theorem 1.1] with two bullets of modifications and a corona decomposition 'in the spirit of [MoTo17, Section 9]'. No statement of the adapted Main Lemma is provided, and the verification of its hypotheses for elliptic measure is not written. This is not sufficient for a main theorem of the paper, and the argument should either be given fully or presented as a precise reduction with all constants and hypotheses tracked.
  3. [Section 8.3, Theorem 1.6] The proof of the quantitative two-phase theorem is a sketch. Lemma 8.5 is stated without proof, Lemma 8.7 is obtained by repeating arguments from [AMTV19] and [AMT20] with only a short computation of (8.13), and the final application of Theorem 6.6 is one sentence ('we can choose eta and tau small enough so that ...'). The proof also uses the normalization omega_2(B) approximately 1 without stating it; this appears in the proof of Lemma 8.7 and is not among the displayed hypotheses of that lemma. Since Theorem 1.6 is one of the two central free-boundary applications, this degree of deferral leaves the advertised result unsubstantiated.
  4. [Section 8.4, Theorem 1.5] The qualitative two-phase theorem is not proven as written. The zero-density exclusion, which is the core of the theorem, is dispatched in one sentence: 'zero-density points can be ruled out by combining Theorem 6.6 with the same argument as in [AMT17, Section 6]'. Lemma 8.11, which supplies the necessary maximal-truncation and mean-oscillation estimates including (8.16), is only partly proved, with parts (a) and (b) described as variants of lemmas in [AMTV19]. The connection between (8.16), Theorem 6.6, and the conclusion omega_1(G_zd)=0 needs to be written out.
  5. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.2] The proof of the big-pieces Tb theorem is incomplete at a key point: after Lemma 4.8 the text states 'For the remainder of the argument and the derivation of Theorem 4.3 from Lemma 4.8, we refer to [To14, pp.176-192].' Since Theorem 1.2 is a main operator-theoretic result, the suppression-randomization and good-lattice constructions that turn Lemma 4.8 into Theorem 4.3 should at least be summarized, with the modifications due to the non-antisymmetric remainder K_mu made explicit rather than left to the cited book.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.4, Theorem 1.2] In the third bullet before (1.22), the condition '∫_{R^d\H} T^*\nu d\mu ≤ c_*\mu(F), for all x∈R^d' contains an extraneous quantifier 'for all x'; the integral is a constant and no point x appears.
  2. [Section 2.2, Definition 2.3] The domain of a (\theta,d)-kernel is written as R^{n+1}×R^{n+1}\setminus\{(0,0)\}, but the kernel should be defined off the diagonal x=y, not merely away from the single point (0,0).
  3. [Section 6.3, Lemma 6.3] The statement contains a grammatical break: 'let B ⊂ R^{n+1} be a ball centered at supp(µ) of diameter d(B) with Let us define F(B) := ...'. This should be rephrased.
  4. [Section 8.3, after (8.3)] The text says 'by [AMT20, Remark 2.13] and (c), ω_i(B′) ≈ ω_i(B) ≈ 1'. Property (c) only gives ω_i(B′) ≳ ω_i(B); the upper bound and the normalization to 1 should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Section 8.7, Lemma 8.11] The proof of (8.16) uses the notation τ := r_0/(20|x_0-x_1|) and reduces the estimate to (2.38), but the passage from |x_0-x_1|^{-n} to Θ_n^ω(B(x_0,20|x_0-x_1|)) depends on the normalization ω_1(B(x_0,20|x_0-x_1|)) ≈ 1 from (8.17); this dependence should be displayed in the proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; self-citations to [MMPT23] are independent published inputs, and the main gaps are omitted proofs, not circularity.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction reduces by construction to an input. Theorem 1.1 is proved by bounding the L2 mean oscillation of the Riesz transform in terms of the assumed L2 boundedness and near-constancy of T_mu, using Lemma 6.5 and then invoking the external criterion [GT18, Theorem 1.1]; the bridge (1.14) from [MMPT23] is a published, parameter-free equivalence with assumptions that do not include the conclusion of Theorem 1.1. The P_gamma,mu-doubling, thin-boundary, growth, and L2-boundedness hypotheses are genuine assumptions, not conclusions, and no constant is fitted to the target rectifiability set. The big-pieces Tb theorem in Section 4 follows the Nazarov-Treil-Volberg/Tolsa framework with explicit modifications for lack of antisymmetry; it is an adaptation, not a renaming of a known result. The free-boundary applications import prior theorems such as [AM19, Theorem I] and [AMT20], but those results do not contain Theorem 1.1 or 1.2 as hidden assumptions, and the Sections 7-8 arguments are either proved or explicitly reduced to the newly proved operator estimates. The self-citations to [MMPT23] are load-bearing in the sense that (1.14), principal-value existence, and the elliptic David-Semmes corollary are used, but they are external published theorems with their own proofs and stated hypotheses, so per the review rules they count as independent evidence rather than circular support. The clearest weakness is not circularity but omitted proof: the proof of Theorem 6.6 consists of the sentence 'Theorem 6.6 follows from Theorem 1.1 by adapting the proof of [AMT17, Theorem 3.3] and incorporating the results from Sections 3 and 4... We leave the details to the interested reader,' and Section 8 contains several sketched reductions ('follows almost verbatim', 'Sketch of the proof'). These are completeness gaps that should be weighed as correctness risk, not as circular reductions, because the deferred arguments are promised derivations rather than assumed inputs. Overall the central claims are self-contained against external benchmarks, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no uniqueness or ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. Score 1 reflects the presence of same-author prior work in the technical pipeline while affirming that no circular step was exhibited.

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

No numerical parameters are fitted to data; all constants in the theorems are hypotheses or universal constants. The paper introduces the definition of 'good SIOs', but this is a structural class definition, not an invented entity. The axioms are either standard analytic background facts or the explicit domain assumptions of the theorems.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coefficient matrix A belongs to the class ]DMO1-alpha (double Dini mean oscillation at small scales and DMO at large scales), which ensures C1 regularity of solutions and Calderon-Zygmund estimates for the gradient of the fundamental solution.
    This is the central regularity hypothesis assumed in Theorems 1.1 to 1.6.
  • domain assumption The measure mu satisfies upper n-growth conditions and the ball B is P gamma,mu-doubling and has thin boundary, as in conditions (2) to (4) of Theorem 1.1.
    These geometric conditions are used to control the error terms in the perturbation argument, especially in Lemma 6.5 and the Hormander estimate (1.21).
  • standard math The equivalence of L2 boundedness of the gradient of the single layer potential and the Riesz transform from [MMPT23, (1.14)] is used as a black box.
    This published theorem is invoked to pass between T_mu and R_mu bounds.
  • standard math The quantitative rectifiability criterion for the Riesz transform from [GT18, Theorem 1.1] is assumed.
    The proof of Theorem 1.1 reduces the elliptic case to this external result after establishing small L2 mean oscillation.
  • standard math The David-Mattila lattice construction and the Tolsa presentation of the Nazarov-Treil-Volberg T b theorem are assumed.
    These are used in Section 4 and Section 6.2 to prove the big pieces T b theorem.
  • domain assumption Domains are assumed Wiener regular or satisfy the capacity density condition, and the elliptic measure and Green's function theory from [HKM93] is assumed.
    These are the hypotheses of Theorems 1.3 to 1.6 and Proposition 1.7.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Layer potentials for elliptic operators with DMO-type coefficients: big pieces $Tb$ theorem, quantitative rectifiability, and free boundary problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RS5ZGRXM

@misc{pith2026250523478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Layer potentials for elliptic operators with DMO-type coefficients: big pieces $Tb$ theorem, quantitative rectifiability, and free boundary problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RS5ZGRXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23478}
}
abstract

For $n \geq 2$, we consider the operator $L_A = -\mathrm{div }(A(\cdot)\nabla)$, where $A$ is a uniformly elliptic $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ matrix with variable coefficients, a Radon measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, and the associated gradient of the single layer potential operator $T_\mu$. Under a Dini-type assumption on the mean oscillation of the matrix $A$, we establish the following results: 1) A rectifiability criterion for $\mu$ in terms of $T_\mu$. Under quantitative geometric and analytic assumptions within a ball $B$ -- including an upper $n$-growth condition on $\mu$ in $B$, a thin boundary condition, a scale-invariant decay condition expressed via a weighted sum of densities over dyadic dilations of $B$, and $L^2$ boundedness of the gradient of $T_\mu$ -- we show the following: if the support of $\mu$ lies very close to an $n$-plane in $B$, and $T_\mu 1$ is nearly constant on $B$ in the $L^2$ sense, then there exists a uniformly $n$-rectifiable set $\Gamma$ such that $\mu(B \cap \Gamma) \gtrsim \mu(B)$. 2) A $Tb$ theorem for suppressed $T_\mu$, which extends a well-known theorem of Nazarov, Treil, and Volberg, and holds also for a broader class of singular integral operators. These results make it possible to prove both qualitative and quantitative one- and two-phase free boundary problems for elliptic measure, formulated in terms of (uniform) rectifiability, in bounded Wiener-regular domains.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Interactions between quantitative rectifiability, singular integrals, and boundary value problems for harmonic functions

    math.CA 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A field survey showing that quantitative rectifiability underpins results on Riesz transforms, removable sets, harmonic measure, and L^p boundary value problems for the Laplacian.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Azzam, J

    J. Azzam, J. Garnett, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. Uniform rectifiability, elliptic measure, square functions, and -approximability via an ACF monotonicity formula. Int. Math. Res. Not. (IMRN), rnab095, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Azzam, S

    J. Azzam, S. Hofmann, J. M. Martell, S. Mayboroda, M. Mourgoglou, X. Tolsa, and A. Volberg. Rectifiability of harmonic measure. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 26 (3): 703-728, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Azzam, S

    J. Azzam, S. Hofmann, J. M. Martell, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. Harmonic measure and quantitative connectivity: geometric characterization of the L^p -solvability of the Dirichlet problem. Invent. Math., 222 (3): 881-993, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Azzam and M

    J. Azzam and M. Mourgoglou. Tangent measures of elliptic measure and applications. Anal. PDE 12 (8): 1891-1941, 2019

    work page 1941

  5. [5]

    Azzam, M

    J. Azzam, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. Mutual absolute continuity of interior and exterior harmonic measure implies rectifiability. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 70 (11): 2121-2163, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Azzam, M

    J. Azzam, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. A two-phase free boundary problem for harmonic measure and uniform rectifiability. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 373 (6): 4359-4388, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Azzam, M

    J. Azzam, M. Mourgoglou, X. Tolsa, and A. Volberg. On a two-phase problem for harmonic measure in general domains. Am. J. Math. , 141 (5): 1259-1279, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    C. J. Bishop. Some questions concerning harmonic measure. Partial Differential Equations with Minimal Smoothness and Applications, IMA Vol. Math. Appl., vol. 42, pp. 89–97. Springer, New York, 1992

    work page 1992

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Bortz and S

    S. Bortz and S. Hofmann. A singular integral approach to a two phase free boundary problem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. , 144 (9): 3959-3973, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Bourgain

    J. Bourgain. On the Hausdorff dimension of harmonic measure in higher dimension. Invent. Math. , 87 (3): 477–483, 1987

    1987

  3. [11]

    M. Cao, P. Hidalgo-Palencia, and J. M. Martell. Carleson measure estimates, corona decompositions, and perturbation of elliptic operators without connectivity. Math. Ann., 390 (1): 95-156, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Choi and H

    J. Choi and H. Dong, Gradient estimates for Stokes systems with Dini mean oscillation coefficients. J. Differ. Equations, 266 (8); 4451-4509, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    J. Choi, H. Dong, and L. Xu. Gradient estimates for Stokes and Navier-Stokes systems with piecewise DMO coefficients. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 54 (3): 3609-3635, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    J. M. Conde-Alonso, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. Failure of L^2 boundedness of gradients of single layer potentials for measures with zero low density. Math. Ann. , 373, No. 1-2, 253-285, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Dabrowski and X

    D. Dabrowski and X. Tolsa. The measures with L^2 -bounded Riesz transform and the Painlevé problem. Arxiv Preprint , 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.08615

    2024

  8. [16]

    David and S

    G. David and S. Semmes. Singular integrals and rectifiable sets in Rn. Au-delà des graphes lipschitziens. Ast\'erisque, 193. Montrouge: Soci\'eté Math\'ematique de France, 145 p., 1991

    1991

  9. [17]

    David and S

    G. David and S. Semmes. Analysis of and on uniformly rectifiable sets. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 38. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1993

    1993

  10. [18]

    On C^1 , C^2 , and weak type- (1,1) estimates for linear elliptic operators: part II Math. Ann. , 270(1): 447--489, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Dong and S

    H. Dong and S. Jeon. Schauder type estimates for degenerate or singular parabolic systems with partially DMO coefficients. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08926, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    H. Dong, S. Jeon, and S. Vita. Schauder type estimates for degenerate or singular elliptic equations with DMO coefficients. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 63 (9), 42 p., 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Dong and S

    H. Dong and S. Kim. On C^1 , C^2 , and weak type-(1,1) estimates for linear elliptic operators. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. , 43 (3): 417--435, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    H. Dong, S. Kim, and S. Lee. Note on Green’s functions of non-divergence elliptic operators with continuous coefficients. Proc. Am. Math. Soc., 151 (5): 2045-2055, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Dong and Z

    H. Dong and Z. Li. Classical solutions of oblique derivative problem in nonsmooth domains with mean Dini coefficients. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 373 (7): 4975-4997, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    David and P

    G. David and P. Mattila. Removable sets for Lipschitz harmonic functions in the plane. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 16 (1): 137-215, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Eiderman, F

    V. Eiderman, F. Nazarov, and A. Volberg. The s-Riesz transform of an s -dimensional measure in R^2 is unbounded for 1<s<2 . J. Anal. Math. , 122: 1-23, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Engelstein

    M. Engelstein. A two-phase free boundary problem for harmonic measure. (Un problème dans la frontière libre avec deux phases pour la mesure harmonique.) Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 49 (4): 859-905

  19. [27]

    Gilbarg and N

    D. Gilbarg and N. Trudinger. Elliptic partial differential equations of second order. Reprint of the 1998 ed. Classics in Mathematics. Berlin: Springer xiii, 517 p., 2001

    1998

  20. [28]

    Girela-Sarri\'on and X

    D. Girela-Sarri\'on and X. Tolsa. The Riesz transform and quantitative rectifiability for general Radon measures. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 57 (1),Paper No. 16, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Grafakos and C

    L. Grafakos and C. Stockdale. A limited-range Calderón-Zygmund theorem. Bull. Hell. Math. Soc., 63: 54--63 , 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Grueter and K

    M. Grueter and K. Widman. The Green function for uniformly elliptic equations. Manuscr. Math., 37: 303-342, 1982

    1982

  23. [31]

    Heinonen, T

    J. Heinonen, T. Kilpeläinen, and O. Martio. Nonlinear potential theory of degenerate elliptic equations. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press. v, 363 p., 1993

    1993

  24. [32]

    Hofmann and S

    S. Hofmann and S. Kim. The Green function estimates for strongly elliptic systems of second order. Manuscr. Math. , 124 (2): 139--172, 2007

    2007

  25. [33]

    Hwang and S

    S. Hwang and S. Kim. Green’s function for second order elliptic equations in non-divergence form. Potential Anal., 52: 27-39, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Hofmann, P

    S. Hofmann, P. Le, J. M. Martell, and K. Nyström. The weak- A_ property of harmonic and p -harmonic measures implies uniform rectifiability. Anal. PDE, 10 (3): 513-558, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Hofmann, J

    S. Hofmann, J. M. Martell, S. Mayboroda, T. Toro, and Z. Zhao. Uniform rectifiability and elliptic operators satisfying a Carleson measure condition. Geom. Funct. Anal. 31 (2): 325-401, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Hofmann, J

    S. Hofmann, J. M. Martell, and I. Uriarte-Tuero. Uniform rectifiability and harmonic measure. II: Poisson kernels in L^P imply uniform rectifiability. Duke Math. J., 163 (8): 1601-1654, 2014

    2014

  29. [37]

    Kang and S

    K. Kang and S. Kim. Global pointwise estimates for Green's matrix of second order elliptic systems. J. Differential Equations 249 (2010) 2643--2662

    2010

  30. [38]

    Kenig, D

    C.E. Kenig, D. Preiss, and T. Toro. Boundary structure and size in terms of interior and exterior harmonic measures in higher dimensions. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 22 (3): 771–796, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Kenig and T

    C. Kenig and T. Toro. Free boundary regularity below the continuous threshold: 2-phase problems. J. Reine Angew. Math., 596: 1-44, 2006

    2006

  32. [40]

    S. Lee. Lipschitz regularity of homogenization with continuous coefficients: Dirichlet problem arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13824, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Y. Li. On the C^1 regularity of solutions to divergence form elliptic systems with Dini-continuous coefficients. Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B , 38 (2): 489–496, 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Mal\'y, and W

    J. Mal\'y, and W. P. Ziemer. Fine regularity of solutions of elliptic partial differential equations. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    J. J. Marín, J. M. Martell, M. Mitrea, The generalized Hölder and Morrey-Campanato Dirichlet problems for elliptic systems in the upper half-space. Potential Anal. 53 (3): 947-976, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Martikainen, M

    H. Martikainen, M. Mourgoglou, and X. Tolsa. Improved Cotlar’s inequality in the context of local Tb theorems. J. Funct. Anal. , 274 (5): 1255--1275, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Martikainen and E

    H. Martikainen and E. Vuorinen, Dyadic-probabilistic methods in bilinear analysis. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 1344, 82 p., 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Mattila, M

    P. Mattila, M. Melnikov, and J. Verdera. The Cauchy integral, analytic capacity, and uniform rectifiability. Ann. of Math. (2) , 144 (1): 127-136, 1996

    1996

  39. [47]

    Molero, M

    A. Molero, M. Mourgoglou, C. Puliatti, and X. Tosa. L^2 -boundedness of gradients of single layer potentials for elliptic operators with coefficients of Dini mean oscillation-type. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 247 (3), Paper No. 38, 59 p., 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Mourgoglou

    M. Mourgoglou. Regularity theory and Green's function for elliptic equations with lower order terms in unbounded domains. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. 62, Article No. 266, 2023

    2023

  41. [49]

    Mourgoglou and X

    M. Mourgoglou and X. Tolsa. Harmonic measure and Riesz transform in uniform and general domains. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 758: 183-221, 2020

    2020

  42. [50]

    Nazarov, X

    F. Nazarov, X. Tolsa, and A. Volberg. On the uniform rectifiability of AD-regular measures with bounded Riesz transform operator: the case of codimension 1. Acta Math. (2) , 213: 237-321, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Nazarov, X

    F. Nazarov, X. Tolsa, and A. Volberg. The Riesz transform, rectifiability, and removability for Lipschitz harmonic functions. Publ. Mat. , 58, No. 2, 517-532, 2014

    2014

  44. [52]

    Nazarov, S

    F. Nazarov, S. Treil, and A. Volberg. The Tb -theorem on non-homogeneous spaces that proves a conjecture of Vitushkin. arXiv preprint arXiv:1401.2479 , 2014 (original preprint: 1999)

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    L. Prat, C. Puliatti, and X. Tolsa. L^2 -boundedness of gradients of single-layer potentials and uniform rectifiability. Anal. PDE, 14 (3): 717-791, 2021

    2021

  46. [54]

    Prats and X

    M. Prats and X. Tolsa. The two-phase problem for harmonic measure in VMO. Calc. Var. Partial Differ. Equ. , 59 (3), Paper No. 102, 58 p., 2020

    2020

  47. [55]

    Puliatti

    C. Puliatti. Gradient of the single layer potential and quantitative rectifiability for general Radon measures. J. Funct. Anal., 282 (6), Article 109376, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    E. M. Stein. Harmonic analysis: Real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals. Princeton Mathematical Series. 43. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. xiii, 695 pp.,1993

    1993

  49. [57]

    S. Suzuki. The Calder\'on-Zygmund theorem with an L^1 mean H\"ormander condition. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. , 27, No. 2, Paper No. 10, 2021

    2021

  50. [58]

    X. Tolsa. Analytic capacity, the Cauchy transform, and non-homogeneous Calder\'on-Zygmund theory. Progress in Mathematics 307. Birkhäuser/Springer. xiii, 396 p., 2014

    2014

  51. [59]

    X. Tolsa. A counterexample regarding a two-phase problem for harmonic measure in . Potential Anal (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11118-025-10214-3

    2025 doi

  52. [60]

    Tolsa and T

    X. Tolsa and T. Toro. The two-phase problem for harmonic measure in and the chord-arc condition. Trans. Am. Math. Soc., Ser. B 11: 1294-1315, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Toro and Z

    T. Toro and Z. Zhao. Boundary rectifiability and elliptic operators with W^ 1,1 coefficients. Adv. Calc. Var. 14 (1):37--62, 2021

    2021

  54. [62]

    A. Volberg . Calderón-Zygmund capacities and operators on nonhomogeneous spaces. CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics 100. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 2003

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.