Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Weighted $L^2$ restriction and comparison of nondegeneracy conditions for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimensions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any quadratic manifold, the sharp uniform Fourier decay of its surface measure is $(1+|\zeta|)^{-d_{d,1}(Q)/2}$, where $d_{d,1}(Q)$ is an algebraic rank invariant; the same invariant drives weighted $L^2$ restriction bounds and a…

desk verdict A substantial and mostly sound paper on weighted restriction and nondegeneracy for quadratic manifolds, with one load-bearing omission in the Du–Zhang induction (4.29) that needs to be filled or clearly conditionalized. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18657 v1 pith:USCL3PFQ submitted 2025-06-23 math.CA

Zhenbin Cao , Jingyue Li , Changxing Miao , Yixuan Pang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CA MSC 42B2042B37
keywords quadraticmanifoldsweightedL2restrictionuniformFourierdecaydecouplinginequalitiesnondegeneracyconditionsbroad-narrowanalysisdimensiongeometricinvarianttheory
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 establishes that the Fourier transform of the surface measure on any quadratic manifold of dimension $d$ and codimension $n$ decays uniformly at rate $(1+|\zeta|)^{-d_{d,1}(Q)/2}$, and that this rate cannot be improved. Here $d_{d,1}(Q)$ is an algebraic invariant: the minimum rank of a linear combination of the Hessians of the quadratic forms defining the manifold. From this decay, together with the weighted layer-cake and annulus decomposition of [47] and a broad-narrow induction on scales, the paper derives weighted $L^2$ restriction estimates for every quadratic manifold, with the zero-range and saturation-range optimal. It also maps out which nondegeneracy conditions, such as Fourier decay, the Salem property, decoupling, Stein-Tomas bounds, and well-curvedness, imply which others, showing that in higher codimension the conditions genuinely diverge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the algebraic invariant $d_{d,1}(Q)$, defined as the minimum, over all linear changes of variables and all nonzero linear combinations of the component quadratic forms, of the number of variables that actually occur; equivalently, it is the minimum rank of the Hessian combination $Q(\theta)$ as $\theta$ runs over the unit sphere. It sets the uniform decay rate and equals the Fourier dimension of $S_Q$. The proof machinery also uses the decoupling exponents $\Gamma^d_{q,p}(Q)$, the transversality quantity $X(Q,k,m)$, a $\theta$-uniform $k$-linear restriction estimate, the weighted layer-cake/annulus decomposition of [47], and a broad-narrow induction with lower-dimensional $\ell^2 L^p$ decoupling. For the relation diagram, the Newton-type polyhedra and the canonical affine measure from [29] carry the implications.

What would settle it

For a concrete quadratic manifold such as $Q=(\xi_1^2,\xi_1\xi_2)$ in $d=2,n=2$, run the broad-narrow analysis at a fixed dyadic scale $R$, compute the quantities $M,\gamma,M_1,\gamma_1$ on both sides of (4.29), and check whether the inequality holds; failure for any $R$ would invalidate the induction behind (1.14).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a complete characterization of the sharp uniform Fourier decay for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimension. Writing $Q(\theta)=\sum_j \theta_j \nabla^2 Q_j$, the number of nonzero eigenvalues of $Q(\theta)$ is locally stable in $\theta$, and its minimum over $\theta$ equals $d_{d,1}(Q)$. The paper converts this into the uniform bound $|\widetilde{E_Q}1(x)| \lesssim (1+|x|)^{-d_{d,1}(Q)/2}$, with a matching lower bound along a worst direction, so the exponent is optimal. The same quantity then controls the weighted $L^2$ restriction exponent $s(\alpha,Q)$: the paper proves $s(\alpha,Q)\le 0$ for $\alpha\le d_{d,1}(Q)/2$, the linear bound $(2\alpha-d_{d,1}(Q))/4$ in the middle range, and $n/2$ in the top range, with the first and third ranges sharp; a further refinement via $k$-linear restriction and lower-dimensional decoupling gives the bound (1.14). A second theorem assembles the relation diagram among nondegeneracy conditions, with strict implications such as "best Stein-Tomas implies best $\ell^p L^p$ decoupling."

Load-bearing premise

The paper leaves unproved the exact numerical relations (4.29) that let the induction on scales close in the narrow case; if those relations fail for some quadratic manifold, the refined bound (1.14) falls apart.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every quadratic manifold now has an explicit weighted $L^2$ restriction bound, and the ranges where the exponent is $0$ or $n/2$ cannot be enlarged.
  • The Fourier dimension of $S_Q$ equals $d_{d,1}(Q)$; in particular, many higher-codimensional quadratic manifolds are not Salem even when they are smooth and curved.
  • Best possible Stein-Tomas restriction implies best possible $\ell^p L^p$ decoupling for quadratic manifolds.
  • The (CM) condition, an integrability condition on $\det(Q(\theta))$, suffices for best $\ell^p L^p$ decoupling.
  • If $d_{d,1}(Q)=d$, then $Q$ is nondegenerate, so a single strong algebraic condition forces many other $d_{d',n'}(Q)$ to be large.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the omitted relations (4.29) in the narrow-case induction admit a direct counting proof, the refined bound (1.14) would be robust for all $Q$; a counterexample to (4.29) would leave (1.14) unproved for that $Q$.
  • Editorial extension: the equality Fourier dimension $= d_{d,1}(Q)$ suggests a recipe for constructing sets with prescribed Fourier dimension by tuning Hessian ranks, which may be useful in geometric measure theory.
  • Editorial extension: the strictness pattern of the diagram suggests that as codimension grows, the correct notion of curvature depends on the operator; one testable question is whether well-curvedness is equivalent to best Stein-Tomas in the first open higher-codimension cases.
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 studies weighted L2 restriction estimates for quadratic manifolds S_Q of arbitrary dimension d and codimension n. The first main result, Theorem 1.1, gives upper bounds for the weighted restriction exponent s(α,Q): the first and second bounds in (1.13) are derived from a new uniform Fourier decay estimate, and the bound (1.14) is obtained by adapting the Du–Zhang broad–narrow argument with lower-dimensional ℓ2Lp decoupling. The authors prove that the exponent d_{d,1}(Q)/2 in the uniform decay estimate is optimal (Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.8), and they show that the ranges of the first and third estimates in (1.13) are sharp. The second main result, Theorem 1.2, establishes a large diagram of implications among several nondegeneracy conditions for quadratic manifolds: Salem property, best ℓ2Lp and ℓpLp decoupling, good manifolds, the (CM) condition, best Stein–Tomas inequalities, well-curvedness, and ordinary nondegeneracy. The paper also classifies all quadratic manifolds with d+n≤5 and computes the resulting weighted restriction bounds.

Significance. If the results are correct, they represent a substantial advance. The uniform Fourier decay theorem in Section 3 is the most complete result of its kind for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimension, and the algebraic bridge m=d_{d,1}(Q) in Lemma 3.5 is clean and convincing. The weighted restriction result (1.14) extends the Du–Zhang method well beyond the codimension-one and (d,n)=(3,2) settings treated earlier, and the sharpness analysis of the first and third ranges in (1.13) is valuable. The implication diagram in Theorem 1.2 gives a useful organizing framework for many previously unrelated nondegeneracy conditions, and the paper explicitly identifies which arrows are new, which are imported from the literature, and where strictness is known. The Section 3 proof is self-contained and does not rely on fitted parameters or numerical computations. However, one load-bearing gap in the Du–Zhang induction, the omitted proof of the parameter relations (4.29), currently prevents the bound (1.14) from being fully established.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (4.29)] The induction step of Proposition 4.2 closes only through the two rescaling relations in (4.29), namely the bounds for tilde_mu/#B and tilde_gamma_1 tilde_eta in terms of M, gamma, K_1 and eta. The manuscript explicitly says "We omit the proof of (4.29)" and refers to [21, Section 3] and [12, Section 3]. This is not a cosmetic omission: the second relation controls how the fractal density parameter gamma transforms under the anisotropic rescaling, and the first relation is needed to reduce (4.28) to the claimed power R^{w(p,k,alpha,Q)}. The cited references are not in the same setting, since [21] treats codimension one and [12] treats only d=3, n=2, while the adaptation to arbitrary n is precisely what must be proved here. Until (4.29) is proved in the present generality, the estimate (1.14) and the second part of Theorem 1.1 should be regarded as conditional.
  2. [§6.1, proof of Corollary 6.1] The recovery of the parabolic weighted restriction bounds uses the lower bound X(Q,k,m) ≥ m(k−1)/k, introduced with the sentence "repeating the arguments of Appendix C in [25]". The paper does not state this estimate as a lemma, give its proof, or quote a precise result from [25]. Since this bound is used to derive the third estimate in (6.1), the claim that Theorem 1.1 recovers (1.4) depends on an unstated external argument. The same issue affects Corollary 6.2. Please either provide a self-contained proof of the needed X-lower bound or cite the exact statement in [25] that implies it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 3.1 statement] In the optimality sentence, the quantity |eEQf(x)| appears even though f has not been defined in the statement; it should presumably be |eEQ1(x)|, matching the proof and Corollary 3.8.
  2. [§7.1, proof of implication 1] In the lower-bound estimate for the radial integral the text writes "for each θ∈S^{d−1}"; here θ ranges over S^{n−1}, so the exponent should be n−1.
  3. [§4.1, Eq. (4.10)] The displayed range in (4.10) is strict, 0<α<d_{d,1}(Q)/2, while the theorem states a closed range at the endpoint. The endpoint follows from the second bound in (4.11), but this should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  4. [Throughout] The paper is long and the proof of Theorem 1.2 is split into many subsections, so a short table or index of which subsections prove which numbered arrows (1-11) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fourier-decay and restriction bounds are derived self-containedly, with one omitted rescaling verification that is a correctness gap rather than a circular dependence.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3.1's uniform Fourier decay bound is obtained by direct Gaussian integral computations (Proposition 3.6), elementary eigenvalue-continuity and spectral-radius lemmas, and the algebraic identity Lemma 3.5, m = d_{d,1}(Q); the accompanying optimality proof is explicit and does not presuppose the bound. The decoupling exponents used in (1.14) are imported as a theorem from the external paper [34], not re-derived from the claimed restriction estimates. The weighted-restriction argument in Section 4.1 follows Shayya and only uses the proved decay (1.22), so no 'prediction' is fitted from the data being predicted. In the Du-Zhang induction, the only questionable passage is the omitted verification of the rescaling relations (4.29): the paper states, 'We omit the proof of (4.29), and readers may consult Section 3 in [21] and Section 3 in [12] for more details.' This is a load-bearing gap for (1.14), because the induction closes only if those relations hold, and the cited settings are not literally the arbitrary-codimension setting. However, this is a missing proof rather than circularity: (4.29) is not equivalent to the claimed bound by construction, and the paper does not define w(p,k,alpha,Q) in terms of the omitted relations. Self-citations to [12] are used mainly for comparison and as technical pointers, not as the sole justification of the central theorem. Thus the circularity score is low, reflecting only the minor load-bearing gap and self-referential pointer, not a derivational loop.

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

The central claim rests on established decoupling, affine-measure, and Stein-Tomas results from the prior literature, plus standard real analysis. No new particles, forces, or empirical constants are introduced, and no fitted parameters appear.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Decoupling exponent formula Gamma^d_{q,p}(Q) as in (1.11) from Guo, Oh, Zhang and Zorin-Kranich [34].
    Used throughout to compute Gamma_p and Gamma_p^{k-2} in Theorem 1.1 and in the diagram.
  • domain assumption Gressman's Oberlin affine measure theory, including Theorems 2.1, 2.3 and Lemma 4 of [29].
    The proofs of arrows 6, 7, and 8 in Theorem 1.2 rely on the existence, invariance, and Newton polyhedra characterization of the affine measure.
  • domain assumption Adaptive lower-dimensional decoupling (Lemma 2.2) and k-linear restriction estimates (Theorem 4.1) from Gan, Guth and Oh [25].
    These are the main external tools in the Du-Zhang broad-narrow argument for (1.14).
  • domain assumption Mockenhaupt's (CM)-to-L^p integrability and Stein-Tomas results, Theorems 2.11 and 2.14 in [43].
    Used for arrows 1 and 2 of the diagram and for the n=2 endpoint Stein-Tomas bound in Corollary 6.6.
  • domain assumption Sharp parabolic lower bounds for s(alpha,Q) from Barcelo, Bennett, Carbery, Ruiz and Vilela [7].
    Used in Section 5 to prove that the range of the first bound in (1.13) is optimal.
  • standard math Standard real analysis facts, including the layer cake representation, Gaussian integral computations, Young's convolution inequality, and Rouché's theorem.
    These are used in Shayya's argument, in Section 3, and in the eigenvalue continuity lemma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weighted $L^2$ restriction and comparison of nondegeneracy conditions for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/USCL3PFQ

@misc{pith2026250618657,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weighted $L^2$ restriction and comparison of nondegeneracy conditions for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/USCL3PFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18657}
}
abstract

We systematically study weighted $L^2$ restriction for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimensions by sharp uniform Fourier decay estimates and a refinement of the Du-Zhang method. Comparison with prior results is also discussed. In addition,we obtain an almost complete relation diagram for all existing nondegeneracy conditions for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimensions. These conditions come from various topics in harmonic analysis related to "curvature": Fourier restriction, decoupling, Fourier decay, Fourier dimension, weighted restriction, and Radon-like transforms. The diagram has many implications, such as "best possible Stein-Tomas implies best possible $\ell^pL^p$ decoupling". The proof of the diagram requires a combination of ideas from Fourier analysis, complex analysis, convex geometry, geometric invariant theory, combinatorics, and matrix analysis.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Du and R

    X. Du and R. Zhang. SharpL 2 estimate of Schr¨ odinger maximal function in higher dimensions.Ann. Math., 189(3):837–861, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [12]

    Z. Cao, C. Miao, and Z. Wang. Fourier decay of fractal measures on surfaces of co-dimension two in R5.J. Funct. Anal., 286(8):110378, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [25]

    S. Gan, L. Guth, and C. Oh. Restriction estimates for quadratic manifolds of arbitrary codimensions. arXiv.2308.06427v1, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

    J. F. Adams. Vector fields on spheres.Ann. of Math., 75(3):603–632, 1962

    work page 1962

  5. [2]

    J. F. Adams, P. D. Lax, and R. S. Phillips. On matrices whose real linear combinations are nonsin- gular.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 16(2):318–322, 1965

    work page 1965

  6. [3]

    M. L. Agranovsky and E. K. Narayanan.L p-integrability, supports of Fourier transforms and unique- ness for convolution equations.J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 10:315–324, 2004

    work page 2004

  7. [4]

    J.-G. Bak, J. Lee, and S. Lee. Bilinear restriction estimates for surfaces of codimension bigger than 1.Anal. PDE, 10(8):1961–1985, 2017

    work page 1961

  8. [5]

    Bak and S

    J.-G. Bak and S. Lee. Restriction of the Fourier transform to a quadratic surface inR n.Math. Z., 247(2):409–422, 2004

    work page 2004

Show all 52 references
  1. [6]

    A. D. Banner. Restriction of the Fourier transform to quadratic submanifolds.Ph.D. thesis, Prince- ton University, 2002

    2002

  2. [7]

    J. A. Barcel´ o, J. M. Bennett, A. Carbery, A. Ruiz, and M. C. Vilela. Some special solutions of the Schr¨ odinger equation.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 56(4):1581–1593, 2007

    2007

  3. [8]

    Barron, M

    A. Barron, M. B. Erdo˘ gan, and T. L. J. Harris. Fourier decay of fractal measures on hyperboloids. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 374(2):1041–1075, 2021

    2021

  4. [9]

    S. Basu, S. Guo, R. Zhang, and P. Zorin-Kranich. A stationary set method for estimating oscillatory integrals.J. Eur. Math. Soc., 2024

    2024

  5. [10]

    L. B. Beasley and R. Loewy. Rank preservers on spaces of symmetric matrices.Linear Multilinear Algebra, 43(1-3):63–86, 1997

    1997

  6. [11]

    Z. Cao, C. Miao, and Y. Pang. Sharp restriction estimates for several degenerate higher co- dimensional quadratic surfaces.arXiv:2404.09020, 2024

    2024

  7. [13]

    Carbery, M

    A. Carbery, M. Christ, and J. Wright. Multidimensional van der Corput and sublevel set estimates. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 12(4):981–1015, 1999

    1999

  8. [14]

    A. Causin. Real linear spaces of matrices.Ph.D. thesis, Sapienza University of Rome, 2007

    2007

  9. [15]

    M. Christ. Restriction of the Fourier transform to submanifolds of low codimension.Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1982

    1982

  10. [16]

    de Seguins Pazzis

    C. de Seguins Pazzis. Affine spaces of symmetric or alternating matrices with bounded rank.Linear Algebra Appl., 504:503–558, 2016

    2016

  11. [17]

    Demeter.Fourier restriction, decoupling, and applications

    C. Demeter.Fourier restriction, decoupling, and applications. Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  12. [18]

    Dendrinos, A

    S. Dendrinos, A. Mustata, and M. Vitturi. A restricted 2-plane transform related to Fourier restric- tion for surfaces of codimension 2.Anal. PDE, 18(2):475–526, 2025

    2025

  13. [19]

    X. Du. Upper bounds for Fourier decay rates of fractal measures.J. Lond. Math. Soc., 102(3):1318– 1336, 2020

    2020

  14. [20]

    X. Du, L. Guth, and X. Li. A sharp Schr¨ odinger maximal estimate inR 2.Ann. Math., 186(2):607– 640, 2017. WEIGHTEDL 2 RESTRICTION AND COMPARISON OF NONDEGENERACY CONDITIONS 105

    2017

  15. [22]

    Falikman, S

    D. Falikman, S. Friedland, and R. Loewy. On spaces of matrices containing a nonzero matrix of bounded rank.Pacific J. Math., 207(1):157–176, 2002

    2002

  16. [23]

    J. M. Fraser, T. L. J. Harris, and N. G. Kroon. On the Fourier dimension of (d,k)-sets and Kakeya sets with restricted directions.Math. Z., 301(3):2497–2508, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Friedland and R

    S. Friedland and R. Loewy. Spaces of symmetric matrices containing a nonzero matrix of bounded rank.Linear Algebra Appl., 287(1-3):161–170, 1999

    1999

  18. [26]

    PhD thesis University of Pennsylvania, 2016

    Maxim Gilula.A real analytic approach to estimating oscillatory integrals. PhD thesis University of Pennsylvania, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Grafakos.Modern Fourier analysis, volume 250

    L. Grafakos.Modern Fourier analysis, volume 250. Springer, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    P. T. Gressman.L p-nondegenerate Radon-like operators with vanishing rotational curvature.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 143(4):1595–1604, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    P. T. Gressman. On the Oberlin affine curvature condition.Duke Math. J., 168(11):2075–2126, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    P. T. Gressman. Generalized sublevel estimates for form-valued functions and related results for Radon-like transforms.arXiv:2407.18860, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. Guo. On thep-thin problem for hypersurfaces ofR n with zero Gaussian curvature.Canad. Math. Bull., 36(1):64–73, 1993

    1993

  24. [32]

    S. Guo, A. Iosevich, R. Zhang, and P. Zorin-Kranich.L p integrability of functions with Fourier support on a smooth space curve.arXiv:2311.11529, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Guo and C

    S. Guo and C. Oh. Fourier restriction estimates for surfaces of co-dimension two inR 5.J. Anal. Math., 148(2):471–499, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    S. Guo, C. Oh, R. Zhang, and P. Zorin-Kranich. Decoupling inequalities for quadratic forms.Duke Math. J., 172(2):387–445, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Guo and P

    S. Guo and P. Zorin-Kranich. Decoupling for certain quadratic surfaces of low co-dimensions.J. Lond. Math. Soc., 102(1):319–344, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Harris and L

    J. Harris and L. W. Tu. On symmetric and skew-symmetric determinantal varieties.Topology, 23(1), 1984

    1984

  29. [37]

    R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson.Matrix analysis. Cambridge university press, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    I. A. Ikromov. On the convergence exponent of trigonometric integrals.Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova, 218(Anal. Teor. Chisel i Prilozh)(0):179–189, 1997

    1997

  31. [39]

    F. John. Extremum problems with inequalities as subsidiary conditions.Traces and emergence of nonlinear programming, pages 197–215, 2014

    2014

  32. [40]

    S. Lee. Bilinear restriction estimates for surfaces with curvatures of different signs.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 358(8):3511–3533, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    P. Mattila. Spherical averages of Fourier transforms of measures with finite energy; dimension of intersections and distance sets.Mathematika, 34(2):207–228, 1987

    1987

  34. [42]

    P. Mattila. Fourier Analysis and Hausdorff Dimension.Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    Mockenhaupt

    G. Mockenhaupt. Bounds in Lebesgue spaces of oscillatory integral operators.Habilitationsschrift, Universit¨ at Siegen, 1996

    1996

  36. [44]

    D. M. Oberlin. Convolution with measures on hypersurfaces.Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 129(3):517–526, 2000

    2000

  37. [45]

    D. H. Phong, E. M. Stein, and J. Sturm. Multilinear level set operators, oscillatory integral operators, and newton polyhedra.Math. Ann., 319:573–596, 2001

    2001

  38. [46]

    G. Pinney. A decoupling proof of the Tomas restriction theorem.arXiv:2112.04111, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B. Shayya. Fourier restriction in low fractal dimensions.Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc., 64(2):373–407, 2021. 106 ZHENBIN CAO, JINGYUE LI, CHANGXING MIAO AND YIXUAN PANG

    2021

  40. [48]

    E. M. Stein and T. S. Murphy.Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscil- latory integrals, volume 3. Princeton University Press, 1993

    1993

  41. [49]

    T. Tao. The Bochner-Riesz conjecture implies the restriction conjecture.Duke Math. J., 96(2):363– 375, 1999

    1999

  42. [50]

    A. Vargas. Restriction theorems for a surface with negative curvature.Math. Z., 249(1):97–111, 2005

    2005

  43. [51]

    Wang and S

    H. Wang and S. Wu. Restriction estimates using decoupling theorems and two-ends Furstenberg inequalities.arXiv:2411.08871v1, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    T. H. Wolff. Decay of circular means of Fourier transforms of measures.Int. Math. Res. Not., 1999(10):547–567, 1999. Institute of Mathematics, Henan Academy of Sciences, Zhengzhou 450046, China Email address:caozhenbin@hnas.ac.cn School of Mathematics and Statistics, Zhengzhou...

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.