Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Uncentered Fractional Maximal functions and mean oscillation spaces associated with dyadic Hausdorff content

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The uncentered fractional maximal operator $M_\alpha$ maps BMO into the finer $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$ oscillation spaces built on dyadic Hausdorff content, and preserves the corresponding vanishing-oscillation spaces.

desk verdict Genuine refinements over Gibara–Kline, held up by two unstated external dependencies that a referee must verify. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23206 v1 pith:52JKIYA4 submitted 2025-06-29 math.FA math.APmath.CA

Riju Basak , You-Wei Benson Chen , Prasun Roychowdhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.FAmath.APmath.CA MSC 46E3542B3542B3732A3742B25
keywords fractionalmaximalfunctionuncenteredoperatordyadicHausdorffcontentChoquetintegralboundedmeanoscillationvanishinglowercapacitaryspaces
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 where the uncentered fractional maximal operator $M_\alpha$ sends oscillation functions when the notion of oscillation is adapted to dyadic Hausdorff content. The main theorem establishes that if $0<\alpha

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the dyadic Hausdorff content $H^\beta_\infty$, which measures a set by covering it with dyadic cubes and summing $\ell(Q)^\beta$, together with the Choquet integral $\int f\,dH^\beta_\infty=\int_0^\infty H^\beta_\infty(\{f>t\})\,dt$. These define the spaces $BMO^\beta$, $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$, and $VMO^\beta$, in which the oscillation of $f$ on a cube $Q$ is the $H^\beta_\infty$-average of $|f-c|$ over $Q$. The proofs split $M_\alpha f$ into a local part, controlled through an $L^p(H^\beta_\infty)$ bound for $M_\alpha$ and an exponential-integrability inequality for $BMO^\beta$, and a global part, controlled by comparing content-averages over nested cubes and using a quantitative oscillation estimate on subsets. A new exponential decay estimate for $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$ is the hinge that yields the inclusion $\mathrm{BLO}^\gamma\subset\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$ and the norm bounds.

What would settle it

Take $n=1$, $\alpha=1/2$, $\beta=1/2$, $Q_0=(0,1)$, and $f(x)=\chi_{(0,1)}\log(1/x)$; compute the supremum over cubes $Q\subset Q_0$ of $\frac{1}{H^\beta_\infty(Q)}\int_Q (M_\alpha f - \mathrm{ess\,inf}^\beta_Q M_\alpha f)\,dH^\beta_\infty$. Theorem 1.2 predicts this is at most $C\|f\|_{BMO}$; a cube where the ratio is unbounded as $Q$ shrinks would disprove it. For Theorem 1.5, checking whether the cited Choquet-$L^p$ bound for $M_\alpha$ truly holds for all $1<p<\beta/\alpha$ with the stated constant is the decisive test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the uncentered fractional maximal operator $M_\alpha$, whose value at $x$ is the supremum of $\ell(Q)^{\alpha-n}\int_Q|f|$ over all cubes containing $x$, is better behaved on oscillation spaces than previously known. The paper establishes that $M_\alpha$ maps $BMO(Q_0)$ into $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta(Q_0)$ whenever $0<\alpha<n$ and $0<\beta\le n$, with the estimate $\|M_\alpha f\|_{\mathrm{BLO}^\beta(Q_0)}\le C\ell(Q_0)^\alpha\|f\|_{BMO(Q_0)}$; because $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta\subset \mathrm{BLO}$, this is a genuine refinement of the classical BLO bound. A second result shows that for $0<\beta_1\le\beta_2\le n$ the $\beta_2$-dimensional maximal operator $M^{\beta_2}$ is bounded from $BMO^{\beta_1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ to $\mathrm{BLO}^{\beta_1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$. The paper further proves that $f\in BMO$ with compact support implies $M_\alpha f$ is uniformly continuous and hence in $VMO$, generalizing the earlier VMO-preservation theorem, and that $M_\alpha$ preserves $VMO^\beta$ for $\alpha\in[0,\beta)$ under a finite-support condition.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that $M_\alpha$ preserves the fine vanishing-oscillation spaces relies on a boundedness estimate for the uncentered fractional maximal operator on Choquet $L^p$ spaces that is quoted from an unpublished manuscript, not proved here, and if that estimate is wrong the preservation theorem does not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any $0<\alpha<n$, a compactly supported $f\in BMO(Q_0)$ satisfies $\|M_\alpha f\|_{\mathrm{BLO}^\beta(Q_0)}\le C\ell(Q_0)^\alpha\|f\|_{BMO(Q_0)}$ for every $0<\beta\le n$, so the fractional maximal function has lower oscillation controlled by the BMO norm at every smaller-dimensional scale.
  • When $0<\beta_1\le\beta_2\le n$, the operator $M^{\beta_2}$ is bounded from $BMO^{\beta_1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ to $\mathrm{BLO}^{\beta_1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, giving a Hausdorff-content analogue of the classical BMO-to-BLO boundedness.
  • If $f\in BMO(Q_0)$ has support in $Q_0$, then $M_\alpha f$ is uniformly continuous on $\mathbb{R}^n$ and therefore belongs to $VMO(Q_0)$ for $0<\alpha<n$.
  • For $0\le\alpha<\beta\le n$, $M_\alpha$ preserves $VMO^\beta(Q_0)$ for compactly supported inputs, including the endpoint $\alpha=0$.
  • The exponential-decay estimate for $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$ implies the containment $\mathrm{BLO}^\gamma\subset\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$ for $0<\gamma\le\beta\le n$ with controlled norms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The same local/global decomposition used for Theorem 1.2 should also give boundedness of $M_\alpha$ from $BMO^\gamma$ into $\mathrm{BLO}^\beta$ for suitable parameter ranges, which the paper does not state.
  • Inference: Since the argument only uses doubling and strong subadditivity of the dyadic content, it likely transfers to other capacities with those properties, such as general Hausdorff contents on metric spaces.
  • Inference: The failure at $\alpha=0$ on hyperplanes suggests the threshold between boundedness and blow-up for $M_\alpha$ on $BMO^\beta$ is governed by whether the singular support has positive $H^\beta_\infty$ content; testing log-distance functions to lower-dimensional sets would locate the exact boundary.
  • Inference: Uniform continuity of $M_\alpha f$ for rough BMO data gives a route to compactness in oscillation spaces that could be useful in PDE arguments where the fractional maximal function appears as a regularizing operator.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the uncentered fractional maximal operator M_α on mean oscillation spaces built from the dyadic Hausdorff content H_∞^β. The main results are: Theorem 1.2, asserting that M_α maps BMO(Q_0) into the finer BLO^β(Q_0) space for 0<β≤n; Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 5.3, giving boundedness of the β_2-dimensional maximal function on BMO^{β_1}; Theorem 1.4, proving uniform continuity of M_α f when f∈BMO(Q_0) with compact support; and Theorem 1.5, asserting preservation of VMO^β under M_α for 0≤α<β. The proofs combine a John–Nirenberg inequality for BLO^β, a capacitary decomposition from the authors' companion work [4], and maximal-function estimates on Choquet spaces, partly taken from the unpublished preprint [19].

Significance. If the results are correct, they improve the Gibara–Kline theorem by placing M_α f not merely in BLO but in the Hausdorff-content-adapted space BLO^β, and they extend the theory to BMO^β, BLO^β, and VMO^β. The BLO^β John–Nirenberg inequality is of independent interest, and the paper contains several careful estimates, notably the local/global decomposition in Sections 6–7. The main caveat is that the proofs rely heavily on external results—the companion paper [4] and the preprint [19]—whose statements are not reproduced, and the α=0 case of Theorem 1.5 is not actually covered by the proof as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 3.3] The reduction in the proof of Theorem 1.2 to the range 0<β<n−α uses Corollary 3.3, whose proof invokes [4, Theorem C] and [4, Proposition 2.1] without stating them. Since [4] is a companion paper that is only listed as 'to appear', the John–Nirenberg-type estimate (3.1) and hence the full range 0<β≤n in Theorem 1.2 cannot be checked from this manuscript alone. Please either state the required capacitary covering and decomposition results explicitly or give a self-contained proof.
  2. [§7, Lemma 7.9] The bound for the local part of M_α f is the key step in Theorem 1.5, but Lemma 7.9 applies [19, Theorem 4.15] for the fractional maximal operator on Choquet L^p spaces with respect to H_∞^β, with the parameters δ=β, k=α, and 1<p<β/α. This theorem is from an unpublished arXiv preprint and is not stated in the paper, so the scaling and hypotheses behind the estimate O_β(M^loc_{α,λr}f, Q̃) ≤ C λ^{β/p} ℓ(Q_0)^α ω_β(f,3λr) cannot be verified. The preservation of VMO^β therefore rests on an unverifiable external input; please provide the statement or a proof.
  3. [§7, Theorem 1.5 and Lemma 7.9] Theorem 1.5 is stated for α∈[0,β), including α=0, but Lemma 7.9 requires a p satisfying 1<p<β/α, which is vacuous when α=0. Remark 1.6 asserts that the α=0 case follows 'by careful observation' without giving the argument. As written, the proof of Theorem 1.5 does not cover α=0. Either remove α=0 from the statement or supply a separate proof for the Hardy–Littlewood maximal operator, for example via the boundedness results in [10].
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4, proof of Theorem 1.4] The proof applies the equivalence (6.2) to τ_h f−f, which need not be nonnegative. Please justify this by applying (6.2) to |τ_h f−f| and using Lemma 2.6, or by proving the signed version directly.
  2. [§3, Corollary 3.3] In the statement of Corollary 3.3, 'independent of u' should be 'independent of f'; the variable u is not defined there.
  3. [§7, Lemma 7.1] In the proof of Lemma 7.1, one integral is written as ∫_{Q′} instead of ∫_Q; this is a typographical slip but should be corrected.
  4. [Appendix A, Theorem A.3] In the sentence 'M_{β_2}φ_j ⊂ L^p(H_∞^{β_1},Q_0)', the symbol ⊂ should be ∈, since the object is a function, not a set.
  5. [§1, Theorem 1.1 attribution] Theorem 1.1 is credited to 'Kline-Gibara' in the display but to 'Gibara–Kline' elsewhere; please make the attribution consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Theorem 1.2's full β-range is gated by the authors' to-appear [4] at the BLO^β John–Nirenberg step; the rest of the derivation is not definitionally circular.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.1 (through Corollary 3.3, used in Theorem 1.2)]
    "Hence, applying [4, Theorem C], for the function ( f (x) − ess infβ y∈Q′ f (y) ), there exists a countable collection of non-overlapping dyadic cubes {Qk} ⊂ D(Q′) with Qk ⊂ Q′ such that: (1) s < 1/Hβ,Q′∞(Qk) ∫ Qk ( f (x) − ess infβ y∈Q′ f (y) ) dHβ,Q′∞(x) ≤ 2βs for all k, (2) f (x) − ess infβ y∈Q′ f (y) ≤ s for Hβ,Q′∞-a.e. x ∈ Q′ \ ∪kQk. An application of [4, Proposition 2.1] to this family yields a subfamily {Qkj } and non-overlapping ancestors { ˜Qj} which satisfy ..."

    The exponential estimate (3.1) is the engine of the paper: Corollary 3.3 uses it to reduce Theorem 1.2's full range 0<β≤n to the case β<n−α, and Corollary 3.2 uses it for the norm equivalences. The proof of (3.1) is not carried out from statements in this manuscript; it invokes [4, Theorem C] and [4, Proposition 2.1] from the authors' own to-appear paper (Basak–Chen–Roychowdhury–Spector, 'The Capacitary John–Nirenberg Inequality Revisited'). Neither theorem is stated here, so the hypotheses (e.g., dyadic subadditivity constants, measurability or quasicontinuity conditions, and their compatibility with the subordinate content H^{β,Q'}_∞) cannot be checked from the present paper alone.

full rationale

No definitional circularity or fitted-input-as-prediction pattern was found. The main estimates are not equivalent to their inputs by construction: the local term in Theorem 1.2 is controlled through Lemma 4.1, which is quoted from Sawyer [33] and Adams [2]; the VMO result Theorem 1.4 uses the Riesz-potential BMO bound (6.1) from Wheeden–Zygmund [37], the equivalence (6.2) from Adams [1], and the classical BLO result of Gibara–Kline [16]; the global part of Theorem 1.5 uses Shaabani [35] and a standard Lebesgue oscillation argument. These are external, checkable inputs. The score of 4 is assigned because one load-bearing reduction is not internally demonstrated: Theorem 3.1's John–Nirenberg inequality for BLO^β, which via Corollary 3.3 delivers the full β-range of the headline Theorem 1.2, invokes the authors' to-appear companion paper [4] for the capacitary decomposition [4, Theorem C] and covering proposition [4, Proposition 2.1], without stating those results. This is a real self-citation burden, but it is not a circular equation: [4] is a different theorem with independent content, and the rest of the proof chain (Sawyer's two-weight inequality, Gibara–Kline, Adams, Wheeden–Zygmund) is externally grounded. A separate non-circular verification gap is Lemma 7.9's use of [19, Theorem 4.15], an unpublished preprint by Harjulehto–Hurri-Syrjänen; this affects Theorem 1.5 only and is not a self-citation. Overall, the central claims still have substantial independent mathematical content, so the appropriate circularity score is 4 rather than 6 or higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 11 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a pure mathematics proof that imports a large number of external results, several from the authors' own prior publications [10, 11, 4]. No free parameters are fitted. The main load-bearing external inputs are the John-Nirenberg theory for BMO^β, the capacitary maximal inequalities, the Sawyer two-weight inequality, and the unpublished [19] theorem.

assumptions (11)
  • domain assumption Dyadic Hausdorff content H∞^β is an outer measure satisfying (2.2): C1 ℓ(Q)^β ≤ H∞^β(Q) ≤ C2 ℓ(Q)^β for all cubes Q.
    Used throughout; imported from Yang-Yuan [39].
  • standard math Choquet integral with respect to H∞^β is sublinear and satisfies Hölder's inequality (Lemma 2.1).
    From Adams [2]; used in many steps.
  • domain assumption John-Nirenberg inequality for BMO^β and the norm equivalence (2.5) (Chen-Spector [11, Theorem 1.3, Corollary 1.5]).
    Used in Theorem 1.2, Lemma 7.9, and Theorem 5.3.
  • domain assumption BMO^β ⊂ BMO^β' for β ≤ β' (Lemma 2.2, from [11, Corollary 1.6]).
    Used throughout.
  • domain assumption Sawyer two-weight inequality: Mα maps L^p(R^n) into L^p(H∞^{n-αp}) for 1<p<n/α (Lemma 4.1).
    From [33, Theorem B] and [2, Theorem 7]; used in Theorem 1.2.
  • domain assumption Capacitary maximal inequalities: Mβ is bounded on L^p(H∞^γ) for p>γ/β (Lemma 5.1).
    From Chen-Ooi-Spector [10]; used in Theorem 5.3.
  • standard math Riesz potential embedding: Iα maps L^{n/α}(R^n) with compact support into BMO with norm bound (6.1).
    From Wheeden-Zygmund [37, Cor 14.46]; used in Theorem 1.4.
  • domain assumption Adams equivalence ∥Iα f∥BMO ≈ ∥Mα f∥∞ for nonnegative f with Iα f∈BMO (6.2).
    From Adams [1]; used in Theorem 1.4.
  • domain assumption Covering theorem and decomposition [4, Theorem C, Proposition 2.1] from the authors' companion paper.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 3.1 (JN for BLO^β).
  • domain assumption Fractional maximal bound on Choquet L^p spaces [19, Theorem 4.15] with δ=β, k=α, 1<p<β/α.
    Used in Lemma 7.9.
  • domain assumption Shaabani's log-estimate [35, Lemma 3.2] for oscillations over subsets of cubes.
    Used in Lemma 7.10.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncentered Fractional Maximal functions and mean oscillation spaces associated with dyadic Hausdorff content." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52JKIYA4

@misc{pith2026250623206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncentered Fractional Maximal functions and mean oscillation spaces associated with dyadic Hausdorff content},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52JKIYA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23206}
}
abstract

We study the action of uncentered fractional maximal functions on mean oscillation spaces associated with the dyadic Hausdorff content $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}^{\beta}$ with $0<\beta\leq n$. For $0 < \alpha < n$, we refine existing results concerning the action of the Euclidean uncentered fractional maximal function $\mathcal{M}_{\alpha}$ on the functions of bounded mean oscillations (BMO) and vanishing mean oscillations (VMO). In addition, for $0 < \beta_1 \leq \beta_2 \leq n$, we establish the boundedness of the $\beta_2$-dimensional uncentered maximal function $\mathcal{M}^{\beta_2}$ on the space $\text{BMO}^{\beta_1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$, where $\text{BMO}^{\beta_1}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ denotes the mean oscillation space adapted to the dyadic Hausdorff content $\mathcal{H}_{\infty}^{\beta_1}$ on $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    The Capacitary John-Nirenberg Inequality Revisited

    R. Basak, Y.-W. B. Chen, P . Roychowdhury, and D. Spector, The Capacitary John-Nirenberg Inequality Revisited, to appear in Adv. Calc. Var., arXiv.2501.11412.↑9, 11, 30

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [10]

    Y.-W. B. Chen, K. H. Ooi, and D. Spector,Capacitary maximal inequalities and applications, J. Funct. Anal. 286 (2024), no. 12, Paper No. 110396, 31, DOI 10.1016/j.jfa.2024.110396. MR4729407 ↑3, 15, 19

    arXiv 2024

  3. [19]

    On Hausdorff content maximal operator and Riesz potential for non-measurable functions

    P . Harjulehto and R. Hurri-Syrj¨anen, On Hausdorff content maximal operator and Riesz potential for non-measurable functions, Preprint, arXiv.2405.12113. ↑5, 27

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [1]

    D. R. Adams, A note on Riesz potentials, Duke Math. J. 42 (1975), no. 4, 765–778. MR0458158 ↑22

    work page 1975

  5. [2]

    , Choquet integrals in potential theory , Publ. Mat. 42 (1998), no. 1, 3–66, DOI 10.5565/PUBLMAT 42198 01. MR1628134 ↑5, 15

    doi:10.5565/publmat 1998

  6. [3]

    II, Indiana Univ

    , Traces of potentials. II, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 22 (1972/73), 907–918, DOI 10.1512/iumj.1973.22.22075. MR313783 ↑2

    work page doi:10.1512/iumj.1973.22.22075 1972

  7. [5]

    Bennett, Another characterization of BLO , Proc

    C. Bennett, Another characterization of BLO , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 85 (1982), no. 4, 552–556, DOI 10.2307/2044064. MR0660603 ↑2 UNCENTERED FRACTIONAL MAXIMAL FUNCTIONS AND MEAN OSCILLATION SPACES 31

    doi:10.2307/2044064 1982

  8. [6]

    Bennett, R

    C. Bennett, R. A. DeVore, and R. Sharpley, Weak-L∞ and BMO , Ann. of Math. (2) 113 (1981), no. 3, 601–611, DOI 10.2307/2006999. MR0621018 ↑2

    doi:10.2307/2006999 1981

Show all 39 references
  1. [7]

    Br ´ezis and L

    H. Br ´ezis and L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations involving critical Sobolev exponents, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 36 (1983), no. 4, 437–477, DOI 10.1002/cpa.3160360405. MR0709644 ↑1

    1983 doi

  2. [8]

    Cerd `a, J

    J. Cerd `a, J. Mart´ın, and P . Silvestre,Capacitary function spaces, Collect. Math. 62 (2011), no. 1, 95–118, DOI 10.1007/s13348- 010-0031-7. MR2772330 ↑5

    2011 doi

  3. [9]

    Y.-W. B. Chen and A. Claros, β-dimensional sharp maximal function and applications, Preprint, arXiv.2407.04456. ↑22

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Y.-W. B. Chen and D. Spector, On functions of bounded β-dimensional mean oscillation , Adv. Calc. Var. 17 (2024), no. 3, 975–996, DOI 10.1515/acv-2022-0084. MR4767358 ↑2, 6, 10, 27

    2024 doi

  5. [12]

    Chiarenza, M

    F. Chiarenza, M. Frasca, and P . Longo,W 2,p-solvability of the Dirichlet problem for nondivergence elliptic equations with VMO coefficients, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.336 (1993), no. 2, 841–853, DOI 10.2307/2154379. MR1088476 ↑3

    1993 doi

  6. [13]

    Cianchi, Moser-Trudinger trace inequalities, Adv

    A. Cianchi, Moser-Trudinger trace inequalities, Adv. Math. 217 (2008), no. 5, 2005–2044, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2007.09.007. MR2388084 ↑2

    2008 doi

  7. [14]

    R. R. Coifman, R. Rochberg, and G. Weiss, Factorization theorems for Hardy spaces in several variables, Ann. of Math. (2) 103 (1976), no. 3, 611–635, DOI 10.2307/1970954. MR0412721 ↑3

    1976 doi

  8. [15]

    C. Fang, L. Liu, and Y. Zhang, Characterizations of BMO with Hausdorff content , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 547 (2025), no. 2, Paper No. 129308, 20, DOI 10.1016/j.jmaa.2025.129308. MR4860132 ↑2

    2025

  9. [16]

    Gibara and J

    R. Gibara and J. Kline, Fractional maximal functions and mean oscillation on bounded doubling metric measure spaces, J. Funct. Anal. 285 (2023), no. 10, Paper No. 110126, 31, DOI 10.1016/j.jfa.2023.110126. MR4631383 ↑2, 3, 4, 22

    2023

  10. [17]

    X. Han, J. Li, and L. Wu, Endpoint boundedness of singular integrals: CMO space associated to Schr¨ odinger operators, Preprint, arXiv.2504.16827. ↑2

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    Heikkinen, J

    T. Heikkinen, J. Lehrb ¨ack, J. Nuutinen, and H. Tuominen, Fractional maximal functions in metric measure spaces , Anal. Geom. Metr. Spaces 1 (2013), 147–162, DOI 10.2478/agms-2013-0002. MR3108871 ↑3

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    Hofmann and S

    S. Hofmann and S. Mayboroda, Hardy and BMO spaces associated to divergence form elliptic operators, Math. Ann. 344 (2009), no. 1, 37–116, DOI 10.1007/s00208-008-0295-3. MR2481054 ↑4

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    John and L

    F. John and L. Nirenberg, On functions of bounded mean oscillation , Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 14 (1961), 415–426, DOI 10.1002/cpa.3160140317. MR0131498 ↑1

    1961 doi

  14. [22]

    V . I. Judoviˇc, Some estimates connected with integral operators and with solutions of elliptic equations, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 138 (1961), 805–808 (Russian). MR0140822 ↑2

    1961

  15. [23]

    G. A. Karagulyan, Maximal operators on spaces BMO and BLO, Preprint, arXiv.2502.05882. ↑2

  16. [24]

    Kinnunen and E

    J. Kinnunen and E. Saksman, Regularity of the fractional maximal function , Bull. London Math. Soc. 35 (2003), no. 4, 529– 535, DOI 10.1112/S0024609303002017. MR1979008 ↑1

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    ´A. D. Mart´ınez and D. Spector, An improvement to the John-Nirenberg inequality for functions in critical Sobolev spaces, Adv. Nonlinear Anal. 10 (2021), no. 1, 877–894, DOI 10.1515/anona-2020-0157. MR4191703 ↑1, 2

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Musil, Fractional maximal operator in Orlicz spaces , J

    V . Musil, Fractional maximal operator in Orlicz spaces , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 474 (2019), no. 1, 94–115, DOI 10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.01.034. MR3912893 ↑1

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Nowak, Improved Sobolev regularity for linear nonlocal equations with VMO coefficients , Math

    S. Nowak, Improved Sobolev regularity for linear nonlocal equations with VMO coefficients , Math. Ann. 385 (2023), no. 3-4, 1323–1378, DOI 10.1007/s00208-022-02369-w. MR4566696 ↑4

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Orobitg and J

    J. Orobitg and J. Verdera, Choquet integrals, Hausdorff content and the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator , Bull. London Math. Soc. 30 (1998), no. 2, 145–150, DOI 10.1112/S0024609397003688. MR1489325 ↑1, 9

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    A. C. Ponce and D. Spector, Some remarks on capacitary integrals and measure theory , Potentials and partial differential equations—the legacy of David R. Adams, Adv. Anal. Geom., vol. 8, De Gruyter, Berlin, [2023] ©2023, pp. 235–263. MR4654520 ↑30

    2023

  22. [30]

    Roychowdhury and D

    P . Roychowdhury and D. Spector,On sharp constants in higher order Adams-Cianchi inequalities, Preprint, arXiv.2411.00293. ↑22

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Saito, H

    H. Saito, H. Tanaka, and T. Watanabe, Abstract dyadic cubes, maximal operators and Hausdorff content , Bull. Sci. Math. 140 (2016), no. 6, 757–773, DOI 10.1016/j.bulsci.2016.02.001. MR3543752 ↑1

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    Sarason, Functions of vanishing mean oscillation , Trans

    D. Sarason, Functions of vanishing mean oscillation , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 207 (1975), 391–405, DOI 10.2307hi1997184. MR0377518 ↑3

    1975

  25. [33]

    E. T. Sawyer, A characterization of a two-weight norm inequality for maximal operators , Studia Math. 75 (1982), no. 1, 1–11, DOI 10.4064/sm-75-1-1-11. MR0676801 ↑3, 15

    1982 doi

  26. [34]

    Weigt, Endpoint Sobolev bounds for fractional Hardy-Littlewood maximal operators , Math

    J. Weigt, Endpoint Sobolev bounds for fractional Hardy-Littlewood maximal operators , Math. Z. 301 (2022), no. 3, 2317–2337, DOI 10.1007/s00209-022-02969-x. MR4437324 ↑1

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Shaabani, Maximal operators on BMO and slices , Canad

    S. Shaabani, Maximal operators on BMO and slices , Canad. Math. Bull. 67 (2024), no. 1, 94–107, DOI 10.4153/s000843952300053x. MR4706803 ↑4, 28

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    D. Wang, J. Zhou, and Z. Teng, Some characterizations of BLO space , Math. Nachr. 291 (2018), no. 11-12, 1908–1918, DOI 10.1002/mana.201700318. MR3844813 ↑10

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    R. L. Wheeden and A. Zygmund, Measure and integral, 2nd ed., Pure and Applied Mathematics (Boca Raton), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2015. An introduction to real analysis. MR3381284 ↑22

    2015

  30. [38]

    Wu and D.-y

    D. Wu and D.-y. Yan, Continuity of Hardy-Littlewood maximal function , Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser. 36 (2020), no. 4, 982–990, DOI 10.1007/s10255-020-0983-z. MR4192389 ↑30 32 R. BASAK, Y.-W. B. CHEN, AND P . ROYCHOWDHURY

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Yang and W

    D. Yang and W. Yuan, A note on dyadic Hausdorff capacities , Bull. Sci. Math. 132 (2008), no. 6, 500–509, DOI 10.1016/j.bulsci.2007.06.005. MR2445577 ↑5 (R. Basak) DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS , NATIONAL TAIWAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY , NO. 88, S ECTION 4, T INGZHOU ROAD , WENSHAN DIST...

    2008 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.