Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

Maximal estimates for orthonormal systems of wave equations with sharp regularity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In dimension 3, this paper confirms the conjectured sharp regularity threshold for maximal estimates that control pointwise convergence for orthonormal systems of wave equations, and it extends sharp ranges in dimensions 2 and ≥4.

desk verdict Sharp d=3 orthonormal wave maximal estimates, but the key bilinear estimate has a proof gap that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19451 v1 pith:HKG635MS submitted 2025-08-26 math.AP math.CA

Hyerim Ko , Sanghyuk Lee , Shobu Shiraki This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath.CA MSC 35L0535B65
keywords waveequationorthonormalsystemsmaximalestimatesSchattenclassespointwiseconvergencesharpregularitybilinearconeBesselasymptotics
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 addresses a quantum many-body question: for an infinite system of non-interacting fermions evolving under the wave equation, does the particle density converge pointwise to its initial value as t→0? The controlling object is a maximal estimate for sums of squares of wave solutions with orthonormal initial data, indexed by a summability parameter β; the conjectured sharp condition is that the Sobolev regularity s exceed max{s_d(q), s_d(2β)}, where s_d(σ)=max{d/2−d/σ,(d+1)/4−(d−1)/(2σ)}. In dimension 3, the paper proves this conjecture for every β≥1, up to the endpoint (strict inequality). For d≥4 it proves the sharp range β∈[2,∞], and for d=2 the sharp range β∈[1,2], improving the previously known non-sharp results in both cases. The key new input is a bilinear estimate for a thickened-cone kernel that loses only one power of δ in d≥3, and half a power in d=2, obtained by exploiting the Fourier decay of the conic measure rather than the spatial geometry of cone intersections.

What carries the argument

The engine is a bilinear estimate (Proposition 2.3) for the thickened-cone kernel K^N_δ: the form B_δ(g1,g2)=∫∫∫∫ g1 g2 K^N_δ(x−x′,t−t′) is bounded by δ^{θ_d}‖g1‖_{L²_xL¹_t}‖g2‖_{L²_xL¹_t}, with θ_d=1 for d≥3 and θ_d=1/2 for d=2. The δ-power comes from Lemma 2.2, which reads the kernel's Fourier transform off the conic measure's Bessel asymptotics, replacing the spatial cone-intersection analysis of earlier work (δ^{1/2} in d=3). Around it: a duality principle (Proposition 2.1) turning the orthonormal maximal estimate into a Schatten-2 bound on W T_k W, Littlewood–Paley localization, and a spatial decomposition feeding each kernel piece into B_δ at δ=2^{l−k}. Interpolation of the β=1, β=2, a

What would settle it

Compute B_δ on the pair its dyadic step is designed to make sharp: g1,g2 with Fourier transforms on unit-thick cone pieces |τ|=|ξ| at scale |ξ|∼δ^{-1}, τ-supports just touching. If the true d=3 bound is δ^{1/2}‖g1‖‖g2‖ (the earlier geometric method's rate) rather than δ‖g1‖‖g2‖, Proposition 2.3 is false and Theorem 1.4 does not follow. A separate algebraic check settles the range issue: does the claimed decay still hold at δ=1/2, the value used in (3.12), which lies outside the stated range δ<2^{-2}?

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.4: in dimension 3, the maximal estimate for orthonormal wave data holds at every regularity s above the conjectured threshold max{s_d(q), s_d(2β)}, for every β≥1 and q≥2. Since earlier counterexamples force s≥s_d(2β), the sharp regularity exponent is pinned down up to the endpoint. The decisive case is β=2: the frequency-localized maximal estimate with ℓ² weights holds for s>max{d/4,5/8}, exactly the conjectured critical value in d=3. Interpolating with the elementary β=1 and β=∞ bounds yields the full β-range; d=3 is complete because the regime-change exponent β*=(d+1)/(d−1) equals 2 there. The same argument gives sharp ranges for β∈[2,∞] in d≥4 and β∈

Load-bearing premise

The paper's results stand on one new estimate: an integral over two space–time copies against a kernel hugging the light cone is bounded by δ (d≥3) or √δ (d=2) times the input norms, where δ is the cone's thickness — if that decay is actually weaker, the sharp β=2 estimate and all three main theorems fail. Its proof in Section 2 is compressed: the dyadic summation is sketched, the cone-geometry transfer of τ-localization to ξ is asserted rather than shown, and the estimate is

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In d=3 the maximal estimate (1.8) holds for every β≥1 and q≥2 at any regularity strictly above the conjectured threshold, so pointwise convergence of densities (1.6) follows for self-adjoint initial states in the β-range of Corollary 1.5.
  • In d≥4 the sharp range β∈[2,∞], and in d=2 the sharp range β∈[1,2], are established, strictly broadening the previously known non-sharp results.
  • The single β=2 estimate (Proposition 3.1) is sharp in every d≥3, and all other β-values are obtained from it by interpolation with the elementary β=1 and β=∞ bounds.
  • All results hold with strict inequality; the critical case where s equals s_d(2β) (including the endpoint regime) is not settled.
  • The paper remarks that the same Fourier-side analysis also yields an alternative proof of the orthonormal wave Strichartz estimate at β=2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the β=2 estimate is already sharp in every d≥3, the remaining gaps (β<2 in d≥4, β>2 in d=2) look like an artefact of interpolation: a direct ℓ^β argument that bypasses the β=1/β=2/β=∞ interpolation should close them — an extension the paper does not make.
  • Proposition 2.3 is stated for δ<2^{-2}, but the proof of Proposition 3.1 applies it at δ=2^{l−k}, which can reach 1/2; a checkable technical question is whether the estimate holds uniformly for δ≤1/2 with the usual δ^{-ε} losses, which would remove the only evident mismatch between the stated lemma and its use.
  • The endpoint s=s_d(2β) remains open even in d=3; an endpoint (restricted weak-type) version of the bilinear estimate would be the natural route to the critical case, which this paper does not address.
  • The Fourier-decay approach does not rely on the low-dimensional cone-intersection geometry that limited earlier work, so the same kernel analysis may transfer to half-wave-type propagators on curved hypersurfaces or to other cone-constrained dispersive equations — consequences the paper leaves implicit.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves maximal estimates for orthonormal systems of half-wave equations, i.e., bounds for the L^{q/2}_x L^∞_t norm of the density Σ_j λ_j |e^{it√−Δ}f_j|^2 in terms of ∥λ∥_{ℓ^β} and the Sobolev regularity of the orthonormal family (f_j). The main result, Theorem 1.4, establishes the conjectured sharp threshold in dimension d=3 for all β≥1, up to endpoint. In d≥4 and d=2, Theorems 1.6 and 1.8 give sharp results for β∈[2,∞] and β∈[1,2] respectively, improving on the earlier work [24]. The proof centers on a new bilinear estimate, Proposition 2.3, for a smoothed thickened-cone kernel, and a resulting frequency-localized L^2 estimate, Proposition 3.1, from which the full range follows by duality and interpolation. The paper also includes a careful analysis of the Fourier decay of the conic measure in Lemma 2.2.

Significance. If the main results are correct, they confirm the natural conjecture for orthonormal wave maximal estimates in d=3 up to the endpoint and give the first sharp bounds for the Schatten exponent in several parameter ranges. The approach via a smooth thickened-cone kernel is a genuine methodological novelty compared with the geometric arguments in [24]. The reduction to Proposition 3.1 and the interpolation framework are clean, and Lemma 2.2 is rigorously proved. However, the proof of the load-bearing bilinear estimate, Proposition 2.3, contains an unjustified support-transfer assertion and an improperly justified dyadic summation, so the paper cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, proof of Proposition 2.3] The assertion after (2.3) that 'for k ≥ 1, the cone structure transfers the additional localization in ξ to τ' and hence that \hat{g^k_j} is supported in |ξ|∼|τ|∼2^k is false. The functions g^k_j are defined by a spatial Littlewood–Paley cutoff only; for arbitrary g_j∈L^2_xL^1_t the temporal Fourier support is unconstrained. For example, take g_j(x,t)=f(x)h(t) with \hat f supported on |ξ|∼2^k and \hat h supported on |τ|∼2^K with K≫k and h∈L^1∩L^2. Then ∥g_j∥_{L^2_xL^1_t}<∞ but \hat{g^k_j} is supported in |τ|∼2^K, not |τ|∼2^k. Consequently the Bernstein bound ∥g^k_j∥_{L^2_xL^2_t}≲2^{k/2}∥g_j∥_{L^2_xL^1_t} is unjustified and can fail. This step is load-bearing: Proposition 3.1 and Theorems 1.4, 1.6, and 1.8 depend on it. The proof can likely be repaired by inserting a temporal cutoff χ(τ/2^k) using the τ-decay and cone factors in Lemma 2.2 and verifying that the L^2_xL^1_t norm of the trun
  2. [Section 2, proof of Proposition 2.3 (dyadic summation)] The reduction to a single dyadic sum is not justified. Decomposing both g_1 and g_2 yields a double sum Σ_{k,l} over the spatial frequency pieces. The displayed bound after (2.3) is a single sum over k. The cross terms k≠l are not discussed. If the intended device is the support or decay of \widehat{K^N_δ} (localization in |ξ| and near the cone), that argument should be stated; without it the bound does not follow. This is a technical but necessary step in the proof.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.12)] Proposition 2.3 is applied with δ=2^{l-k}. For l=k-1 this gives δ=1/2, which is outside the range 0<δ<2^{-2} stated in Proposition 2.3. The proof of the proposition appears to work for any δ<1 with a minor adjustment of the threshold L, but as stated the application is outside the hypothesis. The authors should either extend the proposition to the full range δ<1 or handle the case l=k-1 separately.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, first paragraph] The inclusion 'ℓ^{q/2} ⊂ ℓ^β' appears reversed. When q/2 ≥ β, the correct inclusion is ℓ^β ⊂ ℓ^{q/2}. The argument still works, but the statement should be corrected.
  2. [Remark after Proposition 2.3] The remark contains an unresolved citation '[?, Proposition 3.1]'. Please replace it with a proper reference.
  3. [Proof of Lemma 2.2] The notation for the Fourier transform of the kernel is inconsistent (\widehat{KN_δ} vs \widehat{K^N_δ}). Please unify.
  4. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.8)] The notation φ^2_{2^k}(|ξ|) is ambiguous; it should mean φ_{2^k}(|ξ|)^2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the main theorems reduce to the new bilinear estimate Proposition 2.3, which is derived in-paper from Lemma 2.2; self-citations are contextual or non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. Theorem 1.4/1.6/1.8 are reduced, via the standard interpolation argument in Section 3.1, to Proposition 3.1 (the β=2 estimate). Proposition 3.1 is in turn reduced to the Schatten-C2 bound (3.9), whose proof invokes Proposition 2.3. Proposition 2.3 is a genuinely new bilinear estimate; its proof proceeds from Lemma 2.2, which is proved in the paper from the Fourier transform of the conic measure, Bessel asymptotics, and integration by parts. No parameter is fitted and no unknown is defined in terms of the target estimate. The exponent θ_d in Proposition 2.3 emerges from the dyadic summation (δ times Σ 2^{-(d-3)k/2}), not from imposing the final threshold. Self-citations appear, notably [24] for the necessary condition s ≥ s_d(2β) and for a standard Littlewood-Paley reduction, and [3,5,20] for the duality principle. These are not load-bearing in a circular way: the necessity result from [24] is used only to frame optimality, while sufficiency is proved independently; the standard reduction does not smuggle in the theorem being proved. The manuscript does contain two rigor/bibliographic gaps that should be flagged but are not circularity. (1) In the proof of Proposition 2.3, the line 'for k ≥ 1, the cone structure transfers the additional localization in ξ to τ' and the conclusion that ĝ^k_j is supported in {|ξ|∼|τ|∼2^k} is not justified by the spatial Littlewood-Paley cutoff alone; if this fails, the Bernstein step and Proposition 2.3 would not follow. (2) In (3.12), Proposition 2.3 is applied with δ=2^{l-k}, which for l=k-1 is δ=1/2, outside the stated range 0<δ<2^{-2}. (3) The Remark after Proposition 2.3 contains an incomplete citation, 'in [?, Proposition 3.1]'. These are correctness/completeness risks, not instances where a 'prediction' reduces by construction to an input or a self-citation chain. The central claim retains independent mathematical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard tools from harmonic analysis and operator theory, plus the paper's own new bilinear estimate Proposition 2.3. There are no fitted parameters or invented entities. The main unproved inputs are the duality principle (cited from [20,3]) and the single-particle maximal estimates (cited from [14,30,28,12]).

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Duality principle (Proposition 2.1) from [20,3]: equivalence of the orthonormal estimate (i) and the Schatten norm bound (ii) for operators W T T* W.
    Used as a black box to convert the maximal estimate into a Schatten-2 bound for the operator W T_k W in the proof of Proposition 3.1.
  • domain assumption Single-particle maximal estimates (Theorem 1.2) from [14,30,28,12]: sharp thresholds for (1.3), used to identify necessary conditions and to formulate the conjecture (1.9).
    The necessity of s ≥ s_d(2β) is cited from [24]; the sufficiency for the single-particle case is used for β=1 and in the reduction argument.
  • standard math Complex interpolation for Schatten classes, used to combine the β=1, β=2, and β=∞ estimates into the full β range.
    Standard tool; invoked in Section 3.1 without proof.
  • standard math Bernstein's inequality and Plancherel's theorem in the proof of Proposition 2.3.
    Used to bound L^2 norms by L^1 norms under frequency support assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximal estimates for orthonormal systems of wave equations with sharp regularity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HKG635MS

@misc{pith2026250819451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximal estimates for orthonormal systems of wave equations with sharp regularity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HKG635MS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19451}
}
abstract

We study maximal estimates for the wave equation with orthonormal initial data. In dimension $d=3$, we establish optimal results with the sharp regularity exponent up to the endpoint. In higher dimensions $d \ge 4$ and also in $d=2$, we obtain sharp bounds for the Schatten exponent (summability index) $\beta\in [2, \infty]$ when $d\ge4$, and $\beta\in[1, 2]$ when $d=2$, improving upon the previous estimates due to Kinoshita--Ko--Shiraki. Our approach is based on a novel analysis of a key integral arising in the case $\beta=2$, which allows us to refine existing techniques and achieve the optimal estimates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19451 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. The maximal estimate (1.3) is known to hold if s ≥ max{ 1 2 , sd(q)} for q ∈ [1, ∞] \ {qd} (the pink region), and to fail if s < max{ 1 2 , sd(q)} for q ∈ [1, ∞] (the blue region). It remains open whether (1.3) holds for q = qd and s = sd(qd). The standard approach to this problem is to determine the minimal s for which the space-time local maximal estimate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. This figure illustrates the conditions in Theorem 1.4 and Corollary 1.5 when d = 3. In particular, the maximal estimate (1.8) holds with q = 2β if s > s3(2β) (the purple region), and fails if s < s3(2β) (the green region). Kinoshita and two of the present authors [24] recently showed that the condition s ≥ sd(2β) is necessary for (1.8) to be true. Combining this with the known condition s ≥ sd(q) from the single-par… view at source ↗
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3. This figure illustrates the conditions in Theorem 1.6 and Corollary 1.7 when d ≥ 4. In particular, the maximal estimate (1.8) holds with q = 2β if s > max{sd(2β), d−1 2 − d−2 2β } (the purple region), and fails if s < sd(2β) (the green region). Therefore, the condition is sharp for q/2, β ∈ [2, ∞], up to the critical lines, while it remains open whether s > sd(2β) is also sufficient for β ∈ (1, 2). The condition (1.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4. Figure 1.4: This figure illustrates the conditions in Theorem 1.8 and Corollary 1.9. In particular, the maximal estimate (1.8) holds with q = 2β if s > max{sd(2β), 1 − 3 4β } (the purple region), and fails if s < sd(2β) (the green region). Therefore, the condition is sharp for q…
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1: The (truncated) dual cone in the frequency side. The localization in τ carries over to ξ due to the geometry of the cone. Here, A ⪅ B means that A ≤ Cϵδ −ϵB for any ϵ > 0. In [24], the authors pursued a geometric approach to the estimate, analyzing the structure of i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    H. Ko, S. Kinoshita, and S. Shiraki. Maximal estimates for orthonormal systems of wave equations. Preprint, to appear in J. Anal. Math

    work page

  2. [1]

    J. A. Barcel´ o, J. Bennett, A. Carbery, and K. M. Rogers. On the dimension of divergence sets of dispersive equations. Math. Ann., 349:599–622, 2011. doi:10.1007/s00208-010-0529-z

    doi:10.1007/s00208-010-0529-z 2011

  3. [2]

    Beceanu and M

    M. Beceanu and M. Goldberg. Strichartz estimates and maximal operators for the wave equation in R3. J. Funct. Anal. , 266:1476–1510, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2013.11.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2013.11.010 2014

  4. [3]

    N. Bez, Y. Hong, S. Lee, S. Nakamura, and Y. Sawano. On the strichartz estimates for orthonormal systems of initial data with regularity. Adv. Math. , 354:106736, 2019. doi:10. 1016/j.aim.2019.106736

    work page arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    N. Bez, S. Kinoshita, and S. Shiraki. A note on strichartz estimates for the wave equation with orthonormal initial data. Preprint, arXiv:2306.14547, to appear in RIMS Kˆ okyˆ uroku Bessatsu. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.14547

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [5]

    N. Bez, S. Kinoshita, and S. Shiraki. Boundary strichartz estimates and pointwise conver- gence for orthonormal systems. Trans. Lond. Math. Soc. , 11:e70002, 2024. doi:10.1112/ tlm3.70002

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    N. Bez, S. Lee, and S. Nakamura. Maximal estimates for the schr¨ odinger equation with orthonormal initial data. Selecta Math., 26:52, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00029-020-00582-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00029-020-00582-6 2020

  8. [7]

    N. Bez, S. Lee, and S. Nakamura. Strichartz estimates for orthonormal families of initial data and weighted oscillatory integral estimates. Forum Math. Sigma , 9:e1, 2021. doi:10.1017/ fms.2020.64

    work page 2021

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Bourgain

    J. Bourgain. A note on the schr¨ odinger maximal function.J. Anal. Math., 130:393–396, 2016. doi:10.1007/s11854-016-0042-8 . 15

    2016 doi

  2. [9]

    Carleson

    L. Carleson. Some analytic problems related to statistical mechanics. In Euclidean Harmonic Analysis, pages 5–45, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/ BFb0087666

    1980

  3. [10]

    T. Chen, Y. Hong, and N. Pavlovi´ c. On the scattering problem for infinitely many fermions in dimensions d ≥ 3 at positive temperature. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 35:393–416, 2018. doi:10.1016/J.ANIHPC.2017.05.002

    2018 doi

  4. [11]

    T. Chen, Y. Hong, and N. Pavlovi´ c. Global well-posedness of the nls system for infinitely many fermions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 224:91–123, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00205-016-1068-x

    2017 doi

  5. [12]

    C. H. Cho, S. Lee, and W. Li. Endpoint estimates for maximal operators associated to the wave equation. arXiv:2501.01686. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01686

  6. [13]

    C. H. Cho and S. Shiraki. Dimension of divergence sets of oscillatory integrals with concave phase. Preprint, arXiv:2212.14330, to appear in J. Geom. Anal., 2022. URL: https://arxiv. org/abs/2212.14330

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    M. G. Cowling. Pointwise behavpour of solutions to schr¨ odinger equations. In Harmonic Analysis, pages 83–90. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1983. doi:10.1007/BFb0069152

    1983 doi

  8. [15]

    B. E. J. Dahlberg and C. E. Kenig. A note on the almost everywhere behavior of solutions to the schr¨ odinger equation. InHarmonic Analysis , volume 908 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 205–209. Springer, Berlin, 1982. doi:10.1007/BFb0093289

    1982 doi

  9. [16]

    X. Du, L. Guth, and X. Li. A sharp schr¨ odinger maximal estimate in R2. Ann. of Math. , 186:607–640, 2017. doi:10.4007/annals.2017.186.2.5

    2017 doi

  10. [17]

    Du and R

    X. Du and R. Zhang. Sharp L2 estimates of the schr¨ odinger maximal function in higher dimensions. Ann. of Math. , 189:837–861, 2019. doi:10.4007/annals.2019.189.3.4

    2019 doi

  11. [18]

    R. L. Frank, M. Lewin, E. H. Lieb, and R. Seiringer. Strichartz inequality for orthonormal functions. J. Eur. Math. Soc. , 16:1507–1526, 2014. doi:10.4171/JEMS/467

    2014 doi

  12. [19]

    R. L. Frank and J. Sabin. The stein–tomas inequality in trace ideals. S´ eminaire Laurent Schwartz — EDP et applications (2015–2016) , pages Talk no. 15, 12 pp., 2016. doi:10. 5802/slsedp.92

    2015

  13. [20]

    R. L. Frank and J. Sabin. Restriction theorems for orthonormal functions, strichartz inequal- ities, and uniform sobolev estimates. Am. J. Math. , 139:1649–1691, 2017. doi:10.1353/ajm. 2017.0041

    2017

  14. [21]

    A. Hoshiya. Orthonormal strichartz estimates for schr¨ odinger operator and their applications to infinitely many particle systems. Preprint, arXiv:2312.08314. URL: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.08314

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    A. Hoshiya. Orthonormal strichartz estimate for dispersive equations with potentials. J. Funct. Anal., 286:110425, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2024.110425

    2024

  16. [23]

    C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega. Oscillatory integrals and regularity of dispersive equa- tions. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 40(1):33–69, 1991. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 24896258

    1991

  17. [25]

    Lewin and J

    M. Lewin and J. Sabin. The hartree equation for infinitely many particles. ii. dispersion and scattering in 2d. Anal. PDE, 7:1339–1363, 2014. doi:10.2140/apde.2014.7.1339

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Lewin and J

    M. Lewin and J. Sabin. The hartree equation for infinitely many particles i. well-posedness theory. Commun. Math. Phys. , 334:117–170, 2015. doi:10.1007/s00220-014-2098-6

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Machihara

    S. Machihara. Maximal operators associated to the wave equation for radial data in R3+1. Saitama Math. J , 30:15–25, 2013. URL: https://www.rimath.saitama-u.ac.jp/research/ pdf/smj30-2.pdf

    2013

  20. [28]

    K. M. Rogers and P. Villarroya. Sharp estimates for maximal operators associated to the wave equation. Ark. Mat., 46:143–151, 2008. doi:10.1007/s11512-007-0063-8

    2008 doi

  21. [29]

    E. M. Stein. On limits of sequences of operators. Ann. of Math. , 74:140–170, 1961. doi: 10.2307/1970308

    1961 doi

  22. [30]

    B. Walther. Some Lp(L∞)– and L2(L2)– estimates for oscillatory fourier transforms. In Analysis of Divergence: Control and Management of Divergent Processes , pages 213–231. Birkh¨ auser Boston, 1999.doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2236-1_15

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    X. Yan, Y. Li, and W. Yan. The orthonormal strichartz estimates and convergence problem of density functions related to ∂3 x + ∂−1 x . Preprint, arXiv:2503.13561. URL: https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.13561

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    X. Yan, Y. Li, W. Yan, and X. Liu. Strichartz estimates for orthonormal functions and convergence problem of density functions of boussinesq operator on manifolds. Preprint, arXiv:2411.08920. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.08920. 16 KO, LEE, AND SHIRAKI (Hyerim Ko) Department...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.