Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Convex-body domination extends to fractional integrals in matrix-weighted spaces.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:46 UTC pith:NU2BFQJT

load-bearing objection The off-diagonal convex body domination is a real step forward and the flagged gap in Theorem 3.5 is not a gap; the only issue is a repeated 3n vs 3^n typo. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18175 v1 pith:NU2BFQJT submitted 2026-07-20 math.CA math.FA

On off-diagonal operators in matrix-weighted spaces

David Cruz-Uribe , Aapo Laukkarinen , Kabe Moen This is my paper
classification math.CA math.FA MSC 42B2042B2542B35
keywords Riesz potentialsfractional integralsmatrix weightsconvex body dominationsparse dominationcommutatorsGagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequalityweighted norm inequalities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops convex body domination for off-diagonal operators and uses it to prove matrix-weighted inequalities for fractional integrals, their commutators, and vector-valued Sobolev embeddings. The engine is an inclusion: for any compactly supported vector-valued f, the Riesz potential I_α f(x) lies almost everywhere in a constant times a sum over η-sparse dyadic collections of |Q|^{α/n}⟪f⟫_{L^1(Q)}, where ⟪f⟫ is the convex body of all averages against unit-norm test functions. From that single inclusion the paper extracts quantitative L^p(W)→L^q(W) bounds with a two-term exponent min{(1−α/n)p′+q, p′+(1−α/n)q}−1, commutator bounds whose BMO power matches the scalar case, and improved Gagliardo–Nirenberg–Sobolev inequalities for vector-valued functions. The method is general: it only needs weak-type bounds for the operator and its truncated maximal operator, so the same inclusion covers fractional singular integrals and rough fractional kernels satisfying Hörmander-type conditions.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the matrix-weighted theory of fractional operators can be built on a single geometric inclusion: for each compactly supported vector-valued f and each 0<α<n there are η-sparse families S_i, i=1,...,3n, in different dyadic lattices such that I_α f(x) ∈ C Σ_{i=1}^{3n} Σ_{Q∈S_i} |Q|^{α/n} ⟪f⟫_{L^1(Q)} 1_Q(x) almost everywhere. Here ⟪f⟫_{L^1(Q)} is the convex body of all averages ∫_Q k f dx taken against scalar functions k with ∥k∥_{L^∞(Q)}≤1. The same theorem holds for fractional singular integrals and for rough fractional kernels satisfying an L^{r'} integrability and cancellation condition, with ⟪f⟫_{L^r(Q)} in place of ⟪f⟫_{L^1(Q)}. From this inclusion the p

What carries the argument

The central object is the set-valued L^r average ⟪f⟫_{L^r(Q)} = { ∫_Q k f dx : ∥k∥_{L^{r'}(Q)}≤1 }, a closed bounded symmetric convex body that records the size and direction of f over Q. The argument's load-bearing step is a bootstrapping proposition: if a linear operator T and its truncated maximal operator M_T satisfy weak-type (r,s) bounds, then a scalar pointwise estimate with a small exceptional collection of cubes lifts to an inclusion with a slightly larger exceptional collection. Membership in the convex body is certified by projecting onto the principal axes of its maximal-volume ellipsoid. Iterating this inclusion over dyadic generations produces (1−ε)-sparse collections, and the

Load-bearing premise

In the proof of Theorem 3.5, R^n is partitioned into maximal dyadic cubes Q_0^k with Q_0^k ⊅ supp f, and the reduction Tf = Σ_k T(1_{3Q_0^k} f) 1_{Q_0^k} assumes that supp f ⊂ 3Q_0^k for every k; this containment is not proved and is generally false for cubes far from the support.

What would settle it

Take f supported in [0,1]^n and a maximal dyadic cube Q_0^k from the partition whose 3-dilate is disjoint from [0,1]^n. Then 1_{3Q_0^k}f = 0, so the right side of the reduction is zero on Q_0^k, while Tf is generally nonzero there; verifying that such cubes occur in the prescribed partition would invalidate the proof's first step and thereby the derivation of Theorem 1.1.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For the fractional integral, the convex-body inclusion yields the matrix-weighted bound ∥W I_α f∥_{L^q} ≤ C [W]_{A_{p,q}}^{min{(1−α/n)p′+q, p′+(1−α/n)q}−1} ∥Wf∥_{L^p}; the exponent improves the earlier single-exponent bound whenever q>p′ and reduces to the known A_2 power at p=q=2, α=0.
  • For the k-th iterated commutator with a BMO-scalar symbol, the same inclusion gives the exponent k max{p′,q}+min{(1−α/n)p′+q, p′+(1−α/n)q}−1, with the added k max{p′,q} matching the scalar commutator power.
  • The domination yields a short proof of the matrix-weighted Sobolev inequality ∥Wf∥_{L^{p*}} ≤ C [W]^{min{p′/n′+p*, p*/n′+p′}−1} ∥W∇f∥_{L^p}, together with a fractional-derivative version involving D_α.
  • Because the bootstrapping relies only on weak-type (r,s) bounds for T and M_T, the same consequences transfer to fractional singular integrals and to rough fractional kernels satisfying the stated L^{r'} conditions.
  • The paper leaves open whether a direct set-valued analogue of the scalar sparse-domination proof exists; its route goes through weak-type estimates and a maximal operator instead.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the partition step in Theorem 3.5 is repaired, the same bootstrapping template should extend convex-body domination to other off-diagonal operators, including vector-valued singular integral analogues with less restrictive kernel hypotheses.
  • The two-term minimum in the exponent suggests a general principle for matrix-weighted off-diagonal estimates: the optimal power is often a minimum of two one-sided powers; testing this on other operators, such as fractional maximal functions, would clarify its scope.
  • A natural next step is to feed the inclusion into matrix-weighted extrapolation, which would turn the single off-diagonal L^p(W)→L^q(W) bound into a family of bounds across a range of exponents.
  • The same domination, combined with different representation formulas, could produce other vector-valued Sobolev-type inequalities; the fractional-derivative result already shows one such case.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops convex body domination for off-diagonal operators, primarily fractional integrals and fractional singular integrals, and applies it to matrix-weighted norm inequalities. The main result, Theorem 1.1, asserts that for 0<α<n the Riesz potential I_α admits a pointwise inclusion into a sum of |Q|^{α/n}⟪f⟫_{Ł^1(Q)} over η-sparse families from finitely many dyadic lattices. From this the authors derive quantitative one-weight L^p(W)→L^q(W) bounds for I_α and its commutators (Theorems 1.2 and 1.3), with weight exponents that improve on earlier results in a parameter range, and matrix-weighted Gagliardo–Nirenberg–Sobolev inequalities (Theorem 1.5). The proof mechanism is a bootstrapping argument: weak-type bounds for T and the associated Lerner maximal operator M_T are lifted to convex-body inclusions via Propositions 3.3–3.4, followed by a recursive sparse selection. Similar domination results are proved for fractional singular integrals and Hörmander-type kernels.

Significance. This is a substantive extension of convex body domination to the off-diagonal setting. The paper gives explicit, parameter-free weight exponents rather than qualitative boundedness, and the applications to commutators and Gagliardo–Nirenberg–Sobolev inequalities are new. The framework is flexible and the authors are candid about open problems and overlap with concurrent work [31]. The central derivation is largely sound; I found no circularity or hidden fitting of constants. The main defect is a repeated miscount in the three-lattice trick (3n instead of 3^n), which is mechanical to repair.

major comments (1)
  1. [§2, Theorem 2.2; §1, Theorem 1.1; §3, Theorem 3.5] The three-lattice trick yields 3^n dyadic lattices, not 3n. For n=2 the standard construction requires 9 lattices, not 6. This count is used in the final sparse sums of Theorems 1.1 and 3.5, in Corollaries 3.6 and 3.8, and in the framework (4.1) of Section 4, so the statements as written are false for n≥2 unless corrected. The repair is mechanical: replace every occurrence of `3n' by `3^n' in these statements and their proofs. The constants C absorb the change, and the arguments go through verbatim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, proof of Theorem 3.5] The partition step is terse but valid. For a maximal dyadic cube Q with Q⊅supp f, the dyadic parent P of Q must contain supp f; since P⊂3Q, we get supp f⊂3Q. The maximal cubes cover R^n because every point lies in a sufficiently small dyadic cube not containing supp f. Adding this one-sentence justification would remove a potential source of confusion.
  2. [Example 4.6] The sum defining the iterated commutator should run over j=0,...,k, not j=1,...,k. As written, the j=0 term B^k T(f) is missing, so the expression is not the k-th iterated commutator C^k_B(I_α). The proof of Theorem 4.9 implicitly uses the j=0 term.
  3. [§4, paragraph after (4.1)] The domain/codomain in `f∈L^∞_c(R^d,R^n)' should be `f∈L^∞_c(R^n,R^d)'.
  4. [Proposition 5.1] The hypothesis should be n≥2, not d≥2, since d is the vector codomain dimension elsewhere in the paper.
  5. [Definition 2.3] The phrase `for every cube Q∈Q' should read `for every cube Q∈S'.
  6. [Proof of Theorem 4.9] The phrase `since r−p we have' appears to be missing a clause; it should say `since p>r' or similar before the estimate for B_{p,q}(Φ̄^r).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the convex body domination and matrix-weighted bounds are derived from stated weak-type hypotheses and standard external results, not from their own conclusions.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Theorem 3.5 is proved from the weak-type hypotheses on T and its Lerner maximal operator MT via Proposition 3.3 and Proposition 3.4; no conclusion of the theorem is used as a hypothesis, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. For the fractional integral, the Lerner maximal bound (3.5) is proved from the standard weak-type bound for Iα, not assumed. The weighted inequalities in Sections 4 and 5 are consequences of the convex body domination, using standard reducing-operator estimates, Orlicz maximal bounds, John-Nirenberg, and reverse Hölder inequalities. Self-citations appear (e.g., [5], [13], [29], [33], [34]), but they are used for context, standard lemmas, or previously proved supporting results, and they do not carry the load of the central claim. The reviewer-flagged partition step in Theorem 3.5 is not circular: if {Q0^k} are maximal dyadic cubes not containing supp f, then their dyadic parents contain supp f, giving supp f ⊂ 3Q0^k and justifying the reduction. The only notable issue is the count '3n' in Theorem 2.2 and its uses, which should be the standard 3^n translation count; this is a typographical/counting error, not a circularity. No step reduces a prediction to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The results are derived from classical and recent theorems in harmonic analysis; no target conclusion is assumed. The main unproved claim is the cube decomposition already flagged in the soundness rationale.

axioms (8)
  • standard math Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev weak type (1,s) for the fractional integral Iα and for its Lerner maximal operator M_{Iα}
    Invoked in Section 3, 'Sparse bounds for fractional operators', equations (3.4)-(3.5), to apply Theorem 3.5 with r=1, s=n/(n−α).
  • domain assumption L^r→L^{s,∞} boundedness of Tα and M_{Tα} for Hörmander-type fractional kernels
    Corollary 3.8 relies on [27, Prop 1.10, Lemma 3.2] for the specific kernel classes satisfying (3.9)-(3.10).
  • standard math Boundedness of the fractional maximal Orlicz operator M_{α,Φ}: L^p→L^q when Φ∈B_{p,q}
    Used in the proof of Theorem 4.1 to bound sparse sums; quoted as (2.5) from [12].
  • standard math Sharp reverse Hölder inequality for scalar A_p and A_{p,q} weights
    Lemma 2.10 from [29] is used in Theorem 4.9 to choose the bump exponents u and v.
  • standard math John ellipsoid theorem and the structural properties of convex-body averages
    Theorem 2.12 and the convex bodies section are used in Lemma 3.1 to certify membership in ⟪f⟫_{L^r(Q)}.
  • standard math Quantitative John-Nirenberg inequality ∥b−⟨b⟩_Q∥_{L^p(Q)} ≲ p∥b∥_{BMO}
    Used in Theorem 4.9 to factor out ∥b∥^k_{BMO}; cited from [33, Lemma 7.2].
  • standard math Representation formulas (5.2) and (5.3) expressing f via I_1∇f and I_α∇_α f
    Used in Section 5 to reduce Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequalities to fractional integral bounds; from [42, Prop 15.8] and [48].
  • standard math Three-lattice trick and dyadic sparse family properties
    Theorem 2.2 from [38] is used to convert sparse cubes inflated by a factor of 3 into 3^n sparse families in different dyadic lattices.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24834 in / 25247 out tokens · 222123 ms · 2026-08-01T15:46:53.217083+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On off-diagonal operators in matrix-weighted spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NU2BFQJT

@misc{pith2026260718175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On off-diagonal operators in matrix-weighted spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NU2BFQJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18175}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper we prove matrix-weighted inequalities for fractional operators and their commutators. We do so by developing the theory of convex body domination for such operators. Using this approach we prove quantitative estimates for the fractional integral operator (or Riesz potential) and its commutators, and prove matrix-weighted Gagliardo-Nirenberg-Sobolev inequalities for vector-valued functions.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Astala, T

    K. Astala, T. Iwaniec, and E. Saksman. Beltrami operators in the plane.Duke Math. J., 107(1):27–56, 2001

    2001

  2. [2]

    B´enyi, J

    ´A. B´enyi, J. M. Martell, K. Moen, E. Stachura, and R. H. Torres. Boundedness results for commutators with BMO functions via weighted estimates: a comprehensive approach.Math. Ann., 376(1-2):61–102, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    A. L. Bernardis, M. Lorente, and M. S. Riveros. Weighted inequalities for fractional integral operators with kernel satisfying H¨ormander type conditions.Math. Inequal. Appl., 14(4):881–895, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    M. Bownik. Inverse volume inequalities for matrix weights.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 50(1):383–410, 2001

    2001

  5. [5]

    Bownik and D

    M. Bownik and D. Cruz-Uribe. Extrapolation and factorization of matrix weights.Math. Ann., 395(3):55, 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    Cardenas and J

    R. Cardenas and J. Isralowitz. Two matrix weighted inequalities for commutators with fractional integral operators.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 515(2):Paper No. 126280, 16, 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Chanillo, D

    S. Chanillo, D. K. Watson, and R. L. Wheeden. Some integral and maximal operators related to starlike sets.Studia Math., 107(3):223–255, 1993

    1993

  8. [8]

    Christ and M

    M. Christ and M. Goldberg. Vector A2 weights and a Hardy-Littlewood maximal function.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 353(5):1995–2002 (electronic), 2001

    1995

  9. [9]

    H. O. Cordes.Spectral theory of linear differential operators and comparison algebras, volume 76 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987

    1987

  10. [10]

    Cruz-Uribe, J

    D. Cruz-Uribe, J. Isralowitz, and K. Moen. Two weight bump conditions for matrix weights.Integral Equations Operator Theory, 90(3):Art. 36, 31, 2018

    2018

  11. [11]

    Cruz-Uribe, J

    D. Cruz-Uribe, J. Isralowitz, K. Moen, S. Pott, and I. P. Rivera-R´ıos. Weak endpoint bounds for matrix weights.Rev. Mat. Iberoam., 37(4):1513–1538, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    Cruz-Uribe and K

    D. Cruz-Uribe and K. Moen. A fractional Muckenhoupt-Wheeden theorem and its consequences.Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory, 76:421–446, 2013

    2013

  13. [13]

    Cruz-Uribe and K

    D. Cruz-Uribe and K. Moen. One and two weight norm inequalities for Riesz potentials.Illinois J. Math., 57(1):295–323, 2013

    2013

  14. [14]

    Cruz-Uribe and M

    D. Cruz-Uribe and M. Penrod. The reverse H¨older inequality for Ap(·) weights with applications to matrix weights.Publ. Mat., to appear. arXiv:2411.12849. ON OFF-DIAGONAL OPERATORS IN MATRIX-WEIGHTED SPACES 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Di Plinio, T

    F. Di Plinio, T. Hyt¨onen, and K. Li. Sparse bounds for maximal rough singular integrals via the Fourier transform.Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 70(5):1871–1902, 2020

    1902

  16. [16]

    Ding and S

    Y . Ding and S. Lu. Weighted norm inequalities for fractional integral operators with rough kernel.Canad. J. Math., 50(1):29–39, 1998

    1998

  17. [17]

    Domelevo, S

    K. Domelevo, S. Petermichl, S. Treil, and A. V olberg. The matrix A2 conjecture fails, i.e., 3/2>1 . preprint, 2024. arXiv:2402.06961

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Goldberg

    M. Goldberg. MatrixA p weights via maximal functions.Pacific J. Math., 211(2):201–220, 2003

    2003

  19. [19]

    Grafakos.Modern Fourier Analysis, volume 250 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics

    L. Grafakos.Modern Fourier Analysis, volume 250 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 2008

    2008

  20. [20]

    G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood. Some properties of fractional integrals. I.Math. Z., 27(1):565–606, 1928

    1928

  21. [21]

    Hyt¨onen

    T. Hyt¨onen. The sharp weighted bound for general Calder ´on-Zygmund operators.Ann. of Math. (2), 175(3):1473–1506, 2012

    2012

  22. [22]

    Hyt¨onen, K

    T. Hyt¨onen, K. Li, and T. Oikari. Iterated commutators under a joint condition on the tuple of multiplying functions.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 148(11):4797–4815, 2020

    2020

  23. [23]

    Hyt ¨onen and C

    T. Hyt ¨onen and C. P´erez. Sharp weighted bounds involvingA ∞.Anal. PDE, 6(4):777–818, 2013

    2013

  24. [24]

    Hy¨tonen, C

    T. Hy¨tonen, C. P ´erez, S. Treil, and A. V olberg. Sharp weighted estimates for dyadic shifts and the A2 conjecture.J. Reine Angew. Math., 687:43–86, 2014

    2014

  25. [25]

    Hyt ¨onen

    T. Hyt ¨onen. Some remarks on convex body domination.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 529(2):127565, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Hyt¨onen, C

    T. Hyt¨onen, C. P´erez, and E. Rela. Sharp reverse H¨older property for A∞ weights on spaces of homoge- neous type.Journal of Functional Analysis, 263(12):3883–3899, 2012

    2012

  27. [27]

    Iba ˜nez Firnkorn, M

    G. Iba ˜nez Firnkorn, M. Riveros, and R. Vidal. Sharp bounds for fractional type operators with Lα,s- H¨ormander conditions.Rev. Uni ´on Mat. Argent., pages 425–442, 11 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Isralowitz, H.-K

    J. Isralowitz, H.-K. Kwon, and S. Pott. Matrix weighted norm inequalities for commutators and paraprod- ucts with matrix symbols.J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 96(1):243–270, 2017

    2017

  29. [29]

    Isralowitz and K

    J. Isralowitz and K. Moen. Matrix weighted Poincar´e inequalities and applications to degenerate elliptic systems.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 68(5):1327–1377, 2019

    2019

  30. [30]

    Isralowitz, S

    J. Isralowitz, S. Pott, and S. Treil. Commutators in the two scalar and matrix weighted setting.J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2), 106(1):1–26, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    Isralowitz, I

    J. Isralowitz, I. P. Rivera-R´ıos, and F. S´aez-Rivas. Convex body domination for the commutator of vector valued operators with multiple matrix-valued symbols.preprint, 2026. arXiv:2603.09628

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    D. S. Kurtz. Sharp function estimates for fractional integrals and related operators.J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A, 49(1):129–137, 1990

    1990

  33. [33]

    Laukkarinen

    A. Laukkarinen. Convex body domination for a class of multi-scale operators.J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 31(3):Paper No. 41, 51, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Convex body domination for rough singular integrals.J

    Aapo Laukkarinen. Convex body domination for rough singular integrals.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 553(2):Paper No. 129912, 21, 2026

    2026

  35. [35]

    A. K. Lerner. On an estimate of Calder´on-Zygmund operators by dyadic positive operators.J. Anal. Math., 121:141–161, 2013

    2013

  36. [36]

    A. K. Lerner. A simple proof of theA 2 conjecture.Int. Math. Res. Not., 23(3):3159–3170, 2013

    2013

  37. [37]

    A. K. Lerner. On pointwise estimates involving sparse operators.New York J. Math., 22:341–349, 2016

    2016

  38. [38]

    A. K. Lerner and F. Nazarov. Intuitive dyadic calculus: the basics.Expo. Math., 37(3):225–265, 2019

    2019

  39. [39]

    Muckenhoupt and R

    B. Muckenhoupt and R. L. Wheeden. Weighted norm inequalities for fractional integrals.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 192:261–274, 1974

    1974

  40. [40]

    Nazarov, S

    F. Nazarov, S. Petermichl, S. Treil, and A. V olberg. Convex body domination and weighted estimates with matrix weights.Adv. Math., 318:279–306, 2017

    2017

  41. [41]

    Nazarov and S

    F. Nazarov and S. Treil. The hunt for a Bellman function: applications to estimates for singular integral operators and to other classical problems of harmonic analysis.Algebra i Analiz, 8(5):32–162, 1996

    1996

  42. [42]

    A. C. Ponce.Elliptic PDEs, measures and capacities, volume 23 ofEMS Tracts in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z¨urich, 2016

    2016

  43. [43]

    M. M. Rao and Z. D. Ren.Theory of Orlicz spaces, volume 146 ofMonographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1991. 30 D. CRUZ-URIBE OFS, A. LAUKKARINEN, AND K. MOEN

    1991

  44. [44]

    Roudenko

    S. Roudenko. Matrix-weighted Besov spaces.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 355(1):273–314 (electronic), 2003

    2003

  45. [45]

    E. T. Sawyer, C.-Y . Shen, and I. Uriarte-Tuero. A two weight theorem forα-fractional singular integrals with an energy side condition.Rev. Mat. Iberoam., 32(1):79–174, 2016

    2016

  46. [46]

    Segovia and J

    C. Segovia and J. L. Torrea. Higher order commutators for vector-valued Calder´on-Zygmund operators. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 336(2):537–556, 1993

    1993

  47. [47]

    S. L. Sobolev. On a theorem in functional analysis.Mat. Sb., 46:471–497, 1938. Russian; English translation in Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., Series 2, vol. 34, 1963, pp. 39–68

    1938

  48. [48]

    E. M. Stein.Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions. Princeton Mathematical Series, No. 30. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1970

    1970

  49. [49]

    Treil and A

    S. Treil and A. V olberg. Continuous frame decomposition and a vector Hunt-Muckenhoupt-Wheeden theorem.Ark. Mat., 35(2):363–386, 1997

    1997

  50. [50]

    Treil and A

    S. Treil and A. V olberg. Wavelets and the angle between past and future.J. Funct. Anal., 143(2):269–308, 1997

    1997

  51. [51]

    V olberg

    A. V olberg. MatrixA p weights viaS-functions.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 10(2):445–466, 1997. DAVIDCRUZ-URIBE, OFS, DEPT.OFMATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OFALABAMA, TUSCALOOSA, AL 35487, USA Email address:dcruzuribe@ua.edu AAPOLAUKKARINEN, AALTOUNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OFMATHEMATICS ANDSYSTEMSANALYSIS, P.O. BOX11100, FI-00076 AALTO, FINLAND Email address:aapo.laukkarine...

    1997