An Integral Mean Value Theorem for Weyl Sums over Broken Arcs

YaoJie Guo

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 17 references

An Integral Mean Value Theorem for Weyl Sums over Broken Arcs

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

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

Pith's one-line read For degree-$k$ Weyl sums over short intervals, this paper proves an $m$-th moment bound on broken minor arcs saving $1/(2k+2)$ over the trivial estimate, for all sufficiently large $m$.

desk verdict Genuinely new problem and promising strategy, but the proof fails at multiple load-bearing points—false independence, reversed inequality, circular optimization—so the main theorem is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04948 v1 pith:MXDW5XDZ submitted 2026-08-05 math.NT

YaoJie Guo This is my paper

classification math.NT MSC 11L15

keywords WeylsumsmeanvaluetheorembrokenarcsminorshortintervalsefficientpartitionofdifferenceDiophantineapproximationVinogradov

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 studies the $m$-th moment integral of a Weyl sum $S(\alpha)=\sum_{N_1\log m$ and $k

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the 'Efficient Partition of Weyl Difference'. After a standard Weyl differencing step, the remaining sum is split according to whether the difference variable is large (case I), small with good Diophantine quality (case II), or small with bad Diophantine quality (case III). Case III is shown to be negligible, while the relative size of cases I and II decides whether to continue differencing; the analysis is driven by a pointwise bound (Lemma 2.2) obtained from Diophantine approximation and the main conjecture for Vinogradov's mean value theorem, and by a probabilistic bookkeeping (Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2) that counts how many differencing paths contribute to each case. The final exponent comes from a constrained optimization problem (Lemma 6.1) in which the saving function $\phi(m)$ appears on both sides, a self-reference the paper resolves by its choice of $A$, $y$, and $n$.

What would settle it

Pick a concrete $k$, $N$, and $\theta$, choose two of the differenced sums $S_i(C_i\alpha)$ and $S_j(C_j\alpha)$ from Lemma 4.2, and choose a level $h$ so that each individual set $\{\alpha: |S_i(C_i\alpha)|\le N^{h/2}\}$ has measure about a small power of $N^{-1}$. Compute the measure of the intersection of the two sets by direct quadrature. If this joint measure differs from the product of the two individual measures by more than the allowed error, the factorization used to compute the probability in Section 4 fails, and the final exponent would need a different argument.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is Theorem 1.1: the $m$-th moment of a degree-$k$ Weyl sum over a short interval, integrated over any fixed-measure subarc of the minor-arc set $\mathfrak{m}=\bigcap_{j\le k-1}\{\alpha: |\alpha-h/q|>q^{-1}N^{-(k-j-1/2)\theta}\text{ for all }q<(\log N)^A\}$, obeys $\int_{\mathfrak{m}^*}|S(\alpha)|^m\,d\alpha\ll_c N^{\theta m((2k+1)/(2k+2)+m^{-1/2-\delta})}$. The exponent contains an explicit saving of $1/(2k+2)$ over the trivial $N^{\theta m}$, and the hypothesis on $m$ is size alone ($m^{1/2-\delta-\epsilon}>k>\log m$), with no parity condition. The paper also records Theorem 1.2, the same type of bound in the form $N^{\theta(m-m/(4(k+1)))+\epsilon'}$, and argues that the argument improves the pointwise Vinogradov-style estimate on almost all of $\mathfrak{m}$ by using different bounds for different $\alpha$. The method is claimed to remove the 'even-odd restriction of powers' that appears in the classical second form of the mean value theorem.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 4.2's claim that after differencing, the several Weyl sums $S_j(C_j\alpha)$ behave like independent random variables in the single parameter $\alpha$, so the probability that the differencing process survives to step $l$ is the product of individual probabilities; since all these sums are deterministic functions of the same $\alpha$, the factorization is not automatic and the measure estimates in Sections 4 and 6 rest on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every fixed-measure broken arc, the $m$-th moment obeys $\ll_c N^{\theta m((2k+1)/(2k+2)+m^{-1/2-\delta})}$, a saving of $N^{-\theta m/(2k+2)}$ over the trivial estimate.
The parity restriction is removed: the bound holds for all sufficiently large $m$ with $k>\log m$ and $k<m^{1/2-\delta-\epsilon}$, not just even $m$.
Theorem 1.2 gives the concrete incomplete-interval bound $N^{\theta(m-m/(4(k+1)))+\epsilon'}$ for moments of short-interval Weyl sums.
On almost all of the minor-arc set, the moment estimate beats the exponent obtained from pointwise Vinogradov-type bounds, because different $\alpha$'s are treated with different estimates.
The three-case differencing decomposition, if correct, supplies a template for separating large and small difference ranges in other mean value problems.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: a natural control problem suggested by the argument is to quantify the correlation between the differenced sums; the proof uses exact factorization, and any explicit correlation bound of size $o(1)$ in the exponent would make the same optimization scheme more robust.
Editorial inference: the efficient-partition scheme could be adapted to simultaneous Weyl sums over a $k$-dimensional torus, where the broken arc becomes a broken box; the obstacle would be a multidimensional analogue of the Diophantine approximation lemma.
Editorial inference: a testable consequence of the method is that the saving factor should be uniform in the choice of subset $\mathfrak{m}^*$ as long as its measure is bounded below by a constant; this uniformity is stronger than what pointwise bounds would give and could be checked in small-parameter experiments.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper takes on a genuinely interesting open problem—mean values of a single Weyl sum over broken minor arcs with arbitrary moment m—and the result it announces would be a real advance. But the proof is not close to supporting it. The main probabilistic lemma is false, a key measure inequality is reversed, the appendix does not prove the lemma it claims to prove, and the final optimization is circular. I would not spend much time on the current version.

What is genuinely new: the statement of Theorem 1.1 does not appear in the cited literature. Known mean value theorems for the single exponential sum e(αu^k) require even s, and the broken-arc mean value theorems for the full Vinogradov system are a different object. The idea of partitioning Weyl differences into large and small ranges, then using measure estimates to control the stopping time, is a reasonable high-level strategy. The author also correctly builds on Vinogradov's main conjecture. Credit where due.

The soft spots are not minor. First, Lemma 2.2 is asserted without proof; the appendix titled as its proof derives the counting function T(K) from Lemma 3.1, not the pointwise Weyl sum bound. That leaves case II without its main tool. Second, Lemma 4.1 has the inequality backwards. A mean value bound bounds the measure of the set where |S| is large, not where it is small; the proof's line 'x^m L(...) ≤ ∫|S|^m' is wrong in direction. Third, Lemma 4.2 claims that S_j(C_j α) are independent random variables in a single uniform α. They are deterministic functions of the same variable; uncorrelatedness never gives independence, and the specific moments are not all zero. The factorization of p_l, the probability that the differencing stops at step l, collapses, and with it the β2 term in Section 6. Fourth, Lemma 6.1 defines G* using a constraint that involves G*, then sets φ(m)=G* and chooses A,y,n to force the ratio to 1−1/(2k+2). That is fitting the answer, not deriving it.

The theorem might be true, and the broken-arc mean value problem is worth working on. But this manuscript does not establish it. The flaws are load-bearing.

Who would get value from this? An expert in the area might read it for the formulation of the problem and the broad strategy; it could be a starting point for a real proof. It is not suitable for publication in anything like its current form.

My recommendation: if this lands on your desk, reject it, but a substantive referee report listing the four issues above would be more useful to the author than a summary desk rejection. The problem is significant enough that a serious referee should document the gaps; if the editor prefers to desk reject, I would not fight it.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims a mean value theorem for Weyl sums over a 'broken arc' m* contained in a minor arc set m, with the exponent N^{θ m((2k+1)/(2k+2)+m^{-1/2-δ})} for arbitrarily large moment m subject to m^{1/2-δ-ε} > k > log m. The proposed proof combines a pointwise estimate from Vinogradov's main conjecture, a refined Weyl-differencing procedure splitting the second differences into 'large' and 'small' contributions, and a probabilistic calculation of the measure of the set where the differencing process terminates at a given step. The final section reduces the bound to a two-parameter optimization problem in which the saving parameter φ(m) is chosen self-referentially.

Significance. If the claimed estimate were correct, it would improve the trivial bound N^{θm} by a factor N^{θm/(2k+2)} on any positive-measure subset of the minor arcs and would remove the even-m restriction typical of Vinogradov-type mean value theorems. The proposed method of 'efficient partition of Weyl differences' combined with measure estimates is an interesting idea, and the paper makes a genuine effort to replace even moments by a probabilistic argument. However, the argument as written contains several load-bearing gaps and outright false statements: a central pointwise lemma is never proved, the independence of the relevant Weyl sums is asserted on incorrect grounds, a measure lemma has the wrong inequality direction, and the final optimization is circular. Because these issues affect the derivation of the main exponent, the manuscript does not establish its central claim.

major comments (5)

[§2 and Appendix] Lemma 2.2, the pointwise bound |∑_{x∈H} e(α f(x))| ≪ N^{θ(1−1/(4(k+1)))+ε} for all α∈m, is asserted but never proved. The appendix is headed '[The proof of lemma 2.2]' but the argument actually proves Lemma 3.1, the counting formula for T(K); the final line of the appendix states 'then we prove lemma 3.1'. Lemma 2.2 is used at a critical juncture in Section 3 to control the small-difference contribution G1 and again in Section 4 to bound the residual Weyl sum after n differencing steps. Without a proof of Lemma 2.2, neither Theorem 1.2 nor the central Theorem 1.1 is supported.
[§4, Lemma 4.2] Lemma 4.2 asserts that the sums S_j(C_j α) = ∑_{N1<u<N2} e(α(C_j u^j + T_j)) are independent random variables in the single uniformly distributed variable α. This is false: all S_j are deterministic functions of one random variable, and non-degenerate functions of the same random variable cannot be independent. The supplied proof only checks that certain mixed moments vanish, and even that claim is wrong in general (for example, with S_1(α)=e(α)+e(4α) and S_2(α)=e(α)+e(2α), E[S_1 \overline{S_2}] = 1, not 0). The factorization of the probability p_l in Section 4 as a product of individual probabilities for the events {|S_j| ≤ N^h} and {|S_{l+1}| > N^h} therefore has no basis, and the β_2 term in Lemma 6.1 is unsupported.
[§4, Lemma 4.1] Lemma 4.1 has the wrong inequality direction and an incorrect scaling. From ∫|S|^m ≤ N^{θ(m−φ(m))} one can upper-bound the measure of the set where |S| is LARGE (by Markov's inequality), not the set where |S| is small. The proof writes x^m L(...) ≤ ∫|S|^m, but with x = |S|/N^{θ/2} the left side should be x^m N^{θm/2} L(...); the displayed inequality omits the factor N^{θm/2} and consequently cannot hold as stated. Moreover, the set {|S| ≤ N^{h+θ/2}} can have full Lebesgue measure, contradicting the claimed upper bound for many choices of h and φ(m). The subsequent use of this lemma to estimate both P(|S_j| ≤ N^h) and P(|S_{l+1}| > N^h) by the same quantity in the computation of p_l is unjustified.
[§6, Lemma 6.1] The definition of G* is self-referential and therefore circular: G* is defined as G* = inf ... inf_{φ(m) ≤ m−G*} max{β1, β2}, so G* appears in the constraint of its own definition. In the proof the author then sets φ(m)=G*, and in case 2 sets φ(m)=θm−G*−ε, which is inconsistent with the prior identification φ(m)=G*. The final step chooses A, y, n specifically to force G*/m = 1−1/(2k+2), so the claimed exponent is fitted by construction rather than derived from the optimization problem. Because of this circularity, the main bound of Theorem 1.1 is not established by the preceding estimates.
[§3, Lemma 3.2] Lemma 3.2 is not proved by a valid argument. The proof invokes a 'stochastic process' G_α(x)=x+α and the orbit {T_α^n(x)}, but an irrational rotation is deterministic and not a stochastic process in this setting. The displayed chain 'Σ_{q<(log N)^A} P(qα ∉ m) = Σ_{j<N^{k/2}} P(||T^j_α(α)|| ∉ m) ≤ ...' is not a meaningful derivation, and the quantity T_α^{-n}((0,N^{-1/2}]) is undefined in the context. This lemma is used to define the Bad set and to justify |Bad(j)| ≍ N^{-j/2}; without it, the exclusion of the 'bad' differences in Sections 3–5 has no support.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] The notation is confusing: the moment m and the minor-arc set m are both denoted by 'm', and the paper switches between m, 𝔪, and m* without clear distinction. This makes the statement of Theorem 1.1 and the proof difficult to follow.
[§2 and Appendix] The appendix uses the phrase 'By Pascal theorem' where the binomial theorem is intended. The interchange of an infinite sum and an integral in the derivation of T(K) is not justified; a dominated convergence argument is mentioned but no dominated function is identified.
[§6] The relation between the error term m^{1/2+c_1 δ} in Lemma 6.1 and the error term m^{1/2−δ} in Theorem 1.1 is not explained. The symbols δ, c_1, c_2 are introduced with overlapping roles, and the final conclusion does not follow from the displayed choices of y_0 and n_0 without further argument.
[Throughout] There are many grammatical and typographical errors, for example 'In this article, we research the mean value', 'm is be sufficiently large', 'By the version of probability', and 'we can overcomes the parity'. The paper would benefit from careful editing.
[§1, Theorem 1.2] Theorem 1.2 is stated in the introduction but its proof is never clearly identified. If it is intended to follow from Lemma 2.2, then the proof is incomplete because Lemma 2.2 is unproved; if it follows from other results, that dependence should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 9.0 of 10

The central mean-value exponent is fitted through a self-referential loop: Lemma 4.1 assumes a bound of the same shape as Theorem 1.1, and Lemma 6.1 sets the free exponent φ(m)=G* and chooses parameters to force G*/m=1−1/(2k+2).

self definitional [Section 4, Lemma 4.1]
"Lemma 4.1.If we have Z (0,1] | X N1<u<N2 e(αuk)|mdα≤N θ(m−ϕ(m)) Then we have the measure inequality L α:|S k(α)| ≤Nh+θ/2 ≤N θ(m−ϕ(m))−hm"

The hypothesis of Lemma 4.1 is a mean-value bound of exactly the same shape as Theorem 1.1, with the exponent m−φ(m) left unspecified. It is used to bound the measure of the small-sum events whose probabilities p_l later enter β2 through the term θ(2lλ−φ(m)). The paper never verifies this hypothesis independently; Lemma 6.1 sets φ(m)=G*, i.e. it feeds the theorem's own conclusion into the measure estimate. The final mean-value bound therefore presupposes itself.
fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Lemma 6.1 and its proof]
"First, we prove that we haveG ∗ =ϕ(m). ... However, it is easy to findG ∗ is decreasing withϕ(m), so ... so we can set ϕ(m) = G∗. ... We chooseA, y, nas follows: A0 =0 y0 =⌊m 1 2 −c1δ⌋+ 1 n0 =⌊ logm log 2 ( 1 2 +c 1δ)⌋ The power ofNinG ∗ can be write as G∗ 0 =θ(m− m 2k+ 2 ) +m 1/2+c1δ ... Therefore we find G∗ m = ... = 1− 1 2k+ 2"

The advertised exponent is not obtained from an independent estimate of the integral; it is manufactured by the optimization. Since β2 contains −θφ(m), setting φ(m)=G* removes the very term the proof was supposed to control, and the constraint φ(m)≤m−G* becomes a fixed-point equation whose solution is reported as the theorem. The choices A_0=0, y_0≈m^{1/2}, n_0≈(1/2)log m are then inserted to force G*_0/m=1−1/(2k+2), so the final exponent is fitted by construction rather than derived.

1 more flagged steps

self definitional [Section 1, proof outline]
"From setting the lemma 4.1 and 4.2, we can get the exact proportion between case I and case II, and we can calculate the contributions of these cases. Therefore, we will hold a parameter optimization problem (with self-reference phenomenon) in Section 6, then we can prove the theorem 1.1."

This passage explicitly says that Lemma 4.1 (whose hypothesis is the target mean-value bound) fixes the proportion of the cases, and that Section 6 solves a self-referential optimization. It is an acknowledgment that the bound assumed on the left of Lemma 4.1 and the exponent optimized in Section 6 are the same quantity, which closes the derivation loop.

full rationale

The central estimate of Theorem 1.1 is circular in two connected places. Lemma 4.1 assumes the mean-value bound ∫|S|^m ≤ N^{θ(m−φ(m))}, i.e. the same shape as the theorem with a free exponent, and uses that assumption to estimate the measure of the events that decide where the Weyl differencing stops. Section 6 then solves a fixed-point problem: it sets the free exponent φ(m) equal to the optimized value G* and chooses A=0, y≈m^{1/2}, n≈(1/2)log m so that G*/m becomes exactly 1−1/(2k+2), the exponent in the abstract. The paper itself flags this as a 'parameter optimization problem (with self-reference phenomenon)'. Thus the final exponent is an input recycled through Lemma 4.1, not a consequence of the pointwise Lemma 2.2 or of the differencing identities alone. I am not counting Lemma 4.2 as circularity: the assertion that S_j(C_jα) are independent is mathematically unsupported (deterministic functions of one α are not made independent by vanishing mixed moments), but that is a validity defect rather than a reduction of output to input. There is no load-bearing self-citation in the references. Because the central claim reduces to its own assumed bound, but some auxiliary components (the Vinogradov-based pointwise bound and the differencing decomposition) are genuine inputs, the score is 9 rather than 10.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproved Lemma 2.2, a false independence postulate in Lemma 4.2, an unsupported Diophantine measure assertion, and a self-referential optimization in Lemma 6.1. The paper contributes a definitional framework and a high-level strategy, while the load-bearing steps are either borrowed from the literature without proof or asserted ad hoc.

free parameters (6)

A (initial Weyl differencing steps) = A0 = 0 (final choice)
Number of initial Weyl differences before the efficient partition; chosen in Lemma 6.1 to optimize the exponent.
y (splitting parameter) = y0 = floor(m^{1/2−c1δ})+1
Controls the splitting of the moment m via 2^n y < m < 2^n(y+1); chosen to force G*/m = 1−1/(2k+2).
n (splitting exponent) = n0 = floor(log m/log 2 (1/2+c1δ))
Number of Weyl differencing rounds in case I; chosen together with y0 to optimize the final exponent.
λ_j (difference thresholds) = λ_j = (4k−4j+3)/(4(k−j+1))
Proportional step sizes δ_j = λ_j θ; selected by hand to satisfy Lemma 3.2's condition and to make the exponent 1−1/(2k+2).
ϕ(m) (saving function) = ϕ(m) = G* = m(1−1/(2k+2))
The exponent saving in the assumed mean value bound of Lemma 4.1; set equal to G* in Lemma 6.1, the final bound being proved.
c in m(Y,X) definition = c = 1/2 + ε
Set after Lemma 2.1 so that the complement of m(Y,X) has measure o(1), used to pass from 'almost all' to Lemma 2.2 for all α∈m.

assumptions (5)

standard math Vinogradov's main conjecture for k>3 (Bourgain-Demeter-Guth) and k=3 (Wooley)
Invoked in Lemma 2.1 to bound I(X;k,l) by X^ε(X^l + X^{2l−k(k+1)/2}).
domain assumption The complement [0,1]∖m(Y,X) has measure o(1) for Y=(log x)^A, c=1/2+ε
Stated after Lemma 2.1 without proof; needed to claim Lemma 2.2 holds for almost all α∈m.
ad hoc to paper Lemma 2.2 is true: |∑_{x∈H} e(α f(x))| << N^{θ(1−1/(4(k+1)))+ε} for all α∈m
Central to bounding case II, but its proof is not given; the appendix labelled as its proof actually proves Lemma 3.1.
ad hoc to paper The Weyl sums S_j(C_j α) are independent random variables (Lemma 4.2)
Used to multiply probabilities across steps; the variables are all functions of the same α, so independence does not hold as stated and the proof only checks vanishing of mixed moments.
ad hoc to paper G* can be chosen self-referentially with ϕ(m)=G* (Lemma 6.1)
The infimum defining G* includes the constraint ϕ(m)≤m−G*, so G* appears in its own definition; the proof then sets ϕ(m)=G*, which is circular.

invented entities (2)

Broken arc m*
purpose: The theorem quantifies over arbitrary subsets m*⊂m of measure >c; the proof is claimed to be uniform over all such subsets.
New definition introduced as the integration domain; it has no independent empirical handle outside this paper.
Orbit stochastic process G_α(x)=x+α with orbit {T_α^n(x)}
purpose: Used in Lemma 3.2 to assert a probability bound for z_j(h_1,..,h_j) not lying in m.
The paper postulates a probabilistic structure on a deterministic iteration to derive measure estimates; no rigorous definition or independent evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Integral Mean Value Theorem for Weyl Sums over Broken Arcs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MXDW5XDZ

@misc{pith2026260804948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Integral Mean Value Theorem for Weyl Sums over Broken Arcs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MXDW5XDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04948}
}

abstract

In this article, we research the mean value of integral of exponential sum $S(\alpha)=\sum_{u\in I}e(\alpha u^k)$, where $I$ is a short interval whose length is $2N^{\theta},\theta<1$, and the broken arc $\mathfrak{m^*}$ is a subset of a following minor arcs \[ \mathfrak{m}=\bigcap_{j\leq k-1}\left\{\alpha:\forall q<(\log N)^A,h<q,(h,q)=1,\Big|\alpha-\frac{h}{q}\Big|>\frac{1}{qN^{(k-j-1/2)\theta}}\right\} \] which has measure at least $c>0$. By setting $m$ is a sufficiently large number, $N$ is be sufficiently large in terms of $m$. When $k>\log m$ and $\frac{\log k}{\log m}<1/2$ we set the following estimate: \[ \int_{\mathfrak{m^*}}\bigg|\sum\limits_{{N_1}<u<{N_2}}{e(zu^k)}\bigg|^{m}\mathrm{d}z\ll_cN^{\theta m(\frac{2k+1}{2k+2}+o(1))} \] We can find this estimate moving beyond the even-odd restriction of powers. To get this bound, we first set a strong estimate for almost $\alpha$ by Diophantine approximation and Vinogradov's main value theorem. Then, combining this result, we construct a refined Weyl differencing argument by partitioning the differences step into large and small range, which significantly outperforms the classical one. By the version of probability, we can calculate the multiplicity of each sum. Put them together and we can complete the proof.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

Decoupling theorems for the duffin-schaeffer problem, 2019

Christoph Aistleitner. Decoupling theorems for the duffin-schaeffer problem, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

On some exponential sums.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, pages 204–207, 1948

A.Weil. On some exponential sums.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, pages 204–207, 1948

work page 1948
[3]

Proof of the main conjecture in vinogradov’s mean value theorem for degrees higher than three.Ann.Math., pages 633–682(2), 2016

Jean Bourgain, Ciprian Demeter, and Larry Guth. Proof of the main conjecture in vinogradov’s mean value theorem for degrees higher than three.Ann.Math., pages 633–682(2), 2016

work page 2016
[4]

Joerg Bruedern and Trevor D. Wooley. Estimates for smooth weyl sums on major arcs. Int.Math.Res.Not., pages 14662–14668(24), 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Metric theory of weyl sums, 2023

Changhao Chen, Bryce Kerr, James Maynard, and Igor Shparlinski. Metric theory of weyl sums, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Shparlinski

Changhao Chen and Igor E. Shparlinski. Restricted mean value theorems and metric theory of restricted weyl sums.Q.J.Math., pages 885–919(3), 2021

work page 2021
[7]

Higher Education Press, 2015

G.Tenenbaum.Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory. Higher Education Press, 2015

work page 2015
[8]

American Mathematical Society, 1965

L.K Hua.Additive Theory of Prime Numbers. American Mathematical Society, 1965

work page 1965

Show all 17 references

[9]

On the duffin-schaeffer conjecture.Ann.Math., pages 251–307(1), 2020

Dimitris Koukoulopoulos and James Maynard. On the duffin-schaeffer conjecture.Ann.Math., pages 251–307(1), 2020

2020
[10]

An almost sharp quantitative version of the duffin-schaeffer conjecture.Duke.Math.J, pages 2011–2065(10), 2025

Dimitris Koukoulopoulos, James Maynard, and Daodao Yang. An almost sharp quantitative version of the duffin-schaeffer conjecture.Duke.Math.J, pages 2011–2065(10), 2025

2011
[11]

An extended vinogradov’s mean value theorem, 2025

Changkeun Oh and Kiseok Yeon. An extended vinogradov’s mean value theorem, 2025. arxiv:2506.01751,to appear in Transactions of the American Mathematical Society

2025 arXiv
[12]

Pan and C.B

C.D. Pan and C.B. Pan.The fundamental of Analytic Number Theory. Harbin Institute of Technology Press, 1986

1986
[13]

Shparlinski and J¨ org M

Igor E. Shparlinski and J¨ org M. Thuswaldner. Weyl sums over integers with digital restrictions. Mich.Math.J(1), pages 189–214, 2024

2024
[14]

Bin Wei and Trevor D. Wooley. On sums of powers of almost equal primes.Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., pages 1130–1162(3), 2015

2015
[15]

Trevor D. Wooley. The cubic case of the main conjecture in vinogradov’s mean value theorem. Adv.Math., pages 532–561, 2016

2016
[16]

Trevor D. Wooley. Perturbations of weyl sums.Int.Math.Res.Not., pages 2632–2646(9), 2016

2016
[17]

Trevor D. Wooley. Discrete fourier restriction via efficient congruencing.Int.Math.Res.Not, pages 1342–1389(5), 2017. 17

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Decoupling theorems for the duffin-schaeffer problem, 2019

Christoph Aistleitner. Decoupling theorems for the duffin-schaeffer problem, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

On some exponential sums.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, pages 204–207, 1948

A.Weil. On some exponential sums.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, pages 204–207, 1948

work page 1948

[3] [3]

Proof of the main conjecture in vinogradov’s mean value theorem for degrees higher than three.Ann.Math., pages 633–682(2), 2016

Jean Bourgain, Ciprian Demeter, and Larry Guth. Proof of the main conjecture in vinogradov’s mean value theorem for degrees higher than three.Ann.Math., pages 633–682(2), 2016

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Joerg Bruedern and Trevor D. Wooley. Estimates for smooth weyl sums on major arcs. Int.Math.Res.Not., pages 14662–14668(24), 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Metric theory of weyl sums, 2023

Changhao Chen, Bryce Kerr, James Maynard, and Igor Shparlinski. Metric theory of weyl sums, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Shparlinski

Changhao Chen and Igor E. Shparlinski. Restricted mean value theorems and metric theory of restricted weyl sums.Q.J.Math., pages 885–919(3), 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Higher Education Press, 2015

G.Tenenbaum.Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory. Higher Education Press, 2015

work page 2015

[8] [8]

American Mathematical Society, 1965

L.K Hua.Additive Theory of Prime Numbers. American Mathematical Society, 1965

work page 1965