Fourier restriction to hyperbolic rectangles and an application

Kaiwen Jin

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Fourier restriction to hyperbolic rectangles and an application

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves sharp side-length-dependent operator norm estimates for Fourier extension operators over hyperbolic rectangles, and applies them to new restriction bounds for finite-type surfaces |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2}.

desk verdict A genuine hyperbolic analogue of Schwend–Stovall with a real gap: the blurring lemma behind the main bilinear estimate is false as stated, so the eccentricity-independent constant is not proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09871 v1 pith:U4YHDQ6G submitted 2026-08-10 math.CA math.AP

Kaiwen Jin This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CAmath.AP MSC 42B10

keywords FourierrestrictionextensionoperatorhyperbolicparaboloidbilinearpolynomialpartitioningrectangleestimatesKnappexamplesdegeneratesurfaces

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 proves a sharp quantitative version of the Fourier restriction problem for surfaces built from a hyperbolic paraboloid: it characterizes the L^p → L^q norm of the extension operator over an axis-parallel rectangle in terms of the rectangle's side lengths. The main theorem covers perturbed hyperbolic phases g = $ξ1^{2}$ − $ξ2^{2}$ + h, with the perturbation allowed to have larger higher derivatives as the rectangle becomes more eccentric. The proof rests on a new bilinear restriction estimate for such perturbed hyperbolic surfaces whose constant is independent of the rectangle's eccentricity, obtained by extending Oh's paraboloid argument and gluing it to a blurring reduction at small scales. As an application, the paper derives new restriction estimates for degenerate surfaces of the form |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2}, sharp up to the stated exponent region, with the threshold q > 13/4.

What carries the argument

The central object is the perturbed hyperbolic paraboloid S = {(ξ, g(ξ)) : ξ ∈ Q_ℓ}, with g = $ξ1^{2}$ − $ξ2^{2}$ + h and h obeying scaled derivative bounds that permit larger higher-order derivatives as the rectangle becomes more eccentric. The carrying mechanism is Theorem 2.2, an eccentricity-independent bilinear restriction estimate for two separated caps on this surface, proved by polynomial partitioning in the style of Oh's paraboloid proof and patched at high eccentricity: for scales R ≲ $ℓ^{{−2}}$ the surface is blurred to a unit-cube hyperbolic surface, while for R ≫ $ℓ^{{−2}}$ wave-packet interaction estimates are transferred from the paraboloid case. This bilinear estimate, interpolated with Lee's $L^{{10/3}}$ mixed-sign result, feeds a bilinear-to-linear argument modelled on Schwend–Stovall's restriction-above-rectangles work, using slicing, Whitney decomposition, rescaled bilinear estimates, and interpolation to produce the rectangle norm formula.

What would settle it

Compute, for the pure hyperbolic paraboloid g(ξ) = $ξ1^{2}$ − $ξ2^{2}$, the bilinear $L^{{13/4}}$ norm of |Ef1 Ef2|^{1/2} over a ball of radius R ≈ $ℓ^{{−2}}$ with f1, f2 supported in the two separated caps of Q_ℓ, as ℓ → 0; if the optimal constant grows like $ℓ^{{−c}}$ for any c > 0, the eccentricity independence asserted in Theorem 2.2 is false and Theorem 1.1 would need additional side-length factors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1.1 is the central claim: if ℓ1 ≤ ℓ2 and g is hyperbolic to order N(p,q) over the rectangle Q_ℓ, with phase g(ξ) = $ξ1^{2}$ − $ξ2^{2}$ + h(ξ) and error h satisfying the scaled derivative bounds, then for q > p, q > 13/4, and q = ((4−θ)/(2−θ))p' with 0 < θ ≤ 1, the operator norm satisfies ‖E_ℓ^g‖_{L^p→L^q} ≈ $ℓ1^{{θ p'(1−1/q)}}$; while for q = ((3−θ)/(1−θ))p' with 0 ≤ θ ≤ 1, it satisfies ‖E_ℓ^g‖_{L^p→L^q} ≈ (ℓ1 ℓ2^θ)^{p'(1−1/q)}. The same characterization extends to rotated rectangles whose defining phase has main term ξ1ξ2 (Theorem 1.2). The upper bounds are obtained through a bilinear-to-linear argument; the lower bounds come from standard Knapp examples. As an application, the paper derives Proposition 1.5, giving boundedness for E_β on surfaces |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2} in the range q > 13/4, q > p, q > 2p', with q/p' ≥ max(1 + 1/(1/2 + 1/max(β1,β2)), 1 + 1/(1/β1 + 1/β2)), and showing the condition is necessary in the stated region.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the paraboloid's wave-packet interaction estimates still hold for the perturbed hyperbolic surface with a constant that does not blow up as the rectangle becomes very narrow; if that transfer fails, the rectangle norm formulas lose their dependence on side lengths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Theorem 1.1 and its rotated version Theorem 1.2 give exact side-length dependence for extension norms over hyperbolic rectangles, so any further restriction estimate on dyadic pieces of a degenerate surface inherits a sharp bookkeeping of scales.
Proposition 1.5 yields new boundedness results for E_β on surfaces |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2} in the range q > 13/4, q > p, q > 2p', with q/p' ≥ max(1 + 1/(1/2 + 1/max(β1,β2)), 1 + 1/(1/β1 + 1/β2)); the converse Knapp examples show the condition is necessary in the stated region.
Propositions 1.3 and 1.4 extend the rectangle bounds to the L^p-worsening range p ≥ q > 13/4, up to ℓ2/ℓ1 powers that the paper notes cannot be removed by the same argument.
The method also upgrades the elliptic rectangle result of Schwend–Stovall from q > 10/3 to q > 13/4, as the paper remarks after Theorem 1.1.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural test of the eccentricity-independence claim is to compute the bilinear L^{13/4} norm on the pure hyperboloid h = 0 for rectangles with ℓ → 0; if a logarithmic or power loss in ℓ appears, both the ℓ-independent constant and the sharp rectangle bounds would need correction.
The same bilinear-to-linear machinery could plausibly handle phases with a nonzero linear term or with weaker second-derivative control, since only the scaled derivative bounds and the separation of caps enter the argument; the paper does not pursue this extension.
For the |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2} application, the sharp exponent region suggests a general template: dyadically decompose a degenerate surface into hyperbolic rectangles and sum the rectangle norms with a Bourgain summation lemma; the open endpoint question is whether the boundary value of q/p' is genuinely unbounded or merely borderline.
The author notes that the θ = 0 endpoint on the scaling line q = 2p' remains open; closing it would merge the two cases of Theorem 1.1 into a single formula along that line.

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

Quick take: this is a real extension of Schwend–Stovall to hyperbolic surfaces, with a plausible application, but the central bilinear estimate has a load-bearing gap. Lemma 2.10 is false as stated, so Theorem 2.2 is not proved.

What is actually new: Theorem 1.1 gives rectangle-dependent operator norms for hyperbolic phases, the first such result in this setting; Theorem 2.2 adapts Oh's bilinear estimate to perturbed hyperbolic paraboloids over highly eccentric rectangles; Proposition 1.5 improves the range for |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2} from q > 10/3 to q > 13/4. Those are real contributions if the proof holds. The structure is sound—slicing, bilinear-to-linear, Whitney decomposition, polynomial partitioning induction—and the paper is honest about deferring large parts of the argument to [SS21] and [O23].

The soft spot is not minor. In Section 2.4, the R ≲ ℓ^{-2} case of Proposition 2.3 relies on Lemma 2.10, which claims Σ_g lies in an O(ℓ^2) neighborhood of a unit-cube hyperbolic surface. Under the paper's own normalization (Q_ℓ of size ℓ × 1 and condition (1)), the Taylor computation is wrong. The remainder is (1/2)ξ1²∂11h(η,ξ2); condition (1) only gives ∂11h ≲ σℓ^{-2}, so the remainder is O(σ), not O(ℓ^2). The proof's claim |∂11h| ≲ 1 contradicts the scaling. The stress-test example h(ξ1,ξ2) = σℓ^{-2} ξ1² ξ2 satisfies (1) with \tilde h = 0 and error σ|ξ2| at ξ1 = ℓ. For R between σ^{-1} and ℓ^{-2}, the graph is not within O(R^{-1}) of \tilde Σ, so the reduction to the unit cube fails. The ℓ-independent constant in Theorem 2.2 therefore has no support in this regime. This is serious and addressable, not a trivial typo.

Other soft spots are smaller. Section 2.1 asserts that the wave packet interaction and local constancy estimates for the paraboloid transfer to the hyperbolic phase, including high eccentricity; that needs a real proof. Lemma 2.8 is deferred to Oh. Section 5 is explicitly a sketch, which is acceptable if the cited complete proof really covers it, but the dependence should be checked line by line. The heavy reliance on [SS21] and [O23] is disclosed and the citations are appropriate; that is not a problem in itself.

Who should read this: restriction theorists interested in hyperbolic surfaces and polynomial partitioning. It deserves referee time; I would not desk-reject. But I would not accept it in this form. The author needs to fix Lemma 2.10 or replace the blurring argument, and then verify the transferred lemmas. If that happens, the paper should be a solid contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Fourier extension operators for perturbed hyperbolic paraboloids over axis-parallel rectangles, aiming to characterize the L^p-to-L^q operator norm in terms of the side lengths. The main results, Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, give sharp two-sided bounds for such norms under the hyperbolicity condition (1), with the upper bounds obtained through a bilinear-to-linear argument and the lower bounds through Knapp examples. The central bilinear estimate, Theorem 2.2, is an extension of Oh's paraboloid bilinear restriction estimate to the hyperbolic phase; its proof uses polynomial partitioning and follows the structure of [O23], with an additional high-eccentricity reduction in Section 2.4. As an application, Proposition 1.5 states new restriction estimates for surfaces |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2}.

Significance. If the technical gaps in Section 2 are repaired, the paper would make a substantial contribution: Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 provide a clean, apparently sharp description of rectangle extension norms for hyperbolic surfaces over a wide range of exponents, going beyond the elliptic result of [SS21] in the range q > 13/4. The application to surfaces of the form |ξ1|^{β1} − |ξ2|^{β2} is a natural and valuable consequence, and the paper gives both upper bounds and matching Knapp counterexamples. The paper is also honest about its debts: the argument explicitly builds on [O23] and [SS21], and the main line of reasoning is not circular. The presentation is generally well organized, with the rescaling computations and the Whitney-type reductions written out in enough detail to be checkable in those parts.

major comments (3)

[2.4, Lemma 2.10] Lemma 2.10 is false as stated, and the failure is load-bearing for the R ≲ ℓ^{-2} case of Proposition 2.3. Under the convention forced by the proof's bound ξ1 ≤ ℓ, take h(ξ1, ξ2) = σ ℓ^{-2} ξ1^2 ξ2. Then h(ℓu, v) = σ u^2 v, so condition (1) holds with parameter σ, but h̃ = h(0, ξ2) + ξ1 ∂1 h(0, ξ2) = 0, and at ξ1 = ℓ we have |g − g̃| = σ|ξ2|, which is not O(ℓ^2) as ℓ → 0. The displayed proof bounds |∂11 h| ≲ 1, whereas (1) gives only |∂11 h(η, ξ2)| ≤ σℓ^{-2} after accounting for the scaling in the C^N norm. The same scaling issue affects the claim that h̃ is hyperbolic over the unit cube: for example, ∂122 h(0, ξ2) is only controlled by σℓ^{-1}. Since the reduction to the unit-cube surface in (55) requires a graph error of size O(R^{-1}) and R can be as large as ℓ^{-2}, the ℓ-independent constant in Theorem 2.2 and the side-length dependence in Theorem 1.1 are not established by the argument presented.
[Sections 2.1 and 2.4] The extension of the [O23] wave-packet machinery to the hyperbolic phase is asserted rather than proved. In particular, the statements that the tube interaction estimates, local constancy, and the Wolff-type tube counting lemmas 'still hold' for the tubes defined in (17), both on Q1 and in the high-eccentricity regime R ≫ ℓ^{-2}, are not accompanied by the required verifications. This is not a purely cosmetic issue: the phase gradients in (17) contain ∂j h, and under (1) these derivatives can be as large as σℓ^{-1} or σℓ^{-2} when ℓ is small, while the hyperbolic surface contains line segments whose interaction geometry differs from the paraboloid. Because Theorem 2.2 is the engine for Theorem 1.1, these deferred checks are central to the proof.
[Definition 2.1] The support-separation condition in Definition 2.1 is inconsistent with the Qℓ convention used in Lemma 2.10. If Qℓ = [−ℓ/2, ℓ/2] × [−1/2, 1/2] with ℓ ≤ 1, then the balls B((±1/2, 0), 1/10) are disjoint from Qℓ for sufficiently small ℓ, so the separated-support hypothesis is vacuous in exactly the high-eccentricity regime that Section 2.4 is designed to analyze. If instead the first coordinate is taken to be the long side so that the balls do meet Qℓ, then Lemma 2.10's key bound ξ1 ≤ ℓ and the Taylor estimate in its proof are invalid. The geometric setup for Theorem 2.2 in the regime ℓ ≪ 1 therefore needs to be restated unambiguously, with the separated caps adapted to the actual rectangle.

minor comments (4)

[Section 3.3] The text refers to 'Proposition 1.1' and 'Proposition 1.2' when Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are meant.
[Section 3.3] There is a typo in 'we keep track track of how the operator norms change'.
[Section 1.1] The outline says 'We also provide more detailed computation of the two-step reduction used to prove Proposition 1.2'; this should refer to Theorem 1.2.
[Section 2.4] In the line 'we have |B11hpη, ξ2q| ≤ ... ≤ 1', the inequality violates the scaling of condition (1); this is part of the issue described in the first major comment, but it should also be fixed in the written proof if the lemma is replaced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: Theorem 1.1 is proved from the bilinear estimate Theorem 2.2, which is established by an independent polynomial-partitioning argument adapted from [O23] rather than assumed from the target rectangle bounds.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The upper bounds in Theorem 1.1 are proved in Section 3 via a slicing argument and a bilinear-to-linear reduction that invokes Theorem 2.2, while Theorem 2.2 is proved in Section 2 using polynomial partitioning with induction on scales and external paraboloid wave-packet facts from [O23], G16, and G18. The lower bounds are standard Knapp examples, cited from [SS21, Lemma 3.2] and not fitted to the conclusion. The application in Section 5 uses Theorem 1.1 on dyadic rectangles and a Bourgain summation lemma, so it runs in the correct direction from the rectangle theorem to the degenerate-surface estimate. The reliance on [SS21] is methodological (slicing, blurring, summation) and [SS21] has no author overlap with this paper; even viewing it as advisor-adjacent self-citation, it is external published work and not a chain that assumes the present conclusions. The unproved transfer assertion in Section 2.1 that [O23] wave-packet estimates survive for the hyperbolic phase, and the skeptic's objection to Lemma 2.10's O(ell^2) approximation, are proof-correctness or support concerns, not circularity: a failure there would make a sublemma false or unsupported, but it would not make the main theorem equivalent to its own input. No circular step meets the quoted-reduction standard, so the honest finding is a score of 0.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the smallness constants σ, ε, δ and the regularity order N(p,q) are part of the hypotheses and technical estimates, not data-fitted quantities. The axioms are standard Fourier restriction tools plus the paper's hyperbolicity and support-separation assumptions. The one nonstandard transfer, wave packet estimates for the hyperbolic phase at high eccentricity, is asserted rather than proved.

assumptions (6)

standard math External restriction theorems: Stein-Tomas and the parabolic restriction theorem of Tomas and Zygmund [T75,Z74] for perturbed parabolas.
Used in Section 3.1 to prove the base bound on the line q = 3 p' for the slicing argument.
standard math Polynomial partitioning and polynomial Wolff axioms from [O23] and [G18].
Used in Section 2 to run the cellular and wall induction; the paper assumes these remain valid for the perturbed hyperbolic phase.
domain assumption Surface class: g(ξ1,ξ2) = ξ1^2 - ξ2^2 + h(ξ1,ξ2) with h(0)=0, ∇h(0)=0, D^2h(0)=0 and ||D^2 h(ℓ1·, ℓ2·)||_{C^N(Q1)} ≤ σ for σ < 1/2 (condition (1)).
All theorems are stated only for this class of hyperbolic-to-order-N surfaces.
domain assumption Support separation: f1 supported near (-1/2,0) and f2 near (1/2,0) in Q_ℓ (Definition 2.1).
This separation is required for the bilinear restriction estimate Theorem 2.2 and is preserved under rescaling.
ad hoc to paper Wave packet decomposition, local constancy, and tube interaction estimates from [O23]/[G18] extend verbatim to the perturbed hyperbolic phase, including high eccentricity ℓ ≪ 1 in the wave packet range R ≫ ℓ^{-2}.
Section 2.1 asserts 'we can check that the standard estimates ... still hold' without proof; this is a load-bearing transfer from the elliptic to the hyperbolic setting.
standard math Bourgain summation lemma (Lemma 5.1, from [BORSS22]) for summing dyadic operators.
Used in Section 5 to convert dyadic estimates into the final L^p to L^q bound for the degenerate surfaces.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fourier restriction to hyperbolic rectangles and an application." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4YHDQ6G

@misc{pith2026260809871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fourier restriction to hyperbolic rectangles and an application},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4YHDQ6G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09871}
}

read the original abstract

In this article, we study the Lebesgue space inequalities for extension operators associated with hyperbolic surfaces over rectangular regions. We characterize the corresponding operator norms in terms of the side-lengths. As an application, we present new restriction estimates for a class of hypersurfaces with additive structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09871 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Sketch of the transformations Next, we keep track track of how the operator norms change under these transformations. First consider the linear mapping L that maps Rℓ,Φ to Rℓ,˜ π 4 , ˜ℓ „ pminpℓ1, cos ϕ ¨ ℓ2q, maxpℓ1, cos ϕ ¨ ℓ2qq. Thus, we can compute that E g ℓ fpx, tq “ ż Rℓ,Φ fpξqe 2πipx¨ξ`tpξ1ξ2q`thpξqqdξ “ ptan ϕq ż R ℓ,˜ π 4 fpL ´1 ηqe 2πipx¨L ´1η`ptan ϕqtpη1η2q`ptan ϕqtptan ϕq ´1hpL ´1ηqqdη “ ptan ϕqE g˜ ℓ˜ … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

The multilinear restriction estimate: almost optimality and localization

Bejenaru, Ioan. The multilinear restriction estimate: almost optimality and localization. Mathematical Research Letters 29, no. 3 (2022): 599-630

work page 2022
[2]

On the multilinear restriction and Kakeya conjectures

Bennett, Jonathan, Anthony Carbery, and Terence Tao. On the multilinear restriction and Kakeya conjectures. (2006): 261-302

work page 2006
[3]

The proof of the l 2 decoupling conjecture

Bourgain, Jean, and Ciprian Demeter. The proof of the l 2 decoupling conjecture. Annals of mathematics (2015): 351-389

work page 2015
[4]

Bounds on oscillatory integral operators based on multilinear estimates

Bourgain, Jean, and Larry Guth. Bounds on oscillatory integral operators based on multilinear estimates. Geometric and Functional Analysis 21, no. 6 (2011): 1239-1295

work page 2011
[5]

A Fourier restriction theorem for a two-dimensional surface of finite type

Buschenhenke, Stefan, Detlef Müller, and Ana Vargas. A Fourier restriction theorem for a two-dimensional surface of finite type. Analysis & PDE 10, no. 4 (2017): 817-891

work page 2017
[6]

Fourier restriction for smooth hyperbolic 2-surfaces

Buschenhenke, Stefan, Detlef Müller, and Ana Vargas. Fourier restriction for smooth hyperbolic 2-surfaces. Mathematische Annalen 387, no. 1-2 (2023): 17-56

work page 2023
[7]

Variation bounds for spherical averages

Beltran, David, Richard Oberlin, Luz Roncal, Andreas Seeger, and Betsy Stovall. Variation bounds for spherical averages. Mathematische Annalen 382, no. 1 (2022): 459-512

work page 2022
[8]

Restriction inequalities for the hyperbolic hyperboloid

Bruce, Benjamin Baker, Diogo Oliveira e Silva, and Betsy Stovall. Restriction inequalities for the hyperbolic hyperboloid. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 149 (2021): 186-215

work page 2021

Show all 31 references

[9]

Improved restriction estimate for hyperbolic surfaces in R3

Cho, Chu-Hee, and Jungjin Lee. Improved restriction estimate for hyperbolic surfaces in R3. Journal of Functional Analysis 273, no. 3 (2017): 917-945

2017
[10]

Restriction and decoupling estimates for the hyperbolic paraboloid in R ^ 3

Demeter, Ciprian, and Shukun Wu. Restriction and decoupling estimates for the hyperbolic paraboloid in R ^ 3 . arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09037 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[11]

Restriction estimates for surfaces with negative curvature in R^ 3

Guo, Shaoming, Diankun Liu, and Yakun Xi. Restriction estimates for surfaces with negative curvature in R^ 3 . arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16766 (2026)

2026
[12]

A restriction estimate for surfaces with negative Gaussian curvatures

Guo, Shaoming, and Changkeun Oh. A restriction estimate for surfaces with negative Gaussian curvatures. Peking Mathematical Journal 7, no. 1 (2024): 155-202

2024
[13]

A restriction estimate using polynomial partitioning

Guth, Larry. A restriction estimate using polynomial partitioning. Journal of the American Mathematical Society 29, no. 2 (2016): 371-413

2016
[14]

Restriction estimates using polynomial partitioning II

Guth, Larry. Restriction estimates using polynomial partitioning II. (2018): 81-142

2018
[15]

Fourier restriction for hypersurfaces in three dimensions and Newton polyhedra

Ikromov, Isroil A., and Detlef Müller. Fourier restriction for hypersurfaces in three dimensions and Newton polyhedra. Vol. 194. Princeton University Press, 2016

2016
[16]

Some remarks on Fourier restriction estimates

Kim, Jongchon. Some remarks on Fourier restriction estimates. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.01231 (2017)

2017 arXiv
[17]

Bilinear restriction estimates for surfaces with curvatures of different signs

Lee, Sanghyuk. Bilinear restriction estimates for surfaces with curvatures of different signs. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 358, no. 8 (2006): 3511-3533

2006
[18]

Restriction estimates for some surfaces with vanishing curvatures

Lee, Sanghyuk, and Ana Vargas. Restriction estimates for some surfaces with vanishing curvatures. J. Funct. Anal 258, no. 9 (2010): 2884-2909

2010
[19]

An improved bilinear restriction estimate for the paraboloid in ^3

Oh, Changkeun. An improved bilinear restriction estimate for the paraboloid in ^3 . Mathematische Zeitschrift 303, no. 4 (2023): 88

2023
[20]

Some problems in harmonic analysis

Stein, Elias M. Some problems in harmonic analysis. In Harmonic analysis in Euclidean spaces, Proceedings of the Symposium in Pure Mathematics of the Amer. Math. Soc., Williams College, Mass, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXV Part I, 1979, pp. 3-20. Amer. Math. Soc., 1979

1979
[21]

Scale-invariant Fourier restriction to a hyperbolic surface

Stovall, Betsy. Scale-invariant Fourier restriction to a hyperbolic surface. Analysis & PDE 12, no. 5 (2018): 1215-1224

2018
[22]

Fourier restriction above rectangles

Schwend, Jeremy, and Betsy Stovall. Fourier restriction above rectangles. Mathematische Annalen 381, no. 3 (2021): 1807-1836

2021
[23]

A restriction theorem for the Fourier transform

Tomas, Peter A. A restriction theorem for the Fourier transform. (1975): 477-478

1975
[24]

A sharp bilinear restriction estimate for paraboloids: T

Tao, Terence. A sharp bilinear restriction estimate for paraboloids: T. Tao. Geometric & Functional Analysis GAFA 13, no. 6 (2003): 1359-1384

2003
[25]

A bilinear approach to cone multipliers I

Tao, Terence, and Ana Vargas. A bilinear approach to cone multipliers I. Restriction estimates. Geometric & Functional Analysis GAFA 10, no. 1 (2000): 185-215

2000
[26]

A bilinear approach to the restriction and Kakeya conjectures

Tao, Terence, Ana Vargas, and Luis Vega. A bilinear approach to the restriction and Kakeya conjectures. Journal of the American Mathematical Society 11, no. 4 (1998): 967-1000

1998
[27]

Restriction theorems for a surface with negative curvature

Vargas, Ana. Restriction theorems for a surface with negative curvature. Mathematische Zeitschrift 249, no. 1 (2005): 97-111

2005
[28]

Restriction estimates using decoupling theorems and two-ends Furstenberg inequalities

Wang, Hong, and Shukun Wu. Restriction estimates using decoupling theorems and two-ends Furstenberg inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08871 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[29]

Restriction estimates for 2D surfaces of finite type 3 and applications to dispersive equations

Wang, Jiajun. Restriction estimates for 2D surfaces of finite type 3 and applications to dispersive equations. Journal of Functional Analysis (2026): 111597

2026
[30]

A sharp bilinear cone restriction estimate

Wolff, Thomas. A sharp bilinear cone restriction estimate. Annals of Mathematics 153, no. 3 (2001): 661-698

2001
[31]

On Fourier coefficients and transforms of functions of two variables

Zygmund, Antoni. On Fourier coefficients and transforms of functions of two variables. Studia Mathematica 50, no. 2 (1974): 189-201

1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The multilinear restriction estimate: almost optimality and localization

Bejenaru, Ioan. The multilinear restriction estimate: almost optimality and localization. Mathematical Research Letters 29, no. 3 (2022): 599-630

work page 2022

[2] [2]

On the multilinear restriction and Kakeya conjectures

Bennett, Jonathan, Anthony Carbery, and Terence Tao. On the multilinear restriction and Kakeya conjectures. (2006): 261-302

work page 2006

[3] [3]

The proof of the l 2 decoupling conjecture

Bourgain, Jean, and Ciprian Demeter. The proof of the l 2 decoupling conjecture. Annals of mathematics (2015): 351-389

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Bounds on oscillatory integral operators based on multilinear estimates

Bourgain, Jean, and Larry Guth. Bounds on oscillatory integral operators based on multilinear estimates. Geometric and Functional Analysis 21, no. 6 (2011): 1239-1295

work page 2011

[5] [5]

A Fourier restriction theorem for a two-dimensional surface of finite type

Buschenhenke, Stefan, Detlef Müller, and Ana Vargas. A Fourier restriction theorem for a two-dimensional surface of finite type. Analysis & PDE 10, no. 4 (2017): 817-891

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Fourier restriction for smooth hyperbolic 2-surfaces

Buschenhenke, Stefan, Detlef Müller, and Ana Vargas. Fourier restriction for smooth hyperbolic 2-surfaces. Mathematische Annalen 387, no. 1-2 (2023): 17-56

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Variation bounds for spherical averages

Beltran, David, Richard Oberlin, Luz Roncal, Andreas Seeger, and Betsy Stovall. Variation bounds for spherical averages. Mathematische Annalen 382, no. 1 (2022): 459-512

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Restriction inequalities for the hyperbolic hyperboloid

Bruce, Benjamin Baker, Diogo Oliveira e Silva, and Betsy Stovall. Restriction inequalities for the hyperbolic hyperboloid. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 149 (2021): 186-215

work page 2021