Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 25 references

A criterion on weak type $(1,1)$ bound of rough singular integrals

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves a transfer criterion: if a rough singular integral is $L^2$-bounded with the natural $L\log L$ constant, its averaged version is weak type $(1,1)$.

desk verdict A genuinely new conditional weak-type criterion for Christ-Journé averaged rough singular integrals, with a localized but real support gap in Step 2 that should be repairable. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.22402 v1 pith:4P67XOJO submitted 2026-08-23 math.CA math.APmath.FA

Feng Liu , Simin Liu , Minglei Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.APmath.FA MSC 42B2042B25
keywords weaktype(11)roughsingularintegralsLlogaveragedintegralHölderkernelcriterionFouriertransformhomogeneouskernels
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 proposes a criterion for endpoint boundedness of a broad class of rough singular integrals with an averaging symbol. The authors show that if the kernel $\Omega$ lies in the Orlicz space $L\log L$ on the sphere and satisfies a mean-zero condition, if $K$ obeys size and smoothness estimates of the kind $|K(x,y)|\le |x-y|^{-n}$ plus matching differences, and if the un-averaged operator $T_{\Omega,K}$ is bounded on $L^2$ with the natural constant, then the averaged operator $T_{\Omega,K,a}$ maps $L^1$ into weak $L^1$. The weak-type bound is explicit and scales with $\|\hat a\|_1$. A sympathetic reader would care because the criterion turns the hard $L^1$ endpoint into a checkable $L^2$ condition, covering several known rough singular integrals at once.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the averaging coefficient $m_{x,y}^a=\int_0^1 a(sx+(1-s)y)\,ds$, together with the Fourier representation $T_{\Omega,K,a}f(x)=\iint_{[0,1]\times\mathbb{R}^n} a_{x,t}(\eta)T_{\Omega,K}(W_{\eta,t}f)(x)\,d\eta\,dt$, where $a_{x,t}(\eta)=(2\pi)^{-n}\hat a(\eta)e^{it\langle x,\eta\rangle}$ and $W_{\eta,t}(y)=e^{i(1-t)\langle y,\eta\rangle}$. This identity converts the averaged operator into a continuous superposition of un-averaged rough singular integrals, so the $L^1$ weak-type argument can localize by scale and angle. The proof then uses a dyadic good-bad decomposition of each modulated function $fW_{\eta,t}$, a smoothed kernel $K_j^{s,\delta}$ obtained by convolving $K_j$ with a bump at scale $2^{j-\ell_\delta(s)}$, and a cap decomposition of the sphere into $2^{s(n-1)}$ directions. The $P_{s,v}$ frequency projections are controlled by Fourier isometry and disjoint angular supports; the complementary $Q_{s,v}$ projections are controlled by $L^1$ estimates with a geometric decay in $s$. The assumed $L^2$ bound for $T_{\Omega,K}$ enters only in estimating the good part $g^{\eta,t}$.

What would settle it

A direct test is to exhibit an admissible triple $(\Omega,K,a)$—with $\Omega\in L\log L(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ of zero mean, $K$ obeying (1.2)--(1.4), and $\{a,\hat a\}\subset L^1$—for which $\|T_{\Omega,K}g\|_2\le C\|\Omega\|_{L\log L}\|g\|_2$ holds but $\|T_{\Omega,K,a}\|_{L^1\to L^{1,\infty}}$ is infinite or exceeds the claimed constant. Concretely, one could compute the distribution function of $T_{\Omega,K,a}$ for $f=\mathbf{1}_{B(0,1)}$ in dimension $2$ with a known $L\log L$ kernel and a smooth nonzero $a$; if any level set violates the bound $\lambda^{-1}\|\hat a\|_1C_\Omega\|f\|_1$ with the proof's implicit constant, the criterion fails. Because the case $K=|x-y|^{-n}$ is already covered by earlier results, the informative test is a genuinely non-convolution kernel from Corollary 1.2, where the $L^2$ input is supplied by the cited boundedness results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its core, the paper asserts a transfer principle. Let $\Omega$ be homogeneous of degree zero, integrable on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, with zero spherical mean, and let $\Omega\in L\log L$. Let $K$ satisfy the three estimates (1.2)--(1.4). For $a$ with both $a$ and $\hat a$ in $L^1$, define $m_{x,y}^a=\int_0^1 a(sx+(1-s)y)\,ds$ and $T_{\Omega,K,a}f(x)=\mathrm{p.v.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega(x-y)K(x,y)m_{x,y}^a f(y)\,dy$. Then, under the assumption that $T_{\Omega,K}$ is bounded on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ with norm at most $C\|\Omega\|_{L\log L(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})}$, the averaged operator satisfies $\|T_{\Omega,K,a}f\|_{L^{1,\infty}}\lesssim C_\Omega\|\hat a\|_1\|f\|_1$ for all $f\in L^1$, where $C_\Omega=\|\Omega\|_{L\log L}+\int |\Omega|(1+\log^+(|\Omega|/\|\Omega\|_1))\,d\sigma$. The conclusion is a genuine weak type $(1,1)$ bound, not merely an interpolation estimate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the un-averaged operator $T_{\Omega,K}$ is already bounded on $L^2$ with norm at most a fixed constant times the $L\log L$ norm of $\Omega$; the paper assumes this as an input, and the theorem is conditional on exactly that estimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $K(x,y)=|x-y|^{-n}$, the criterion reproduces the known weak type $(1,1)$ for rough singular integrals with $L\log L$ kernels and for the averaged commutator with $\{a,\hat a\}\subset L^1$.
  • The three families in Corollary 1.2—kernel $(A(x)-A(y))|x-y|^{-n-1}$ with first vanishing moments, kernel $|x-y|^{-n}F((A(x)-A(y))/|x-y|)$ with even real-analytic $F$ and odd $\Omega$, and kernel $|x-y|^{-(n+ir)}$—are all covered, giving both $L^p$ boundedness and weak type $(1,1)$.
  • Because the block spaces $B_q^{0,0}$ embed properly into $L\log L$, the results also hold for kernels in those spaces.
  • The weak-type constant is explicit, $C_\Omega\|\hat a\|_1$, so the endpoint estimate has no hidden dimensional growth beyond the kernel constants.
  • For $1<p<\infty$, the transfer inequality (1.6) supplies $L^p$ bounds, so the weak $(1,1)$ endpoint completes a full range of boundedness for the averaged operator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The criterion effectively moves the hard part of the endpoint problem to an $L^2$ check; any new kernel family whose un-averaged operator is shown $L^2$-bounded with the right constant will immediately inherit weak $(1,1)$ for the averaged version, so future work can concentrate on $L^2$ techniques.
  • The factor $\|\hat a\|_1$ suggests a natural sharpness question the paper does not address: whether the weak-type norm must really scale with the total mass of $\hat a$, or whether the Fourier support of $a$ can be exploited to improve the constant.
  • The same Fourier-averaging mechanism may extend to higher-order averaged symbols or maximal versions of $T_{\Omega,K,a}$, since the proof uses only the representation (1.5), the dyadic decomposition, and angular cap estimates.
  • The H\"older parameter $\delta$ appears only through smoothing estimates and decay factors like $s^{2\delta-1}2^{-s\delta}$; this suggests the criterion might survive for slightly weaker modulus-of-continuity conditions, at the cost of a worse geometric decay.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: At its core, the paper asserts a transfer principle. Let $\Omega$ be homogeneous of degree zero, integrable on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$, with zero spherical mean, and let $\Omega\in L\log L$. Let $K$ satisfy the three estimates (1.2)--(1.4). For $a$ with both $a$ and $\hat a$ in $L^1$, define $m_{x,y}^a=\int_0^1 a(sx+(1-s)y)\,ds$ and $T_{\Omega,K,a}f(x)=\mathrm{p.v.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega(x-y)K(x,y)m

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a weak-type (1,1) criterion for the rough singular integral operator T_{Ω,K,a} with a non-convolution kernel K satisfying Hölder conditions (1.2)-(1.4) and an average m_{x,y}a with {a,â}⊂L^1. Under the assumption that Ω∈LlogL(S^{n-1}) has zero mean and that the unaveraged operator T_{Ω,K} is bounded on L^2 with norm O(||Ω||_{LlogL}), the authors prove that T_{Ω,K,a} maps L^1 to weak-L^1 with norm O(C_Ω||â||_1). The proof uses a Calderón-Zygmund decomposition adapted to the functions W_{η,t}, dyadic angular decompositions à la Seeger, and several auxiliary lemmas. Applications include the Ding-Lai result for the Christ-Journé type commutator and weak-type bounds for non-convolution kernels from the literature.

Significance. If correct, the result is a useful and unifying criterion: it recovers known weak-type (1,1) bounds for rough singular integrals and Christ-Journé type commutators, and it yields new weak-type results for a broad class of non-convolution kernels. The proof is well-structured and most lemmas are proved in detail, with the main external input (the L^2 bound of T_{Ω,K}) explicitly identified as a hypothesis. The paper's usefulness, however, is conditional: the bad-part reduction in Step 2 contains a gap for finitely many scales, and two load-bearing kernel estimates are quoted from [13] without sufficient detail. These issues are local and repairable, but they must be addressed before the result can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Step 2 (Eqs. (3.5)-(3.6))] The assertion that T_{Ω,K_j}B^{η,t}_{j−s}(x)=0 for s≤9 and x∈E^c is false for 6≤s≤9. Since the support of the localized kernel K_j(x,y)=β_j(x−y)K(x,y) is the annulus {2^{j−1}≤|x−y|≤2^{j+1}}, a point x at the boundary of E can be at distance on the order of 99.5·2^{j−s} from a cube Q of side 2^{j−s}; for s=6, 99.5·2^{j−6}≈1.55·2^j lies inside the annulus. Concretely, in R^2 with j=0, s=6, Q centered at 0 of side 2^{−6}, and x=(1.8,0), the point x is outside 200Q while |x−y|≈1.8 for y near 0, so the integrand does not vanish. These contributions are therefore omitted when the proof reduces (3.4) to (3.6), and they are not controlled anywhere else in the written proof. The gap is repairable by retaining the finitely many scales s=6,...,9 (e.g., applying Lemma 2.2 to each of them), but as written the proof is incomplete.
  2. [Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3] Two load-bearing kernel estimates are quoted from [13] without proof. In Lemma 2.2, the estimate ||T_{Ω,K_j}B^{η,t}_{j−s}−T_{Ω,K^{s,δ}_j}B^{η,t}_{j−s}||_1≲s^{−2}||Ω||_1||B^{η,t}_{j−s}||_1 is essential for the summability in s in (3.7). In Lemma 2.3, the bound on |K^{s,δ}_j(y+rθ,y)−K^{s,δ}_j(y_0+rθ,y_0)| below (2.10) is similarly load-bearing for (2.8). Since the hypotheses on K in this paper are exactly (1.2)–(1.4), the authors should either provide self-contained proofs of these estimates or state precisely the corresponding results from [13] and verify that they apply to the present kernel class. Without this, the quantitative control used in Steps 2–4 cannot be independently checked.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2, proof of Lemma 2.2] In the first display of the proof, the function W_{j,Ω}(x) is written as 2^{−jn}|Ω(x)|χ_{[2^{j−2},2^{j+2}]}(|x|) but Ω is defined on the unit sphere; it should read |Ω(x/|x|)|. This is presumably a notational omission.
  2. [Section 3, Step 4] The phrase 'Γ^{I−Φ_r}_{Ω,K,a} be as in (2.7) and (2.8), respectively' is confusing because (2.8) is an estimate, not a definition; both operators are defined in (2.7).
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, such as 'Christ-–Journé' with a double dash in the introduction and 'x+2n R^s_{j,ν}' in the proof of Lemma 2.4 where the subscript should be v. These do not affect the mathematics but should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1.1 is a conditional criterion whose L^2 hypothesis is external input; the weak-(1,1) conclusion is not assumed or fitted.

full rationale

No circularity found. The central theorem is conditional: equation (3.3) invokes the asserted L^2 bound ||T_{Ω,K} g||_2 ≤ C||Ω||_{LlogL}||g||_2 exactly as an assumed input, and the conclusion concerns a different operator T_{Ω,K,a}; no step rewrites the desired weak-type estimate as the hypothesis. The auxiliary estimates in Lemmas 2.2–2.5 are imported from Ding–Lai [12,13] and Seeger [22], with only one geometric overlap fact cited to [5] (a paper sharing an author); that fact is also cited to [22] and is a standard cardinality/overlap bound, so it is not load-bearing self-citation. The later applications (Theorem A, Corollary 1.2) use external L^p theorems of Calderón–Zygmund, Pan–Wu–Yang, Calderón et al., and Muckenhoupt to verify the L^2 hypothesis in special cases; this is forward use of known results, not circular. I note, however, a non-circular correctness concern: in Step 2 the assertion T_{Ω,K_j}B^{η,t}_{j−s}=0 for s≤9 on E^c appears false for s=6,…,9 because the distance bound from E^c to a cube of side 2^{j−s} is 99.5·2^{j−s}, which for those s lies inside the annulus 2^{j−1}≤|x−y|≤2^{j+1}; this is a gap in the written proof but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters: the constants δ, σ, ε0, γ, N, N1 are proof parameters only, chosen within intervals to make series converge; the final theorem does not depend on their specific values. The central claim rests on the assumed L^2 bound and the Hölder/symbol conditions, all stated in Theorem 1.1, plus standard tools from [12], [13], [22], and [5]. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption T_{Ω,K} is bounded on L^2(R^n) with operator norm at most C||Ω||_{LlogL(S^{n-1})}.
    This is the central hypothesis of Theorem 1.1, used only in Step 1, equation (3.3), for the good part g^{η,t}; it is not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption K satisfies the Hölder conditions (1.2)-(1.4) for some δ∈(0,1) and C>0.
    Used in Lemma 2.3 and Lemma 2.5 for kernel difference and derivative estimates; stated as a standing condition on K.
  • domain assumption {a, â} ⊂ L^1(R^n).
    Used in Remark 1.2 to expand m^a_{x,y} by Fourier inversion and to control the η,t integrals by ||â||_1; implies a ∈ L∞.
  • standard math Calderón-Zygmund decomposition of W_{η,t} f (Lemma 2.1 of [12]) gives f = g^{η,t} + b^{η,t} with ||g^{η,t}||_2^2 ≤ C τ||f||_1 and ||b^{η,t}||_1 ≤ C||f||_1.
    Invoked in Step 1, equations (3.2)-(3.3), and throughout; a standard tool.
  • standard math Seeger's angular decomposition: for each scale s, the sphere is partitioned into sets E^s_v and the multipliers P_{s,v}, Q_{s,v} with the overlap property that each ξ lies in at most C 2^{s(n-3/2)} supports of \hat{P}_{s,v}.
    Used in Lemma 2.4 and Step 4 to localize Ω in angular sectors; the overlap count drives the 2^{-s/4} decay.
  • standard math The pointwise kernel derivative estimates from Ding-Lai [13], namely |∂^α_x K^{s,δ}_j(x,y)| ≲ 2^{-(j-l_δ(s))|α|-jn} and the Fourier-localization bound (4.12) of [13].
    Imported into Lemma 2.5 to obtain (2.27) and (2.28); these are the main external technical estimates.
  • standard math The inclusion LlogL(S^{n-1}) ⊂ H^1(S^{n-1}) with ||f||_{H^1} ≤ C||f||_{LlogL}, plus the L^p results of [20], [1], [19] for the kernels in Corollary 1.2.
    Used in Corollary 1.2 to verify the L^2 hypothesis for the three applications.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A criterion on weak type $(1,1)$ bound of rough singular integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4P67XOJO

@misc{pith2026260822402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A criterion on weak type $(1,1)$ bound of rough singular integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4P67XOJO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.22402}
}
abstract

In this paper we establish a criterion on weak type $(1,\,1)$ bound of the following rough singular integral $$T_{\Omega,K,a}f(x)={\rm p.v.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega(x-y)K(x,y)m_{x,y}a f(y)dy,$$ where $m_{x,y}a=\int_0^1a(sx+(1-s)y)ds$ with $a\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and $\hat{a}\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n)$, $\Omega$ is homogeneous of degree zero, integrable in $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$ and satisfies the cancellation condition $\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n-1}}\Omega(\theta)d\sigma(\theta)=0$ and $K$ is a measurable function defined on $\mathbb{R}^n\times\mathbb{R}^n\setminus \{(x,x):x\in\mathbb{R}^n\}$ and satisfies a H\"{o}lder condition. By assuming that $\Omega\in L\log L(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ and the operator $T_{\Omega, K}f(x)={\rm p.v.}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Omega(x-y)K(x,y)f(y)dy$ is bounded on $L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$, we prove the weak type (1,1) bound of $T_{\Omega,K,a}$. As several applications, we obtain a large class of singular integral operators which possess weak type $(1,\,1)$ bound. The main results of this paper essentially extend and generalize some known ones.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Y . Chen, F. Liu and H. Wu, Weak type(1,1)bounds for maximal functions with rough kernels, J. Geom. Anal.35:74 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [13]

    Ding and X

    Y . Ding and X. Lai, Weak type(1,1)bound criterion for singular integral with rough kernel and its applications, Trans. Am. Math. Soc.371(2019), 1649–1675

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    A. P. Calder ´on, C. P. Calder ´on, E. Fabes, M. Jodeit and N. M. Rivi `ere, Applications of the Cauchy integral on Lipschitz curves, Bull. Am. Math. Soc.84(2) (1978), 287–290

    work page 1978

  4. [2]

    A. P. Calder ´on and A. Zygmund, On singular integral, Amer. J. Math.78(1956), 289–309

    work page 1956

  5. [3]

    Chen and Z

    Y . Chen and Z. Guo, An extension of Calder ´on–Zygmund type singular integral with non-smooth kernel, J. Funct. Anal.281(2021), 109196

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    Y . Chen, Z. Ji, T. Wang and H. Wu, On the relationship between block spaces and Orlicz spaces, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16216, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [6]

    Y . Chen, T. Wang and H. Wu, Weak type(1,1)bounds for singular integrals with rough kernels on block spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.559(1) (2026), Article No. 130447

    work page 2026

  8. [7]

    Chen and X

    J. Chen and X. Zhu, A note on weak typeL 1 boundedness of CZOs with rough kernels, J. Math. Anal. Appl.339(2008), 438-453

    work page 2008

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    Christ, Weak type(1,1)bounds for rough operators, Ann

    M. Christ, Weak type(1,1)bounds for rough operators, Ann. of Math. (2nd Ser.)128(1988), 19-42

    1988

  2. [9]

    Christ and J

    M. Christ and J. Rubio de Francia, Weak type(1,1)bounds for rough operators II, Invent. Math.93 (1988), 225-237

    1988

  3. [10]

    Christ and C

    M. Christ and C. Sogge, The weak typeL 1 convergence of eigenfunction expansions for pseudodiffer- ential operators, Invent. Math.94(1988), 421-453

    1988

  4. [11]

    Connett, Singular integrals nearL 1

    C. Connett, Singular integrals nearL 1. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. (S. Wainger and G. Weiss, eds.), vol. 35, pp. 163–165, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979

    1979

  5. [12]

    Ding and X

    Y . Ding and X. Lai, On a singular integral of Christ–Journ ´e type with homogeneous kernel, Canad. Math. Bull.61(1) (2018), 97–113

    2018

  6. [14]

    Hofmann, Weak(1,1)boundedness of singular integrals with nonsmooth kernel, Proc

    S. Hofmann, Weak(1,1)boundedness of singular integrals with nonsmooth kernel, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.103(1989), 260–264

    1989

  7. [15]

    Hofmann, Boundedness criteria for rough singular integrals, Proc

    S. Hofmann, Boundedness criteria for rough singular integrals, Proc. London Math. Soc.3(1995), 386–410

    1995

  8. [16]

    Hofmann, Weighted inequalities for commutators of rough singular integrals, Indiana Univ

    S. Hofmann, Weighted inequalities for commutators of rough singular integrals, Indiana Univ. Math. J.39(4) (1990), 1275–1304. A CRITERION ON WEAK TYPE(1,1)BOUND OF ROUGH SINGULAR INTEGRALS 19

    1990

  9. [17]

    Honz´ık, An endpoint estimate for rough maximal singular integrals, Int

    P. Honz´ık, An endpoint estimate for rough maximal singular integrals, Int. Math. Res. Not.19(2020), 6120-6134

    2020

  10. [18]

    G. Hu, X. Lai, X. Tao and Q. Xue, An endpoint estimate for the maximal Calder ´on Commutator with rough kernel, Math. Ann.392(2025), 2469–2502

    2025

  11. [19]

    Muckenhoupt, On certain singular integrals, Pacific J

    B. Muckenhoupt, On certain singular integrals, Pacific J. Math.10(1960), 239–261

    1960

  12. [20]

    Y . Pan, Q. Wu and D. Yang, A remark on multilinear singular integrals with rough kernels, J. Math. Anal. Appl.253(2001), 310–321

    2001

  13. [21]

    Ricci and G

    F. Ricci and G. Weiss, A characterization ofH 1(∑n−1), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. (S. Wainger and G. Weiss, eds.), vol. 35, pp. 289-294, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1979

    1979

  14. [22]

    Seeger, Singular integral operators with rough convolution kernels, J

    A. Seeger, Singular integral operators with rough convolution kernels, J. Am. Math. Soc.9(1996), 95–105

    1996

  15. [23]

    Seeger, A weak type bound for a singular integral, Rev

    A. Seeger, A weak type bound for a singular integral, Rev. Mat. Iberoam.30(3) (2014), 961–978

    2014

  16. [24]

    Stefanov, Weak type estimates for certain Calder ´on–Zygmund singular integral operators, Studia Math.147(2001), 1-13

    A. Stefanov, Weak type estimates for certain Calder ´on–Zygmund singular integral operators, Studia Math.147(2001), 1-13

    2001

  17. [25]

    Tao, The weak-type(1,1)ofLlogLhomogeneous convolution operator, Indiana Univ

    T. Tao, The weak-type(1,1)ofLlogLhomogeneous convolution operator, Indiana Univ. Math. J.48 (1999), 1547–1584. FENGLIU: COLLEGE OFMATHEMATICS ANDSYSTEMSCIENCE, SHANDONGUNIVERSITY OFSCI- ENCE ANDTECHNOLOGY, QINGDAO, SHANDONG266590, PEOPLE’SREPUBLIC OFCHINA Email address:FLiu@sd...

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.