Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 29 references

A Fefferman--Stein inequality for the Dunkl Poisson semigroup and its chamber-lifted formulation

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-28 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For the Dunkl Poisson semigroup, every complex-valued compactly supported datum, with no reflection-group invariance, satisfies a Fefferman–Stein good-$\lambda$ inequality: the orbit-conical maximal function controls the full intrinsic…

desk verdict A genuinely new invariant good-set argument removes the G-invariance obstruction for the Dunkl Poisson semigroup; the proof is coherent, with the main risk concentrated in the imported kernel estimate (3.2). read the letter →

arxiv 2608.23735 v1 pith:PTS5EE44 submitted 2026-08-24 math.CA

Yuying Chen , Yanchang Han , Yongsheng Han , Ji Li , Liangchuan Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CA MSC 42B2542B3042B3533C52
keywords Fefferman–SteininequalityDunkloperatorsPoissonsemigroupnontangentialmaximalfunctionareachamberliftingreflectiongroupsHardyspace
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

The paper proves that a classical inequality of harmonic analysis — the Fefferman–Stein good-$\lambda$ inequality relating a nontangential maximal function to a Lusin area integral — survives in the rational Dunkl setting, where Euclidean structure is twisted by a finite reflection group. Its target is a distribution estimate comparing the orbit-conical maximal function $N_P^{\beta} f$ with the area function $S_P f$ built from the full space-time Dunkl energy, including reflection-difference terms across the reflecting walls, for arbitrary complex-valued $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ with no $G$-invariance assumed. The obstruction is that a general cut-off creates wall differences that the classical Euclidean-gradient product identity cannot control; the paper removes the obstruction by noting that the good set $E=\{N_P^{\beta} f\le\lambda\}$ is $G$-invariant, so the cut-off $a=\varphi(P_t \mathbf{1}_E)$ built from it is too, and every reflection difference of the cut-off vanishes. On the back of this inequality the paper derives maximal-to-area estimates for every $0

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the invariant good-set cut-off. For the closed, $G$-invariant good set $E=\{x:N_P^{\beta} f(x)\le\lambda\}$, the paper sets $v=P_t \mathbf{1}_E$ and $a=\varphi(v)$ with a smooth one-dimensional cut-off $\varphi$. Equivariance of the Dunkl Poisson semigroup makes $v$, and hence $a$, $G$-invariant in the spatial variable, so every wall difference $a(y,t)-a(\sigma_\alpha y,t)$ vanishes and the product rule for $a\cdot P_t f$ reduces to its Euclidean-gradient form without the uncontrolled reflection term. Two orbit-geometric estimates position the cut-off: the Poisson maximal estimate of Lemma 3.3, coming from the kernel bound $p_t(x,y)\le C\,V(x,y,t+d(x,y))^{-1}t/(t+d(x,y))$, forces $a=1$ on a thick tent over a sublevel set $A\subset E$, while the tail estimate of Lemma 3.5 forces $a=0$ outside the enlarged tent $\widetilde W$ over $E$. The residual error lives in $\widetilde W\setminus W$, where $|P_t f|\le\lambda$, and the $L^2$ Littlewood–Paley identity $\int_0^\infty\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\Gamma_{\kappa,t}(P_t h)\,t\,d\omega\,dt=\tfrac12\|h\|_{L^2(d\omega)}^2$ with $h=\mathbf{1}_{E^c}$ bounds it by $\lambda^2\omega(E^c)$. The chamber formulation then uses the lift $Uf(x)=(f(\sigma_1x),\dots,f(\sigma_mx))$ on a fundamental chamber, where the orbit distance becomes Euclidean distance and the reflection energy becomes a finite wall coupling between fiber coordinates.

What would settle it

Take the simplest nontrivial case, the group $Z_2$ acting on $\mathbb{R}$ by $x\mapsto -x$, with multiplicity $\kappa>0$, and let $f$ be a smooth bump supported in a ball touching the reflecting wall at the origin. The theorem predicts that the ratio $\omega\{S_P f>\lambda\}/(\omega\{N_P^{\beta} f>\lambda\}+\lambda^{-2}\int_{\{N_P^{\beta} f\le\lambda\}}(N_P^{\beta} f)^2\,d\omega)$ stays bounded uniformly in $\lambda>0$ and in the bump's position as its support shrinks onto the wall, with a constant depending only on $\kappa$ and the structural data; an evaluation, numerical or asymptotic, showing this ratio unbounded as $\lambda\to 0$ or $\lambda\to\infty$, or a constant growing without bound as the support touches the wall, would falsify (1.1). The same computation with the reflection term $\kappa|P_t f(y)-P_t f(-y)|^2/y^2$ deleted should drive the ratio to infinity, which is what the paper's obstruction analysis predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1, is that for every complex-valued $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and every $\lambda>0$, $$\omega\{S_P f>\$\lambda$\}\le C\,\omega\{$N_P^{{\beta}}$ f>\$\lambda$\}+\frac{C}{\$lambda^{2}$}\int_{\{$N_P^{{\beta}}$ f\le\$\lambda$\}}\bigl($N_P^{{\beta}}$ f\bigr)^2\,d\omega,$$ with constants depending only on the dimension, the root system, the multiplicity function, and the doubling constants of $(\mathbb{R}^N,d\omega)$. Here $N_P^{\beta} f$ is the supremum of $|P_t f|$ over the orbit cone $d(x,y)<\beta t$, and $S_P f$ integrates, over the same cone, the full carré du champ — vertical and horizontal gradients plus the reflection energy $\kappa(\alpha)|u(y,t)-u(\sigma_\alpha y,t)|^2/\langle\alpha,y\rangle^2$. The structural discovery is that although $f$ need not be $G$-invariant, the sublevel set of $N_P^{\beta} f$ is $G$-invariant, and because the Poisson semigroup commutes with the group action, the cut-off built from $P_t \mathbf{1}_E$ has vanishing reflection differences, so the localization closes. From the distribution inequality the paper derives $\|S_P f\|_{L^p(d\omega)}\le C_p\|N_P^{\beta} f\|_{L^p(d\omega)}$ for $0<p<2$, endpoint bounds $\|S_P f\|_{L^1(d\omega)}+\|S_{P,\mathrm{euc}}f\|_{L^1(d\omega)}\le C\|f\|_{H^1_{\max,P}}$, and the equivalence $f\in H^1_{\max,P}\iff S_{P,\mathrm{euc}}f\in L^1(d\omega)\iff S_P f\in L^1(d\omega)$ for $f\in L^1(d\omega)$, with equivalent norms. On a fundamental chamber, the inequality is equivalent to a lifted formulation in which orbit cones become Euclidean cones and the reflection energy becomes a finite wall coupling, but only for lifts of globally smooth data; no assertion is made for chamberwise smooth vector data lacking global cross-wall compatibility.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proof leans on an imported kernel estimate — the Poisson kernel decays like the reciprocal of the orbit-ball volume times a $t/(t+d)$ factor — together with volume doubling for the Dunkl measure: if that decay or those volume constants failed, the good-set localization could not confine the error to the enlarged tent, and the inequality would not close.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $0<p<2$ and every $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, $\|S_P f\|_{L^p(d\omega)}\le C_p\|N_P^{\beta} f\|_{L^p(d\omega)}$, with the analogous statement for the Euclidean-cone functionals following from the envelope identity $N_P^{\beta} f(x)=\max_{\sigma\in G}N_{P,\mathrm{euc}}^{\beta} f(\sigma^{-1}x)$.
  • For $f\in H^1_{\max,P}$, both intrinsic area functions are integrable and $\|S_P f\|_{L^1(d\omega)}+\|S_{P,\mathrm{euc}}f\|_{L^1(d\omega)}\le C\|f\|_{H^1_{\max,P}}$.
  • Among $L^1(d\omega)$ data, membership in the Poisson maximal Hardy space is equivalent to either area function being in $L^1(d\omega)$: $f\in H^1_{\max,P}\iff S_{P,\mathrm{euc}}f\in L^1(d\omega)\iff S_P f\in L^1(d\omega)$, with equivalence of the three norms.
  • On a fundamental chamber, the full-space and lifted distribution inequalities (Theorem 6.3) are equivalent for globally smooth lifted data, up to structural constants: orbit cones become ordinary Euclidean cones and the reflection energy becomes a finite wall coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The invariant cut-off mechanism is not tied to the Poisson semigroup beyond the kernel estimate (3.2): any $G$-equivariant semigroup whose kernel satisfies the same orbit-decay and volume bounds, together with an $L^2$ energy identity, should admit the same good-$\lambda$ argument, and the Dunkl heat semigroup is the immediate test case.
  • Because the lifted inequality is a statement about the finite vector $Uf$, one can test whether the wall coupling alone — without the cross-wall compatibility of a globally smooth datum — suffices for some vector-valued version; the paper explicitly claims nothing there, so that vector-data variant is open.
  • The converse direction of the Hardy-space characterization runs through the known $S_Q$ square-function characterization, and the paper asserts no reverse distribution inequality; if a genuine reverse good-$\lambda$ bound with $S_P$ on the right should fail, the $L^p$ theory would be governed by the maximal function alone, a distinction that is testable for $p\ge 2$.
  • The constants depend only on structural data and the doubling constants, so the distribution inequality is uniform as the multiplicity $\kappa$ varies over bounded ranges; this uniformity is a quantitative prediction that numerical evaluation in the one-dimensional $Z_2$ case could check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The paper's central claim, Theorem 1.1, is that for every complex-valued $f\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and every $\lambda>0$, $$\omega\{S_P f>\$\lambda$\}\le C\,\omega\{$N_P^{{\beta}}$ f>\$\lambda$\}+\frac{C}{\$lambda^{2}$}\int_{\{$N_P^{{\beta}}$ f\le\$\lambda$\}}\bigl($N_P^{{\beta}}$ f\bigr)^2\,d\omega,$$ with constants depending only on the dimension, the root system, the multiplicity functi

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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a Fefferman–Stein good-λ inequality for the Dunkl Poisson semigroup acting on arbitrary complex-valued compactly supported data. The main theorem, Theorem 1.1, controls the distribution of the full intrinsic area function S_P f, which includes the reflection-difference energy, by the distribution of the orbit-conical non-tangential maximal function N_P^β f plus an L^2 term over the good set. The proof constructs a G-invariant good set E from N_P^β f, defines the invariant cut-off a = φ(P_t 1_E), and uses the equivariance of the Poisson semigroup to eliminate reflection differences of the cut-off. The localized energy estimate in Lemma 5.1, together with the orbit-maximal and tail estimates of Section 3 and the error estimate of Lemma 5.2, yields the inequality. The paper then integrates the inequality to obtain L^p bounds for 0<p<2, proves endpoint H^1-to-L^1 bounds for S_P and S_{P,euc}, and establishes an equivalent chamber-lifted formulation for globally smooth lifts. The final corollary characterizes the Dunkl Poisson maximal Hardy space among L^1(dω) data via the semigroup square-function characterization of [2].

Significance. If the result is correct, it is a substantial advance: it is the first Fefferman–Stein good-λ inequality in the rational Dunkl setting that treats arbitrary, non-G-invariant data while retaining the full space-time carré du champ including the reflection-difference energy. The proof is structural and contains no fitted constants, no definitional circularity, and no ad-hoc assumptions: the good set is built from the comparison maximal function, and the localized energy proof does not assume the conclusion. The paper is also careful about scope: the distribution estimate is stated only for C_c^∞ data, the chamber theorem is asserted only for lifts of globally smooth functions, and no reverse good-λ inequality is claimed. The main identified dependency is the external Poisson kernel estimate (3.2) from [2, Prop. 5.1(a)], which is load-bearing for the orbit-maximal and tail lemmas; on reading the paper I find this to be a genuine but properly cited external input rather than an internal flaw.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The homogeneous dimension is introduced by redefining N with the formula N = N + 2γ, which collides with the Euclidean dimension N of R^N. This makes statements such as Theorem 1.1, where constants depend on N, ambiguous. Please use a separate symbol for the homogeneous dimension, for example \mathfrak N or d, throughout.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.2)] Equation (3.2) is the single most important imported estimate in the paper: it drives Lemma 3.3, Corollary 3.4, and Lemma 3.5, and through them the good-set localization in Sections 4–5. The citation to [2, Prop. 5.1(a)] is appropriate, but the text should state explicitly that the estimate applies verbatim with the paper's normalization ||α||^2 = 2 and with the volume normalization V(x,y,t+d(x,y)) = max{V(x,t+d), V(y,t+d)}, since the constants in these lemmas depend on that exact form.
  3. [Section 8.1, Eq. (8.1)] The bound ||N_{P,euc}^β f||_{L^1} ≤ C(β+1)^N ||f||_{H^1_{max,P}} is cited from [2, Lemma 10.2] with a specific aperture convention. Please state the convention used in [2] so the reader can verify that the aperture β in the present paper matches the parameter a in that lemma.
  4. [Section 8, Corollary 8.4] The equivalence of the three conditions uses [2, Theorem 2.3] as the characterization of H^1_{max,P} by S_Q. Since the corollary is stated for all f ∈ L^1(dω), please cite the precise statement from [2] that this characterization is valid at the L^1 level, rather than only for smooth or L^2 data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation is self-contained conditional on the cited external Poisson kernel estimate (3.2).

full rationale

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is a standard good-lambda localization. The good set E is defined from the target maximal function N_P^β f, but this is not circular: the final right-hand side is exactly the tail integral over {N≤λ}, and the intermediate estimate ∫_E |f|² ≤ ∫_E (N_P^β f)² follows from boundary convergence |f|≤N_P^β f a.e., not from the asserted inequality. The invariant cutoff a=φ(P_t 1_E) is constructed from the Poisson extension of the indicator of E; its reflection differences vanish by G-equivariance, and Lemma 5.1 proves a localized energy inequality whose right side consists of ∫_E |f|² plus an error controlled in Lemma 5.2 by the L² Littlewood-Paley estimate (3.4). None of these steps assumes (1.1). The only load-bearing external input is the Poisson kernel bound (3.2) from [2, Prop. 5.1(a)], used in Lemmas 3.3, 3.5 and Corollary 3.4; it is an imported published estimate, not a self-citation, and it does not make the target inequality an input. The chamber-lifted Theorem 6.3 is explicitly proved equivalent to Theorem 1.1 via exact identities (6.8) and the chamber decomposition; this equivalence is stated transparently rather than disguised as a new prediction. The Hardy-space endpoint uses the external S_Q characterization from [2] and the atomic identification from [12] only for the converse norm implication, and the paper explicitly says no reverse distribution estimate is asserted. Thus there is no definitional identification, no fitted-input prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

An honest count: there are no fitted constants and no invented physical entities. The theorem's constants are structural, and the cutoff parameters c1, c2, c3, beta0 are proof choices, not empirical fits. The proof does rely on imported infrastructure: the Dunkl Poisson kernel bound (3.2), doubling and volume comparability, the S_Q semigroup characterization of H1_max,P, and the atomic decomposition. These are external results from [2], [12], and [26], cited at the point of use, and none of them is shaped by the present conclusion. The chamber lift is a coordinate change, not a new entity with independent physical evidence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dunkl Poisson kernel bound (3.2), p_t(x,y)≤C V(x,y,t+d(x,y))^{-1} t/(t+d(x,y))
    Quoted from [2, Proposition 5.1(a)]. It is the engine behind the orbit-maximal estimate (Lemma 3.3), the tail estimate (Lemma 3.5), and the error confinement in Lemma 5.2.
  • domain assumption Dunkl measure volume doubling and orbit-volume comparability, including V(x,r)≃V(y,r) whenever d(x,y)<r
    Derived from [2, (3.1)-(3.2)] and used throughout Section 3 for annulus sums and in Lemma 6.2 for chamber measure comparability.
  • domain assumption H^1_max,P coincides with the semigroup Hardy space characterized by S_Q, and with the atomic space H^1_{(1,2)}
    Quoted from [2, Theorems 2.1-2.3] and [12, Theorem 1.6]; used in Lemma 8.1 and Corollary 8.4 for the endpoint and reverse norm bounds.
  • standard math The Dunkl Laplacian -Δκ admits a nonnegative self-adjoint realization with trivial L2 kernel, and the spectral theorem applies
    Used in Lemma 3.2 and Step 3 of Lemma 5.1 to compute energy identities and temporal traces; standard functional analysis in the Dunkl context.
  • domain assumption Dunkl transform unitarity and integration by parts for C_c^∞ data
    Taken from [26, Lemma 2.6, Theorem 2.6, Proposition 2.1]; used to justify ∂_t^2 P_t f = -Δκ P_t f and energy computations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Fefferman--Stein inequality for the Dunkl Poisson semigroup and its chamber-lifted formulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PTS5EE44

@misc{pith2026260823735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Fefferman--Stein inequality for the Dunkl Poisson semigroup and its chamber-lifted formulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PTS5EE44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.23735}
}
abstract

We prove a Fefferman--Stein good-$\lambda$ inequality for the Dunkl Poisson semigroup associated with a finite reflection group and a non-negative multiplicity function. For arbitrary complex-valued $f\in C_c^\infty(\mathbb R^N)$, with no $G$-invariance assumption, it compares the orbit-conical non-tangential maximal function $\mathcal N_P^\beta f$ with the area function $\mathcal S_Pf$ formed from the full space-time Dunkl carr\'e du champ, including its reflection-difference energy. The main obstruction is that a general cut-off creates wall differences not controlled by the local Euclidean-gradient product identity. The good set $E=\{x:\mathcal N_P^\beta f(x)\le\lambda\}$ is $G$-invariant; by the equivariance of the Poisson semigroup, so is $a=\varphi(P_t \mathbf 1_E)$, and hence all reflection differences of the cut-off vanish. Poisson maximal and tail estimates, together with the $L^2$ Littlewood--Paley estimate for $P_t \mathbf 1_{E^c}$, then yield the desired distribution inequality. Its integrated form gives maximal-to-area estimates for every $0<p<2$ and endpoint $H^1$-to-$L^1$ bounds for the orbit-conical and Euclidean-conical intrinsic area functions. For chamber lifts of globally smooth data, the inequality has an equivalent formulation on a fundamental chamber, where orbit cones become Euclidean cones and the reflection energy becomes a finite wall coupling. Combined with the known semigroup square-function characterization, these bounds characterize the Dunkl Poisson maximal Hardy space among $L^1(d\omega)$ data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Anker, J

    J.-P. Anker, J. Dziuba ´nski and A. Hejna,Harmonic functions, conjugate harmonic functions and the Hardy space H1 in the rational Dunkl setting, J. Fourier Anal. Appl.25(2019), 2356–2418, doi:10.1007/s00041-019-09666-0. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 31, 32, 33, 34

    work page doi:10.1007/s00041-019-09666-0 2019

  2. [1]

    Almeida, J

    V . Almeida, J. J. Betancor, J. C. Fari˜na and L. Rodr´ıguez-Mesa,Maximal, Littlewood–Paley, variation and oscilla- tion operators in the rational Dunkl setting, J. Fourier Anal. Appl.30(2024), Article 60, doi:10.1007/s00041-024- 10117-8. 2

    work page doi:10.1007/s00041-024- 2024

  3. [3]

    T. A. Bui,Harmonic analysis in Dunkl settings, J. Math. Pures Appl.199(2025), Article 103725. 1

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Chang, R

    D.-C. Chang, R. Gong, J. Li, C.-W. Liang, B. D. Wick and L. Wu,Sharp upper and lower L p bounds for Dunkl area integrals, to appear inRecent Advances in Harmonic Analysis and Partial Differential Equations, Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis, Springer. 3

    work page

  5. [5]

    Chang, J

    D.-C. Chang, J. Li, C. Wen and L. Wu,Chamber lifting and non-radial Dunkl multipliers, to appear in Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged). 3

    work page

  6. [6]

    Chen, Y .C

    Y .Y . Chen, Y .C. Han, Y .S. Han and C.Q. Tan,Plancherel–P´ olya inequality and its applications in the Dunkl setting, J. Geom. Anal.36(2026), Article 118. 2

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Deleaval,Fefferman–Stein inequalities for theZ d 2 Dunkl maximal operator, J

    L. Deleaval,Fefferman–Stein inequalities for theZ d 2 Dunkl maximal operator, J. Math. Anal. Appl.360(2009), 711–726. 2

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    C. F. Dunkl,Reflection groups and orthogonal polynomials on the sphere, Math. Z.197(1988), 33–60. 1

    work page 1988

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    C. F. Dunkl,Differential-difference operators associated to reflection groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.311(1989), 167–183. 1

    1989

  2. [10]

    C. F. Dunkl,Integral kernels with reflection group invariance, Canad. J. Math.43(1991), 1213–1227. 1

    1991

  3. [11]

    Dziuba ´nski and A

    J. Dziuba ´nski and A. Hejna,H¨ ormander’s multiplier theorem for the Dunkl transform, J. Funct. Anal.277(2019), 2133–2159. 1

    2019

  4. [12]

    Dziuba ´nski and A

    J. Dziuba ´nski and A. Hejna,Remark on atomic decompositions for the Hardy space H1 in the rational Dunkl setting, Studia Math.251(2020), 89–110. 1, 31

    2020

  5. [13]

    Dziuba ´nski and A

    J. Dziuba ´nski and A. Hejna,Singular integrals in the rational Dunkl setting, Rev. Mat. Complut.35(2022), 711–

    2022

  6. [14]

    Dziuba ´nski and A

    J. Dziuba ´nski and A. Hejna,Upper and lower bounds for Littlewood–Paley square functions in the Dunkl setting, Studia Math.262(2022), 275–303. 2

    2022

  7. [15]

    Dziuba ´nski and A

    J. Dziuba ´nski and A. Hejna,Characterizations of H 1 and Fefferman–Stein decompositions ofBMOfunctions by systems of singular integrals in the Dunkl setting, arXiv:2503.04964. 1

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fefferman and E

    C. Fefferman and E. M. Stein,H p spaces of several variables, Acta Math.129(1972), 137–193. 1

    1972

  9. [17]

    Q. Guo, J. Li, B. D. Wick and L. Wu,Two-weight inequalities for the Dunkl–Poisson integrals, arXiv:2605.30766. 3

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Han, M.-Y

    Y . Han, M.-Y . Lee, J. Li, E. Sawyer and L. Wu,Calder´ on-type commutators and chamber lifting in the Dunkl setting, arXiv:2605.25808. 3

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. E. Humphreys,Reflection Groups and Coxeter Groups, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics29, Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990. 24

    1990

  12. [20]

    Jiu,Area integrals and maximal functions of generalized harmonic functions associated with the Dunkl operators, J

    J. Jiu,Area integrals and maximal functions of generalized harmonic functions associated with the Dunkl operators, J. Geom. Anal.36(2026), Article 34. 2 FEFFERMAN–STEIN INEQUALITY IN THE DUNKL SETTING 37

    2026

  13. [21]

    Jiu and Zh.-K

    J.-X. Jiu and Zh.-K. Li,Local boundary behaviour and the area integral of harmonic functions associated with Dunkl operators, arXiv:2206.02132. 2

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Li,Weak type estimates for square functions of Dunkl heat flows, Acta Math

    H. Li,Weak type estimates for square functions of Dunkl heat flows, Acta Math. Appl. Sin. Engl. Ser. (2025). 2

    2025

  15. [23]

    Li and M

    H. Li and M. Zhao,Dimension-free square function estimates for Dunkl operators, Math. Nachr.296(2023), 1225–

    2023

  16. [24]

    Li,On Fefferman–Stein type inequality on Shilov boundaries and applications, to appear in Ann

    J. Li,On Fefferman–Stein type inequality on Shilov boundaries and applications, to appear in Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. 1

  17. [25]

    Merryfield,On the area integral, Carleson measures and H p in the polydisc, Indiana Univ

    K. Merryfield,On the area integral, Carleson measures and H p in the polydisc, Indiana Univ. Math. J.34(1985), 663–685. 1

    1985

  18. [26]

    R ¨osler,Dunkl operators: theory and applications, In: E

    M. R ¨osler,Dunkl operators: theory and applications, In: E. Koelink and W. Van Assche (eds.), Orthogonal poly- nomials and special functions, Lecture Notes in Math.1817, Springer, 2003, 93–135. 1, 8, 9

    2003

  19. [27]

    E. M. Stein,Harmonic Analysis: Real-Variable Methods, Orthogonality, and Oscillatory Integrals, Princeton Uni- versity Press, Princeton, 1993. 1

    1993

  20. [28]

    C. Tan, Y . Han, Y . Han, M. Lee and J. Li,Criterion of the L2 boundedness in Dunkl setting, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci.26(2025), 259–299. 1

    2025

  21. [29]

    C. Tan, Y . Han, Y . Han, M. Lee and J. Li,Singular integral operators, T1theorem, Littlewood–Paley theory and Hardy spaces in Dunkl setting, arXiv:2204.01886. 1 School ofMathematicalSciences, SouthChinaNormalUniversity, Guangzhou, 510631, P.R. China Email address:2022021927@m...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.