Directional maximal operators in the plane

Edward Kroc; Juyoung Lee; Malabika Pramanik

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 72 references

Directional maximal operators in the plane

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 This paper proves that a slope set yields bounded directional maximal operators on every L^p exactly when it is admissible finite-order lacunary, and that failure is witnessed by Kakeya-type sets.

desk verdict A serious corrected-dichotomy monograph with a promising new definition, but the supplied half leaves the load-bearing pruning and all analytic/probabilistic chapters unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.23871 v1 pith:UIZ75Z6F submitted 2026-08-24 math.CA

Edward Kroc , Juyoung Lee , Malabika Pramanik This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CA MSC 42B25

keywords directionalmaximaloperatoradmissiblefinite-orderlacunaritysublacunarityKakeya-typesetsM-adictreesplittingnumberLpboundednessBernoullipercolation

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 establishes a corrected trichotomy for planar directional maximal operators: for a set of slopes $\Omega\subset\mathbb R$ and any $p\in(1,\infty)$, three statements are equivalent—$\Omega$ admits Kakeya-type sets, the directional maximal operators $D_\Omega$ and $M_\Omega$ are unbounded on $L^p(\mathbb R^2)$, and $\Omega$ is sublacunary, meaning it is not admissible lacunary of any finite order. Earlier work had asserted a similar dichotomy but left a gap: its definition of finite-order lacunarity did not match the tree structure used in the proof, and the Euclidean separation needed for the construction could fail. The paper repairs this by introducing admissible finite-order lacunarity, proving a tree-theoretic characterization via finite splitting number, and building Kakeya-type sets from sublacunary slope sets through a pruning and probabilistic construction. If correct, the result settles which thin slope sets give bounded maximal operators: exactly the admissible finite-order lacunary ones, which also have no Kakeya-type sets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $M$-adic tree $T(\Omega;M)$ representing the slope set, together with its splitting number, the maximal number of branching events along any ray. The paper proves that admissible finite-order lacunarity is exactly finite splitting number, then prunes any tree with large splitting number to a model $(N,C_0)$-tree whose splitting vertices have controlled Euclidean separation at certain fundamental heights. Basic slope intervals and compressed trees recast this pruned tree as a full binary tree of height $N$, and inductively sticky maps assign slopes to spatial roots. The Kakeya-type construction then uses Bernoulli percolation and electrical-network estimates to show the resulting tube family has small Lebesgue measure far from the root line while remaining large near it.

What would settle it

The paper's central implication would collapse if one could exhibit a sublacunary set whose associated $M$-adic tree, after any pruning, fails to contain a model $(N,C_0)$-subtree satisfying the separation bounds (6.4) and (6.9), or if the random tube family constructed from a pruned tree fails to satisfy the area ratio condition (2.1). Concretely, compute those separation constants for the dyadic block example of Section 1.5.1 with block lengths satisfying $\sum_j 2^{-N_j}<\infty$; if the distance between the two descendants at some fundamental height falls outside $[C_0, C_0+2]M^{-h_v^*}$, the pruning constant is not uniform and the argument would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the dichotomy for planar directional maximal operators is governed by a single structural invariant, admissible finite-order lacunarity. A slope set $\Omega$ is admissible finite-order lacunary exactly when its $M$-adic tree has finite splitting number, exactly when it admits no Kakeya-type sets, and exactly when $D_\Omega$ and $M_\Omega$ are bounded on $L^p$ for every $p\in(1,\infty)$. The converse direction is proved by showing that sublacunarity forces arbitrarily large splitting number, then pruning the slope tree to a model subtree with controlled Euclidean separation, compressing it to a full binary tree, and using a random construction to produce Kakeya-type tube families. The paper also resolves the specific test case raised by the earlier counterexample literature: the dyadic block set $\Omega_{\mathrm{HRS}}$ is sublacunary, so the corresponding operators are unbounded on every $L^p$, $p\in[1,\infty)$.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the pruning theorem (Proposition 6.1): every slope tree whose rays branch more than $(N+1)(C_0+3)$ times contains a subtree that still branches $N$ times per ray and whose branching points are separated in the Euclidean metric by uniform constants. If the proof of that theorem cannot be completed with uniform constants, the construction of Kakeya-type sets from sublacunarity collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If $\Omega$ is admissible finite-order lacunary, then $D_\Omega$ and $M_\Omega$ are bounded on $L^p(\mathbb R^2)$ for all $p\in(1,\infty)$, with norm bounded in terms of the lacunarity order, the lacunarity constant, and the covering number.
If $\Omega$ is sublacunary, then $\Omega$ admits Kakeya-type sets, and $D_\Omega$ and $M_\Omega$ are unbounded on $L^p$ for every $p\in[1,\infty)$.
The dyadic block set $\Omega_{\mathrm{HRS}}$ investigated in earlier counterexamples is sublacunary, so its directional maximal operators are unbounded on every $L^p$, $p\in[1,\infty)$.
For admissible finite-order lacunary $\Omega$, the averaging rectangles with slopes in $\Omega$ give a Lebesgue differentiation theorem in $L^p$ for every $p\in(1,\infty)$; for sublacunary $\Omega$, differentiation fails almost everywhere.
Finite-order lacunarity is invariant under bi-Lipschitz maps, so the same boundedness characterization holds whether directions are parametrized by slopes or by angles.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the equivalence suggests a quantitative refinement in which the operator norm is controlled directly by the splitting number and the fundamental heights; the paper's bounds via $(N, \lambda, R)$ are the first step toward such a refinement.
Editorial inference: because admissible finite-order lacunarity is not closed under algebraic sums, the boundedness of $D_{\Omega_1+\Omega_2}$ is not determined by the boundedness of the summands; the paper's example of two first-order lacunary sets with sublacunary sum indicates that a sum of bounded operators can be unbounded, so additive questions need new invariants.
Editorial inference: the Bernoulli-percolation construction on compressed trees could be tested numerically for the explicit dyadic block example: simulate tube survival as block lengths vary and check whether the Kakeya-type area ratio grows with the number of tubes as predicted by the paper's probability estimates.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. First, this is not a routine patch of Bateman: the new admissible finite-order lacunarity is genuinely better aligned with the tree machinery, and the tree characterization in Proposition 5.1 is proved, not assumed. Second, the supplied manuscript stops around Chapter 8, so the decisive parts of the main theorem—the analytic Lp bounds in Chapter 14 and the probabilistic Kakeya construction in Chapters 9–13—are simply not available for checking. The title claim cannot be certified from what is in front of us.

What the paper does well: it identifies the real gap in Bateman's framework and gives a definition that survives the HRS counterexamples. The examples in Section 3.4, especially Lemmas 3.13 and 3.14, do real work in showing why uniform lacunarity constants and gap placement are necessary. The induction proving Proposition 5.1 is careful and readable. The pruning construction in Chapter 6 is inventive, and the compressed-tree material in Chapters 7–8 is coherent. I saw no fitted parameters, no invented data, and the citation pattern looks normal; the self-citations to [48] and [49] are supporting lemmas, not the target conclusion.

The soft spots are real but should be kept in proportion. The main one is that Proposition 6.1 is load-bearing for the sublacunary-to-Kakeya direction, and its proof via Lemma 6.2 has a jump. The stress-test note worries about the counting claim (6.25), where the text says a ray with more than C0+1 splitting vertices would generate C0+2 descendants at the next level. I am not convinced that objection is fatal: the global hypothesis that every ray splits more than N0 forces side subtrees to be deep, so the missing descendants may well exist. But the proof as written does not show that, and (6.25) is asserted with a one-line argument that ignores nesting and survival-to-level issues. That is exactly the kind of step a referee should push on. The larger soft spot is structural: Theorem 3.4 is deferred to a chapter we cannot see, and the Kakeya construction is deferred too. So the central equivalence is a promissory note in this version.

Who is this for? Specialists in planar harmonic analysis and anyone working on directional maximal operators or Kakeya-type sets. A reader who wants the corrected organizing invariant and the tree dictionary will get real value from Chapters 1–8. A reader who needs the full dichotomy will have to wait for the rest.

Recommendation: yes, send it to serious peer review, but only with the complete manuscript and a rewritten proof of Lemma 6.2. The available material is strong enough to deserve referee time, but not strong enough to accept on the strength of this partial text.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims a corrected dichotomy for planar directional maximal operators: for any slope set Ω ⊂ R and p ∈ (1, ∞), Ω admits Kakeya-type sets (Definition 2.1) if and only if the directional maximal operators D_Ω and M_Ω are unbounded on L^p(R^2), if and only if Ω is sublacunary in the sense of the new Definition 3.3. The paper introduces admissible finite-order lacunarity, develops an M-adic tree encoding, proves that finite splitting number implies admissible finite-order lacunarity (Proposition 5.1), and develops a pruning theorem (Proposition 6.1) intended to extract model subtrees with controlled Euclidean separation from arbitrary sublacunary slope trees. The supplied text covers Chapters 1–8, including the proof that Kakeya-type sets imply unboundedness (Lemma 2.2), the definition and examples of admissible finite-order lacunarity, the tree formalism, and the pruning mechanism. The remaining implications (3)⇒(1) and (2)⇒(3), which constitute the core of Theorem 1.1, are deferred to Chapters 9–13 and Chapter 14, respectively, and these chapters are not present in the submitted material.

Significance. If the full proof goes through, the result would be a major advance: it would repair the gap in Bateman's dichotomy identified by Hagelstein, Radillo-Murguia, and Stokolos, and it would identify admissible finite-order lacunarity as a robust structural invariant linking Kakeya geometry, analytic boundedness, and tree combinatorics. The supplied parts have notable strengths: the definitions are carefully formulated, the proof of Proposition 5.1 is detailed and self-contained, the examples in Sections 3.4 and 6.7 clarify the new notions, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the known gap and the test cases from the literature. The significance, however, is conditional: the central theorem is unverified because the analytic and probabilistic constructions that prove the remaining implications are not included in the submitted text. The pruning theorem and its engine, Lemma 6.2, also contain a counting step that is not justified as written, which further undermines the currently verifiable portion of the proof of (3)⇒(1).

major comments (2)

[Chapters 9–14 and Section 1.6] The manuscript as submitted contains only Chapters 1–8, with Chapter 8 ending mid-sentence. The proof of the central implication (3)⇒(1) of Theorem 1.1 is explicitly routed through Chapters 9–13, and the proof of the implication (2)⇒(3) is deferred to Chapter 14. None of these chapters is present. Consequently, Theorem 1.1, Corollary 1.2, and Corollary 1.3 are not established by the supplied material. This is the primary load-bearing issue: the main theorem cannot be certified from the submitted text, and the manuscript must be completed before further review.
[Section 6.6, especially (6.24)–(6.25)] The proof of Lemma 6.2 relies on the assertion that if a ray R of T_0 contained more than C0+1 splitting vertices of height at most h(v0)+K0−2, then that ray alone would generate at least C0+2 descendants at height h(v0)+K0−1, contradicting (6.24). This counting step is not justified: the side descendants of successive splitting vertices along a single ray are nested rather than disjoint, and they survive to the prescribed level only if the intervening vertices and branches are present in T_0. Lemma 6.2 states no closure or terminal-vertex assumptions that would guarantee this survival. If a side branch terminates before the target height, it contributes no descendant at that height, so the stated lower bound can fail. Since Lemma 6.2 is the engine of Proposition 6.1, and Proposition 6.1 is the foundation of the Kakeya-type construction in the roadmap, this under-justified step is load-bearing and must be repaired.

minor comments (5)

[Section 6.2] The cross-reference "Section refsection: full M-adic tree" appears in the text and is unresolved; it should be a proper reference to Section 4.2.
[Section 5.5.2] In the proof of the claim (5.21), the text says "Jointly, (5.22) and (5.22) prove the claim (5.21)"; the second reference should be to (5.23).
[Definition 3.3 and elsewhere] The symbol "<" is used for set non-membership, for instance "U < ..." and "U < AdFinLac"; the standard notation "∉" or "notin" should be used instead.
[Lemma 4.2, equation (4.9)] The displayed condition (4.9) is garbled: "u1u 1, u1 1u" does not convey the intended distinctness and non-ancestry relations; it should be written in standard notation such as u1 ≠ u and u1 not comparable to u by ancestry.
[Section 1.3 and Theorem 1.1] Theorem 1.1 states unboundedness on L^p for p ∈ (1, ∞), while Lemma 2.2 and the abstract claim unboundedness for all p ∈ [1, ∞); the relationship between these statements should be clarified, since the endpoint p = ∞ is excluded from the theorem but mentioned elsewhere.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central equivalences are proved by independent analytic, combinatorial, and geometric arguments rather than assumed or reduced to the paper's own definitions.

full rationale

The main theorem (Theorem 1.1) is established through separate derivation chains: (1) implies (2) by the direct geometric argument of Lemma 2.2; (3) implies (1) through the M-adic tree encoding of Chapters 4–5, the pruning theorem Proposition 6.1 (whose proof is supplied via Lemmas 6.2 and 6.3), the compressed-tree construction of Chapter 8, and the probabilistic tube construction of Chapters 9–13; (2) implies (3) is obtained as the contrapositive of the analytic bound Theorem 3.4, whose proof is deferred to Chapter 14 and based on Christ's almost orthogonality principle. The new notion of admissible finite-order lacunarity (Definition 3.3) is a recursive combinatorial definition in terms of lacunary sequences and gap intervals; it is not defined in terms of Kakeya sets, maximal operators, or the desired conclusion. Sublacunarity is simply the negation of this class, so Theorem 1.1 carries substantive content. The self-citations to Kroc's thesis [48] and prior work of the authors [49] appear in historical, attribution, or motivational contexts (e.g., Section 1.3, Chapter 4 introduction, Sections 5.3 and 6.3), and the load-bearing lemmas that those citations point to are actually proved in the present text (Lemma 4.5, Lemma 5.3, Lemma 6.2, Lemma 6.3). The proof does not import an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz from the authors' prior work. The counting estimate in Lemma 6.2 Part 3 flagged by the reviewer is a potential correctness concern, not a circular one: it does not presuppose the Euclidean separation or Kakeya-type conclusion. No fitted parameters, data-dependent choices, or benchmark-fitting appear anywhere in the derivation. The manuscript is therefore self-contained up to standard external tools, and no circular step is identifiable from the supplied text.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. It rests on standard mathematical tools (M-adic tree encoding, almost orthogonality, Bernoulli percolation) plus its own new structural definitions, most importantly admissible finite-order lacunarity and the pruning theorem (Proposition 6.1). These are explicit and are the focal point of the proof.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The slope set can be reduced to Omega subset of [0,1] by partitioning angles into at most four sectors and rotating coordinates.
Used in Section 1 (equation (1.4)) to normalize the problem; such rotations preserve Lp norms. This is standard.
standard math Every bounded subset of R can be encoded by an M-adic tree whose maximal rays correspond to points in the closure of the set.
Chapter 4, Section 4.2; the correspondence between M-adic expansions and points of [0,1] is classical.
standard math The analytic proof relies on Christ's almost orthogonality principle for square function estimates.
Chapter 14, Section 14.1; the principle is an established tool in harmonic analysis, invoked without proof in the reviewed text.
standard math The probabilistic construction of Kakeya-type sets uses Bernoulli percolation and electrical network estimates.
Chapters 11-12; the adaptation is new, but the underlying probabilistic tools are standard. The supplied text does not include these chapters.
domain assumption The definition of admissible finite-order lacunarity (Definition 3.3) is taken as the structural invariant, with uniform control of lacunarity constants and gap placement.
This is a new definition introduced by the authors; it is not an unproved background fact but a modeling choice. The theorem's scope depends on it.
domain assumption The weak Euclidean separation obtainable after pruning (weaker than Bateman's condition (1.8)) is sufficient to support the Kakeya construction.
This is a central structural claim made in Section 1.4.2 and implemented via Proposition 6.1; it is the key to repairing the gap. Its proof relies on later chapters.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Directional maximal operators in the plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UIZ75Z6F

@misc{pith2026260823871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Directional maximal operators in the plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UIZ75Z6F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.23871}
}

abstract

This monograph investigates the Lebesgue boundedness of planar directional maximal operators $D_{\Omega}$. These are maximal averages of functions over line segments in $\mathbb R^2$ whose slopes lie in a specified set $\Omega\subseteq\mathbb R$. A large body of work has identified a geometric property of $\Omega$, called finite-order lacunarity, as a key factor in ensuring that $D_{\Omega}$ is Lebesgue bounded. While several variations of this notion exist, they all centre on the distribution of gaps in $\Omega$. Building on earlier work, an article of Bateman(2009) asserted a dichotomy for such operators. Namely, $D_{\Omega}$ is bounded on $L^p$ for all $p\in (1,\infty)$ precisely when the slope set $\Omega$ is finite-order lacunary, or equivalently, when $\Omega$ does not admit Kakeya-type sets. Conversely, sublacunary direction sets $\Omega$ admit Kakeya-like phenomena, implying that $D_{\Omega}$ is unbounded on $L^p$ for all $p\in [1,\infty)$. Recent work of Hagelstein, Radillo-Murguia, and Stokolos(2024) identified a gap in the proof of this assertion and produced counterexamples for which the separation mechanism underlying that proof fails, demonstrating the need for a corrected framework. We establish the corrected characterization by introducing a new notion of admissible finite-order lacunarity that faithfully reflects the combinatorial structure of the direction set. This leads to a tree-theoretic characterization in terms of finite splitting number and provides the foundation for new geometric and probabilistic constructions establishing the equivalence between finite-order lacunarity, the absence of Kakeya-type sets, and the boundedness of directional maximal operators. The resulting framework not only resolves the gap in the earlier proof, but also identifies admissible finite-order lacunarity as the structural invariant governing these phenomena.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[48]

Kroc.Kakeya-type sets, lacunarity, and directional maximal operators in Euclidean space

E. Kroc.Kakeya-type sets, lacunarity, and directional maximal operators in Euclidean space. UBC Ph.D. Thesis (2015), available at https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0166114

work page 2015
[49]

E. Kroc, M. Pramanik.Kakeya-type sets over Cantor sets of directions in Rd`1. J. Fourier Anal. Appl.22no. 3, 623-674 (2016)

work page 2016
[1]

Alfonseca.Strong type inequalities and an almost-orthogonality principle for families of maximal operators along directions in R2

A. Alfonseca.Strong type inequalities and an almost-orthogonality principle for families of maximal operators along directions in R2. J. London Math. Soc. (2)67, No. 1, 208-218 (2003)

work page 2003
[2]

Alfonseca, F

A. Alfonseca, F. Soria, A. Vargas.An almost-orthogonality principle in L2 for directional maxi- mal functions. Harmonic analysis at Mount Holyoke (South Hadley, MA, 2001), 17. Contemp. Math., 320, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003

work page 2001
[3]

Alfonseca, F

A. Alfonseca, F. Soria, A. Vargas.A remark on maximal operators along directions in R2. Math. Res. Lett.10, No. 1, 41-49 (2003)

work page 2003
[4]

Bateman.Kakeya sets and directional maximal operators in the plane

M. Bateman.Kakeya sets and directional maximal operators in the plane. Duke Math. J.147, No. 1, 55-77 (2009)

work page 2009
[5]

Bateman, N.H

M. Bateman, N.H. Katz.Kakeya sets in Cantor directions. Math. Res. Lett.15, No. 1, 73-81 (2008)

work page 2008
[6]

A. S. Besicovitch.On Kakeya’s problem and a similar one. Mat. Zeitschrift,27, No. 1, 312-320 (1928)

work page 1928

Show all 72 references

[7]

Bourgain,Besicovitch type maximal operators and applications to Fourier analysis

J. Bourgain,Besicovitch type maximal operators and applications to Fourier analysis. Geom. Funct. Anal .1, 147–187 (1991)

1991
[8]

Bourgain, On the dimension of Kakeya sets and related maximal inequalities, Geom

J. Bourgain, On the dimension of Kakeya sets and related maximal inequalities, Geom. Funct. Anal . 9 (1999), 256–282

1999
[9]

Busemann, W

H. Busemann, W. Feller.Zur Differentiation der Lebesguesche Integrale. Fund. Math.22, 226–256 (1934)

1934
[10]

Carbery.Differentiation in lacunary directions and an extension of the Marcinkiewicz multi- plier theorem

A. Carbery.Differentiation in lacunary directions and an extension of the Marcinkiewicz multi- plier theorem. Ann. Inst. Four.38, No. 1, 157-168 (1988)

1988
[11]

C´ordoba.The Kakeya maximal function and spherical summation multipliers

A. C´ordoba.The Kakeya maximal function and spherical summation multipliers. Amer. J. Math. 99, No. 1, 1-22 (1977)

1977
[12]

C´ordoba, R

A. C´ordoba, R. Fefferman.On the equivalence between the boundedness of certain classes of maximal and multiplier operators in Fourier analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA74, 423–425 (1977)

1977
[13]

C´ordoba, R

A. C´ordoba, R. Fefferman.On differentiation of integrals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA74, No. 6, 2211–2213 (1977)

1977
[14]

Perron capacity

E. D’Aniello, A. Gauvan, L. Moonens.(Un)boundedness of directional maximal operators through a notion of “Perron capacity” and an application. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.151, No. 6, 2517–2526 (2023)

2023
[15]

D’Aniello, A

E. D’Aniello, A. Gauvan, L. Moonens, J. Rosenblatt.Almost everywhere convergence for Lebesgue differentiation processes along rectangles. J. Fourier Anal. Appl.29, No. 3, Paper No. 37, 31 pp (2023)

2023
[16]

D’Aniello, L

E. D’Aniello, L. Moonens.Averaging on n-dimensional rectangles. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 42, No. 1, 119–133 (2017)

2017
[17]

D’Aniello, L

E. D’Aniello, L. Moonens and J. Rosenblatt.Differentiating Orlicz spaces with rare bases of rectangles. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.45, No. 1, 411–427 (2020)

2020
[18]

Davies.Some remarks on the Kakeya problem

R. Davies.Some remarks on the Kakeya problem. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.69(3), 417–421 (1971)

1971
[19]

de Guzm ´an.Differentiation of integrals in Rn

M. de Guzm ´an.Differentiation of integrals in Rn. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 481, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York (1975). 193 194 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1975
[20]

de Guzm´an,Real Variable Methods in Fourier Analysis

M. de Guzm´an,Real Variable Methods in Fourier Analysis. Notas de Matem´atica [Mathematical Notes], vol. 75, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York (1981)

1981
[21]

Duoandikoetxea, A

J. Duoandikoetxea, A. Vargas.Directional operators and radial functions on the plane. Ark. Mat.33, 281-291 (1995)

1995
[22]

Falconer.Fractal Geometry: mathematical foundations and applications, 2nd edition

K. Falconer.Fractal Geometry: mathematical foundations and applications, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons (2003)

2003
[23]

Fefferman.The multiplier problem for the ball

C. Fefferman.The multiplier problem for the ball. Ann. Math. (2)94, 330-336 (1971)

1971
[24]

Gauvan.Differentiation theorems associated to bases of rectangles

A. Gauvan.Differentiation theorems associated to bases of rectangles. Master’s Thesis, Univer- sit´e Paris-Diderot (2020)

2020
[25]

Gauvan.Application of Perron trees to geometric maximal operators

A. Gauvan.Application of Perron trees to geometric maximal operators. Colloq. Math.172, No. 1, 1–13 (2023)

2023
[26]

Grafakos.Modern Fourier analysis

L. Grafakos.Modern Fourier analysis. Springer, 2008

2008
[27]

Grimmett.Percolation, 2nd edition

G. Grimmett.Percolation, 2nd edition. Grundlehren der math. Wissenschaften, V ol. 321 (1999)

1999
[28]

Guth,Introduction to the proof of the Kakeya conjecture, arXiv link, 2025

L. Guth,Introduction to the proof of the Kakeya conjecture, arXiv link, 2025

2025
[29]

Guth,Outline of the Wang-Zahl proof of the Kakeya conjecture inR 3, arXiv link, 2025

L. Guth,Outline of the Wang-Zahl proof of the Kakeya conjecture inR 3, arXiv link, 2025

2025
[30]

L. Guth, H. Wang and J. Zahl,A streamlined proof of the Kakeya set conjecture in R3, arXiv link, 2026

2026
[31]

P. A. Hagelstein.Maximal operators associated to sets of directions of Hausdorffand Minkowski dimension zero. Recent Advances in Harmonic Analysis and Applications, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics25, 131–138, (2013)

2013
[32]

P. A. Hagelstein, I. Parissis.Tauberian constants associated to centered translation invariant density bases. Fund. Math.243(2), 169–177 (2018)

2018
[33]

P. A. Hagelstein, B. Radillo-Murguia, A. Stokolos.Probabilistic construction of Kakeya- type Sets in R2 associated to separated sets of directions(2024), to appear in Duke Math J. https://arXiv.org/abs/2405.17674

2024 arXiv
[34]

P. A. Hagelstein, B. Radillo-Murguia, A. Stokolos.Remarks on the construction of Kσ sets associated to trees not satisfying a separation condition(2024), to appear in Rev. Mat. Iber. https://arXiv.org/abs/2409.12280

2024 arXiv
[35]

A Hagelstein and A

P. A Hagelstein and A. Stokolos.An extension of the C´ ordoba-Fefferman theorem on the equivalence between the boundedness of certain classes of maximal and multiplier operators. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I346, 1063–1065, (2008)

2008
[36]

P. A. Hagelstein, A. Stokolos.Tauberian conditions for geometric maximal operators. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.361No. 6, 3031–3040 (2009)

2009
[37]

K. E. Hare,Maximal operators and Cantor sets. Canad. Math. Bull.43, No. 3, 330–342, (2000)

2000
[38]

K. E. Hare, J.-O. R¨onning.Applications of generalized Perron trees to maximal functions and density bases. J. Fourier Anal. Appl.4No. 2, 215–227 (1998)

1998
[39]

K. E. Hare, J.-O. R¨onning.The size of Maxppq sets and density bases. J. Fourier Anal. Appl.8 No. 3, 259–268 (2002)

2002
[40]

Hickman.The Kakeya Conjecture: where does it come from and why is it important?, arXiv link, 2025

J. Hickman.The Kakeya Conjecture: where does it come from and why is it important?, arXiv link, 2025

2025
[41]

Jessen, J

B. Jessen, J. Marcinkiewicz, A. Zygmund.Note on the differentiability of multiple integrals. Fundam. Math.25, 217–234 (1935)

1935
[42]

Katz.A counterexample for maximal operators over a Cantor set of directions

N.H. Katz.A counterexample for maximal operators over a Cantor set of directions. Mat. Res. Lett.3, 527-536 (1996)

1996
[43]

Katz.Maximal operators over arbitrary sets of directions

N.H. Katz.Maximal operators over arbitrary sets of directions. Duke Math. J.31, 700-710 (1999)

1999
[44]

N.H. Katz, I. Łaba, T. Tao.An improved bound on the Minkowski dimension of Besicovitch sets inR 3. Ann. of Math. (2)152, 383-446 (2000)

2000
[45]

N.H. Katz, T. Tao.New bounds for Kakeya problems. J. Anal. Mat.87, 231-263 (2002)

2002
[46]

N. H. Katz, T. Tao.Recent Progress on the Kakeya Conjecture. Publ. Mat.46, 161–179 (2002)

2002
[47]

N. H. Katz, J. Zahl.An improved bound on the Hausdorffdimension of Besicovitch sets in R3. J. Amer. Math. Soc.32(1), 195–259 (2019). BIBLIOGRAPHY 195

2019
[50]

Lyons.Random walks and percolation on trees

R. Lyons.Random walks and percolation on trees. Ann. Prob.,18, 931-958 (1990)

1990
[51]

Lyons.Random walks, capacity, and percolation on trees

R. Lyons.Random walks, capacity, and percolation on trees. Ann. of Prob.20, (1992)

1992
[52]

Lyons, Y

R. Lyons, Y . Peres.Probability on Trees and Networks. Camb. Ser. Stat. Probab. Math., 42, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2016. xv+699 pp

2016
[53]

Moonens.Differentiating along rectangles, in lacunary directions

L. Moonens.Differentiating along rectangles, in lacunary directions. New York J. Math.22, 933–942, (2016)

2016
[54]

Nagel, E.M

A. Nagel, E.M. Stein, S. Wainger.Differentiation in lacunary directions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US,75(3), 1060-1062 (1978)

1978
[55]

Nikodym.Sur les ensembles accessibles

O. Nikodym.Sur les ensembles accessibles. Fund. Math.10, 116–168 (1927)

1927
[56]

Oniani.On the differentiation of integrals with respect to translation invariant convex density bases

G. Oniani.On the differentiation of integrals with respect to translation invariant convex density bases. Fund. Math.246, No. 2, 202–216 (2019)

2019
[57]

Orponen, H

T. Orponen, H. Roy.Nikodym maximal function with restricted directions. arXiv link, 2026

2026
[58]

Parcet, K.M

J. Parcet, K.M. Rogers.Differentiation of integrals in higher dimensions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US,110(13), 4941-4944 (2013)

2013
[59]

Parcet, K.M

J. Parcet, K.M. Rogers.Directional maximal operators and lacunarity in higher dimensions. Amer. J. Math.137, No. 6, 1535–1557 (2015)

2015
[60]

Sj¨ogren, P

P. Sj¨ogren, P. Sj¨olin.Littlewood-Paley decompositions and Fourier multipliers with singularities on certain sets. Ann. Inst. Four.,31, 157-175 (1981)

1981
[61]

Stein.Harmonic Analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality and oscillatory integrals

E. Stein.Harmonic Analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality and oscillatory integrals. Princeton mathematical series; 43. Princeton University Press, 1995

1995
[62]

A. M. Stokolos.On the differentiation of integrals of functions from LφpLq. Studia Math.88, No. 2, 103–120 (1988)

1988
[63]

Str:omberg

J-O. Str:omberg. Weak estimates on maximal functions with rectangles in certain directions. Ark. Mat. 15 (1977), no. 2, 229–240

1977
[64]

Str:omberg

J-O. Str:omberg. Maximal functions associated to rectangles with uniformly distributed directions. Ann. of Math. (2)107, 399–402 (1978)

1978
[65]

Tao,From rotating needles to stability of waves: emerging connections between combinatorics, Analysis, and PDE

T. Tao,From rotating needles to stability of waves: emerging connections between combinatorics, Analysis, and PDE. Notices of the AMS, V olume48, No. 3, 294–303 (2001)

2001
[66]

Tao.Stickiness, graininess, planiness, and a sum-product approach to the Kakeya problem Blog post, 2014

T. Tao.Stickiness, graininess, planiness, and a sum-product approach to the Kakeya problem Blog post, 2014

2014
[67]

Vargas.A remark on a maximal function over a Cantor set of directions

A. Vargas.A remark on a maximal function over a Cantor set of directions. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo44, 273-282 (1995)

1995
[68]

Wang and J

H. Wang and J. Zahl,Sticky Kakeya sets and the sticky Kakeya conjecture, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 39(2): 515–585, 2026

2026
[69]

Wang and J

H. Wang and J. Zahl,The Assouad dimension of Kakeya sets inR3, Invent. Math.241(1):153–206, 2025

2025
[70]

Wang and J

H. Wang and J. Zahl,Volume estimates for unions of convex sets, and the Kakeya set conjecture in three dimensions, arXiv link, 2025

2025
[71]

Wolff.An improved bound for Kakeya type maximal functions

T. Wolff.An improved bound for Kakeya type maximal functions. Rev. Math. Iberoamericana11, No. 3, 651–674 ,1995

1995
[72]

T. Wolff. Recent work connected with the Kakeya problem. Prospects in Mathematics (Princeton, NJ, 1996), 129–162, AMS, Providence, RI, 1999

1996

Pith tools

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

[1] [48]

Kroc.Kakeya-type sets, lacunarity, and directional maximal operators in Euclidean space

E. Kroc.Kakeya-type sets, lacunarity, and directional maximal operators in Euclidean space. UBC Ph.D. Thesis (2015), available at https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0166114

work page 2015

[2] [49]

E. Kroc, M. Pramanik.Kakeya-type sets over Cantor sets of directions in Rd`1. J. Fourier Anal. Appl.22no. 3, 623-674 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [1]

Alfonseca.Strong type inequalities and an almost-orthogonality principle for families of maximal operators along directions in R2

A. Alfonseca.Strong type inequalities and an almost-orthogonality principle for families of maximal operators along directions in R2. J. London Math. Soc. (2)67, No. 1, 208-218 (2003)

work page 2003

[4] [2]

Alfonseca, F

A. Alfonseca, F. Soria, A. Vargas.An almost-orthogonality principle in L2 for directional maxi- mal functions. Harmonic analysis at Mount Holyoke (South Hadley, MA, 2001), 17. Contemp. Math., 320, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003

work page 2001

[5] [3]

Alfonseca, F

A. Alfonseca, F. Soria, A. Vargas.A remark on maximal operators along directions in R2. Math. Res. Lett.10, No. 1, 41-49 (2003)

work page 2003

[6] [4]

Bateman.Kakeya sets and directional maximal operators in the plane

M. Bateman.Kakeya sets and directional maximal operators in the plane. Duke Math. J.147, No. 1, 55-77 (2009)

work page 2009

[7] [5]

Bateman, N.H

M. Bateman, N.H. Katz.Kakeya sets in Cantor directions. Math. Res. Lett.15, No. 1, 73-81 (2008)

work page 2008

[8] [6]

A. S. Besicovitch.On Kakeya’s problem and a similar one. Mat. Zeitschrift,27, No. 1, 312-320 (1928)

work page 1928