Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Weighted Estimation by Discrete-time Sparse Domination on Martingale Spaces

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A conditional-sparsity construction yields sharp weighted bounds for all uniformly bounded discrete-time martingale transforms.

desk verdict The conditional sparsity idea is worth serious reading, but the load-bearing Lemma 3.1 breaks when f0=0 and the M(Tf) claim is unproved, so the main theorems are not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.25892 v1 pith:FBLAWJB4 submitted 2026-08-26 math.ST math.CAstat.TH

Wei Chen , Chaoyue Zhang , Gege Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.STmath.CAstat.TH MSC 60G4660G42
keywords martingaletransformDoobmaximaloperatorsparsedominationconditionalsparsityweightedinequalityA_pweightsfilteredprobabilityspacetwo-weightestimates
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 claims that on any complete filtered probability space, every uniformly bounded discrete-time martingale transform $T$ (a multiplier sequence bounded by 1 applied to the increments of an $L^1$ martingale) is dominated pointwise by 17 times a conditionally sparse operator built from conditional expectations at stopping times. From that domination the paper derives the sharp weighted estimate $\|Tf\|_{L^p(w)} \lesssim [w]_{A_p}^{\max\{1,1/(p-1)\}} \|f\|_{L^p(w)}$ for $1

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conditionally sparse family of locally filter-shifted stopping times. Starting with $\tau^{(0)}=0$, each next stopping time $\tau^{(i+1)}$ is built on the local filtered space $\{\tau^{(i)}<\infty\}$ with filtration $F^{(i)}_{\tau^{(i)}+n}$ and normalized measure, so the filtration is restarted after each stopping time on the set where that stopping time occurred. The sparse property is the conditional-expectation inequality $1_{E_i}\le C\,E(1_{E_i\setminus E_{i+1}}\mid F^{(i)}_{\tau(i)})\,1_{E_i}$, which keeps the overlap between levels bounded and makes the sparse operator's $L^p$ norm tractable. Lemma 3.1 is the inductive engine: it produces a single stopping time $\tau$ with $\mu(\{\tau<\infty\})\le \mu(\Omega)/2$ and the pointwise estimate $|Tf|\le 12|f|_0+|f|_\tau 1_{\{\tau<\infty\}}+|T^\tau f|$, so iterating gives geometric decay that turns into the sparse domination.

What would settle it

Consider an $L^1$ martingale with $f_0=0$ and $f_1=2$ on a set of measure $3/4$, $f_1=-6$ on its complement, with multiplier $v_0=1$; then the proof's hitting time $\tau=\inf\{n:|f_n|\vee |(Tf)_n|>0\}$ satisfies $\mu(\{\tau<\infty\})=1$, because $|f_1|>0$ everywhere, so the asserted bound $\mu(\{\tau<\infty\})\le \mu(\Omega)/2$ would force a different stopping time, which the proof does not construct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central assertion, Theorem 1.1, is that for every $f\in L^1$ and every martingale transform $T$ whose multiplier satisfies $|v_n|\le 1$, there exists a sparse operator $S$ with $|Tf|\le 17\,S|f|$, and the same inequality holds for the maximal function $M(Tf)$. Here "sparse" means $S|f|=\sum_i E(|f|\mid F^{(i)}_{\tau(i)})\,1_{\{\tau(i)<\infty\}}$, where the stopping times satisfy conditional sparsity: the set that survives to stage $i+1$ is a bounded-below fraction of the set that reached stage $i$, in conditional expectation. Theorem 1.4 feeds this domination through a duality argument to obtain the exponent $\max\{1,1/(p-1)\}$ on $[w]_{A_p}$, linear for $p\ge 2$ and the dual exponent's power for $1<p<2$. For the multiplier $v_n\equiv 1$, the paper constructs a simple sparse operator with pairwise disjoint remainder sets, yielding the sharp Doob maximal bound $[w]_{A_p}^{1/(p-1)}$ and, through a Sawyer-type characterization, the three two-weight estimates of Theorem 1.13.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the bad set $\{\max\{Mf,M(Tf)\}>C|f|_0\}$ is globally small; the proof establishes that only on the set where $|f|_0\neq 0$ after normalizing by $|f|_0$, while the case $|f|_0=0$ is left uncontrolled even though the measure and conditional-sparsity bounds are stated globally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sparse domination of Theorem 1.1 holds, then the sharp weighted bound for uniformly bounded martingale transforms, with exponent $\max\{1,1/(p-1)\}$ on $[w]_{A_p}$, is valid on every complete filtered probability space and not only on atomic or dyadic filtrations.
  • For $1<p<2$, the mixed weighted estimate of Corollary 1.6 gives a bound in terms of $[\sigma]_{A_{p'}}$ and $A_r$ that is no larger than the sharp $[w]_{A_p}^{1/(p-1)}$ bound, because $A_r\le A_{p'}$ in this range.
  • Specializing to the multiplier $v_n\equiv 1$, the simple sparse domination of Theorem 1.9 yields the sharp exponent $1/(p-1)$ for Doob's maximal operator, closing the gap left by the martingale-transform bound when $1<p<2$.
  • Theorem 1.13 gives quantitative two-weight estimates for Doob's maximal operator under the $B_p$ condition, under $A_p$ with $\sigma\in A^*_\infty$, and under mixed $A_{p'}$-$A^*_\infty$ control with the logarithmic factor $(1+\log_2[w]_{A_p})$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the conditional-sparsity formulation should transfer to continuous-time martingales with càdlàg paths, where the filter shift becomes a family of restarted filtrations after each stopping time; the discrete-time proof gives a template for that extension.
  • Taking the theorem as given, the sparse form of the transform suggests that quantitative vector-valued inequalities should follow by standard extrapolation, since sparse operators satisfy such estimates through the same conditional-sparsity mechanism.
  • The constant 17 comes from the iteration parameters 12 and 14 and is not optimized; tuning the threshold $C$ in Lemma 3.1 would likely shrink the universal constant without changing the structure of the argument.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a notion of conditional sparsity for discrete-time martingale spaces and uses it to claim sparse domination for uniformly bounded martingale transforms and for Doob's maximal operator on arbitrary filtered probability spaces. The main advertised results are pointwise sparse domination (Theorems 1.1 and 1.9), sharp A_p weighted estimates (Theorems 1.4 and 1.11), a mixed A_p^alpha A_r^beta bound (Theorem 1.5), and two-weight estimates for the Doob maximal operator (Theorem 1.13). The proofs are organized around two stopping-time lemmas, Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.1, which construct a bad set where the maximal functions exceed a constant multiple of the initial value |f|_0, and then iterate the construction on the remaining set.

Significance. If the main theorems were correct, the paper would extend Lacey's sparse domination method beyond atomic filtrations and would give a unified derivation of sharp weighted estimates for discrete-time martingale transforms. The paper contains no fitted parameters, and the sharp constants are compared with external results in [38] and [39]; the conditional-sparsity concept is a potentially useful organizing principle. However, the central stopping-time lemmas are invalid as stated, and the counterexamples are elementary, so the main claims are not currently established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Lemma 3.1, Eq. (3.1a)] Lemma 3.1 is false as stated. Let Ω={ω1,ω2} with μ({ω_i})=1/2, F0={∅,Ω}, F1=P(Ω), set f0=1, f1(ω1)=A, f1(ω2)=2−A, and v_n≡1. For any proposed absolute constant C, choose A>C+2. Then |f1(ω1)|=A>C, |f1(ω2)|=A−2>C, and |(Tf)_1|=|A−1|>C on both atoms. The stopping time τ=inf{n: |f_n|∨|(Tf)_n|>C|f|_0} is therefore finite on all of Ω (indeed τ≤1), so μ({τ<∞})=1, contradicting (3.1a). Thus the fundamental stopping-time construction cannot support the induction in Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 1.1.
  2. [Section 3.1, proof of Lemma 3.1] The normalization argument is invalid for signed f. The proof defines ~f=f/|f0| on Ω1={|f0|>0} and asserts ∥~f∥_{L^1(~μ)}=1. In fact ∥~f∥_{L^1(~μ)}=E(|f|1_{Ω1})/E(|f0|1_{Ω1}), which can be much larger than 1, since |f0|≤E(|f||F0) and f may change sign inside F0-atoms. In the two-point example from the previous comment, ∥~f∥_{L^1(~μ)}=A−1. Consequently the weak-type estimates of Lemmas 2.6 and 2.12 give only ~μ(E)≤(3/C)∥~f∥_{L^1(~μ)}, not ~μ(E)≤3/C, and setting C=6 does not yield the claimed μ(E)≤(1/2)μ(Ω). The case |f|0=0 is also not handled, since the normalization by |f|0 is then impossible; for f0=0 and f≠0, the bad set can be all of Ω.
  3. [Section 4.1, Lemma 4.1] Lemma 4.1 has exactly the same defect and therefore invalidates Theorem 1.9 and its consequences. The proof controls E={Mf>C|f|0} by normalizing with |f|0 and using ∥~f∥_{L^1(~μ)}=1, which fails for signed f. With the same two-point example, Mf≥A−2>C on all of Ω whenever A>C+2, and the stopping time τ is finite on all of Ω, so (4.1a) fails for every C. Since Theorems 1.11 and 1.13 both rely on Theorem 1.9, their proofs are not supported.
  4. [Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.4] The proof of Theorem 1.1 establishes only |Tf|≤C S|f|; the asserted inequality for M(Tf) is not proved. After Lemma 3.3, the proof passes to the limit and derives an inequality for |Tf|, with no argument controlling sup_n |(Tf)_n| by a sparse operator. This omitted maximal-function variant is needed for the corresponding assertion in Theorem 1.4 and for the derivation of (1.7).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, proof of Lemma 3.1] The proof begins by saying 'For a uniformly integral martingale f=(f_n)' although the lemma assumes only f∈L^1; if f is not uniformly integrable, the use of Lemma 2.6 and the identity f_τ=E(f|F_τ) is not justified.
  2. [Section 3.1 and Section 4.1] The passages 'lim_{m→∞} μ({τ^{(m)}<∞})=0' in the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.9 are asserted without proof; once the base lemmas are repaired, the authors should explicitly state the induction μ(E_{m+1})≤(1/2)μ(E_m).
  3. [Section 4.3, proof of Theorem 1.13(1)] In the display after 'Then ∫_B *M_n(σ1_B)^p u dμ≲...', the integration is later written with w instead of u ('∫_B *M_n(σ1_B)^p w dμ'); this appears to be a typo.
  4. [Section 2.4, Definition 2.22] The notation |||·|||_∞ is used without definition; please clarify that it denotes the essential supremum norm.
  5. [Section 1, Corollary 1.6] The proof of Corollary 1.6 is not given; state explicitly that it follows from Theorem 1.5 by duality and specify which duality argument is used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; sparse domination is constructed from weak-type inputs and checked against external sharp bounds.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The sparse stopping-time family is constructed in Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.3 directly from the weak-type (1,1) bounds for Doob's maximal operator and uniformly bounded martingale transforms; the sparse operator is then defined from those stopping times, so the pointwise domination (1.2) and the subsequent weighted estimates for the sparse operator are not assumed as inputs. The sharp weighted bounds are compared with, and recovered alongside, the external benchmarks in [38] and [39], rather than being derived from them. Self-citations to [10], [11], [12], and [19] supply background, prior characterizations, and a published Sawyer-type criterion, but the central sparse-domination argument does not reduce to any of these citations; Lemma 4.5 is an external published theorem used only as a reduction step for the two-weight applications. The referee's concern about Lemma 3.1, involving the asserted equality ||~f||_{L^1(~mu)} = 1 and the behavior on {|f|_0 = 0}, identifies an apparent correctness gap rather than a circular reduction: it is a false or unjustified identity in the proof, not an input renamed as an output. No fitted parameters or predictions forced by construction appear in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the constants 2, 6, 12, 14, and 17 are explicit. The paper relies on standard martingale theory, including conditional expectations, Doob's maximal weak type (1,1), and Burkholder's weak type for transforms. The principal potentially unsupported premise is the measure decay of the stopping-time bad set in Lemma 3.1, which is flagged as a proof gap rather than an axiom.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Doob's maximal operator satisfies the weak type (1,1) bound lambda mu(Mf > lambda) <= ||f||_1 (Lemma 2.6, attributed to Long's book [32]).
    Invoked in Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 4.1 to control the probability of the stopping set; this is a standard martingale theorem, not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Burkholder's weak type (1,1) inequality for uniformly bounded martingale transforms: lambda mu(M(Tf) >= lambda) <= 2 sup_n ||f_n||_1 (Lemma 2.12, attributed to Burkholder [7]).
    Used in Lemma 3.1 to bound the contribution of M(Tf) to the stopping set.
  • standard math Conditional expectations under the weighted measure satisfy E^w(phi w^{-1} | F_tau) w_tau = phi_tau for phi in L^1(mu) (Section 2.4, derived from Radon-Nikodym).
    Used throughout Sections 3 and 4 to pass between unweighted and weighted conditional expectations.
  • domain assumption Weights are normalized by w(Omega) = 1 and sigma = w^{-1/(p-1)} is assumed to lie in L^1 (Definition 2.22 and the following paragraph).
    Standard normalization in weighted martingale theory; harmless but recorded as a domain assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weighted Estimation by Discrete-time Sparse Domination on Martingale Spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FBLAWJB4

@misc{pith2026260825892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weighted Estimation by Discrete-time Sparse Domination on Martingale Spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FBLAWJB4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.25892}
}
abstract

Lacey used sparse domination to study the sharp weighted norm estimate of the maximal function of predictable multipliers in discrete time filtration spaces. Domelevo, Petermichl, and \v{S}kreb developed the self similarity argument known as sparse domination in an abstract martingale setting with a continuous time parameter. In our investigation, we establish sparse domination for discrete-time martingale transforms, introducing the novel concept of conditional sparsity as a core property of our approach. The conditional sparsity framework enables derivation of sharp weighted estimates and a mixed-norm estimate \( A_p^\alpha A_r^\beta \) that improves upon known sharp \( L^p \) bounds. Moreover, we develop dedicated sparse domination specifically for Doob's maximal operator, recovering the sharp bound as a direct application. Finally, we focus on the application of sparse theory to quantitative two-weight estimates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Wei Chen, Chunxiang Zhu, Yahui Zuo, and Yong Jiao,Two-weighted estimates for positive operators and Doob maximal operators on filtered measure spaces, J. Math. Soc. Japan72(2020), no. 3, 795–817. MR4125846

    work page 2020

  2. [10]

    Wei Chen and Yong Jiao,Weighted estimates for the bilinear maximal operator on filtered measure spaces, J. Geom. Anal.31(2021), no. 5, 5309–5335. MR4244905

    work page 2021

  3. [38]

    Hitoshi Tanaka and Yutaka Terasawa,Positive operators and maximal operators in a filtered measure space, J. Funct. Anal.264(2013), no. 4, 920–946. MR3004953

    work page 2013

  4. [39]

    Math.285(2015), 1155–1188

    Christoph Thiele, Sergei Treil, and Alexander Volberg,Weighted martingale multipliers in the non- homogeneous setting and outer measure spaces, Adv. Math.285(2015), 1155–1188. MR3406523

    work page 2015

  5. [1]

    Rodrigo Bañuelos, Michał Brzozowski, and Adam Ose ¸kowski,Burkholder’s function and a weightedL2 bound for stochastic integrals, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.148(2020), no. 11, 5013–5028. MR4143411

    work page 2020

  6. [2]

    J.80(1995), no

    Rodrigo Bañuelos and Gang Wang,Sharp inequalities for martingales with applications to the Beurling- Ahlfors and Riesz transforms, Duke Math. J.80(1995), no. 3, 575–600. MR1370109

    work page 1995

  7. [3]

    David Beltran, Joris Roos, and Andreas Seeger,Multi-scale sparse domination, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.298 (2024), no. 1491, v+104. MR4772265

    work page 2024

  8. [4]

    London Math

    Cristina Benea, Frédéric Bernicot, and Teresa Luque,Sparse bilinear forms for Bochner Riesz multipliers and applications, Trans. London Math. Soc.4(2017), no. 1, 110–128. MR3653057

    work page 2017

Show all 42 references
  1. [5]

    Beznosova,Linear bound for the dyadic paraproduct on weighted Lebesgue spaceL2(w), J

    Oleksandra V. Beznosova,Linear bound for the dyadic paraproduct on weighted Lebesgue spaceL2(w), J. Funct. Anal.255(2008), no. 4, 994–1007. MR2433959

    2008

  2. [6]

    D. L. Burkholder,Martingale transforms, Ann. Math. Statist.37(1966), 1494–1504. MR208647

    1966

  3. [7]

    Probab.7(1979), no

    ,A sharp inequality for martingale transforms, Ann. Probab.7(1979), no. 5, 858–863. MR542135

    1979

  4. [8]

    Rivera-Ríos, Qingying Xue, and Kôzô Yabuta,A class of multilinear bounded oscillation operators on measure spaces and applications, Math

    Mingming Cao, Gonzalo Ibañez Firnkorn, Israel P. Rivera-Ríos, Qingying Xue, and Kôzô Yabuta,A class of multilinear bounded oscillation operators on measure spaces and applications, Math. Ann.388(2024), no. 4, 3627–3755. MR4721778

    2024

  5. [9]

    Wei Chen and Wendolín Damián,Weighted estimates for the multisublinear maximal function, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2)62(2013), no. 3, 379–391. MR3118310

    2013

  6. [11]

    Wei Chen and Peide Liu,Weighted inequalities for the generalized maximal operator in martingale spaces, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. B32(2011), no. 5, 781–792. MR2834220

    2011

  7. [13]

    Conde-Alonso and Guillermo Rey,A pointwise estimate for positive dyadic shifts and some applica- tions, Math

    José M. Conde-Alonso and Guillermo Rey,A pointwise estimate for positive dyadic shifts and some applica- tions, Math. Ann.365(2016), no. 3-4, 1111–1135. MR3521084

    2016

  8. [14]

    Do, and Gennady N

    Francesco Di Plinio, Yen Q. Do, and Gennady N. Uraltsev,Positive sparse domination of variational Carleson operators, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5)18(2018), no. 4, 1443–1458. MR3829751

    2018

  9. [15]

    Probab.47 (2019), no

    Komla Domelevo and Stefanie Petermichl,Differential subordination under change of law, Ann. Probab.47 (2019), no. 2, 896–925. MR3916937

    2019

  10. [16]

    MR4926944

    KomlaDomelevo,StefaniePetermichl,andKristinaAnaŠkreb,Continuoussparsedominationanddimension- lessweightedestimatesfortheBakry–Rieszvector,J.ReineAngew.Math.824(2025),137–166. MR4926944

    2025

  11. [17]

    PDE6(2013), no

    Tuomas Hytönen and Carlos Pérez,Sharp weighted bounds involvingA∞, Anal. PDE6(2013), no. 4, 777–

    2013

  12. [18]

    Hytönen,The sharp weighted bound for general Calderón-Zygmund operators, Ann

    Tuomas P. Hytönen,The sharp weighted bound for general Calderón-Zygmund operators, Ann. of Math. (2) 175(2012), no. 3, 1473–1506. MR2912709

    2012

  13. [19]

    Jie Ju, Wei Chen, Jingya Cui, and Chao Zhang,Characterizations ofA∞ weights in martingale spaces, J. Geom. Anal.34(2024), no. 7, Paper No. 224, 22. MR4745061

    2024

  14. [20]

    Michael Lacey and Christoph Thiele,Lp estimates on the bilinear Hilbert transform for2<p<∞, Ann. of Math. (2)146(1997), no. 3, 693–724. MR1491450

    1997

  15. [21]

    Lacey,An elementary proof of theA 2 bound, Israel J

    Michael T. Lacey,An elementary proof of theA 2 bound, Israel J. Math.217(2017), no. 1, 181–195. MR3625108

    2017

  16. [22]

    ,Sparse bounds for spherical maximal functions, J. Anal. Math.139(2019), no. 2, 613–635. MR4041115

    2019

  17. [23]

    Lacey, Stefanie Petermichl, and Maria Carmen Reguera,SharpA 2 inequality for Haar shift operators, Math

    Michael T. Lacey, Stefanie Petermichl, and Maria Carmen Reguera,SharpA 2 inequality for Haar shift operators, Math. Ann.348(2010), no. 1, 127–141. MR2657437

    2010

  18. [24]

    Lerner,A pointwise estimate for the local sharp maximal function with applications to singular integrals, Bull

    Andrei K. Lerner,A pointwise estimate for the local sharp maximal function with applications to singular integrals, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.42(2010), no. 5, 843–856. MR2721744

    2010

  19. [25]

    ,MixedA p-Ar inequalities for classical singular integrals and Littlewood-Paley operators, J. Geom. Anal.23(2013), no. 3, 1343–1354. MR3078357 DISCRETE-TIME SPARSE DOMINATION ON MARTINGALE SPACES 31

    2013

  20. [26]

    ,On an estimate of Calderón-Zygmund operators by dyadic positive operators, J. Anal. Math.121 (2013), 141–161. MR3127380

    2013

  21. [27]

    ,A simple proof of theA2 conjecture, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN14(2013), 3159–3170. MR3085756

    2013

  22. [28]

    ,A weak type estimate for rough singular integrals, Rev. Mat. Iberoam.35(2019), no. 5, 1583–1602. MR4018107

    2019

  23. [29]

    Lerner and Kabe Moen,MixedAp-A∞ estimates with one supremum, Studia Math.219(2013), no

    Andrei K. Lerner and Kabe Moen,MixedAp-A∞ estimates with one supremum, Studia Math.219(2013), no. 3, 247–267. MR3145553

    2013

  24. [30]

    Lerner and Fedor Nazarov,Intuitive dyadic calculus: the basics, Expo

    Andrei K. Lerner and Fedor Nazarov,Intuitive dyadic calculus: the basics, Expo. Math.37(2019), no. 3, 225–265. MR4007575

    2019

  25. [31]

    Fourier Anal

    Kangwei Li, Kabe Moen, and Wenchang Sun,The sharp weighted bound for multilinear maximal functions and Calderón-Zygmund operators, J. Fourier Anal. Appl.20(2014), no. 4, 751–765. MR3232584

    2014

  26. [32]

    Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1993

    Rui Lin Long,Martingale spaces and inequalities, Peking University Press, Beijing; Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1993. MR1224450

    1993

  27. [33]

    Petermichl,The sharp bound for the Hilbert transform on weighted Lebesgue spaces in terms of the classicalA p characteristic, Amer

    S. Petermichl,The sharp bound for the Hilbert transform on weighted Lebesgue spaces in terms of the classicalA p characteristic, Amer. J. Math.129(2007), no. 5, 1355–1375. MR2354322

    2007

  28. [34]

    Stefanie Petermichl,Dyadic shifts and a logarithmic estimate for Hankel operators with matrix symbol, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math.330(2000), no. 6, 455–460. MR1756958

    2000

  29. [35]

    ,The sharp weighted bound for the Riesz transforms, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.136(2008), no. 4, 1237–1249. MR2367098

    2008

  30. [36]

    J.112(2002), no

    Stefanie Petermichl and Alexander Volberg,Heating of the Ahlfors-Beurling operator: weakly quasiregular maps on the plane are quasiregular, Duke Math. J.112(2002), no. 2, 281–305. MR1894362

    2002

  31. [37]

    Sawyer,A characterization of a two-weight norm inequality for maximal operators, Studia Math.75 (1982), no

    Eric T. Sawyer,A characterization of a two-weight norm inequality for maximal operators, Studia Math.75 (1982), no. 1, 1–11. MR676801

    1982

  32. [40]

    Thesis (Ph.D.)–Yale University

    Christoph Martin Thiele,Time-frequency analysis in the discrete phase plane, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1995. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Yale University. MR2692998

    1995

  33. [41]

    Probab.23(1995), no

    Gang Wang,Differential subordination and strong differential subordination for continuous-time martingales and related sharp inequalities, Ann. Probab.23(1995), no. 2, 522–551. MR1334160

    1995

  34. [42]

    Janine Wittwer,A sharp estimate on the norm of the martingale transform, Math. Res. Lett.7(2000), no. 1, 1–12. MR1748283 School of Mathematics, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225002, China Email address:weichen@yzu.edu.cn School of Mathematics, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225...

    2000

Pith tools

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