Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

For one-dimensional bilinear rough singular integrals, a mean-zero kernel with L log L angular regularity is bounded on the full finite-exponent Banach range, and the logarithmic exponent 1 is optimal within the scale L(log L)^A.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

For one-dimensional bilinear rough singular integrals, bounded variation of the angular multiplier is equivalent to the antipodal even part of the kernel lying in H¹, which yields the optimal LlogL endpoint and a critical directional endpoint.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuine endpoint result—the BV↔H¹ characterization and the LlogL threshold with optimal exponent—but the LlogL half leans on an unverified 107-page preprint and needs a careful referee check. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17207 v1 pith:EPNBCDXJ submitted 2026-07-19 math.CA math.AP

Endpoint Criteria for One-Dimensional Bilinear Rough Singular Integrals

Binwei Dan , Qingying Xue This is my paper
classification math.CA math.AP MSC 42B2042B2542B35
keywords rough bilinear singular integralsangular multipliersL log L kerneldirectional kernel conditionsbounded variationHardy space H^1bilinear Hilbert transformOrlicz endpoint
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks how little angular regularity a one-dimensional bilinear rough singular integral can have and still be bounded on L^{p1}×L^{p2}→L^p for all finite exponents with 1/p=1/p1+1/p2. The central answer is a structural one: the operator's finite-part angular multiplier has bounded variation exactly when the antipodal even part of the kernel belongs to the Hardy space H^1, with the total variation equivalent to the H^1 norm plus the L^1 norm of the odd part. From this, a mean-zero kernel in L log L is always bounded, and the logarithmic exponent 1 is optimal within the L(log L)^A scale. A separate critical directional class at the borderline power 1/2 is also bounded under a logarithmic condition, and this class is incomparable with every L(log L)^α class.

Core claim

The finite-part angular multiplier M_Ω(t) = c ∫ Ω(φ)[-log|cos(φ-t)| - iπ/2 sgn(cos(φ-t))]dσ(φ) is the object that carries the roughness of the kernel. Theorem 1.1 proves that, for mean-zero Ω∈L^1, M_Ω has bounded variation if and only if the even antipodal part Ω_e belongs to H^1, or equivalently the periodic Hilbert transform of the even part is in L^1; the variation is comparable to ||H_T q_e||_1 + ||q_o||_1. The proof splits the profile into a logarithmic piece whose distributional derivative is a translate of the Hilbert transform of the even part, and a sign piece whose derivative is the odd part. A BV profile is then a Stieltjes superposition of step functions, hence a superposition of

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the one-dimensional angular multiplier M_Ω, which converts the two-dimensional rough kernel into a profile on the circle; all roughness is encoded in its bounded variation. Theorem 1.1 gives the exact BV criterion: Var(M_Ω) ≃ ||H_T q_e||_{L^1} + ||q_o||_{L^1}. A BV profile is decomposed as a Stieltjes integral against half-plane bilinear multipliers, and those multipliers are uniformly bounded by the uniform bilinear Hilbert transform theorem, which is the engine behind Theorem 1.2. The directional endpoint instead uses the endpoint Fourier decay |K̂_0(ξ)| ≲ |ξ|^{-1/2}(log|ξ|)^{-β}, product wavelet expansions, model-operator estimates from the L^2×L^2→L^1 theory, and

Load-bearing premise

The L log L and rotational theorems depend on a uniform bound for half-plane bilinear multipliers over all finite exponents that is imported from a separate long preprint; if that theorem is not fully correct, the reduction of bounded-variation profiles to operator bounds collapses and the L log L endpoint is not established.

What would settle it

Test the imported uniform bound by computing the operator norm of the half-plane multiplier with symbol sgn(ξ+η) on L^3×L^3 → L^{3/2}; a single exponent triple where the norm is infinite or exceeds the claimed uniform constant would invalidate Theorems 1.2 and 1.3.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Every mean-zero kernel in L log L gives a bounded bilinear operator on the full finite-exponent Banach range, closing the Orlicz endpoint left open by earlier L^q and higher-log results.
  • The logarithmic exponent 1 is optimal: no L(log L)^A condition with A<1 suffices for any triple of finite exponents, and the sharpness is witnessed by explicit angular atoms.
  • Antipodal odd kernels are bounded under L^1 alone, so the entire difficulty of the operator lies in its even part.
  • At the critical directional index 1/2, boundedness holds under the logarithmic condition K_{1/2,β} whenever β > (3/2) max{p1,p1',p2,p2'} - 1, extending the known a>1/2 results to the borderline.
  • The two endpoint classes L(log L)^α and K_{1/2,β} are incomparable for every positive α and β, so the two criteria capture genuinely different singular behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the operator is governed by a single scalar — the H^1 norm of the even part — quantitative constants could in principle be tracked through the entire argument, opening a route to weighted or sparse refinements analogous to the linear theory.
  • The sharpness construction converts a pointwise lower bound on a frequency cone into an operator-norm lower bound; the same transfer likely proves optimality of the directional threshold at the formal boundary p1=p2=2 as p approaches 1.
  • The incomparability theorem suggests that no single Orlicz condition can capture directional singularity; a natural next endpoint would be a hybrid norm combining Orlicz size with directional weights, which would contain both endpoint classes.
  • The reduction to antipodal components hints that the even part alone is responsible for the operator's difficulty; extensions to higher dimensions would need a different mechanism, since the one-dimensional rotational reduction to a scalar profile no longer applies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the one-dimensional bilinear rough singular integral T_Ω defined by the homogeneous kernel Ω(y/|y|)/|y|^2 with mean-zero Ω∈L^1(S^1). The main structural result, Theorem 1.1, characterizes bounded variation of the finite-part angular multiplier M_Ω by the condition that the antipodal even part Ω_e belongs to H^1(S^1), with equivalence of norms involving ||H_T q_e||_1 and ||q_o||_1. Using this, the paper proves Theorem 1.2 (boundedness under Ω_e∈H^1 plus Ω_o∈L^1), Theorem 1.3 (boundedness for Ω∈LlogL), and Theorem 1.4 (optimality of the exponent 1 in the L(logL)^A scale). A separate mechanism gives Theorem 1.6, a boundedness criterion for kernels in the critical directional class K_{1/2,β}, and Theorem 1.7 shows that this class is incomparable with every L(logL)^α. The proofs combine the BV/Stieltjes decomposition of angular profiles, a uniform bilinear Hilbert transform theorem imported from [35], and for the directional result, product wavelet decompositions and interpolation following [15].

Significance. If the results are correct, Theorem 1.3 settles the Orlicz endpoint problem for this operator class in dimension one, and Theorem 1.4 identifies the exact logarithmic threshold. The BV↔H^1 characterization in Theorem 1.1 is an elegant and apparently self-contained structural contribution, proved via F. and M. Riesz and the Riesz–Zygmund theorem. The sharpness argument in §2.5 is explicit and constructive, and the incomparability theorem in §4 is supported by concrete counterexamples. The paper also gives careful dyadic and wavelet estimates for the K_{1/2,β} result. The principal caveat is that Theorems 1.2–1.4 depend on Lemma 2.2, a uniform bound for all line-sign bilinear multipliers that is imported wholesale from an unpublished 107-page arXiv preprint [35]. The manuscript does not state the precise form of that theorem or its hypotheses, so the central endpoint claim cannot be verified from the manuscript alone.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, Lemma 2.2; Theorems 1.2–1.4] The uniform bound for all line-sign multipliers sgn(v1ξ+v2η) in the full finite-exponent Banach range is the load-bearing input of the rotational reduction. However, Lemma 2.2 is not proved; it is asserted via the statement 'The uniform theorem of Uraltsev and Warchalski [35] applies.' The paper neither states the theorem from [35] nor verifies explicitly that it covers every permuted exponent triple (p1,p2,p') and every reduced coefficient triple (1,−β,0) for β∈(0,1]. Since Theorem 1.2, and hence the LlogL endpoint Theorem 1.3 and the optimality theorem 1.4, collapse to this external input, the central claim is conditional. Please restate the precise theorem from [35], confirm the coefficient/exponent coverage, and either include a proof of Lemma 2.2 or indicate how the correctness of [35] is assessed (e.g., peer review status).
  2. [§3.5, Lemma 3.9 and Proposition 3.11] The model estimates in Lemma 3.9 are stated as a direct specialization of Proposition 2.4 of [15], but that proposition is not reproduced. The verification paragraph says only that no part of the cited proposition is reproduced and that the correspondence is checked. Since Theorem 1.6 depends on the l=1 and l=2 model bounds, and since the specialization involves four parameters (m, n, l, μ) plus coefficient interpolation, the reader cannot verify the key estimate from the manuscript alone. Please state [15, Proposition 2.4] in full or provide a self-contained proof of Lemma 3.9 in an appendix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.5, Proposition 3.11] After summing the l=1 sector, the bound is essentially 2^{-j/2} j^{1/2−β}, not literally j^{1−β}; the final domination of the former by the latter is valid, but the intermediate wording 'its sum is bounded by j^{1−β}' should be made precise.
  2. [§2.5, Proposition 2.14] The constant c_rec is used without explanation; it appears to denote a fixed small constant proportional to c_0. Please define it consistently.
  3. [§3.6, Lemma 3.12] The proof of the polynomial bound j^2 follows a sketch of the shifted-operator argument from [10, Proposition 4]. The main steps are present, but the shifted maximal/square-function estimate and the derivation of the two logarithmic factors could be expanded for readability.
  4. [References] Reference [35] is cited as arXiv:2205.09851v1 (2022). Given the date of this paper, please verify whether a newer version or a peer-reviewed publication exists and update accordingly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the central results are derived from external theorems and self-contained estimates; reliance on the unpublished [35] is a verification risk, not a self-referential input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.1 is proved in Section 2.2 from the multiplier formula (Lemma 2.1), the derivative identities for L_e and S_o (Lemma 2.5), and the classical F. and M. Riesz theorem; no conclusion of the theorem is assumed as its hypothesis. The rotational criterion Theorem 1.2 uses the BV/Stieltjes decomposition of Section 2.1, with the uniform bound for line-sign multipliers imported from Uraltsev–Warchalski [35] (Lemma 2.2) and the published model-operator results [15] in Section 3. Those are independent, externally checkable inputs, not fits and not authored by the present paper; the manuscript's correctness is conditional on [35], but conditionality is not circularity. The LlogL endpoint Theorem 1.3 is an application of Theorem 1.2 plus the classical Riesz–Zygmund theorem, and the sharpness proof for Theorem 1.4 is a genuine two-sided estimate: atomic constructions compute the L(logL)^A norm, Lemma 2.12 lower-bounds the multiplier on a cone, and Lemma 2.13 transfers this to an operator-norm lower bound. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. For Theorem 1.6, the low-frequency pieces are reproved (Proposition 3.5), the high-frequency endpoint uses [15, Prop. 2.4] as a cited model estimate, and interpolation is via the standard Sagher theorem. The only self-citation, [8], appears as background and as a method for negative scales; the relevant negative-scale bound is in fact included, so [8] is not load-bearing. The incomparability examples in Section 4 are self-contained. Accordingly there are no circular steps; the main open risk is external verification of [35].

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central theorems are deduced from a chain of prior results (finite-part multiplier formula, uniform bilinear Hilbert transform bounds, Riesz–Zygmund, wavelet model estimates, Sagher interpolation). None are proved in the paper; they are imported as standard or external results. There are no fitted parameters or invented entities; the K_{1/2,β} class is a definition rather than an entity.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Finite-part multiplier formula for rough homogeneous kernels (Lemma 2.1, citing [13, Prop. 4.2.3])
    Imported from Grafakos' book; identifies T_Ω with the angular multiplier M_Ω.
  • standard math Uniform boundedness of bilinear Hilbert transform variants in the full finite-exponent Banach range (Uraltsev–Warchalski [35])
    Used in Lemma 2.2 to bound all half-plane multipliers uniformly in direction; load-bearing for Theorem 1.2.
  • standard math Riesz–Zygmund theorem: conjugate function maps LlogL to L¹ (Lemma 2.8, citing [36])
    Gives H_T(Ω_e)∈L¹ for Ω∈LlogL; needed for the LlogL endpoint.
  • standard math Product wavelet basis and model operator estimates of Grafakos–He–Honzík–Park [15, Prop. 2.4]
    Core of the K_{1/2,β} high-frequency analysis; Lemma 3.9 is a specialization of this proposition.
  • standard math Sagher's multilinear interpolation theorem [29] and Coifman–Meyer bilinear multiplier theorem [21]
    Used for interpolation and low-frequency/scale estimates.
  • standard math F. and M. Riesz theorem for measures with one-sided vanishing Fourier coefficients
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1.1 to upgrade the measure representing H_T q_e to an L¹ function.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Endpoint Criteria for One-Dimensional Bilinear Rough Singular Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPNBCDXJ

@misc{pith2026260717207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Endpoint Criteria for One-Dimensional Bilinear Rough Singular Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EPNBCDXJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17207}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

We prove endpoint theorems for one-dimensional bilinear rough singular integrals. Our starting point is a sharp structural characterization of the associated angular multiplier. For every mean-zero $\Omega\in L^1(\mathbb{S}^1)$, the finite-part angular multiplier associated with $T_\Omega$ has bounded variation if and only if the antipodal even part of $\Omega$ belongs to $H^1(\mathbb{S}^1)$. This characterization identifies the precise rotational regularity required in the one-dimensional bilinear setting. It also yields a Stieltjes decomposition compatible with uniform estimates for the bilinear Hilbert transform. We then establish two boundedness criteria under critical kernel assumptions. First, if $\Omega\in L\log L(\mathbb{S}^1)$, then $T_\Omega$ is bounded from $ L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R})\times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R})\text{to} L^p(\mathbb{R})$ whenever $1<p_1,p_2,p<\infty$ and $ \frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}.$ Moreover, the logarithmic exponent $1$ is optimal within the scale $L(\log L)^A$. Second, at the critical directional index, the same boundedness holds for $\Omega\in\mathcal{K}_{1/2,\beta}(\mathbb{S}^1)$, provided that $\beta>\frac{3}{2}\max\bigl\{p_1,p_1',p_2,p_2'\bigr\}-1.$The two critical kernel classes are incomparable. The $L\log L$ result is obtained by reducing the multiplier to a finite-part angular profile of bounded variation. The directional result follows from endpoint Fourier decay, product wavelet decompositions, and interpolation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. R. Barron,Weighted estimates for rough bilinear singular integrals via sparse domination, New York J. Math. 23 (2017), 779–811

    2017

  2. [2]

    Bhojak and S

    A. Bhojak and S. Shrivastava,An alternate approach to bilinear rough singular integrals, arXiv:2508.19181 [math.CA], 2025, 24 pp

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

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

    1956

  4. [4]

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

    M. Christ,Weak type(1,1)bounds for rough operators, Ann. of Math. (2) 128 (1988), no. 1, 19–42

    1988

  5. [5]

    R. R. Coifman and Y. Meyer,On commutators of singular integrals and bilinear singular integrals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 212 (1975), 315–331

    1975

  6. [6]

    Diestel, L

    G. Diestel, L. Grafakos, P. Honz ´ ık, Z. Si, and E. Terwilleger,Method of rotations for bilinear singular integrals, Commun. Math. Anal. Conf. 3 (2011), 99–107

    2011

  7. [7]

    Daubechies,Orthonormal bases of compactly supported wavelets, Comm

    I. Daubechies,Orthonormal bases of compactly supported wavelets, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 41 (1988), no. 7, 909–996. ENDPOINT CRITERIA FOR BILINEAR ROUGH SINGULAR INTEGRALS 39

    1988

  8. [8]

    B. Dan, M. Qin, and Q. Xue,Bilinear rough singular integrals under a fractional geometric condition, arXiv:2606.27141v1 [math.CA], 2026, 19 pp

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Dosidis, B

    G. Dosidis, B. J. Park, and L. Slav ´ ıkov´ a,Bilinear rough singular integrals near the critical integrability via sharp Fourier multiplier criteria, to appear in Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.; doi:10.1090/tran/9741; arXiv:2402.15785v2 [math.CA], 2026

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Dosidis and L

    G. Dosidis and L. Slav ´ ıkov´ a,Multilinear singular integrals with homogeneous kernels nearL1, Math. Ann. 389 (2024), no. 3, 2259–2271

    2024

  11. [11]

    Duoandikoetxea and J

    J. Duoandikoetxea and J. L. Rubio de Francia,Maximal and singular integral operators via Fourier transform estimates, Invent. Math. 84 (1986), no. 3, 541–561

    1986

  12. [12]

    G. B. Folland,Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and Their Applications, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999

    1999

  13. [13]

    Grafakos,Classical Fourier Analysis, 3rd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol

    L. Grafakos,Classical Fourier Analysis, 3rd ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 249, Springer, New York, 2014

    2014

  14. [14]

    Grafakos, D

    L. Grafakos, D. He, and P. Honz ´ ık,Rough bilinear singular integrals, Adv. Math. 326 (2018), 54–78

    2018

  15. [15]

    Grafakos, D

    L. Grafakos, D. He, P. Honz ´ ık, and B. J. Park,InitialL 2 × · · · ×L2 bounds for multilinear operators, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 376 (2023), no. 5, 3445–3472

    2023

  16. [16]

    Grafakos, D

    L. Grafakos, D. He, P. Honz ´ ık, and B. J. Park,Multilinear rough singular integral operators, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 109 (2024), no. 2, Paper No. e12867, doi:10.1112/jlms.12867

    work page doi:10.1112/jlms.12867 2024

  17. [17]

    Grafakos, D

    L. Grafakos, D. He, and L. Slav ´ ıkov´ a,L2 ×L 2 →L 1 boundedness criteria, Math. Ann. 376 (2020), no. 1-2, 431–455

    2020

  18. [18]

    Grafakos and X

    L. Grafakos and X. Li,Uniform bounds for the bilinear Hilbert transforms, I, Ann. of Math. (2) 159 (2004), no. 3, 889–933

    2004

  19. [19]

    Grafakos and A

    L. Grafakos and A. Stefanov,L p bounds for singular integrals and maximal singular integrals with rough kernels, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 47 (1998), no. 2, 455–469

    1998

  20. [20]

    Grafakos and A

    L. Grafakos and A. Stefanov,Convolution Calder´ on–Zygmund singular integral operators with rough kernels, inAnalysis of Divergence: Control and Management of Divergent Processes, Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 1999, 119–143

    1999

  21. [21]

    Grafakos and R

    L. Grafakos and R. H. Torres,Multilinear Calder´ on–Zygmund theory, Adv. Math. 165 (2002), no. 1, 124–164

    2002

  22. [22]

    Grafakos, Z

    L. Grafakos, Z. Wang, and Q. Xue,Sparse domination and weighted estimates for rough bilinear singular integrals, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 28 (2022), no. 6, Paper No. 80, 27 pp

    2022

  23. [23]

    He and B

    D. He and B. J. Park,Improved estimates for bilinear rough singular integrals, Math. Ann. 386 (2023), no. 3-4, 1951–1978

    2023

  24. [24]

    Honz ´ ık, S

    P. Honz ´ ık, S. Lappas, and L. Slav ´ ıkov´ a,Bilinear singular integral operators with kernels in weighted spaces, arXiv:2412.07014v2 [math.CA], 2024, 20 pp

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Lacey and C

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

    1997

  26. [26]

    Lacey and C

    M. Lacey and C. Thiele,On Calder´ on ’s conjecture, Ann. of Math. (2) 149 (1999), no. 2, 475–496

    1999

  27. [27]

    Li,Uniform bounds for the bilinear Hilbert transforms, II, Rev

    X. Li,Uniform bounds for the bilinear Hilbert transforms, II, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 22 (2006), no. 3, 1069–1126

    2006

  28. [28]

    Meyer,Wavelets and Operators, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol

    Y. Meyer,Wavelets and Operators, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 37, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992

    1992

  29. [29]

    Sagher,On analytic families of operators, Israel J

    Y. Sagher,On analytic families of operators, Israel J. Math. 7 (1969), 350–356

    1969

  30. [30]

    Seeger,Singular integral operators with rough convolution kernels, J

    A. Seeger,Singular integral operators with rough convolution kernels, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1996), no. 1, 95–105

    1996

  31. [31]

    Stefanov,Characterizations ofH 1 and applications to singular integrals, Illinois J

    A. Stefanov,Characterizations ofH 1 and applications to singular integrals, Illinois J. Math. 44 (2000), 574–592

    2000

  32. [32]

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

    T. Tao,The weak-type(1,1)ofLlogLhomogeneous convolution operators, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 48 (1999), no. 4, 1547–1584

    1999

  33. [33]

    Thiele,A uniform estimate, Ann

    C. Thiele,A uniform estimate, Ann. of Math. (2) 156 (2002), no. 2, 519–563

    2002

  34. [34]

    Triebel,Theory of Function Spaces

    H. Triebel,Theory of Function Spaces. III, Monographs in Mathematics, vol. 100, Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2006

    2006

  35. [35]

    Uraltsev and M

    G. Uraltsev and M. Warchalski,The full range of uniform bounds for the bilinear Hilbert transform, arXiv:2205.09851v1 [math.CA], 2022, 107 pp

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Zygmund,Trigonometric Series, Vols

    A. Zygmund,Trigonometric Series, Vols. I and II, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1959. 40 B. DAN AND Q. XUE Binwei Dan: School of Mathematical Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Laboratory of Mathematics and Complex Systems, Ministry of Education, Beijing 100875, People’s Republic of China Email address:danbinwei@mail.bnu.edu.cn Qingying...

    1959

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.