Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 49 references

The Bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator along curves. The purely non-zero curvature case

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · 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 the bilinear Hilbert–Carleson operator along monomial curves with pairwise distinct exponents is bounded from $L^{p_1}\times L^{p_2}$ to $L^r$ for every Hölder pair with $1/2<r<\infty$, up to endpoints.

desk verdict New and substantial boundedness result for the model curve (t, t^2, t^3), but the full claim for all pairwise distinct real alpha is not proved: the reduction to the model case is asserted, and several key proofs are deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04467 v1 pith:F52WDL3Z submitted 2025-07-06 math.CA math.DSmath.NT

Árpád Bényi , Bingyang Hu , Victor Lie This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.DSmath.NT MSC 42B2042B25
keywords BilinearHilbert-CarlesonoperatorcurvedtrilinearHilberttransformRankIILGCmethodconstancypropagationtime-frequencyanalysiswavepacketdecompositionquasi-Banachrangenon-resonant
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 establishes the full expected boundedness range, up to endpoints, for the bilinear Hilbert–Carleson operator along monomial curves whose three exponents are pairwise distinct. For any nonzero coefficients and any distinct nonzero exponents $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3$, the operator $BHC_{[\vec a,\vec\alpha]}(f_1,f_2)(x)=\sup_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}|\,p.v.\int f_1(x-a_1t^{\alpha_1})f_2(x-a_2t^{\alpha_2})e^{i\lambda a_3t^{\alpha_3}}\,dt/t|$ maps $L^{p_1}\times L^{p_2}$ into $L^r$ whenever $1/p_1+1/p_2=1/r$ and $1/2

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Rank II LGC method, a correlative time-frequency/wave-packet discretization that tracks simultaneous Fourier-mode interactions of the two input functions and of the linearizing phase $\lambda(x)$. The decisive mechanism inside it is the constancy propagation procedure: a bootstrap that lengthens the scale on which $\lambda(x)$ is constant from $2^{-m-2k}$ to $2^{-m-k}$, applied after a sparse-uniform dichotomy separates spatially concentrated from uniformly distributed pieces of $f_1$ and $f_2$. Once the phase is constant enough, the maximal joint Fourier coefficient $J_{m,k}$ is controlled either by the LGC smoothing estimate from the companion curved trilinear Hilbert transform work (when $k\ge m/2$) or by a Rank-I wave-packet model with a time-frequency correlation set (when $0\le k\le m/2$). A refined frequency localization for the third input in the stationary off-diagonal component makes the sums over $k$ and $m$ converge.

What would settle it

Check the promised transfer by deriving the stationary-phase decomposition for the curve $(t,t^2,t^4)$ or $(t,t^2,t^{1/2})$. If the discriminant and root symmetry in Section 2.1 — $t_0=-2^k\eta/(3\lambda)$ and $|t_1-t_0|=|t_2-t_0|$ — fails for exponents other than $(1,2,3)$, then the division into diagonal, stationary off-diagonal, and non-stationary components no longer follows, and the generality claim in Main Theorem 1.1 would need a separate proof.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Main Theorem 1.1 states that for $\vec a=(a_1,a_2,a_3)$ and $\vec\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$ with each $\alpha_j$ nonzero and pairwise distinct, the operator $BHC_{[\vec a,\vec\alpha]}(f_1,f_2)(x)=\sup_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}}|\,p.v.\int f_1(x-a_1t^{\alpha_1})f_2(x-a_2t^{\alpha_2})e^{i\lambda a_3t^{\alpha_3}}\,dt/t|$ obeys $\|BHC_{[\vec a,\vec\alpha]}(f_1,f_2)\|_{L^r}\lesssim_{\vec a,\vec\alpha,r,p_1,p_2}\|f_1\|_{L^{p_1}}\|f_2\|_{L^{p_2}}$ for every Hölder range $1/p_1+1/p_2=1/r$ with $1<p_1,p_2<\infty$ and $1/2<r<\infty$. The proof reduces the analysis to the representative case $\vec a=(1,-1,1)$, $\vec\alpha=(1,2,3)$, that is, $BHC(f_1,f_2)(x)=\sup_{\lambda}|\,p.v.\int f_1(x-t)f_2(x+t^2)e^{i\lambda t^3}\,dt/t|$. In this model the operator is split into low-oscillatory, diagonal, and stationary/non-stationary off-diagonal components. The main work is a local $L^2$ smoothing estimate for the diagonal component: the maximal joint Fourier coefficient $J_{m,k}(f_1,f_2)$ along the moment curve satisfies $\|J_{m,k}(f_1,f_2)\|_{L^2(I_k^r)}\lesssim 2^{-\epsilon\min\{2k,m\}}\|f_1\|_{L^2(3I_k^r)}\|f_2\|_{L^2(3I_k^r)}$, and this decay is extended to the full quasi-Banach range by multilinear interpolation with restricted weak-type bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The proof is written only for the curve $(t,t^2,t^3)$ with coefficients $(1,-1,1)$; the theorem's full generality rests on the asserted but unproven claim that every other pairwise-distinct choice of nonzero exponents and coefficients can be treated by the same method with minimal effort.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Main Theorem 1.1 holds, the purely non-resonant bilinear Hilbert–Carleson operator is bounded on the maximal expected quasi-Banach range $r>1/2$ with no restriction beyond the Hölder relation and pairwise distinct exponents.
  • The result completes the $n=3$ non-zero curvature hierarchy: together with the companion curved trilinear Hilbert transform bounds, both the maximal Carleson-type operator and the curved trilinear Hilbert transform are now settled in the purely non-resonant regime.
  • The constancy propagation procedure provides a template for operators whose linearized discretized models are not absolutely summable within a single scale, by exploiting hidden cancellation in joint Fourier coefficients.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The asserted transfer from $(1,2,3)$ to arbitrary pairwise distinct exponents is the point a skeptical reader should test first: for non-integer or negative $\alpha_j$, the phase derivative and stationary-point analysis change shape, and the paper does not display the reduction.
  • A concrete testable extension is whether the proof survives the third exponent not equaling a sum or difference of the first two; the model $(t,t^2,t^3)$ has special algebraic relations, while the versatility claim says all distinct triples are equally easy.
  • The threshold $r>1/2$ mirrors the sharp range of the flat bilinear Hilbert transform, suggesting the curved non-resonant setting is no harder than the flat case in terms of output exponents; this is an interpretation, not a result of the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims the maximal (up to endpoints) L^{p1} x L^{p2} -> L^r boundedness range for the purely non-resonant Bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator BHC_{[a,alpha]} along monomial curves, for all nonzero a_j and all pairwise distinct nonzero alpha_j, in the Holder range 1/p1+1/p2=1/r with 1<p1,p2<infinity and 1/2<r<infinity. The proof is carried out only for the model case a=(1,-1,1), alpha=(1,2,3), via a decomposition into low oscillatory, non-stationary off-diagonal, stationary off-diagonal, and diagonal components, and relies on the Rank II LGC method and on the authors' prior work [24], especially Proposition 1.18 (= [24, Theorem 4.3]). The paper contains detailed arguments for the k>=0 regime of the diagonal and stationary components, with some central statements (Theorem 4.1, Theorem 6.1, parts of Proposition 3.4 and Section 3.7, and the entire k<0 appendix) only sketched or deferred.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the result is significant: it would settle the maximal boundedness range for this class of curved bilinear Carleson operators, complementing the companion treatment of the curved trilinear Hilbert transform in [24] and constituting a nontrivial application of the Rank II LGC method in a quasi-Banach range. The conceptual decomposition and the constancy-propagation strategy are valuable and are presented with considerable detail. However, the paper's strongest claim, Main Theorem 1.1 for arbitrary a and alpha, is not supported by the proof as written: the reduction to the model case is asserted but not demonstrated, and several load-bearing estimates are deferred. The significance of the full statement therefore depends on closing these gaps.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sections 1.3 and 2; Main Theorem 1.1] Main Theorem 1.1 is stated for all a_j in R\{0} and all pairwise distinct alpha_j in R\{0}, but Section 2 explicitly fixes a=(1,-1,1) and alpha=(1,2,3) for the remainder of the paper. The only transfer argument is the assertion in Section 1.3 that 'the versatility of our methods allows us to treat with minimal effort any nonresonant choice of alpha' and that 'it is enough to only focus on a special case.' This is not a proof, and it is not a trivial reparametrization: a change of variables t=phi(s) mapping a_j phi(s)^{alpha_j} to c_j s^j for j=1,2,3 would require alpha_1/1 = alpha_2/2 = alpha_3/3, which fails for triples such as alpha=(-1,-2,-3) or (1,2,-1). Moreover, the proof uses in essential ways the ordering of exponents, e.g. the inequalities |t|^3 <= t^2 <= |t| in Section 3.1 and the stationary-phase classification in Sections 2.2 and 5, which do not hold for negative or unordered exponents. Consequently, the paper establishes at most the special case a=(1,-1,1), alpha=(1,2,3); the full statement of Main Theorem 1.1 requires either a complete reduction argument or a restriction of the theorem's scope.
  2. [Section 4.2.2, Theorem 4.1] Theorem 4.1 is a load-bearing estimate for the stationary off-diagonal component BHC^{notDelta,S}, specifically for Case (O2), and it is also used in Section 6 to obtain the full quasi-Banach range. Its proof, however, is a single paragraph asserting that it 'follows by a straightforward modification' of the proof of Theorem 3.1, with details left to the reader. The three listed ingredients are not enough to verify the claim: the constancy-propagation argument in the regime of Theorem 4.1 has additional frequency-localization suppositions and a renormalized phase of height 2^{kappa m}, which require checking the sparse-uniform dichotomy, the TT* reductions, and the final D-type estimates. This is not a presentation issue; the stationary off-diagonal component is indispensable for the main result.
  3. [Section 7 (Appendix)] The treatment of the case k<0, which corresponds to the component BHC^Delta_- in the decomposition of Section 2.2, is only an outline. Theorem 7.1 is stated with 'we only provide a sketch of the proof' and the argument splits into two parts with references to 'bootstrapping', [24, Theorem 4.3], and [24, Proposition 4.9], but the actual estimates for the uniform component in the regime -m/2 <= k <= 0 are not given. Since Main Theorem 1.1 covers all k in Z, the boundedness of BHC^Delta_- is part of the claimed result and cannot be relegated to an appendix sketch without a complete proof.
  4. [Section 3.5, Proposition 3.4] Proposition 3.4 controls the light component V^{tilde p,L}_{m,k} and is essential for the constancy-propagation step in Case II (0 <= k <= m/2). The proof ends with a description of the diagonal and off-diagonal terms D^2_diag and D^2_off and states 'We leave the further details to the interested reader.' In particular, the claimed decays 2^{(delta+4mu-epsilon0/4)k} and the use of the curvature in the mapping q |-> sqrt(2^{m/2}u+q^2)/q are not demonstrated. Because this proposition is a central step in the proof of the main smoothing estimate, the details cannot be omitted.
  5. [Section 3.7] The treatment of the uniform component in the regime m/2 <= k <= m (Case I) is described as following the argument of Proposition 3.4 'with the obvious adaptations', and the final estimate for the term tilde D^2 is said to follow 'using similar reasonings to the ones employed for treating (3.21)'. This case is needed to cover the full range of k and m in Theorem 3.1, and the omitted details include several nontrivial changes of variables and the estimate of the analogue of the term D in (3.20)-(3.22). The reader cannot verify that the claimed decay 2^{-tilde epsilon1 m} in (3.37) is obtained without a full argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] The phrase 'throughout the reminder of the paper' should be 'throughout the remainder of the paper'.
  2. [Section 2.2.2] The definition of BHC^{notDelta,NS} says it corresponds to 'the non-stationary phase regime, i.e., when the first item above is not satisfied'; this is ambiguous because the previous list has items (a), (b), (c), and 'the first item' could be read as only (a). The intended meaning is that none of (a)-(c) holds.
  3. [Section 3.2] In the display defining the sparse and uniform index sets, the notation |I^{ik+m}_r| and the normalization with 3I^{0,ik+m}_r are not defined explicitly before use; a remark on the convention for intervals and their dilations would improve readability.
  4. [References] Reference [1] appears to list the authors in an unusual order ('Lars Becker, van Floris Doorn...'); please verify the spelling and ordering of the author names.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the proof uses a self-cited shared lemma but does not assume the target theorem.

full rationale

The boundedness claim for BHC is not used as an input anywhere in the paper. The proof first restricts to the model parameters a=(1,-1,1), alpha=(1,2,3) (Section 2), then decomposes BHC into low-oscillatory, diagonal, and off-diagonal components. The key local L2 smoothing estimate is imported as Proposition 1.18 from the same authors' earlier work [24, Theorem 4.3]. This is a substantial self-citation, but it is not a circular step: [24, Theorem 4.3] is a parameter-free estimate for the auxiliary expression L_{m,k} under stated hypotheses (spatial uniformity, constancy of the linearizing function), and those hypotheses do not include the boundedness of BHC; the target of [24] is the curved trilinear Hilbert transform, a different operator. The present paper supplies new arguments for the regime 0 <= k <= m/2, the stationary off-diagonal component, and the quasi-Banach range, so the central claim does not reduce by construction to the cited result. The paper's assertion in Section 1.3 that by 'versatility' of the methods any nonresonant choice of alpha can be treated 'with minimal effort', while only the model case is written out, is an unsupported generality claim rather than a circular derivation; no equation makes Main Theorem 1.1 equal to its own input.

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

No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the proof is a mathematical derivation. The load-bearing foundations are (i) the Rank II LGC framework and its local smoothing propositions from the authors' earlier preprint [24], especially Proposition 1.18, (ii) standard square-function and maximal-function bounds for curved operators, and (iii) a continuity property from [24, Appendix 13.3]. These are theorems in prior literature, but some are self-cited preprints that are not machine-checked. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rank II LGC method and its core ingredients (sparse-uniform dichotomy, constancy propagation, level-set analysis) as established in [24, arXiv:2308.10706]
    The central smoothing estimates are imported from the authors' own prior work on the curved trilinear Hilbert transform; this is a preprint that is not machine-checked.
  • domain assumption Proposition 1.18 ([24, Theorem 4.3]): if k >= m/2 and functions are uniformly distributed, then L_{m,k}(f1,f2) <= 2^{-eps m} ||f1|| ||f2||
    This is the key input for the diagonal component in the regime k >= m, invoked in Section 3.4 and Case I of the proof.
  • standard math Square-function and maximal-function estimates for shifted square functions (e.g., [40, Proposition 42], [17, Lemma 3.3]) and the boundedness of the bilinear maximal function along (t,t^2)
    Used in Sections 2.3, 5.1 and 6.1 to control off-diagonal and low-oscillatory pieces.
  • domain assumption Continuity of the Lambda bounds in the parameters (Appendix 13.3 of [24]), used to pass from discrete scales to continuity
    Invoked in Proposition 3.4 and Section 4.2.1 to justify reductions, relying on a result from the authors' preprint.
  • domain assumption Heisenberg's uncertainty principle estimates on constancy scales of the linearizing phase (Key Heuristic 1 and Key Heuristic 1')
    Used to justify that the linearizing phase is locally constant on dyadic intervals of length 2^{-m-2k}; stated as heuristic rather than a formal lemma.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator along curves. The purely non-zero curvature case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F52WDL3Z

@misc{pith2026250704467,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator along curves. The purely non-zero curvature case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F52WDL3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04467}
}
abstract

In this paper, we provide the maximal boundedness range (up to end-points) for the Bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator along curves in the (purely) non-zero curvature setting. More precisely, we show that the operator $$ BHC_{[\vec{a},\vec{\alpha}]}(f_1,f_2)(x) := \sup_{\lambda\in\mathbb{R}} \left|\,p.v.\, \int_{\mathbb{R}} f_1(x - a_1 t^{\alpha_1}) \,f_2(x - a_2 t^{\alpha_2}) \,e^{i\,\lambda\,a_3 \,t^{\alpha_3}} \,\frac{dt}{t}\right|$$ obeys the bounds $$\|BHC_{[\vec{a},\vec{\alpha}]} (f_1,f_2)\|_{L^r} \lesssim_{\vec{a} \,\vec{\alpha},r,p_1,p_2} \|f_1\|_{L^{p_1}}\,\|f_2\|_{L^{p_2}}$$ whenever $\vec{a}=(a_1,a_2,a_3),\,\vec{\alpha}=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)\in (\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\})^3$ with $\vec{\alpha}$ having pairwise distinct coordinates and for any H\"older range $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}=\frac{1}{r}$ with $1<p_1,p_2<\infty$ and $\frac{1}{2}<r<\infty$. This result is achieved via the Rank II LGC method introduced in arXiv:2308.10706.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    On the curved trilinear Hilbert transform

    Bingyang Hu and Victor Lie. On the curved trilinear Hilbert transform. Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.10706, 103 pp, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Carleson operators on doubling metric measure spaces

    Lars Becker, van Floris Doorn, Asgar Jamneshan, Rajula Srivastava, and Christoph Thiele. Carleson operators on doubling metric measure spaces. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06423, 130 pp, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    On the hybrid trilinear Hilbert transform

    Cristina Benea, Frederic Bernicot, and Victor Lie. On the hybrid trilinear Hilbert transform. In preparation

    work page

  4. [3]

    The non-resonant bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator.Adv

    Cristina Benea, Fr´ ed´ eric Bernicot, Victor Lie, and Marco Vitturi. The non-resonant bilinear Hilbert-Carleson operator.Adv. Math., 458: Paper No. 109939, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Bergelson and A

    V. Bergelson and A. Leibman. Polynomial extensions of van der Waerden’s and Szemer´ edi’s theorems.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 9(3):725–753, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [5]

    Calder´ on

    A.-P. Calder´ on. Cauchy integrals on Lipschitz curves and related operators.Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 74(4):1324–1327, 1977

    work page 1977

  7. [6]

    A. P. Calderon and A. Zygmund. On the existence of certain singular integrals. Acta Math., 88:85–139, 1952

    work page 1952

  8. [7]

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

    work page 1956

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    On convergence and growth of partial sums of Fourier series

    Lennart Carleson. On convergence and growth of partial sums of Fourier series. Acta Math., 116:135–157, 1966

    1966

  2. [9]

    On certain elementary trilinear operators

    Michael Christ. On certain elementary trilinear operators. Math. Res. Lett., 8(1-2):43–56, 2001

    2001

  3. [10]

    On multilinear oscillatory integrals, nonsingular and singular

    Michael Christ, Xiaochun Li, Terence Tao, and Christoph Thiele. On multilinear oscillatory integrals, nonsingular and singular. Duke Math. J., 130(2):321–351, 2005

    2005

  4. [11]

    R. R. Coifman, A. McIntosh, and Y. Meyer. L’int´ egrale de Cauchy d´ efinit un op´ erateur born´ e sur L2pour les courbes lipschitziennes. Ann. of Math. (2), 116(2):361–387, 1982

    1982

  5. [12]

    Norm variation of ergodic averages with respect to two commuting transformations

    Polona Durcik, Vjekoslav Kovaˇ c, Kristina AnaˇSkreb, and Christoph Thiele. Norm variation of ergodic averages with respect to two commuting transformations. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 39(3):658–688, 2019

    2019

  6. [13]

    A new proof of an inequality of Bourgain

    Polona Durcik and Joris Roos. A new proof of an inequality of Bourgain. Math. Res. Letters31(4), 1047–1067, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Pointwise convergence of Fourier series

    Charles Fefferman. Pointwise convergence of Fourier series. Ann. of Math. (2), 98:551–571, 1973

    1973

  8. [15]

    A mean ergodic theorem for (1/N) PN n=1 f (T nx)g(T n2 x)

    Hillel Furstenberg and Benjamin Weiss. A mean ergodic theorem for (1/N) PN n=1 f (T nx)g(T n2 x). In Convergence in ergodic theory and probability (Columbus, OH, 1993), volume 5 of Ohio State Univ. Math. Res. Inst. Publ., pages 193–227. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996

    1993

  9. [16]

    Non-zero to zero curvature transition: Operators along hybrid curves with no quadratic (quasi-)resonances

    Alejandra Gaitan and Victor Lie. Non-zero to zero curvature transition: Operators along hybrid curves with no quadratic (quasi-)resonances. To appear in Adv. Math, 2025, 123 pp., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2025.110356

    2025

  10. [17]

    non-flat

    Alejandra Gaitan and Victor Lie. The boundedness of the (sub)bilinear maximal function along “non-flat” smooth curves. J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 26(4): Paper No. 69, 33pp, 2020

    2020

  11. [18]

    W. T. Gowers. A new proof of Szemer´ edi’s theorem for arithmetic progressions of length four.Geom. Funct. Anal., 8(3):529– 551, 1998

    1998

  12. [19]

    Convergence of polynomial ergodic averages

    Bernard Host and Bryna Kra. Convergence of polynomial ergodic averages. Probability in mathematics, Israel J. Math. 149 (2005), 1—19

    2005

  13. [21]

    Polynomial progressions in topological fields

    Ben Krause, Mariusz Mirek, Sarah Peluse, and James Wright. Polynomial progressions in topological fields. Forum Math. Sigma 12 (2024), Paper No. e106, 51 pp

    2024

  14. [22]

    On a Carleson-Radon Transform (the non-resonant setting)

    Martin Hsu and Victor Lie. On a Carleson-Radon Transform (the non-resonant setting). arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01660, 37 pp, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On the curved n−linear Hilbert transform

    Bingyang Hu and Victor Lie. On the curved n−linear Hilbert transform. Work in progress, 2025

    2025

  16. [25]

    On the curved trilinear Hilbert transform and the curved n-sublinear maximal operator: beyond the Banach range output

    Bingyang Hu and Victor Lie. On the curved trilinear Hilbert transform and the curved n-sublinear maximal operator: beyond the Banach range output. Preprint, 29pp, 2024

    2024

  17. [26]

    Richard A. Hunt. On the convergence of Fourier series. In Orthogonal Expansions and their Continuous Analogues (Proc. Conf., Edwardsville, Ill., 1967), pages 235–255. Southern Illinois Univ. Press, Carbondale, Ill., 1968

    1967

  18. [27]

    The multilinear circle method and a question of Bergelson

    Dariusz Kosz, Mariusz Mirek, Sarah Peluse, and James Wright. The multilinear circle method and a question of Bergelson. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09478v2, 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    Dyadic triangular Hilbert transform of two general functions and one not too general function

    Vjekoslav Kovaˇ c, Christoph Thiele, and Pavel Zorin-Kranich. Dyadic triangular Hilbert transform of two general functions and one not too general function. Forum Math. Sigma, paper No. e25, 27 pp, 2015

    2015

  20. [29]

    Polynomial progressions in topological fields

    Ben Krause, Mariusz Mirek, Sarah Peluse, and James Wright. Polynomial progressions in topological fields. Forum Math. Sigma, 12:Paper No. e106, 51, 2024

    2024

  21. [30]

    Lp estimates on the bilinear Hilbert transform for 2 < p <∞

    Michael Lacey and Christoph Thiele. Lp estimates on the bilinear Hilbert transform for 2 < p <∞. Ann. of Math. (2), 146(3):693–724, 1997

    1997

  22. [31]

    On Calder´ on’s conjecture

    Michael Lacey and Christoph Thiele. On Calder´ on’s conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2), 149(2):475–496, 1999

    1999

  23. [32]

    Michael T. Lacey. The bilinear Hilbert transform is pointwise finite. Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, 13(2):411–469, 1997

    1997

  24. [33]

    A. Leibman. Convergence of multiple ergodic averages along polynomials of several variables. Israel J. Math., 146:303–315, 2005. 59

    2005

  25. [34]

    Bilinear Hilbert transforms along curves I: The monomial case

    Xiaochun Li. Bilinear Hilbert transforms along curves I: The monomial case. Anal. PDE, 6(1):197–220, 2013

    2013

  26. [35]

    Uniform estimates for bilinear Hilbert transforms and bilinear maximal functions associated to polynomials

    Xiaochun Li and Lechao Xiao. Uniform estimates for bilinear Hilbert transforms and bilinear maximal functions associated to polynomials. Amer. J. Math., 138(4):907–962, 2016

    2016

  27. [36]

    Interplay between multilinear singular operators and multilinear maximal oscillatory operators of Carleson type

    Victor Lie. Interplay between multilinear singular operators and multilinear maximal oscillatory operators of Carleson type. Survey, Work in progress

  28. [37]

    A note on the Polynomial Carleson operator in higher dimensions

    Victor Lie. A note on the Polynomial Carleson operator in higher dimensions. arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03092, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  29. [38]

    The (weak- L2) boundedness of the quadratic Carleson operator

    Victor Lie. The (weak- L2) boundedness of the quadratic Carleson operator. Geom. Funct. Anal., 19(2):457–497, 2009

    2009

  30. [39]

    non-flat

    Victor Lie. On the boundedness of the bilinear Hilbert transform along “non-flat” smooth curves. Amer. J. Math., 137(2):313–363, 2015

    2015

  31. [40]

    non-flat

    Victor Lie. On the boundedness of the bilinear Hilbert transform along “non-flat” smooth curves. The Banach triangle case (Lr, 1 ≤ r <∞). Rev. Mat. Iberoam., 34(1):331–353, 2018

    2018

  32. [41]

    The polynomial Carleson operator

    Victor Lie. The polynomial Carleson operator. Ann. of Math. (2), 192(1):47–163, 2020

    2020

  33. [42]

    Victor Lie. A unified approach to three themes in harmonic analysis (I & II): (I) The linear Hilbert transform and maximal operator along variable curves; (II) Carleson type operators in the presence of curvature. Adv. Math., 437, 113 pp, 2024

    2024

  34. [43]

    Elias M. Stein. Oscillatory integrals related to Radon-like transforms. In Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Jean- Pierre Kahane (Orsay, 1993), number Special Issue, pages 535–551, 1995

    1993

  35. [44]

    Stein and Stephen Wainger

    Elias M. Stein and Stephen Wainger. The estimation of an integral arising in multiplier transformations. Studia Math., 35: 101–104, 1970

    1970

  36. [45]

    Stein and Stephen Wainger

    Elias M. Stein and Stephen Wainger. Oscillatory integrals related to Carleson’s theorem. Math. Res. Lett., 8(5-6): 789–800, 2001

    2001

  37. [46]

    Szemer´ edi

    E. Szemer´ edi. On sets of integers containing no four elements in arithmetic progression.Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 20: 89–104, 1969

    1969

  38. [47]

    Szemer´ edi

    E. Szemer´ edi. On sets of integers containing no k elements in arithmetic progression. Acta Arith., 27: 199–245, 1975

    1975

  39. [48]

    A uniform estimate

    Christoph Thiele. A uniform estimate. Ann. of Math., 156: 519–563, 2002

    2002

  40. [49]

    Universal characteristic factors and Furstenberg averages

    Tamar Ziegler. Universal characteristic factors and Furstenberg averages. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 20(1): 53–97, 2007

    2007

  41. [50]

    Simion Stoilow

    Pavel Zorin-Kranich. Maximal polynomial modulations of singular integrals. Adv. Math., 86: Paper No. 107832, 2021. ´Arp´ad B´enyi: Department of Mathematics, Western W ashington University, 516 High Street, Bellingham, W A 98225, U.S.A. Email address: benyia@wwu.edu Bingyang H...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.