Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 44 references

The Boundedness of the Bilinear Fractional Integrals along Curves

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For curves satisfying a curvature condition, the bilinear fractional integral $H_{\alpha,\gamma}$ maps $L^p\times L^q$ to $L^r$ on a convex hull set by the curve's growth exponents.

desk verdict Solid technical extension to general curves, but the stated theorems overclaim: the proof does not cover the equality case ω0,2 = ω∞,1 for non-power-like curves. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14830 v1 pith:FJP5I75H submitted 2024-11-22 math.CA

Junfeng Li , Haixia Yu , Minqun Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CA MSC 42B1542A85
keywords bilinearfractionalintegralintegralsalongcurvesHardy–Littlewood–Sobolevinequalityrestrictedweaktypeestimateinterpolationcurvatureconditionslogarithmicgrowthexponents
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 aims to pin down the boundedness of bilinear fractional integrals taken along a curved path: for a broad class of plane curves $(t,\gamma(t))$ with controlled curvature, it claims that $H_{\alpha,\gamma}(f,g)(x)=\int_0^\infty f(x-t)g(x-\gamma(t))\,dt/t^{1-\alpha}$ sends $L^p(\mathbb R)\times L^q(\mathbb R)$ into $L^r(\mathbb R)$ for a whole polyhedral region of exponent triples. The region is described as the open convex hull of explicit vertices whose coordinates are determined by four logarithmic growth rates of $\gamma$ near zero and infinity. If correct, this unifies and extends the monomial case $\gamma(t)=t^\beta$ to polynomials without linear or constant terms and to finite-type curves, and it also yields an almost sharp Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality for the one-dimensional fractional integral along the same curve.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the one-dimensional curve-adapted fractional integral $I_{\alpha,\gamma}f(x)=\int_0^\infty |f(x-\gamma(t))|\,dt/t^{1-\alpha}$: its Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev estimates supply the restricted weak-type bounds at the $p=\infty$ and $q=\infty$ vertices of the claimed region. The bilinear operator is decomposed into dyadic pieces $H_{\alpha,\gamma,j}$ on the annulus $[2^{j-1},2^j]$, and each piece is controlled by a change of variables whose Jacobian is $1-\gamma'(t)$, separating the non-critical scales from the at-most-three critical scales near a stationary point $\gamma'(t_0)=1$. The four logarithmic growth exponents $\omega_{0,1},\omega_{0,2},\omega_{\infty,1},\omega_{\infty,2}$ enter through Lemma 2.1, which confines $|\gamma(t)|$ between nearby powers of $t$ near zero and infinity; these exponents determine every vertex in the convex hull. Real interpolation of the endpoint restricted weak-type estimates produces the strong-type bounds in the interior of the hull.

What would settle it

Take a curve satisfying (H) with $\omega_{0,2}=\omega_{\infty,1}$ but with logarithmic oscillation, such as $\gamma(t)=t^\beta(1+\varepsilon\sin(\log\log(1/t)))$ near $0$ and a matched oscillation near $\infty$, and compute $\sup_{A,B}|B|^{-\alpha/M}\|H_{\alpha,\gamma}(\chi_A,\chi_B)\|_\infty$ at $M=\omega_{0,2}=\omega_{\infty,1}$; an infinite supremum would show that the restricted weak-type vertex feeding the interpolation argument fails for that curve.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that Hypothesis (H) — monotonicity, $\gamma(0)=\gamma'(0)=0$, the bounds on $t\gamma'(t)/\gamma(t)$ and $t^2\gamma''(t)/\gamma(t)$, and $\omega_{\infty,1}\ge\omega_{0,2}$, $\omega_{0,1}>1$ — suffices for $H_{\alpha,\gamma}$ to be bounded from $L^p(\mathbb R)\times L^q(\mathbb R)$ to $L^r(\mathbb R)$ for every reciprocal triple in the open convex hull of explicit points. Theorem 1.1 does this when $\frac{\omega_{\infty,2}-\omega_{\infty,1}}{\omega_{\infty,2}-1}<\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}<\frac{\omega_{\infty,2}}{\omega_{\infty,2}-\omega_{\infty,1}+1}$, with vertices $A,B,C_1,C_2,D_1,D_2,E,F$; Theorem 1.2 covers $\frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha}\ge\omega_{\infty,1}$ with $G_1,G_1^2,G_2^2,H$ replacing $E,F$ in suitable subranges. The companion one-dimensional fractional integral $I_{\alpha,\gamma}$ is shown to satisfy an almost sharp Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality: $1/p-1/q=\alpha/M$ with $M\in(\omega_{0,2},\omega_{\infty,1})$ guarantees $L^p\to L^q$, and any such estimate forces $M\in[\omega_{0,1},\omega_{\infty,2}]$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof needs an endpoint Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev estimate for the one-dimensional operator that the paper supplies only when the curve's near-zero and near-infinity growth rates are strictly ordered; when those rates coincide and the curve is not power-like, that endpoint estimate is missing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\gamma(t)=t^\beta$, the region in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 reduces to the open convex hull of $A,B,C,D,E,F$ (or $G_1,G_1^2,G_2^2,H$), reproducing the monomial case with the dependence on $\alpha/\beta$ made explicit.
  • For a polynomial $\gamma(t)=\sum_{i=1}^k \beta_i t^{\alpha_i}$ with $1<\alpha_1<\cdots<\alpha_k$ and no constant or linear term, the exponents are $\omega_{0,1}=\omega_{0,2}=\alpha_1$ and $\omega_{\infty,1}=\omega_{\infty,2}=\alpha_k$, so the boundedness region is fully determined by the lowest and highest monomial degrees.
  • Curves of finite type at zero, such as $t^\beta\log(1+t)$, $t^\beta\arctan t$, or $e^{\beta t}-\beta t-1$, satisfy the hypothesis, so the same boundedness region applies to them.
  • The Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality for $I_{\alpha,\gamma}$ is almost sharp: the exponent gap $1/p-1/q$ is forced to equal $\alpha/M$ with $M$ between the near-zero and near-infinity growth rates, and for power-like curves the condition is necessary and sufficient.
  • Restricted weak-type estimates hold at the vertices $A,B,C_1,C_2,D_1,D_2$ (and the $G,H$ vertices in the complementary case), and interpolation then gives the open convex hull as a strong-type region.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to prove Lemma 2.2 with the closed interval $M\in[\omega_{0,2},\omega_{\infty,1}]$ for every curve satisfying (H), not just the power-like curves of Remark 2.3; that would justify the boundary vertices $C_1,C_2,D_1,D_2$ when $\omega_{0,2}=\omega_{\infty,1}$.
  • The same endpoint issue suggests a concrete experiment: compute the restricted weak-type norm at $M=\omega_{0,2}=\omega_{\infty,1}$ for an oscillatory curve with equal growth rates, such as $\gamma(t)=t^\beta(1+\varepsilon\sin(\log\log(1/t)))$ near $0$ and a matching oscillation near $\infty$; failure there would narrow the interpolated region.
  • The dyadic stationary-phase decomposition is one-dimensional, but the same ratio $\alpha/(1-\alpha)$ versus $\omega_{\infty,1}$ should govern similar operators built from several curves, where the boundedness region would be a higher-dimensional polytope.
  • A natural next step is to prove necessity for the bilinear region: the dilation argument used in Lemma 2.2, applied to both variables of $H_{\alpha,\gamma}$, should show that no exponent triple outside the closure of the hull can be bounded.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper establishes L^p(R) x L^q(R) -> L^r(R) estimates for the bilinear fractional integral operator H_{α,γ} along a general plane curve (t, γ(t)) under a set of curvature hypotheses (H), and an 'almost sharp' Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality for the associated fractional integral I_{α,γ}. The main theorems describe the boundedness region as the open convex hull of explicit points determined by the logarithmic growth exponents ω_{0,1}, ω_{0,2}, ω_{∞,1}, ω_{∞,2}. The proof combines restricted weak-type estimates at p=∞ or q=∞, uniform estimates for dyadic pieces H_{α,γ,j}, and interpolation, with the most technical parts being the endpoint p=1 and q=1 cases.

Significance. If correct, the results unify and extend prior work on monomials and finite-type curves to a broad class of curves satisfying curvature and growth conditions. The explicit description of the boundedness range in terms of four exponents is a useful contribution. The paper is largely self-contained in its dyadic and interpolation arguments, and it does not rely on circular reasoning; cited prior results are used as tools. The main theorems are accompanied by concrete examples showing the scope of the hypotheses. The gap identified in this report concerns a substantial equality subcase, so the central framework is plausible but not fully established as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.1, Lemma 2.2 and §2.2, Proposition 2.4] Lemma 2.2 establishes the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality for I_{α,γ} only for exponents M in the open interval (ω_{0,2}, ω_{∞,1}) (Eq. (2.4)). Proposition 2.4 then derives restricted weak-type estimates at the C/D vertices from this lemma, with M also in (ω_{0,2}, ω_{∞,1}). When ω_{0,2}=ω_{∞,1}, this interval is empty, so Proposition 2.4 supplies no restricted weak-type estimates for the vertices C1, C2, D1, D2. Since Hypothesis (H) only requires ω_{∞,1}≥ω_{0,2}, equality is allowed; it occurs for monomials γ(t)=t^β and for curves such as γ(t)=t^β/(1+log(1+t)) that satisfy (H) with all four exponents equal to β but are not comparable to a power near infinity. Remark 2.3 covers the closed interval only for curves that are exactly comparable to powers near both zero and infinity, so it does not fill this gap. Consequently, the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 do not establish the stated boundedness ranges in the equality case ω_{0,2}=ω_{∞,1}.
  2. [Theorems 1.1 and 1.2] Because the restricted weak-type estimates at the vertices C1, C2, D1, D2 are load-bearing for the interpolation argument in the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, the theorems as stated are broader than the proof supports. The authors should either (a) extend Lemma 2.2 to include the endpoint M=ω_{0,2}=ω_{∞,1} for all γ satisfying (H), or (b) add an explicit strict-separation hypothesis such as ω_{0,2}<ω_{∞,1} to Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, or (c) provide an alternative derivation of the C/D restricted weak-type estimates in the equality case. Without one of these, the claimed open-convex-hull regions are not proved for a substantial family of admissible curves.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 5, after Eq. (5.2)] In the interpolation for the critical cases, the displayed estimate uses θ1 instead of θ2; this appears to be a typo since the surrounding notation uses θ2 throughout Section 5.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'founded' for 'found' in the Introduction, 'Cauchy-Schwartz' for 'Cauchy-Schwarz' in the proof of Proposition 3.2, and inconsistent rendering of displayed fractions in the text. These do not affect the mathematics but should be corrected.
  3. [Reference formatting] Some references list page ranges without article numbers (e.g., [26], [27]) and the bibliography style is inconsistent; a uniform format would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main estimates are derived from the curvature hypothesis and classical HLS, and the flagged equality-case gap is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are obtained by interpolating restricted weak-type estimates (Proposition 2.4) and L1 or Lq endpoint estimates (Propositions 4.1, 4.3, 5.1, 5.3) with the dyadic uniform estimates of Propositions 3.1 and 3.2. No target estimate is used as an input, and no parameter is fitted so that a predicted quantity is forced by construction. The exponents ω0,1, ω0,2, ω∞,1, ω∞,2 are defined from the curve and are not chosen to match the claimed range. Lemma 2.2, the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality for I_{α,γ}, is proved from Lemma 2.1 plus the classical HLS inequality, with the necessity direction obtained by a standalone dilation argument. The self-citations are not load-bearing: [26] and [27] are motivational prior results for special curves, and the use of [35] in Lemma 2.1 and Section 3 supplies doubling estimates such as (2.3), which follow directly from the paper's own hypothesis (1.3) by integrating tγ'(t)/γ(t) over [t,2t]; similarly the derivative doubling estimate follows from (1.3) and the lower bound on t^2 γ''(t)/γ(t). Thus the cited results are not imported as an unverified uniqueness or ansatz device. The potential issue raised by the reader, that Lemma 2.2 gives an open interval (ω0,2,ω∞,1) and this interval is empty when ω0,2=ω∞,1 for curves not covered by Remark 2.3, is a genuine proof gap for that subcase, but it is not a circularity: the theorem is not assumed in the lemma, and no equation is equivalent to its own input. Circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new mathematical entities. It relies on standard theorems (HLS, interpolation), on the stated curve hypothesis (H), and, implicitly, on an endpoint HLS estimate that is not fully proved for all curves satisfying (H).

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality for fractional integrals on R
    Used in Lemma 2.2 to bound I_{α,γ} after a change of variables, reducing the kernel to a standard fractional integral.
  • domain assumption Hypothesis (H): γ ∈ C^2(R+), monotone, γ(0)=γ'(0)=0, ω∞,1 ≥ ω0,2, ω0,1 > 1, and the bounds (1.3) on |t^j γ^{(j)}(t)/γ(t)|
    The entire paper is conditional on these curvature and growth assumptions on the curve; they are stated but not derived from more basic principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Endpoint HLS for I_{α,γ} holds for all γ satisfying (H) when the exponent M is at the boundary of (ω0,2, ω∞,1), even when ω0,2 = ω∞,1
    This is needed to reach the vertices C1, C2, D1, D2 when the local exponents coincide. Lemma 2.2 proves the estimate only for M in the open interval, and Remark 2.3 covers only exact power behavior, not all curves satisfying (H).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Boundedness of the Bilinear Fractional Integrals along Curves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJP5I75H

@misc{pith2026241114830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Boundedness of the Bilinear Fractional Integrals along Curves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJP5I75H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14830}
}
abstract

In this paper, for general curves $(t,\gamma(t))$ satisfying some suitable curvature conditions, we obtain some $L^p(\mathbb{R})\times L^q(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^r(\mathbb{R})$ estimates for the bilinear fractional integrals $H_{\alpha,\gamma}$ along the curves $(t,\gamma(t))$, where $$H_{\alpha,\gamma}(f,g)(x):=\int_{0}^{\infty}f(x-t)g(x-\gamma(t))\,\frac{\textrm{d}t}{t^{1-\alpha}}$$ and $\alpha\in (0,1)$. At the same time, we also establish an almost sharp Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, i.e., the $L^p(\mathbb{R})\rightarrow L^q(\mathbb{R})$ estimate, for the fractional integral operators $I_{\alpha,\gamma}$ along the curves $(t,\gamma(t))$, where $$I_{\alpha,\gamma}f(x):=\int_{0}^{\infty}\left|f(x-\gamma(t))\right|\,\frac{\textrm{d}t}{t^{1-\alpha}}.$$

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Regions of ( 1 p , 1 q , 1 r ) in Theorem 1.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Regions of ( 1 p , 1 q , 1 r ) in Theorem 1.2 with ω∞,1 ≤ 2α and 2α < ω∞,1, respectively. Example 1.4. Let us list some examples of curves. (1) γ1(t) := t β with β ∈ (1, ∞). Then the regions of ( 1 p , 1 q , 1 r ) in the Lp (R) × L q (R) → L r (R) estimates for the corresponding Hα,γ1 lies in the open convex hull of the following points: A (α, 0, 0) , B (1, 0, 1 − α) , C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bennett, Hilbert transforms and maximal functions along variable flat curves, Trans

    J.M. Bennett, Hilbert transforms and maximal functions along variable flat curves, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2002), no. 12, 4871–4892

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Carbery, M

    A. Carbery, M. Christ, J. Vance, S. Wainger and D. Watson, Operators associated to flat plane curves: Lp estimates via dilation methods, Duke Math. J. 59 (1989), no. 3, 675–700

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Carbery, J

    A. Carbery, J. Vance, S. Wainger and D. Watson, The Hilbert transform and maximal function along flat curves, dilations, and di fferential equations, Amer. J. Math. 116 (1994), no. 5, 1203–1239

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Carbery, S

    A. Carbery, S. Wainger and J. Wright, Hilbert transforms and maximal functions along vari- able flat plane curves, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. Special Issue (1995), 119–139

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Carlsson, M

    H. Carlsson, M. Christ, A. C ´ordoba, J. Duoandikoetxea, J.L. Rubio de Francia, J. Vance, S. Wainger and D. Weinberg,Lp estimates for maximal functions and Hilbert transforms along flat convex curves in R2, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 14 (1986), no. 2, 263–267

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Chen and J

    X. Chen and J. Guo, A polynomial Roth theorem for corners in R2 and a related bilinear singular integral operator, Math. Ann. 390 (2024), no. 1, 255–301

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Christ, P

    M. Christ, P. Durcik and J. Roos, Trilinear smoothing inequalities and a variant of the trian- gular Hilbert transform, Adv. Math. 390 (2021), Paper No. 107863, 60 pp

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    C ´ordoba, A

    A. C ´ordoba, A. Nagel, J. Vance, S. Wainger and D. Weinberg, Lp bounds for Hilbert trans- forms along convex curves, Invent. Math. 83 (1986), no. 1, 59–71

    work page 1986

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Di Plinio, S

    F. Di Plinio, S. Guo, C. Thiele and P. Zorin-Kranich, Square functions for bi-Lipschitz maps and directional operators, J. Funct. Anal. 275 (2018), no. 8, 2015–2058

    2018

  2. [10]

    Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis, Third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 249, Springer, New York, 2014

    L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis, Third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 249, Springer, New York, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Grafakos, Modern Fourier analysis, Third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 250, Springer, New York, 2014

    L. Grafakos, Modern Fourier analysis, Third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 250, Springer, New York, 2014

    2014

  4. [12]

    Grafakos, On multilinear fractional integrals, Studia Math

    L. Grafakos, On multilinear fractional integrals, Studia Math. 102 (1992), no. 1, 49–56

    1992

  5. [13]

    Grafakos, Strong type endpoint bounds for analytic families of fractional integrals, Proc

    L. Grafakos, Strong type endpoint bounds for analytic families of fractional integrals, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 117 (1993), no. 3, 653–663

    1993

  6. [14]

    Grafakos and N

    L. Grafakos and N. Kalton, Some remarks on multilinear maps and interpolation, Math. Ann. 319 (2001), no. 1, 151–180

    2001

  7. [15]

    Grafakos and X

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

    2004

  8. [16]

    Gressman, Convolution and fractional integration with measures on homogeneous curves in Rn, Math

    P. Gressman, Convolution and fractional integration with measures on homogeneous curves in Rn, Math. Res. Lett. 11 (2004), no. 5–6, 869–881

    2004

  9. [17]

    Guo and L

    J. Guo and L. Xiao, Bilinear Hilbert transforms associated with plane curves, J. Geom. Anal. 26 (2016), no. 2, 967–995

    2016

  10. [18]

    S. Guo, J. Hickman, V . Lie and J. Roos, Maximal operators and Hilbert transforms along variable non-flat homogeneous curves, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 115 (2017), no. 1, 177–219

    2017

  11. [19]

    Iosevich, Maximal operators associated to families of flat curves in the plane, Duke Math

    A. Iosevich, Maximal operators associated to families of flat curves in the plane, Duke Math. J. 76 (1994), no. 2, 633–644

    1994

  12. [20]

    Jones, A class of singular integrals, Amer

    B.F. Jones, A class of singular integrals, Amer. J. Math. 86 (1964), 441–462

    1964

  13. [21]

    Kenig and E.M

    C.E. Kenig and E.M. Stein, Multilinear estimates and fractional integration, Math. Res. Lett. 6 (1999), no. 1, 1–15. Erratum to: Multilinear estimates and fractional integration, Math. Res. Lett. 6 (1999), no. 3–4, 467. 30 Junfeng Li, Haixia Yu and Minqun Zhao

    1999

  14. [22]

    Lacey and C

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

    1997

  15. [23]

    Lacey and C

    M.T. Lacey and C. Thiele, On Calder ´on’s conjecture, Ann. of Math. 149 (1999), no. 2, 475– 496

    1999

  16. [24]

    Li and J

    G. Li and J. Li, The boundedness of a bilinear oscillatory integral, Adv. Anal. Geom., 6, De Gruyter, Berlin, 2022, 123–133

    2022

  17. [25]

    Li and J

    G. Li and J. Li, The boundedness of the bilinear oscillatory integral along a parabola, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 66 (2023), no. 1, 54–88

    2023

  18. [26]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Liu, Bilinear fractional integral along homogeneous curves, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 23 (2017), no. 6, 1465–1479

    2017

  19. [27]

    Li and H

    J. Li and H. Yu, Bilinear Hilbert transforms and (sub)bilinear maximal functions along con- vex curves, Pacific J. Math. 310 (2021), no. 2, 375–446

    2021

  20. [28]

    Li and H

    J. Li and H. Yu, Lp boundedness of Carleson and Hilbert transforms along plane curves with certain curvature constraints, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 28 (2022), no. 1, Paper No. 11, 33 pp

    2022

  21. [29]

    Li and H

    J. Li and H. Yu, L2 boundedness of Hilbert transforms along variable flat curves, Math. Z. 298 (2021), no. 3–4, 1573–1591

    2021

  22. [30]

    Li, Bilinear Hilbert transforms along curves I: The monomial case, Anal

    X. Li, Bilinear Hilbert transforms along curves I: The monomial case, Anal. PDE 6 (2013), no. 1, 197–220

    2013

  23. [31]

    Li, Uniform bounds for the bilinear Hilbert transforms

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

    2006

  24. [32]

    Li and L

    X. Li and L. Xiao, Uniform estimates for bilinear Hilbert transforms and bilinear maximal functions associated to polynomials, Amer. J. Math. 138 (2016), no. 4, 907–962

    2016

  25. [33]

    non-flat

    V . Lie, On the boundedness of the bilinear Hilbert transform along “non-flat” smooth curves, Amer. J. Math. 137 (2015), no. 2, 313–363

    2015

  26. [34]

    non-flat

    V . 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 (2018), no. 1, 331–353

    2018

  27. [35]

    N. Liu, L. Song and H. Yu, Lp bounds of maximal operators along variable planar curves in the Lipschitz regularity, J. Funct. Anal. 280 (2021), no. 5, Paper No. 108888, 40 pp

    2021

  28. [36]

    Liu and H

    N. Liu and H. Yu, Hilbert transforms along variable planar curves: Lipschitz regularity, J. Funct. Anal. 282 (2022), no. 4, Paper No. 109340, 36 pp

    2022

  29. [37]

    Nagel, J

    A. Nagel, J. Vance, S. Wainger and D. Weinberg, Hilbert transforms for convex curves, Duke Math. J. 50 (1983), no. 3, 735–744

    1983

  30. [38]

    Pierce, A note on discrete fractional integral operators on the Heisenberg group, Int

    L.B. Pierce, A note on discrete fractional integral operators on the Heisenberg group, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN(2012), no. 1, 17–33

    2012

  31. [39]

    Ricci and E.M

    F. Ricci and E.M. Stein, Harmonic analysis on nilpotent groups and singular integrals. III. Fractional integration along manifolds, J. Funct. Anal. 86 (1989), no. 2, 360–389

    1989

  32. [40]

    Secco, Fractional integration along homogeneous curves in R3, Math

    S. Secco, Fractional integration along homogeneous curves in R3, Math. Scand. 85 (1999), no. 2, 259–270

    1999

  33. [41]

    Seeger and S

    A. Seeger and S. Wainger, Bounds for singular fractional integrals and related Fourier inte- gral operators, J. Funct. Anal. 199 (2003), no. 1, 48–91

    2003

  34. [42]

    E.M. Stein, Harmonic Analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory inte- grals, Princeton Mathematical Series 43, Monographs in Harmonic Analysis III, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. Bilinear Fractional Integrals 31

    1993

  35. [43]

    Stein and S

    E.M. Stein and S. Wainger, Discrete analogues in harmonic analysis. II. Fractional integra- tion, J. Anal. Math. 80 (2000), 335–355

    2000

  36. [44]

    Stein and S

    E.M. Stein and S. Wainger, Problems in harmonic analysis related to curvature, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 84 (1978), no. 6, 1239–1295. Junfeng Li School of Mathematical Sciences, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, People’s Republic of China E-mail: junfengli@dlut.edu...

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.