Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

$L^2$ restriction estimates from the Fourier spectrum

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 range of q for an L2-based Fourier restriction estimate is controlled by the whole Fourier spectrum of the measure, and optimizing over this spectrum improves the restriction range for the cone, the moment…

desk verdict The Fourier-spectrum framework is a real new tool for L2 restriction and the stress-test concern about Young's inequality does not hold up on reading; this deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14896 v2 pith:FOKHUA4X submitted 2024-12-19 math.CA math.FAmath.MG

Marc Carnovale , Jonathan M. Fraser , Ana E. de Orellana This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CAmath.FAmath.MG MSC 42B1028A8042B2028A7528A78
keywords FourierrestrictionspectrumStein-TomastheoremFrostmandimensionSobolevLorentzspacesconemomentcurve
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 the classical Stein-Tomas restriction theorem for measures on $\mathbb{R}^d$ can be improved by replacing the single Fourier dimension with the entire Fourier spectrum, a family of dimensions that interpolates between the Fourier and Sobolev dimensions. The main theorem gives a continuum of $L^2 \to L^q$ extension estimates parameterized by $\theta \in [0,1]$, and optimizing over $\theta$ yields a range of $q$ that often beats the classical range. The same spectral information also gives a strengthened negative result: a range of $q$ for which no restriction estimate can hold, generalizing an earlier lower-bound observation. The authors compute the Fourier spectrum explicitly for the cone and the moment curve, where the new upper bound comes within a small additive constant of the sharp range and the new lower bound recovers the known necessary condition. For fractal measures convolved with a small Salem component, the improvement over the classical range can be large.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fourier spectrum of a measure: for $\theta \in (0,1]$, $\dim_F^\theta \mu = \sup\{s : J_{s,\theta}(\mu)<\infty\}$, where $$J_{s,\$\theta$}(\mu)=\Big(\int |\widehat{\mu}(\xi)|^{2/\$\theta$} |\xi|^{s/\$\theta$-d}\,d\xi\Big)^\$\theta$,$$ with the $\theta=0$ case defined by a sup norm. This one-parameter family interpolates between the Fourier dimension at $\theta=0$ and the Sobolev dimension at $\theta=1$, and it is concave and continuous for compactly supported measures. The proof of the main theorem decomposes the measure into dyadic frequency pieces $\widehat{\mu}_j$, estimates each piece in $L^2$ using the Frostman condition and in $L^{4/\theta}$ using the finiteness of $J_{s,\theta}(\mu)$, and interpolates between the two bounds. Optimizing the interpolation parameter over the spectrum produces the continuum of thresholds; the endpoint result uses Lorentz spaces and a real-interpolation lemma for sums of dyadic operators.

What would settle it

Compute the true threshold of the $L^2 \to L^q$ extension estimate for a measure whose Fourier spectrum is known explicitly, such as the cone in $\mathbb{R}^5$: the paper predicts the estimate holds for all $q > 11/3$, so finding any $q \geq 11/3$ where it fails would falsify the main theorem. More fundamentally, directly verifying the underlying dyadic estimate $\|\widehat{\mu}_j * f\|_{L^2} \lesssim 2^{j(d-\alpha)}\|f\|_{L^2}$ on an $\alpha$-Frostman measure would test the load-bearing exponent on which all thresholds depend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the rate of decay of the Fourier transform of a measure has a whole continuum of useful meanings. For each $\theta \in [0,1]$, the Fourier spectrum $\dim_F^\theta \mu$ measures decay in a weighted $L^{2/\theta}$ sense, with $\theta=0$ recovering the Fourier dimension and $\theta=1$ recovering the Sobolev dimension. Theorem 3.1 states that if $\mu$ is a compactly supported Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}^d$ with Frostman dimension $\alpha$, then $\|\widehat{f\mu}\|_{L^q(\mathbb{R}^d)} \lesssim \|f\|_{L^2(\mu)}$ for all $q$ larger than $$2 + 2 \inf_{\$\theta$\in[0,1],\, \dim_F^\$\theta$\mu>d\$\theta$} \frac{(d-\$\alpha$)(2-\$\theta$)}{\dim_F^\$\theta$\mu-\$\alpha$\$\theta$}.$$ The proof interpolates the standard dyadic $L^2$ estimate, whose decay exponent is set by the Frostman dimension, against a new $L^{4/\theta}$ estimate derived directly from the finiteness of the $(s,\theta)$-energy $J_{s,\theta}(\mu)$; optimizing the interpolation parameter over the spectrum produces the continuum of thresholds. An endpoint version is proved through Lorentz spaces and a real-interpolation trick for sums of dyadic operators. The paper also proves a partial converse: if $J_{d\theta,\theta}(\mu)=\infty$ for some $\theta$, then the restriction estimate fails for the constant function at $q=2/\theta$, giving a negative range in terms of the spectrum that matches the necessary condition for the cone and moment curve.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on a known estimate that says the high-frequency pieces of a measure decay at a very specific rate set by its Frostman dimension; if that rate were even slightly different, every threshold in the paper would move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any measure satisfying the hypotheses, the new range contains the classical Stein-Tomas range and is sometimes strictly larger: at $\theta=0$ the formula reduces to the classical range, while optimizing over $\theta$ can improve it.
  • For the cone in $\mathbb{R}^d$ with $d\geq 5$, the paper obtains the extension estimate for $q > (3d-4)/(d-2)$, beating the Stein-Tomas range $q>4$; for $d=3,4$ it recovers the known sharp ranges.
  • For the moment curve, the paper obtains the range $q > d^2+d+2$, within 2 of the sharp exponent $d^2+d$, and Theorem 3.6 gives failure for $q < (d^2+d+2)/2$, matching the known necessary condition.
  • For multifractal Cantor measures convolved with a small Salem component, Theorem 3.1 gives a restriction range far better than Stein-Tomas; for $p=0.6$ and $\varepsilon=0.067$, the new threshold is $q>7.99$ versus $q>29.95$.
  • Corollary 6.1 gives a Sobolev-dimension version of the restriction theorem: if $\dim_S\mu<d$ and the Fourier dimension is positive, then the extension estimate holds for $q > 4 + 4(d-\dim_S\mu)/\dim_F\mu$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not stated in the paper: the same interpolation mechanism should also yield $L^p$ restriction estimates for $p\neq 2$ by interpolating the Fourier-spectrum estimates against the trivial $L^1\to L^\infty$ bound, at the cost of a more complicated threshold.
  • Not stated in the paper: because Theorem 3.6 recovers the sharp necessary condition for the cone and moment curve, the Fourier spectrum may be the right structural object for identifying the true restriction threshold for fractal measures, not just an upper-bound tool.
  • A testable extension: one could search for measures whose Fourier spectra have more than the $d-2$ phase transitions seen on the moment curve and check whether the restriction threshold changes at each breakpoint.
  • The explicit cone and moment-curve spectra suggest that the Fourier spectrum of a curved surface is piecewise linear with breakpoints marking where different parts of the surface dominate the Fourier transform; testing other surfaces of revolution could reveal whether the optimal restriction threshold is always achieved at such a phase transition.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Fourier-spectrum generalization of the Stein–Tomas restriction theorem for measures. Theorem 3.1 claims an L^q→L^2 extension bound for measures whose Fourier spectrum lies above the diagonal dθ, with an optimized threshold over θ. Theorem 3.2 extends this to Lorentz spaces, and Section 3.2 gives a partial converse (Theorem 3.6). The paper also computes the Fourier spectrum for the cone and moment curve and uses the main theorems to derive restriction ranges for these examples and for fractal measures. The negative-direction results and the explicit spectrum computations are self-contained and appear correct, but the proof of the central positive results rests on a claimed equivalence that is false.

Significance. If the main positive results were valid, they would provide a new, flexible tool for L^2 restriction theory by converting information about the Fourier spectrum into restriction ranges that often improve on Stein–Tomas. The explicit computations of the Fourier spectrum for the cone and the moment curve (Propositions 7.2 and 8.1) are valuable in their own right, as are the general negative results in Theorem 3.6 and Corollary 3.7. However, the central derivation is invalid because the proof establishes a different estimate than the theorem claims, and the asserted equivalence between these estimates is false. The paper is clearly written and well organized, and the referee verified that the Young-inequality step in Eq. (3.2) is correct as a bound for the convolution operator with the Fourier multiplier; the difficulty is not there but in the mismatch between the proved estimate and the stated restriction theorem.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1.1, Proof of Theorem 3.1] The equivalence asserted between the L^2 restriction estimate (1.1) with p=2 and the convolution estimate (1.2) is false. The dual of R: L^{q'}→L^2(μ), R(f)=\hat f|_μ, is the extension operator E: L^2(μ)→L^q, E(g)=\widehat{g μ}, and \|R\|=\|E\|. The operator in (1.2) is T f = \hat μ * f, and \|T f\|_q = \|\widehat{f^\vee μ}\|_q while \|f\|_{q'} = \|\widehat{f^\vee}\|_{q'}. Thus T measures the norm of the extension operator on the subspace of functions whose Fourier transform lies in L^{q'}, with respect to the L^{q'} norm of that Fourier transform, not on L^2(μ). A concrete counterexample is the surface measure σ on the sphere S^{d-1}: the Stein–Tomas L^2 restriction estimate holds for q ≥ 2(d+1)/(d-1), but \|\hat σ\|_{(d+1)/(d-1)} = ∞, so (1.2) fails for that q (Young's inequality would require \hat σ ∈ L^p with p=(d+1)/(d-1)). Consequently, proving (1.2) does not prove the restriction estimate (1.1) with p=2.
  2. [Section 4, Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 3.2] The proof explicitly seeks to establish the L^{q'}→L^q bound for the convolution operator f ↦ \hat μ * f, which is (1.2). The dyadic decomposition in (3.1) is applied to this operator, and the interpolation in (3.2)–(3.4) uses the L^{4/(4-θ)}→L^{4/θ} estimate for that operator and the L^2→L^2 estimate for the same operator. No step uses the L^2(μ) norm of the function f that appears in the theorem's conclusion. In a genuine proof of the extension estimate \|\widehat{f μ}\|_q ≲ \|f\|_{L^2(μ)}, one would decompose \widehat{f μ} = \hat f * \hat μ and estimate each dyadic piece by \|f\|_{L^2(μ)} times a j-dependent factor. The proof here instead estimates \hat μ_j * f by \|f\|_{q'}, so even if every displayed inequality is correct, the argument does not reach the stated L^2(μ)→L^q conclusion. This is a load-bearing gap, not a local issue.
  3. [Section 7, Application to the cone] The endpoint and Lorentz-space results inherit the same defect. The estimates (4.5) and (4.6) are exactly the bounds for the convolution operator \hat μ_j * f from (3.2) and (3.3), and Bourgain's interpolation trick is applied to prove restricted weak-type bounds for that operator. The conclusion (4.3) is an L^{p,q}→L^{r,q} estimate for the convolution operator, not for the extension operator E(g)=\widehat{g μ}. Since the paper's Theorem 3.2 is derived from Proposition 4.2 via the identity (4.4), which treats f as an L^{q'} function on R^d, the endpoint estimate does not follow from the proved Lorentz-space bounds for the desired L^2(μ) input.
  4. [Section 3.1.1, Eq. (3.2)] The claimed improvement for the cone, q > (3d-4)/(d-2) for d ≥ 5, depends entirely on Theorem 3.1. Since the proof of Theorem 3.1 is invalid for the reasons above, the application is unsupported. The referee notes that Proposition 7.2, the explicit computation of dim_θ^F ν_{d-1}, may be correct and useful; however, its use in Section 7 relies on the unproved restriction theorem. The same caveat applies to the moment-curve example in Section 8 and the fractal examples in Section 9, which are all consequences of Theorems 3.1 or 3.2.
  5. [Section 3.1.1, Eq. (3.3)] The referee investigated the specific objection raised in the stress-test note regarding Young's inequality. That objection is not valid: in the operator f ↦ \hat μ_j * f, the function being convolved is literally \hat μ_j, so Young's inequality with norm \|\hat μ_j\|_{L^{2/θ}} is a correct application. The problem lies not in this step but in the fact that the resulting estimate is for the wrong operator relative to the theorem statement.
  6. [Section 1.1, Eq. (1.2)] The estimate (3.3) quoted from [Moc00] is, for j ≥ 0, weaker than the trivial bound \|\hat μ_j * f\|_2 ≤ \|\hat μ_j\|_∞ \|f\|_2 ≤ \|f\|_2, since the exponent 2^{-j(α_0-d)} = 2^{j(d-α_0)} ≥ 1 for α_0 < d. Thus the Frostman hypothesis is not actually used to obtain a useful decay in this step; the interpolation weight in (3.4) comes entirely from the (3.2) side. This is not by itself an error, but it shows that the role of the Frostman exponent in the proof is different from what the text suggests.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several references to 'Hambrook and /suppress Laba' are corrupted by a LaTeX artifact; the intended name is 'Hambrook and Łaba'.
  2. [Section 1.2] The name 'Mockenhaupt' is misspelled as 'Mochenhaupt' in the first paragraph.
  3. [Section 7.1] The notation B_k(0,r) for balls in R^k is used but not defined in the proof of Proposition 7.2; it would help to state it explicitly.
  4. [Theorem 3.1] The condition dim_F^θ μ > dθ should be read as 'for some θ' inside the infimum; the text is clear but a parenthetical remark would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The main restriction theorem is derived from the Fourier spectrum as an input and is not circular; however, the advertised converse (Theorem 3.6) is a definitional tautology: the hypothesis J_{dθ,θ}=∞ is exactly the divergence of the L^{2/θ} norm of \hat\mu, so the “failure range” is a restatement of the definition.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Proof of Theorem 3.6]
    "Let f = 1 and θ ∈ (0, 1] be such that Jdθ,θ(µ) = ∞. Then ∞ = Jdθ,θ(µ) = ( ∫ |\hat µ(ξ)|^{2/θ} dξ )^θ = \|\hat f µ\|^2_{L^{2/θ}(R^d)}, as required."

    The hypothesis and the conclusion are the same object by definition. J_{s,θ}(µ) is defined as (∫ |\hatµ|^{2/θ}|\xi|^{s/θ-d})^{\theta}; at s=dθ this is exactly (\int|\hatµ|^{2/θ})^\theta = \|\hatµ\|_{L^{2/θ}}^2. Taking f=1, the claimed failure \|\hat fµ\|_{L^{2/θ}}=∞ is precisely J_{dθ,θ}(µ)=∞. Thus Theorem 3.6 does not derive a restriction failure from an independent Fourier-spectrum condition; it rewrites the definition of the Fourier spectrum as a “failure range.” Corollary 3.7 inherits the same tautology. The nontrivial work in the later cone and moment-curve applications lies in computing dim^θ_F, not in the logical content of Theorem 3.6.

full rationale

The central positive result (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2) takes the Fourier spectrum as an input and interpolates it with Mockenhaupt's Frostman-based L^2 estimate (3.3); the threshold formulas are explicit functions of dim^θ_F and α, and no parameter is fitted to the target restriction estimates. The cited self-works ([Fra24], [CFdO24+], [FdO24+]) provide the definition of the Fourier spectrum and auxiliary dimension bounds used in examples; they are not invoked as an external uniqueness theorem and do not force the main range. The one step that reduces by construction is the converse Theorem 3.6, where J_{dθ,θ}=∞ is literally equal to the L^{2/θ} divergence of \hat\mu, making the stated failure range a re-encoding of the definition; this is flagged above. The separate objection that inequality (3.2) misapplies Young's inequality to the Fourier multiplier rather than the convolution kernel is a correctness or rigor concern, not a circularity, and therefore does not enter the circularity score.

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

The central theorem rests on the definition and structural properties of the Fourier spectrum from [Fra24], on Mockenhaupt's L2 estimate [Moc00], and on standard interpolation and asymptotics. No parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are introduced. The examples use additional external results ([BGGIST07], [Fra24], [Kha23+]), listed as domain assumptions.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Fourier spectrum dim^theta_F mu is non-decreasing, concave, and continuous in theta on [0,1], with dim^0_F mu = dim_F mu and dim^1_F mu = dim_S mu.
    Invoked as the definition and main properties of the Fourier spectrum from [Fra24, Theorem 1.1], used throughout the proofs of Theorems 3.1, 3.2, and Corollaries 3.4 and 6.1.
  • domain assumption For an alpha-Frostman measure, the dyadic convolution operators satisfy || mu-hat_j * f ||_{L^2} <~ 2^{j(d-alpha)} ||f||_{L^2}.
    Equation (3.3), quoted from [Moc00, Theorem 4.1]; this is the L2 endpoint used in the interpolation argument proving Theorem 3.1.
  • standard math Bourgain's interpolation trick (Lemma 4.1) correctly sums dyadic operators with polynomial norms.
    Used in Section 4 to prove the Lorentz-space endpoint Theorem 3.2.
  • standard math Bessel function asymptotics and the stationary phase estimates from [Mat15, Corollary 14.3] are valid.
    Used in the proof of Proposition 7.2 to compute the Fourier spectrum of the cone.
  • domain assumption The average decay estimates for Fourier transforms of measures on curves from [BGGIST07, Theorems 1.2-1.3] hold as stated.
    Used to derive the Fourier spectrum of the moment curve in Proposition 8.1.
  • domain assumption For the fractal examples, dim^theta_F m >= dim^theta_F mu_p + epsilon from [Fra24, Theorem 6.1], and the convolved noise is Salem.
    Used in Section 9 to bound the Fourier spectrum of the convolutions and to derive the improved restriction ranges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $L^2$ restriction estimates from the Fourier spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FOKHUA4X

@misc{pith2026241214896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $L^2$ restriction estimates from the Fourier spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FOKHUA4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14896}
}
abstract

The Stein--Tomas restriction theorem is an important result in Fourier restriction theory. It gives a range of $q$ for which $L^q\to L^2$ restriction estimates hold for a given measure, in terms of the Fourier and Frostman dimensions of the measure. We generalise this result by using the Fourier spectrum; a family of dimensions that interpolate between the Fourier and Sobolev dimensions for measures. This gives us a continuum of Stein--Tomas type estimates, and optimising over this continuum gives a new $L^q\to L^2$ restriction theorem which often outperforms the Stein--Tomas result. We also provide results in the other direction by giving a range of $q$ in terms of the Fourier spectrum for which $L^q\to L^2$ restriction estimates fail, generalising an observation of Hambrook and {\L}aba. We illustrate our results with several examples, including the surface measure on the cone, the moment curve, and several fractal measures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14896 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In order to improve the Stein–Tomas range for the restriction problem, we need the Fourier spectrum of µ to intersect the shaded region, i.e. for some θ ∈ [0, 1] we need the point (θ, dimθ F µ) to lie in the shaded region. Top left: when dimS µ > dimFr µ + dimF µ 2 and dimFr µ > dimF µ. Top right: when dimS µ > dimFr µ + dimF µ 2 and dimFr µ < dimF µ. Bottom left: when dimS µ < dimFr µ + dimF µ 2 and dimFr µ < dimF … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Fourier spectrum of νd−1 on the cone C d−1 for d = 3, . . . , 6; see Proposition 7.2. We defer the proof of the theorem to the end of the section; see Subsection 7.1. From Theorem 3.1 we know that kfν\d−1kLq(Rd) . kfkL2(νd−1) if q > 2 + 2 inf θ∈[0,1] dimθ F µ>dθ (d − α)(2 − θ) dimθ F µ − αθ , For d = 3, 4 the spectrum is affine, and we can do nothing more than recover Stein–Tomas (respectively, q > 6, 4), but th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bounds for the range of q for the restriction estimate (1.2) to hold for the cone in R d . The dashed lines are the Stein–Tomas upper bound and the Hambrook– Laba lower bound, the dotted line is the sharp result, and the solid lines are our upper and lower bounds for the threshold. These plots should be understood as only applying to integer points in the domain, but we included the full curve for aesthetic reasons.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Fourier spectrum of the arclength measure on the moment curve in R 8 ; see Proposition 8.1. There are 6 phase transitions and the Fourier dimension is 1/4. Let us now examine extension estimates coming from Proposition 8.1. For p = 2, the Stein– Tomas range is q > …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bounds for the range of q for the extension estimate (1.2) to hold for the moment curve in R d . The dashed lines are the Stein–Tomas upper bound and the Hambrook– Laba lower bound, the dotted line is the sharp result, and the solid lines are our upper and lower bounds…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Lower bound on the range of q for the restriction estimate (1.2) to hold for the measure µ0.6 ∗ νε, as a function of ε. Note that the bound obtained from Theorem 3.1 is only valid for values of ε greater than 0.067. Curiously, if in the previous example we set ε = 0.7,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Knapp-type obstructions in multilinear fractal Fourier extension

    math.CA 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Multilinear fractal Fourier extension estimates hold when the convolved measures have an L^p density, and fail outside a new, more restrictive range built from Knapp-type examples with linearly independent arithmetic ...

  2. Applications of dimension interpolation to orthogonal projections

    math.MG 2025-02 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    This survey shows how the Assouad spectrum, intermediate dimensions, and Fourier spectrum yield sharper projection theorems for fractal sets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. Barcelo. On the Restriction of the Fourier Transform to a Conical Surface. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 292, pp. 321--333 (1985)

    work page 1985

  2. [2]

    Brandolini, G

    L. Brandolini, G. Gigante, A. Greenleaf, A. Iosevich, A. Seeger, and G. Travaglini. Average decay estimates for Fourier transforms of measures supported on curves. J. Geom. Anal., 17(1), pp. 15--40 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Estimations de certaines fonctions maximales

    Bourgain, J. Estimations de certaines fonctions maximales. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. . 301, 499-502 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    J.-G. Bak, D. M. Oberlin and A. Seeger. Restriction of Fourier Transforms to Curves and Related Oscillatory Integrals. Amer. J. Math. , 131(2), 277--311 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Bak and A

    J.-G. Bak and A. Seeger. Extensions of the Stein--Tomas Theorem. Math. Res. Lett., 18(4), pp. 767--781 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Carnovale, J

    M. Carnovale, J. M. Fraser and A. E. de Orellana. Obtaining the Fourier spectrum via Fourier coefficients. preprint: arXiv:2403.12603 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12603 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    X. Chen. A Fourier restriction theorem based on convolution powers. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 142(11), pp. 3897--3901 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    X. Chen. Sets of Salem type and sharpness of the L^2 -Fourier restriction theorem. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 368(3), pp. 1959--1977 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Carleson and P

    L. Carleson and P. Sj\"olin. Oscillatory integrals and multiplier problem for the disc. Studia Math., 44, pp. 287--299 (1972)

    1972

  2. [10]

    Chen and A

    X. Chen and A. Seeger. Convolution Powers of Salem Measures With Applications. Canad. J. Math., 69(2), pp. 284--320 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Carbery, A

    A. Carbery, A. Seeger, S. Wainger and J. Wright. Classes of singular integral operators along variable lines. J. Geom. Anal. , 9, pp. 583-605 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    C. Demeter. Fourier Restriction, Decoupling, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    S. W. Drury. Restrictions of Fourier transforms to curves, Annales de l'institut Fourier, 35 (1), pp. 117--123 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    K. J. Falconer. Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications , John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 3rd. ed., (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Fefferman

    C. Fefferman. Inequalities for strongly singular convolution operators. Acta Math., 124, pp. 9--36 (1970)

    1970

  8. [16]

    J. M. Fraser. The Fourier spectrum and sumset type problems, Math. Ann., 390, pp. 3891--3930 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    J. M. Fraser and A. E. de Orellana. A Fourier analytic approach to exceptional set estimates for orthogonal projections. Indiana U. Math. J. (to appear), preprint: arXiv:2404.11179 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.11179 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Grafakos

    L. Grafakos. Classical Fourier analysis. (New York, NY: Springer,2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Z. Gao, C. Xu and J. Zheng. Fourier Restriction Implies Maximal and Variational Fourier Restriction in Lorentz Space. Front. Math., 19, pp. 609--628 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    O. Khalil. Exponential Mixing Via Additive Combinatorics. Preprint, available at: arXiv:2305.00527 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00527, (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Keel and T

    M. Keel and T. Tao. Endpoint Strichartz estimates. Amer. J. Math., 120(5), pp. 955--980 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    Hambrook and I

    K. Hambrook and I. aba. On the Sharpness of Mockenhaupt’s Restriction Theorem. Geom. Funct. Anal., 23, pp. 1262--1277 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Hambrook and I

    K. Hambrook and I. aba. On the Sharpness of Mockenhaupt--Mitsis--Bak--Seeger Restriction Theorem in Higher Dimensions. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 48, pp. 757--770 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Li and B

    L. Li and B. Liu. Dimension of Diophantine approximation and applications. preprint: arXiv:2409.12826 https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.12826 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Liang and M

    Y. Liang and M. Pramanik. Fourier dimension and avoidance of linear patterns. Adv. Math., 399(108252), (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    aba and H

    I. aba and H. Wang. Decoupling and Near-optimal Restriction Estimates for Cantor Sets. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 2018(9), pp. 2944--2966 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    P. Mattila. Fourier analysis and Hausdorff dimension. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 150, Cambridge, (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    T. Mitsis. A Stein–Tomas restriction theorem for general measures. Publ. Math. Debrecen , 60, pp. 89--99 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    Mockenhaupt

    G. Mockenhaupt. Salem sets and restriction properties of Fourier transforms. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 10, pp. 1579--1587 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    Oliveira e Silva

    D. Oliveira e Silva. Correction to: The endpoint Stein--Tomas inequality: old and new. S\ ao Paulo J. Math. Sci. (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ou and H

    Y. Ou and H. Wang. A cone restriction estimate using polynomial partitioning. J. Eur. Math. Soc., 24, pp. 3557--3595 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    K. Salem. On singular monotonic functions whose spectrum has a given Hausdorff dimension. Ark. Mat., 1, pp. 353--365 (1951)

    1951

  25. [33]

    Solomyak

    B. Solomyak. Fourier decay of self-similar measures. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 149, pp. 3277--3291 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Shmerkin and V

    P. Shmerkin and V. Suomala. Spatially independent martingales, intersections, and applications. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society. 251(1195), Cambridge, (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    E. M. Stein. Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. With the assistance of T. S. Murphy, (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    Strichartz

    R. Strichartz. Restrictions of Fourier transforms to quadratic surfaces and decay of solutions of wave equations. Duke Math. J. , 44, pp. 477--478 (1977)

    1977

  29. [37]

    Stein and G

    E. Stein and G. Weiss. Introduction to Fourier Analysis on Euclidean Spaces. Princeton University Press, (1971)

    1971

  30. [38]

    P. A. Tomas. A restriction theorem for the Fourier transform. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. , 81, pp. 705--714 (1975)

    1975

  31. [39]

    T. Wolff. A Sharp Bilinear Cone Restriction Estimate. Ann Of Math. , 153, pp. 661--698 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.