Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Endpoint estimates for the fractal circular maximal function and related local smoothing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 In the plane, the fractal circular maximal function now has its missing endpoint bound at every Assouad dimension, and a sparse-time bilinear argument widens the sharp local smoothing range.

desk verdict The endpoint theorem is real and the main proof chain appears sound; Theorem 1.4 rests on a deferred uniformity argument (Corollary 3.5) that a referee should ask to be written out, plus a small α=1 gap in the parameter choice. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20390 v1 pith:LSDGJVGK submitted 2025-06-25 math.CA

Sanghyuk Lee , Luz Roncal , Feng Zhang , Shuijiang Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CA MSC 35L0542B2028A80
keywords fractalcircularmaximalfunctionsphericaloperatorAssouaddimensionrestrictedweaktypeestimateslocalsmoothingwaveequationbilinearconerestrictiondilationsets
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 closes the last open endpoint case for the circular maximal function in two dimensions. For a dilation set $E\subset[1,2]$ whose Assouad dimension is $\alpha$ and whose $\alpha$-Assouad characteristic is bounded, it proves that the maximal operator $M_E$ is of restricted weak type at the point $(1/p_\alpha,1/q_\alpha)=(2/(2\alpha+3),1/(2\alpha+3))$, the endpoint that was missing when $\alpha\in[1/2,1]$. It also proves a local smoothing estimate for the wave operator over fractal time sets with the sharp regularity exponent, valid for all $q>\frac{2(d-1+2\alpha)^2-4\alpha^2}{(d-1)(d-1+2\alpha)}$. If correct, the full type set of the planar circular maximal function is determined at the endpoint, and the sharp local smoothing range is strictly wider than previously known.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a bilinear restriction estimate for the cone over a sparse union of time intervals (Theorem 3.2): for caps $\Theta,\Theta'$ at distance $\sim1$, the product of two adjoint restriction operators satisfies $\|R^*f\,R^*g\|_{L^{q/2}(\mathbb{R}^d\times\Gamma)}\le C\|f\|_2\|g\|_2$ for $q>\tilde q_\circ=2(d-1+4\alpha)/(d-1+2\alpha)$, provided the interval collection obeys the counting bound $\#\{I\in\mathcal I:I\cap(t,t+r)\neq\varnothing\}\le C r^\alpha$. The proof runs an induction-on-scales argument with a wave packet decomposition at scale $R^{-1/2}$, a key lemma (Lemma 3.3) that separates the wave packets of $f$ and $g$ into aligned and non-aligned parts, and an $\epsilon$-removal step to convert polynomial losses into the sharp exponent. A uniform-in-$\theta$ version of the same estimate for rescaled cone operators $T_\theta$ (Corollary 3.5) is then used, after parabolic rescaling, to turn the sparse-time bilinear bound into the linear local smoothing estimate (1.4).

What would settle it

A concrete calculation: take a $2^{-j}$-separated Cantor-type set $E$ as in Lemma 4.1, with $A_\alpha(E;2^{-j})$ and $\tilde A_\alpha(E;2^{-j})$ both bounded, and test the estimate (1.4) for $q$ just above the threshold in Theorem 1.4 but below the previously known range. If the estimate fails for any fixed $\alpha\in(0,1]$, Theorem 1.4's range is refuted; if it passes, check separately whether the uniform-in-$\theta$ bilinear bound in Corollary 3.5 can actually be proven, since that is the step the paper leaves to a brief explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the missing piece is an $L^p$-$L^q$ restricted weak-type bound for the operator $M_E$, defined by taking the supremum of circular averages over times $t\in E$, at the boundary point $Q_{4,\alpha}=(2/(2\alpha+3),1/(2\alpha+3))$ in the plane. Combining the locally constant property of the wave propagator at scale $2^{-j}$ with a bilinear restriction estimate for the cone, the proof reduces the maximal estimate to a local smoothing estimate over the $2^{-j}$-discretized set $E_j$; the bounded Assouad characteristic supplies the uniform control $A_\alpha(E_j;2^{-j})\le C$ that makes the $N^{1/q}$ factor harmless. Once the endpoint at $Q_{4,\alpha}$ is available, interpolation gives $L^p\to L^q$ boundedness on the two open segments $(Q_1,Q_{4,\alpha})$ and $(Q_{4,\alpha},Q_{3,\mu})$ when the dilation set also has bounded $\mu$-Minkowski characteristic. In the companion local smoothing result, a new bilinear restriction estimate over sparse time sets (Theorem 3.2) extends the sharp range of the estimate (1.4) with $s=s_c(p,q)$ to all $q$ above the displayed threshold, improving the previously known range from the $\mathrm{TT}^*$ arguments of [4] and [39].

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Theorem 1.4 rests on Corollary 3.5, which asserts that the key decomposition lemma and the $\epsilon$-removal argument from [9, 19, 40] remain valid uniformly in the rescaling parameter $\theta$ for the operators $T_\theta$; the paper states this can be verified but gives only a brief explanation, so a failure of that uniform stability would break the transfer of the sparse-time bilinear estimate to the rescaled operators and with it Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 1.4.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The missing endpoint at $Q_{4,\alpha}$ now holds for every $0<\alpha\le1$ in the plane, so the type set of the circular maximal function is known on the boundary segment through $Q_{4,\alpha}$ whenever $E$ has bounded $\alpha$-Assouad characteristic.
  • Adding a bounded $\mu$-Minkowski characteristic, the open line segments $(Q_1,Q_{4,\alpha})$ and $(Q_{4,\alpha},Q_{3,\mu})$ lie inside the $L^p\to L^q$ boundedness range.
  • The local smoothing estimate (1.4) holds with the optimal regularity exponent $s_c(p,q)$ for all $q$ above the threshold in Theorem 1.4, improving on the ranges obtained in [4] and [39].
  • With an $\epsilon$-loss in regularity, the range extends further, and in dimensions $d\ge4$ the loss can be removed using the known optimal local smoothing estimate for $q$ above $r_d=2+4/(d-3)$.
  • If Conjecture 1.3 is correct, the remaining gap is only the limiting case $q=2(d-1+2\alpha)/(d-1)$, where the paper itself shows the estimate fails without an additional $2^{\epsilon j}$ loss.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's two main theorems have different security levels: Theorem 1.2 rests only on the classical bilinear cone restriction estimates [40, 34] and Bourgain's summation trick, whereas Theorem 1.4 additionally depends on the uniform-in-$\theta$ stability of the wave packet decomposition. If forced to guess which part would survive a gap in the details, it would be Theorem 1.2.
  • The new bilinear estimate over sparse time sets suggests that the sharp threshold for Conjecture 1.3, namely $q=2(d-1+2\alpha)/(d-1)$, is a Knapp-type obstruction rather than a technical one; a natural test is whether multilinear refinements can reach it.
  • The paper's use of $\tilde A_\alpha(E;\delta)$, a stronger quantitative control than the bounded Assouad characteristic, indicates that endpoint local smoothing may require uniform control across all scales; Theorem 1.4's range may not be optimal for sets with only bounded Assouad characteristic.
  • Because the proof of Theorem 1.2 does not use the stronger $\tilde A_\alpha$ condition, the endpoint result for the circular maximal function is more robust than the local smoothing theorem, which may still admit an extension by removing the uniform-in-scale assumption.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two related problems for the circular/wave maximal operator with dilations restricted to a fractal set E ⊂ [1,2] of bounded Assouad characteristic. The first main result, Theorem 1.2, proves the missing endpoint restricted weak-type estimate for the fractal circular maximal operator in dimension d=2 at the point Q_{4,α} = (2/(2α+3), 1/(2α+3)) for 0<α≤1, complementing earlier results of Anderson–Hughes–Roos–Seeger and Roos–Seeger. The second main result, Theorem 1.4, establishes local smoothing estimates (1.4) with the sharp exponent s_c(p,q) for p,q satisfying (1.6) and q larger than an explicit threshold, extending previous ranges that were obtained via TT* arguments. The proofs combine bilinear cone restriction estimates, a sparse-time-set bilinear estimate, induction on scales, and Bourgain's summation trick. Section 4 gives independent sharpness examples showing that the exponent s_c(p,q) is necessary and that the marginal endpoint requires an epsilon loss. The paper is unconditional and contains no fitted parameters.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper resolves a concrete open endpoint problem posed by Roos–Seeger and extends the known range of sharp local smoothing estimates for wave propagation over fractal dilation sets. The endpoint result for the circular maximal operator is clean and likely to be influential. The sharpness constructions in Section 4 are independent and properly test the upper bounds. The main liability is that the proof of the new bilinear tool, Corollary 3.5, is only sketched and is load-bearing for Theorem 1.4; in addition, the proof of Proposition 3.1 has a small but real gap at α=1. These issues are local and appear fixable, so the work is promising but not yet in publishable form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Corollary 3.5] The uniform-in-θ bilinear estimate (3.22) is load-bearing: it is used to justify (3.32), which yields Proposition 3.6 and hence Theorem 1.4. The proof of Corollary 3.5, however, is only a sketch: it asserts that Lemma 3.3 and the ε-removal argument remain valid uniformly in θ because the phase ξ1 ϕ̃θ(ξ′/ξ1) converges to ξ1 ϕ̃0 in C^N, and it defers to [19, Lemma 3.1]. Pointwise C^N convergence of the phase does not by itself guarantee uniform constants in the wave-packet estimates (3.10)–(3.11) at scale R^{-1/2}, nor that the ε-removal lemma for the additional χ_{R^d×Γ} factor in (3.16)–(3.19) goes through with a single constant independent of θ. Since (3.22) is used directly in (3.32), the transition to Proposition 3.6 and Theorem 1.4 is unjustified without a complete proof of this uniform statement.
  2. [Section 3.2, proof of Proposition 3.1] In the proof of Proposition 3.1, a pair (p*,q*) is chosen via 2/p* = q̄◦/q* and equation (3.26) for 'some q̄◦ ∈ (q̃◦, q◦)'. For α = 1 one has q̃◦ = 2(d−1+4)/(d−1+2) = 2(d+3)/(d+1) = q◦, so the interval (q̃◦, q◦) is empty and the stated argument does not cover α = 1, which is included in Theorem 1.4. This is likely fixable by treating the endpoint q̄◦ = q◦ separately or by a limiting argument, but as written the proof is incomplete for the full range 0<α≤1 claimed in the theorem.
  3. [Section 3.1, proof of Theorem 3.2] The ε-removal step for the sparse time set Γ is also only sketched. After asserting (3.16), the paper says it follows from 'a routine adaptation' of [9] because the χ_{R^d×Γ} factor is controlled only in terms of |E|. This is not immediate: the covering lemma from [35,36] must produce a sparse collection compatible with the interval family I in (3.3)–(3.4), and the constants must remain independent of θ when this is used for Corollary 3.5. Please provide the details of this adaptation, including how the α-sparsity of Γ enters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, equation (2.3)] The displayed exponent '2(1− 2α+3/q)j' is ambiguous; it should presumably be 2^{(1-(2α+3)/q)j}. Please correct the formatting and similar exponents elsewhere.
  2. [Section 3.1, after (3.18)] The notation G is used with several meanings ('G', 'G^2', and the operator S from (2.4) and Remark 2.3). The text even notes 'we are actually abusing the notation G'. Please introduce distinct symbols or clarify the abuse precisely, especially in (3.18)–(3.19) and (3.30).
  3. [Section 4, Lemma 4.1] The verification that Aα(E;2^{-m}) ≲ 1 for all m ≤ j is stated as 'one can easily see'; since this uniformity is used for the sharpness results, a few more details would help the reader.
  4. [Section 3.3, q*(α,r)] The formula for q*(α,r) is asserted after 'a computation shows'. Please include the derivation or a reference, as this formula is used to state the ε-loss extension and Remark 3.8.
  5. [Throughout] The extracted text contains several typographical artifacts (e.g., 'ESTIMA TES', 'FRACT AL', 'H¨ older', '∂α'). Please proofread the final manuscript carefully before submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the endpoint and local-smoothing estimates are proved from external bilinear cone estimates and prior published lemmas; the only flagged item is a sketched uniform-in-theta argument, which is a gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: Theorem 1.2 is proved directly in Section 2 from the Wolff-Tao bilinear cone restriction theorem (Theorem 2.5), the rescaling/orthogonality lemmas, and Bourgain's summation trick; no parameter is fitted and no quantity is defined in terms of the target restricted-weak-type assertion. The missing endpoint is exactly the case d=2, alpha >= 1/2 left open by the cited Theorem 1.1, and the proof supplies Proposition 2.1 for this case rather than importing the endpoint from the authors' prior work. Theorem 1.4 runs through Proposition 3.1 and the sparse-time bilinear estimate Theorem 3.2; the use of the rescaled operators T_theta in Corollary 3.5 does not reduce to the conclusion of Theorem 1.4. The self-citations [18, 11, 19] are to previously published lemmas (summation trick, wave-packet decomposition, stability of conic geometry under smooth perturbation), none of which states the target endpoint or smoothing estimate, and each has external precursors (Bourgain, Wolff, Tao, Bourgain-Guth). Section 4's lower bounds are independent counterexamples that certify sharpness, not restatements of the upper-bound hypotheses. The only flagged item is that Corollary 3.5's uniform-in-theta stability is asserted with a sketch ('Instead of reproducing all the details') rather than a complete proof; that is a possible support gap or correctness risk, but it is not circularity, because the asserted uniform estimate is not obtained by assuming the conclusion of Theorem 1.4 or by renaming a fitted input as a prediction.

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

The theorems contain no fitted constants. The quantities α, d, p, q are variables of the statement, and the sharp exponent s_c(p,q) is forced by the counterexamples in Section 4, not chosen to fit. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or objects are introduced; the fractal set E and the operators are standard.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption E has bounded α-Assouad characteristic (1.3)
    This is the hypothesis that both main theorems require; without it the endpoint and local smoothing estimates can fail.
  • standard math Wolff-Tao bilinear cone restriction estimate (2.9), including Tao's endpoint q=q_◦
    Used as the core input in Proposition 2.6 and Proposition 2.9, which drive the d=2 endpoint proof.
  • standard math Lemma 3.3 (wave packet decomposition) from [11]/[40]
    Quoted without full proof; it provides the decomposition (3.9)-(3.11) used in the induction-on-scales proof of Theorem 3.2.
  • standard math ε-removal lemma [9, Lemma A.3] and Tao's covering lemma [35,36]
    Used at the end of Theorem 3.2's proof to pass from scale-dependent bounds to global L^q bounds; the paper notes the lemma works for any q>2.
  • domain assumption For the d=2 epsilon-loss result, the sharp L^4 local smoothing estimate of Guth-Wang-Zhang [15]
    Invoked in Section 3.3 to set r=4 and derive the range q>2+6α/(1+α); the main theorems do not depend on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Endpoint estimates for the fractal circular maximal function and related local smoothing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LSDGJVGK

@misc{pith2026250620390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Endpoint estimates for the fractal circular maximal function and related local smoothing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LSDGJVGK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20390}
}
abstract

Sharp $L^p$--$L^q$ estimates for the spherical maximal function over dilation sets of fractal dimensions, including the endpoint estimates, were recently proved by Anderson--Hughes--Roos--Seeger. More intricate $L^p$--$L^q$ estimates for the fractal circular maximal function were later established in the sharp range by Roos--Seeger, but the endpoint estimates have been left open, particularly when the fractal dimension of the dilation set lies in $[1/2, 1)$. In this work, we prove these missing endpoint estimates for the circular maximal function. We also study the closely related $L^p$--$L^q$ local smoothing estimates for the wave operator over fractal dilation sets, which were recently investigated by Beltran--Roos--Rutar--Seeger and Wheeler. Making use of a bilinear approach, we also extend the range of $p,q$, for which the optimal estimate holds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20390 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sharp regularity exponent sc(p, q) for the fractal local smoothing estimate (1.4) when d = 2 and α = 5/6. regularity exponent s1(p, q) ∨ s1(q ′ , p′ ) cannot be replaced by any smaller one. In particular, the sharp L p s–L p estimate for the wave operator e it√ −∆ with 1 < p < ∞ and s = s1(p, p) ∨ s1(p ′ , p′ ) goes back to Miyachi [23] and Peral [25]. Note that sc(p, q) =    s1(p, q), (1 − 1 p ) ≥ d−1+2α (d−1)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Treating the L 2×L 2 → L q◦/2 estimate as a linear L 2 → L q◦ bound, and applying Bourgain’s trick with the L∞ estimate, yields a restricted weak-type bound at (p∗, q∗), as illustrated above for d = 2 and α = 5/6. Since d−1 d+1 < α, q∗ > q◦ = 2(d + 3)/(d + 1). We also note that (p, q) = (p∗, q∗) satisfies (1.6) (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Using L r estimate (3.36) in place of the L∞ estimate yields the sharp (with ϵ-loss) estimate on an extended range. Then, the argument used in the proof of Proposition 3.6 can be repeated to obtain (3.37). Now, using the estimate (3.37)6 and Lemma 2.7 7 along with the decomposition (2.24), one can obtain (3.34) for p, q satisfying (1.6) and q > q∗(α, r), where q∗ := q∗(α, r) is determined by solving (3.26) and 2(r −… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Beltran, J

    D. Beltran, J. Roos, A. Rutar, and A. Seeger, A fractal local smoothing problem for the wave equation, arXiv:2501.12805v1

    arXiv

  2. [39]

    Variation bounds for spherical averages over restricted dilates

    R. Wheeler, Variation bounds for spherical averages over restricted dilates, arXiv:2409.05579

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [9]

    Bourgain and L

    J. Bourgain and L. Guth, Bounds on oscillatory integral operators based on multilinear esti- mates, Geom. Funct. Anal. 21 (2011), 1239–1295

    work page 2011

  4. [1]

    Anderson, K

    T. Anderson, K. Hughes, J. Roos, and A. Seeger, Lp → Lq bounds for spherical maximal operators, Math. Z. 297 (2021) 1057–1074

    work page 2021

  5. [2]

    Assouad, ´Etude d’une dimension m´ etrique li´ ee ` a la possibilit´ e de plongements dansRn, C

    P. Assouad, ´Etude d’une dimension m´ etrique li´ ee ` a la possibilit´ e de plongements dansRn, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. A-B 288 (1979), A731–A734

    work page 1979

  6. [3]

    Beltran, J

    D. Beltran, J. Roos, and A. Seeger, Spherical maximal operators with fractal sets of dilations on radial functions , arXiv:2412.09390v1

    arXiv

  7. [5]

    Bourgain, Estimations de certaines functions maximales , C.R

    J. Bourgain, Estimations de certaines functions maximales , C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 301 (1985), 499–502

    work page 1985

  8. [6]

    Analyse Math

    , Averages in the plane over convex curves and maximal operators , J. Analyse Math. 47 (1986), 69–85

    work page 1986

Show all 41 references
  1. [7]

    , On high-dimensional maximal functions associated with convex bodies , Amer. J. Math. 108 (1986), 1467–1476

    1986

  2. [8]

    Bourgain, C

    J. Bourgain, C. Demeter, The proof of the ℓ2 decoupling conjecture, Ann. of Math. (2) 182 (2015), 351–389

    2015

  3. [10]

    Carbery, A

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

    1999

  4. [11]

    C.-H. Cho, S. Ham, and S. Lee, Fractal Strichartz estimate for the wave equation , Nonlinear Anal. 150 (2017), 61–75

    2017

  5. [12]

    C.-H. Cho, S. Lee, and W. Li, Endpoint estimates for maximal operators associated to the wave equation, arXiv:2501.01686

  6. [13]

    Foschi and S

    D. Foschi and S. Klainerman, Bilinear space-time estimates for homogeneous wave equations, Ann. Sci. ´Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 33 (2000), 211–274

    2000

  7. [14]

    S. Gan, S. Wu, On local smoothing estimates for wave equations , arXiv:2502.05973

  8. [15]

    L. Guth, H. Wang, R. Zhang, A sharp square function estimate for the cone in R3, Ann. of Math. (2) 192 (2020), 551–581

    2020

  9. [16]

    Y. Heo, F. Nazarov, A. Seeger, Radial Fourier multipliers in high dimensions , Acta Math. 206 (2011), 55–92

    2011

  10. [17]

    Leckband, A note on the spherical maximal operator for radial functions , Proc

    M. Leckband, A note on the spherical maximal operator for radial functions , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 100 (1987), 635–640

    1987

  11. [18]

    Lee, Endpoint estimates for the circular maximal function, Proc

    S. Lee, Endpoint estimates for the circular maximal function, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2003), 1433–1442. FRACTAL CIRCULAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION 33

    2003

  12. [19]

    , Bilinear restriction estimates for surfaces with curvatures of different signs , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358 (2006), 3511–3533

    2006

  13. [20]

    PDE 11 (2018), 1535–1586

    , Square function estimates for the Bochner-Riesz means, Anal. PDE 11 (2018), 1535–1586

    2018

  14. [21]

    Littman, Lp-Lq-estimates for singular integral operators arising from hyperbolic equa- tions

    W. Littman, Lp-Lq-estimates for singular integral operators arising from hyperbolic equa- tions. In: Partial Differential Equations (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. XXIII, Univ. Cali- fornia, Berkeley, Calif., 1971), pp. 479–481. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1973)

    1973

  15. [22]

    Mattila, Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces

    P. Mattila, Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces. Fractals and rectifiability, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 44. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

    1995

  16. [23]

    Miyachi, On some estimates for the wave equation in Lp and H p, J

    A. Miyachi, On some estimates for the wave equation in Lp and H p, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 27 (1980), 331–354

    1980

  17. [24]

    Mockenhaupt, A

    G. Mockenhaupt, A. Seeger and C.D. Sogge, Wave front sets, local smoothing and Bourgain ’s circular maximal theorem, Ann. of Math. (2) 136 (1992), 207–218

    1992

  18. [25]

    J. C. Peral, Lp-estimates for the wave equation , J. Functional Analysis 36 (1980), 114–145

    1980

  19. [26]

    Roos and A

    J. Roos and A. Seeger, Spherical maximal functions and fractal dimensions of dilation sets , Amer. J. Math. 145 (2023), 1077–1110

    2023

  20. [27]

    Schlag, A generalization of Bourgain ’s circular maximal theorem , J

    W. Schlag, A generalization of Bourgain ’s circular maximal theorem , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997), 103–122

    1997

  21. [28]

    Schlag and C

    W. Schlag and C. D. Sogge, Local smoothing estimates related to the circular maximal theo- rem, Math. Res. Let. 4 (1997), 1–15

    1997

  22. [29]

    Seeger, S

    A. Seeger, S. Wainger, and J. Wright, Pointwise convergence of spherical means, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 118 (1995), 115–124

    1995

  23. [30]

    Seeger, T

    A. Seeger, T. Tao, and J. Wright, Endpoint mapping properties of spherical maximal opera- tors, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu, 2 (2003), 109–144

    2003

  24. [31]

    E. M. Stein, Maximal functions. I. Spherical means , Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 73 (1976), 2174– 2175

    1976

  25. [32]

    With the assistance of Timothy S

    , Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals. With the assistance of Timothy S. Murphy. Princeton Mathematical Series, 43. Monographs in Harmonic Analysis, III. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993

    1993

  26. [33]

    Stein and G

    E.M. Stein and G. Weiss, Introduction to Fourier analysis on Euclidean spaces, Princeton University Press, 1971

    1971

  27. [34]

    Tao, Endpoint bilinear restriction theorems for the cone, and some sharp null form esti- mates, Math

    T. Tao, Endpoint bilinear restriction theorems for the cone, and some sharp null form esti- mates, Math. Z. 238 (2001), 215–268

    2001

  28. [35]

    , The Bochner–Riesz conjecture implies the restriction conjecture , Duke Math. J. 96 (1999), 363–375

    1999

  29. [36]

    , The weak-type endpoint Bochner-Riesz conjecture and related topics, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 47 (1998), 1097–1124

    1998

  30. [37]

    T. Tao, A. Vargas, L. Vega, A bilinear approach to the restriction and Kakeya conjectures , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1998), 967–1000

    1998

  31. [38]

    Tao, A.Vargas, A bilinear approach to cone multipliers

    T. Tao, A.Vargas, A bilinear approach to cone multipliers. II. Applications , Geom. Funct. Anal. 10 (2000), 216–258

    2000

  32. [40]

    Wolff, A sharp bilinear cone restriction estimate , Ann

    T. Wolff, A sharp bilinear cone restriction estimate , Ann. of Math. (2) 153 (2001), 661–698

    2001

  33. [41]

    Zhao, Lp-improving bounds for spherical maximal operators over restricted dilation sets: radial improvements, arXiv:2412.09882

    S. Zhao, Lp-improving bounds for spherical maximal operators over restricted dilation sets: radial improvements, arXiv:2412.09882. 34 LEE, RONCAL, ZHANG, AND ZHAO (Lee) Department of Mathematical Sciences and RIM, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea Email...

    arXiv

Pith tools

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