arxiv: v2 [math.ca] 19 Feb 2014

Transcription

1 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS KELLY BCKEL, STEFANE PETERMCHL, AND BRETT D. WCK arxiv: v [math.ca] 19 Feb 014 Abstract. LetW denote a matrixa weight. n this paper we implement a scalar argument using the square function to deduce related results for vector-valued functions on L (R, ). These results are then used to study the boundedness of the Hilbert transform and Haar multipliers on L (R, ). Our proof shortens the original argument by Treil and Volberg and improves the dependence on the A characteristic. n particular, we prove that: Tf L (W) [W] 3 A log[w] A f L (W), where T is either the Hilbert transform or a Haar multiplier. 1. ntroduction Write L L (R, ), namely those functions such that f L f(x) C dx <. d R For a d d positive self-adjoint matrix-valued function W we set L (W) L (R,W, ) to be f L (W) W 1 (x)f(x) C dx = W(x)f(x),f(x) d dx <. R R We are in particular interested in those matrix weights W that satisfy the matrix A Muckenhoupt condition: [ ] W A := supw 1 W 1 1 <, where denotes the norm of the matrix acting on, the supremum is taken over all intervals and W 1 W. Now, if d = 1 and w A, i.e. if w is a scalar-valued A weight, then it is well-known that the Hilbert transform H maps L (R,w) L (R,w). The question of sharp dependence was answered by Petermichl, who showed in [5] that H L (R,w) L (R,w) [w] A. n [6], Petermichl and Pott provide a simple proof establishing the boundedness of H on L (R,w) with constant [w] 3 A. Key tools in the proof include the linear bound for the dyadic square function and the characterization of the Hilbert transform using dyadic shifts. Date: February 0, 014. Research supported in part by ANR-1-BS The author is a member of UF. Research supported in part by National Science Foundation DMS grant #

2 K. BCKEL, S. PETERMCHL, AND B. D. WCK Despite substantial complexities arising in the matrix valued case, Treil and Volberg showed in [7] that if W A, then the Hilbert transform H : L (W) L (W) boundedly. Their paper does not track the dependence on[w] A and the question of the sharp constant remains open. n this paper, we study the dependence of H L (W) L (W) on the A characteristic [W] A. Our arguments are strongly influenced by those in [6] and [7]. We first consider a matrix analogue of the dyadic square function. n Theorem 3.1, we obtain bounds on this square function-type object in terms of [W] A. n Theorem 4.1, we establish that H L (W) L (W) [W] 3 A log[w] A. Although these constants do not appear to be sharp, they are better than what has previously appeared in the literature. Related results for the Haar multipliers T σ are obtained in Theorem 5.. Further improvements of these estimates using the scalar proof strategy will likely require a matrix version of the weighted Carleson Embedding Theorem and sharp bounds on related testing conditions.. Basic Facts and Notation Let D denote the standard dyadic grid. For α R and r > 0, let D α,r denote the dyadic grid {α + r : D} and let {h } D α,r denote the Haar functions adapted to D α,r and normalized in L. n much of what follows, we omit the α,r notation because the arguments hold for all such dyadic grids. Given D, let + denote its right half and denote its left half. Throughout this paper, A B indicates that A CB, for some constant C that may depend on the dimension d. Let f L. To define f(), let e 1,...,e d be an orthonormal basis in. Then, f() = f,h e j L e j, j=1 where h is the standard Haar function defined by ( ) h D. Similarly, define h for any D. Notice that for non-cancellative Haar functions we chose a different normalization. Now, let W be a matrix weight and for any interval, set W() W. At a later point, we will require the use of disbalanced Haar functions adapted to W. n the matrix setting, these are considered by Treil and Volberg in [7]. To define them, fix D and let e 1,...,ed be a set of orthonormal eigenvectors of W. Define w k W 1 e k 1 W 1. = e k

3 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS 3 Then, the vector-valued functions {w k h e k } D,1 k d are normalized in L (W). Define the disbalanced Haar functions where the vector ẽ k = A(W,)ek and g W,k w k h e k +h1 ẽk, A(W,) = 1 ( ) 1 W 1 W+ W W 1. Simple calculations, which appear in [7], show that the functions {g W,k } are orthogonal in L (W) and satisfy g W,k L (W) 5. t is also clear that (1) h e k = ( ) 1g w k W,k ( 1A(W,)h w) k 1 e k, D,k = 1,...,d. 3. Square Function Estimate We first consider a generalization of the square function S W to this matrix setting. Namely start with the averaging operator Af = E f()h, Dσ where expectation is in the natural probability space of sequences in{ 1, 1}. For its weighted L norm we have Therefore Af L (W) = S W : L (R, ) L (R,R); S W f(x) := R W(x)Af(x),Af(x) dx. W(x)Af(x),Af(x). Notice that S W f L = W(x)E σ f()h (x),e J R D J Dσ f(j)h J (x) dx C d = RE σ σ J h h J W(x) f(), f(j) dx D J D = W f(), f(). D n the scalar situation, the square function is bounded on L (R,w) with linear dependence on [w] A. For matrix A weights, we obtain a similar bound, which differs from the scalar bound by a logarithm: Theorem 3.1. Let W be a d d matrix weight in A. Then W f(), f() D [W] A log[w] A f L (W) f L (W).

4 4 K. BCKEL, S. PETERMCHL, AND B. D. WCK To prove Theorem 3.1, we initially proceed as in Petermichl and Pott s proof of the scalar case in [6]. Some arguments generalize easily, but to finish the proof, we also require the following result of Treil and Volberg, which appears as Theorem 6.1 in [7]: Theorem 3. (Treil and Volberg, [7]). Let W be a d d matrix weight in A. Then for all f L, ) W 1 (W W + W 1 W 1 W 1 f D [W] A log[w] A f L. The constant [W] A log[w] A is not specified in Treil-Volberg s statement of the theorem. However, a careful reading of the proofs of their Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.6, Theorem 4.1, and Theorem 6.1 reveal the above constant. A proof of the square function-type bound using only the arguments from [6] requires a matrix version of the weighted Carleson Embedding Theorem and testing conditions on a particular dyadic sum. We conjecture that such tools exist and given such tools, would have a proof of Conjecture Proof of Theorem 3.1. The argument in [6] requires a lower bound on the square function. Our matrix analogue is Theorem 3.3 and the proof utilizes both arguments from [6] and Theorem 3.. Theorem 3.3. Let W be a d d matrix weight in A. Then f L (W) [W] A log[w] A W f(), f() D f L (W). Proof. As in [6], we can assume without loss of generality that W and W 1 are bounded. For more details, see Remark 3.4. Then L (W) and L are equal as sets. For ease of notation, define the constant C W [W] A log[w] A. Let e 1,...,e d be the standard orthonormal basis in. Define the discrete multiplication operator D W : L L by D W : h e k W h e k D,k = 1,...,d, and let M W denote multiplication by W. Observe that D W f,f L = W f(), f() D We can rewrite the desired inequality as: () M W f,f L C W D W f,f L, f L..

5 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS 5 As in [6], we convert this to an inverse inequality. Since W and W 1 are bounded, D W and M W are bounded and invertible with M 1 W = M W 1 and D 1 W defined by D 1 W : h e k W 1 h e k D,k = 1,...,d. Since M W and D W and their inverses are positive, it is easy to show that () is equivalent to (3) D 1 W f,f L C WM 1 W f,f L, f L. So to prove Theorem 3.3, we need to establish: W 1 f(), f() C W f L (W 1 ) f L. D We will rewrite the sum using Haar functions adapted to W. First, for D, let e 1,...,ed be a set of orthonormal eigenvectors of W. Recall that w k W 1 e k 1 W 1. = Using these definitions, expand the sum as follows: D W 1 f(), f() = D = D = D = D j, e k W 1 f,h e k L ek,f,h e j L ej f,h e k L f,h e j L W 1 e k,ej j, f,h e k L W 1 e k,e k ( w k ) f,h e k L. Now, we can expand the h e k using the disbalanced Haar functions adapted to W as in (1). This transforms our sum as follows: ( ) w k f,h e k L = ( ) w k f, ( ) w k 1g W,k ( 1A(W,)h w k 1 ) e k L D D f,g W,k L + f,g W,k L f,a(w,)h 1 e k L D D + D f,a(w,)h 1 e k L = S 1 +S +S 3.

6 6 K. BCKEL, S. PETERMCHL, AND B. D. WCK t is clear that S 1 = D f,g W,k L = D W 1 f,g W,k L (W) f L (W 1 ), since the g W,k are orthogonal and uniformly bounded in L (W). Since S S 1 1 S 1 3, the main term to understand is S 3. t can be written as (4) (5) S 3 = D = D = D = D f, 1 1 W 1 f,w 1 Ŵ()W 1 ( W+ W ) W 1 h 1 ek h 1 ek f,w 1 Ŵ()W 1 W 1 Now, we can bound S 3 as follows: S 3 D D f,w 1 e k L Ŵ()W 1 e k. W 1 W 1 f Ŵ()W 1 W 1 1 f W [W] A log[w] A f L (W 1 ), Ŵ()W 1 e k where we used Theorem 3. applied to g = W 1 f. This also implies a similar bound for S, and combining our estimates for S 1,S,S 3 completes the proof of Theorem 3.3. L Using Theorem 3.3, we can easily prove Theorem 3.1: Proof. Again, assume without loss of generality that W and W 1 are bounded and define the constant B W by B W = [W] A log[w] A. Using our previous notation, Theorem 3.1 is equivalent to the inequality D W f,f L B W M W f,f L, f L. We require the following operator inequality D W [W] A (D W 1) 1.

7 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS 7 The A condition implies that for every D and vector e, W 1 W 1 1 e,w 1 W 1 1 e [W] A e. Fixing g L and setting e = W 1 1 ĝ(), we can conclude W 1 ĝ(),w 1 Cd ĝ() [W] A W 1 1 ĝ(),w 1 1 ĝ() Then D W g,g L = D [W] A W 1 ĝ(),w 1 ĝ() D W 1 1 ĝ(),w 1 1 ĝ() = [W] A (D W 1) 1 g,g L. Combining that estimate with (3) from Theorem 3.3 applied to W 1 gives: D W g,g L [W] A (D W 1) 1 g,g L [W] A C W M 1 W 1 g,g L = B W g L (W) g L, which completes the proof.. Remark 3.4 (Reducing to Bounded Weights). The proof of Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 only handles weights W with both W and W 1 bounded. To reduce to this case, fix W A and write W(x) = λ j (x)p Ej (x) for x R, j=1 where theλ j (x) are eigenvalues of W(x), the E j (x) are the associated orthogonal eigenspaces, and the P Ej (x) are the orthogonal projections onto the E j (x). Define E n 1 (x) Eigenspaces of W(x) corresponding to eigenvalues λ j(x) 1 n ; E n (x) Eigenspaces of W(x) corresponding to eigenvalues 1 n < λ j(x) < n; E n 3(x) Eigenspaces of W(x) corresponding to eigenvalues λ j (x) n. Using these spaces, truncate W(x) as follows: W n (x) = 1 n P E n 1 (x) +P E n (x)w(x)p E n (x) +np E n 3 (x). t is easy to see that W n,wn 1 n d d. Each W n is also an A weight with (6) [W n ] A supw n 1 Wn 1 1 [W]A,

8 8 K. BCKEL, S. PETERMCHL, AND B. D. WCK where the constant depends on the dimension d. This is not hard to show, but relies on the following two facts about positive self-adjoint matrices: Fact 1: f A 1,A > 0, then A 1 1 A 1 Tr(A1 A ). Fact : f A 1,A,B 1,B 0 and each A j B j, then Tr(A 1 A ) Tr(B 1 B ). Here, the implied constants again depend ond. Fact1allows us to equatew n 1 Wn 11 Tr(W n Wn 1 ). Then, using Fact and the matrix inequalities W n n d d PE n (x) W(x)P E n (x) +np E n 3 (x) W for W n and similar ones for Wn 1, one can easily deduce (6). Then, Theorem 3.3 gives: (7) f L (W [W n) n] A log[w n ] A W n f(), f() f L (W n ). D Using basic convergence theorems, one can show that both lim n f L (W = n) f L (W) and lim W n f(), f() = W f(), f() n D D for f L L (W). Combining this with (6) and (7) gives Theorem 3.3 for general W. Theorem 3.1 follows similarly., 4. The Hilbert Transform The bounds given in Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 imply similar bounds for the Hilbert transform on L (W). First, fix α R and r > 0. The densely-defined shift operator X α,r on L (R) is given by X α,r f 1 ( ) f() h h +, D α,r where is the left half of and + is the right half of. n [4], S. Petermichl showed that the Hilbert transform H on L (R) is basically an average of these dyadic shifts. Specifically, there is a constant c and L (R) function b such that H = ct +M b, where T is in the weak operator closure of the convex hull of the set {X α,r } α,r in L(L (R)) and M b is multiplication by b. The Hilbert transform on L (R, ), also denoted H, is the scalar Hilbert transform applied component-wise. The dyadic shift operators X α,r on L (R, ) are similarly defined by X α,r f 1 ( ) f() h h +, D α,r which is the same as applying the scalar X α,r shifts component-wise. Using the scalarresult, the Hilbert transform H on L (R, ) satisfies H = c T + M b where T is T applied

9 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS 9 component-wise and so, is in the weak operator closure of the convex hull of the set {X α,r } α,r in L(L (R, )). n [7], Treil and Volberg show that for A weights W, the Hilbert transform is bounded on L (W), but do not track the dependence on the A characteristic [W] A. n contrast, using our square function estimates, we are able to establish the following: Theorem 4.1. Let W be a d d matrix weight in A. Then Hf L (W) [W] 3 A log[w] A f L (W) f L (W). Proof. As before, we omit the α, r notation. Observe that the square-function object in Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 does not see dyadic shifts. Specifically, let Ĩ denote the parent of in the dyadic grid. Then W Xf(), Xf() W f( Ĩ), f(ĩ) D = 1 D = 1 ( ) W +W + f(), f() D = W f(), f(). D Now, using Theorems 3.1 and 3.3, we have Xf L (W) [W] A log[w] A W Xf(), Xf() D = [W] A log[w] A W f(), f() D [W] 3 A (log[w] A ) f L (W). The formula for H in terms of dyadic shifts implies that as desired. Hf L (W) sup X α,r f L (W) + b f L (W) [W]3 A (log[w] A ) f L (W), α,r 5. Haar Multipliers The arguments above extend easily to Haar multipliers. To begin, let σ = {σ } D be a sequence of matrices and define the Haar multiplier T σ by T σ f f()h. Dσ

10 10 K. BCKEL, S. PETERMCHL, AND B. D. WCK To obtain boundedness on L (W), it is crucial that the matrices σ interact well with W. To be precise, fix a weight W A and define { } σ inf C : W 1 σ W σ W 1 C d d D. W 1 Equivalently, we could define σ = sup D σ W 1. Then, a variant of the following result is established by sralowitz, Kwon and Pott in []: Theorem 5.1. Let W A and σ = {σ } D a sequence of matrices. Then the Haar multiplier T σ is bounded on L (W) if and only if σ <. Here, we have translated their result to the notation of this paper. t should also be noted that their paper handles the entire range 1 < p <. Now, we provide a new and simpler proof of this boundedness result for p =. Using our previous arguments, we are also able to track the dependence on [W] A. Theorem 5.. Let W be a d d matrix weight in A and let σ = {σ } D be a sequence of matrices. Then T σ is bounded on L (W) if and only if σ <. Moreover, T σ f L (W) [W]3 A log[w] A σ f L (W). Proof. Necessity is almost immediate. Fix D and e and simply set f W 1 h e. Then simple computations prove that T σ f = σ W 1 h e and the following norm equalities: f L (W) = W 1 h e L (W) = e T σ f L (W) = σ W 1 h e = W 1 L σ W σ W 1 e,e (W) Assuming T σ is bounded on L (W), we can then conclude: W 1 σ W σ W 1 e,e = T σ f L (W) T σ L (W) L (W) e C. d Since e and D was arbitrary we have that σ <. The proof of sufficiency, with the desired constant, is largely a repetition of computations from earlier in the paper. Again, observe that the square function in Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 does not see martingale transforms. Specifically, W Tσ f(), T σ f() = W σ f(),σ f() D D = W σ W 1 W 1 f(),σ W 1 W 1 f() D σ W f(), f() D..

11 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS 11 Simple applications of Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 then yield T σ f L (W) [W] A log[w] A W Tσ f(), T σ f() which gives the desired bound. D [W] A log[w] A σ W f(), f() D [W] 3 A (log[w] A ) σ f L (W), 6. Open Questions 6.1. Square Function Estimates. f w is a scalar-valued A weight, then Theorem 3.1 is true with [w] A replacing [w] A log[w] A. This motivates the following conjecture: Conjecture 6.1. Let W be a d d matrix weight in A. Then W f(), f() [W] A f L (W) f L (W). D To prove Conjecture 6.1, we would need to control the term S 3 from (4) in a more optimal way. Our current method of using Theorem 3. introduces the troublesome log[w] A term. An alternate method of controlling S 3 would use a matrix version of the weighted Carleson Embedding Theorem. One would first control S 3 by S 3 = W 1 Ŵ()W 1 f,e k D W 1 Ŵ()W 1 f D = W 1 Ŵ()W 1 Ŵ()W 1 f,f. D To control this estimate for S 3, we need two things: A matrix version of the weighted Carleson Embedding Theorem. Suppose that A is a sequence of non-negative operators on. We would like to prove that A f,f C f L (W 1 ) D if and only if (in the sense of positive operators) 1 W J A W CW J J D. J By fixing e and J D and setting f(x) = 1 J W(x)e, one can show that the embedding implies that the testing condition holds. We need to prove the converse. n the unweighted

12 1 K. BCKEL, S. PETERMCHL, AND B. D. WCK case, the scalar-valued Carleson Embedding Theorem can be used to obtain the unweighted version of this matrix embedding theorem. The analogous arguments do not immediately work for weights. However, similar results have been established by Nazarov, Pisier, Treil, and Volberg in [3] in the unweighted setting. Additionally, a recent result of sralowitz, Kwon, and Pott, see [], provides a proof of an estimate as above, but does not explicitly track the constants (and a reading of their proof shows that the method used will introduce some additional characteristic of W into the estimates) Bounds on a related dyadic sum. The A that appear in S 3 are the operators W 1 Ŵ()W 1 Ŵ()W 1 Given the matrix weighted Carleson Embedding Theorem conjectured above, we will need the appropriate sum estimate to apply it to S 3. ndeed, we require 1 Ŵ()W 1 Ŵ() [W] A W J J, J D. J n the scalar case, this is proved by Wittwer in [8] using estimates from Buckley [1]. Currently, it is not clear how to obtain the matrix analogue of this estimate. 6.. The Hilbert Transform and Haar Multipliers. f w is a scalar-valued A weight, then Theorems 4.1 and 5. are true with [w] A replacing [w] 3 A log[w] A. This motivates the following conjecture: Conjecture 6.. Let W be a d d matrix weight in A and let {σ } be a sequence of matrices satisfying σ <. Then H L (W) L (W) [W] A ;. T σ L (W) L (W) [W] A σ. Given our current tools, those estimates seem out of reach. However, if we could prove Conjecture 6.1 by establishing a bound of [W] A in Theorem 3.3, then the arguments from the proof of Theorems 4.1 and 5. would immediately imply that H L (W) L (W) [W] 3 A ; T σ L (W) L (W) [W] 3 A σ. References [1] S. Buckley. Summation conditions on weights. Michigan Math. J. 40 (1993), no. 1, [] J. sralowitz, H. Kwon, and S. Pott. A Matrix Weighted T1 Theorem for Matrix Kerneled Calderón Zygmund Operators - preprint, available at 10, 1

13 BOUNDS FOR THE HLBERT TRANSFORM WTH MATRX A WEGHTS 13 [3] F. Nazarov, G. Pisier, S. Treil, and A. Volberg. Sharp estimates in vector Carleson imbedding theorem and for vector paraproducts. J. Reine Angew. Math. 54 (00), [4] S. Petermichl. Dyadic shifts and a logarithmic estimate for Hankel operators with matrix symbol. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. Math. 330 (000), no. 6, [5] S. Petermichl The sharp bound for the Hilbert transform on weighted Lebesgue spaces in terms of the classical A p characteristic. Amer. J. Math. 19 (007), no. 5, [6] S. Petermichl and S. Pott. An estimate for weighted Hilbert transform via square functions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (00), no. 4, ,, 4, 5 [7] S. Treil and A. Volberg. Wavelets and the angle between past and future. J. Funct. Anal. 143 (1997), no., , 3, 4, 9 [8] J. Wittwer. A sharp estimate on the norm of the martingale transform. Math. Res. Lett. 7 (000), no. 1, Kelly Bickel, School of Mathematics, Georgia nstitute of Technology, 686 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA USA address: kbickel3@math.gatech.edu Stefanie Petermichl, Université Paul Sabatier, nstitut de Mathématiques de Toulouse, 118 route de Narbonne, F-3106 Toulouse Cedex 9, France address: stefanie.petermichl@math.univ-toulouse.fr Brett D. Wick, School of Mathematics, Georgia nstitute of Technology, 686 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA USA address: wick@math.gatech.edu URL: