arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 4 Aug 2017

WIGHTD STIMATS FOR OSITIV ORATORS AND DOOB MAXIMAL ORATORS ON FILTRD MASUR SACS arxiv:1708.02066v1 [math.r] 4 Aug 2017 WI CHN, CHUNXIANG ZHU, YAHUI ZUO, AND YONG JIAO Abstract. We characterize strong type and weak type inequalities with two weights for positive operators on filtered measure spaces. These estimates are probabilistic analogues of two-weight inequalities for positive operators associated to the dyadic cubes in R n due to Lacey, Sawyer and Uriarte-Tuero[30]. Several mixed bounds for the Doob maximal operator on filtered measure spaces are also obtained. In fact, Hytönen-érez type and Lerner-Moen type norm estimates for Doob maximal operator are established. Our approaches are mainly based on the construction of principal sets. 1. Introduction The theory of weighted inequalities in harmonic analysis is an old subject, which can probably be traced back to the beginning of integration. The A p condition first appeared in a paper of Rosenblum [42], but systematic investigation was initiated by [36], [9] and [37] etc. The A p condition is geometric, meaning to only involve the weights and not the operators. Later, Sawyer [43] introduced the test condition S p and characterized the twoweight estimates for the classical Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator. The testing condition essentially amounts to testing the uniform estimates on characteristic functions of dyadic cubes. In addition, Sawyer [44] proved that for operators such as fractional integrals, oisson kernels, and other nonnegative kernels, the two-weight estimate still holds if one assumes the testing condition not only on the operator itself, but also on its formal adjoint (see [14] and [15] for more information). Dyadic Harmonic Analysis can be traced back to the early years of the 20th century, and Haar s basis of orthogonal functions has profound and still useful connections to combinatorial and probabilistic reasoning. This subject has recently acquired a renewed attention by Stefanie etermichl [41], that a notion of Haar shifts can be used to recover deep results about the Hilbert transform (see [38] and [27] for more information). As is well known, to get sharp one-weight estimates of usual operators in classical harmonic analysis, a standard way is a dyadic discretization technique. Using it, Hytönen [16] gave the solution of the A 2 conjecture, which states that any Calderón-Zygmund operator satisfies the following bound The first author supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu rovince (Grant No. BK20161326) and the School Foundation of Yangzhou University (2016CXJ001). The fourth author supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11471337). 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. rimary 60G46; Secondary 60G42. Key words and phrases. Martingale, ositive operator, Doob maximal operator, Weighted inequality. 1

2 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO on weighted Lebesgue spaces: (1.1) T L p (w) [w] max(1, 1 p 1 ) A p. Its simpler proofs were found by several authors (see [19, 32]) and inequality (1.1) has seen several improvements (see [33, 18, 21, 28]). These improvements come in the form of the so-called mixed estimates. The idea behind the mixed estimates is that one only needs the full strength of the A p constant for part of the estimates, while the other part only requires something weaker. The smaller quantities come in the form of A r constants for large r or A constants. The dyadic discretization technique is also valid for (linear) positive operators (see [29, 30, 24, 25, 50]) and the (fractional) maximal operator (see [4, 43, 31, 29, 17, 21]). With the development of weighted theory in harmonic analysis, its probabilistic counterpart was also studied. This is weighted theory on martingale spaces. The history of martingale theory goes back to the early 1950s when Doob [13] pointed out the connection between martingales and analytic functions. Standard introductions to martingale theory can be found in Dellacherie and Meyer [11], Doob [12], Kazamaki [26], Long [34], Neveu [39], Weisz [52] and Williams [53]. Recently, Schilling [45] and Stroock [46] developed martingale theory for σ-finite measure spaces rather than just for probability spaces, so that they are immediately applicable to analysis on the uclidean space R n without the need of auxiliary truncations or decompositions into probability spaces. Doob s maximal operator, which is a generalization of the dyadic Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator, and a martingale transform, which is an analogue of a singular integral in classical harmonic analysis, are important tools in stochastic analysis. For Doob s maximal operator, assuming some regularity condition on A p weights, one-weight inequality was studied first by Izumisawa and Kazamaki [22]. The added property is superfluous (see Jawerth [23] or Long [34]). Two-weight weak inequalities were studied by Uchiyama [51] and Long [34], and two-weight strong inequalities were studied by Long and eng [35] and Chang [6]. Weighted inequalities involving Carleson measure for generalized Doob s maximal operator were obtained by Chen and Liu [8]. In martingale theory, as we see above, weighted inequalities first appeared in 1970s, but they have been developing slowly. One reason is that some decomposition theorems and covering theorems which depend on algebraic structure and topological structure are invalid on probability space. Recently, there are two new approaches to weighted theory in martingale spaces. One is very closely related to Burkholder s method (see [5]). This is the so-called Bellman s method, which also rests on the construction of an appropriate special function. The technique has been used very intensively mostly in analysis, in the study of Carleson embedding theorems, BMO estimates, square function inequalities, bounds for maximal operators, estimates for weights and many other related results. For more complete references, we refer to the bibliographies of [49]. In martingale spaces, this theory was further developed in a series of papers by Bañuelos and Osȩkowski (see, e.g.,[1, 2, 3]) and a monograph [40] by Osȩkowski. The other is the construction of principle sets on the filtered measure spaces which is a quadruplet (Ω,F,µ;(F i ) i Z ). The germ of principle sets appeared as the sparse family on R n (see [21, 10] for more information) and the principle sets were successfully constructed on the filtered measure space in [47, p.942-943]. Using the construction, Tanaka

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 3 and Terasawa [48] obtained a characterization for the boundedness of positive operators on the filtered measure space. In addition, the construction was reinvestigated by Chen and Jiao [7] and a new property of the construction was found (see Section 3,.3). The purpose of this paper is to develop a theory of weights for positive operators and Doob maximal operators on the filtered measure space. To better explain our aim, we first recall the main results of [30]. Let ν = {ν Q : Q Q} be non-negative constants associated to dyadic cubes, and define a positive linear operator by T ν f = Q Qν Q Q f χ Q, where Q f := Q 1 Q fdx. Let σ,w be non-negative locally integral weights on Rn. Lacey, Sawyer and Uriarte-Tuero [30, Theorem 1.11] characterize the two-weight strong type inequalities (1.2) T ν (fσ) L q (w) f L p (σ), 1 p q <, in term of Sawyer-type testing conditions. In the present paper, we consider the positive operator T α ( σ) (see Subsection 2.1 for the definition) on filtered measure spaces which is the generalization of positive dyadic operator T ν ( σ) The following theorem is our first main result, which characterizes two-weight strong type inequality for positive operatorsonfiltered measure spaces. Let p be theconjugate exponent number of 1 < p <. All other unexplained notations can be found in Section 2 and Section 3. Theorem 1.1. Let 1 < p q <. Let ω A 1 and σ A 1. Then the following statements are equivalent: (1) There exists a positive constant C such that (1.3) T α (fσ,gω) L 1 (dµ) C f L p (σ) g L q (ω) ; (2) There exist positive constants C 1 and C 2 such that for any Fi 0,i Z, ( ( ) qωdµ )1 q (1.4) j (σ)α j C 1 σ() 1 p, (1.5) ( ( ) p ) 1 p j (ω)α j σdµ C 2 ω() 1 q. Moreover, we denote the smallest constants C, C 1 and C 2 in (1.3), (1.4) and (1.5) by T α ( σ), [ω,σ] α,q,p and [σ,ω] α,p,q, respectively. Then it follows that [ω,σ] α,q,p T α( σ), [σ,ω] α,p,q T α ( σ), and T α ( σ) [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 +[σ,ω] α,p,q [σ] A1. The first statement of Theorem 1.1 is equivalent to the fact that the positive operator T α ( σ) is bounded from L p (σ) to L q (ω), which extends the inequality (1.2). Moreover, in the very special case that σ = 1, Theorem 1.1 partially improves Tanaka and Terasawa [47, Theorem 1.1]. Indeed, as pointed out in [47, p. 923], the expected conditions are (1.4) and

4 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO (1.5). However, for some technical reasons, instead of the condition (1.4), they postulate a strong condition (see [47, (1.5)] or Remark 1.2 below). Recall that Lacey, Sawyer and Uriarte-Tuero [30, Theorem 1.11] obtained two characterizations for positive operator associate to the dyadic cubes in R n, which were the local one and global one. Treil [50] reinvestigated strong type inequality and obtained a short proof for the part involving the local one. The arguments in [30] and [50] are related to dyadic technique extensively, so they are invalid in the filtered measure space. Instead of dyadic technique, our method is mainly based on the construction of principle sets (see Section 3). It is clear that the testing condition (1.4) and (1.5) are the generalization of the local characterization of Lacey, Sawyer and Uriarte-Tuero [30, Theorem 1.11]. For the global characterization, we still have no idea to generalize it on filtered measure spaces. Remark 1.2. Let α i, i Z, beanonnegative bounded F i -measurable function andα i L +, where α i := α j. Assuming that (1.6) i α i α i, holds, [47, Theorem 1.1] showed that (1.5) implies (1.3) in the special case σ = 1. As a corollary of Theorem 1.1, we have the following one-weight estimate. Corollary 1.3. Let 1 < p q <. Then the following statements are equivalent: (1) There exists a positive constant C such that (1.7) T α (fω,gω) L 1 (dµ) C f L p (ω) g L q (ω) ; (2) There exist positive constants C 1 and C 2 such that for any Fi 0,i Z, ( ( ) qωdµ )1 q (1.8) j (ω)α j C 1 ω() 1 p, (1.9) ( ( ) p ) 1 p j (ω)α j ωdµ C 2 ω() 1 q. Moreover, we denote the smallest constants C, C 1 and C 2 in (1.7), (1.8) and (1.9) by T α ( σ), [ω,ω] α,q,p and [ω,ω] α,p,q, respectively. Then it follows that [ω,ω] α,q,p T α( σ), [ω,ω] α,p,q T α ( σ), and T α ( σ) [ω,ω] α,q,p +[ω,ω] α,p,q. If ω = 1, then Corollary 1.3 reduces to the following, which is the main result of [48, Theorem 1.2]. Corollary 1.4. Let 1 < p q <. Then the following statements are equivalent: (1) There exists a positive constant C such that T α (f,g) L 1 (dµ) C f L p (dµ) g L q (dµ) ;

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 5 (2) There exists a positive constant C such that for any Fi 0,i Z, ( ( qdµ )1 i) α q Cµ() 1 p, ( ( p ) 1 i) α p dµ Cµ() 1 q. Our second main result is two-weight weak type inequalities for positive operators in a filtered measure space, which is corresponding to [30, Theorem 1.8]. Theorem 1.5. Let 1 < p q <. Then the following statements are equivalent: (1) There exists a positive constant C such that (1.10) T α (fσ) L q, (ω) C f L p (σ); (2) There exists a positive constant C such that for any Fi 0,i Z, ( ( ) p ) 1 p (1.11) j (ω)α j σdµ Cω() 1 q. Moreover, we denote the smallest constants C in (1.10) and (1.11) by T α ( σ) and [σ,ω] α,p,q, respectively. Then it follows that [σ,ω] α,p,q T α ( σ) [σ,ω] α,p,q. We now turn to the Doob maximal operator. We prove several mixed A p -A bounds on the filtered measure space. They are Hytönen-érez type and Lerner-Moen type norm estimates; see [21] and [33]. Theorem 1.6. Let 1 < p <. (1) If (v,ω) B p, then M L p (v) L p (ω) [v,ω] 1 p B p ; (2) If (v,ω) A p and σ := ω 1 p 1 A, then M L p (v) L p (ω) [v,ω] 1 p A p [σ] 1 p (3) If (ω) A p and σ = ω 1 p 1, then M L p (ω) L p (ω) [σ] 1 (A p ) p (A p ) 1 A ; (1+log 2 [ω] Ap )1 p. Theorem 1.6 (1) and Theorem 1.6 (2) are probabilistic versions of [21, Theorem 4.3]; Theorem 1.6 (3) is closely corresponding to [33, Theorem 1.1]. We mention that the probabilistic analogue of Hytönen-érez type estimate [21, Theorem 4.3] first appeared in Tanaka and Terasawa [47, Theorem 5.1]. They gave one-weight norm estimates which is similar to Theorem 1.6 (1). Their estimate has two suprema. In particular, if w = v in Theorem 1.6 (1), we obtain a better constant than [47, Theorem 5.1]. The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we state some preliminaries. We construct principle sets in Section 3. In Section 4, we provide the proofs of the above theorems. Throughout the paper, the letters C, C 1 and C 2 will be used for constants that may change from one occurrence to another. We use the notation A B to indicate that there is a constant C, independent of the weight constant, such that A CB. We write A B when A B and B A.

6 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO 2. reliminaries This section consists of the preliminaries for this paper. 2.1. Filtered Measure Space. In this subsection we introduce the filtered measure space, which is standard [47, 20] (see also references therein). Let a triplet (Ω,F,µ) be a measure space. Denote by F 0 the collection of sets in F with finite measure. The measure space (Ω,F,µ) is called σ-finite if there exist sets i F 0 such that Ω = i. In this paper all measure spaces are assumed to be σ-finite. Let A F 0 be an arbitrary subset of F 0. An F-measurable function f : Ω R is called A-integrable if it is integrable on all sets of A, i.e., χ f L 1 (F,µ) for all A. Denote the collection of all such functions by L 1 A (F,µ). If G F is another σ-algebra, it is called a sub-σ-algebra of F. A function g L 1 G (G,µ) 0 is called the conditional expectation of f L 1 G (F,µ) with respect to G if there holds 0 fdµ = gdµ, G G 0. G G The conditional expectation of f with respect to G will be denoted by (f G), which exists uniquely in L 1 G 0 (G,µ) due to σ-finiteness of (Ω,G,µ). A family of sub-σ-algebras (F i ) i Z is called a filtration of F if F i F j F whenever i,j Z and i < j. We call a quadruplet (Ω,F,µ;(F i ) i Z ) a σ-finite filtered measure space. It contains a filtered probability space with a filtration indexed by N, a uclidean space with a dyadic filtration and doubling metric space with dyadic lattice. We write L := i Z L 1 F 0 i (F,µ). i=0 Notice that L 1 F 0 i (F,µ) L 1 F (F,µ) j 0 whenever i < j. For a function f L we will denote (f F i ) by i (f). By the tower rule of conditional expectations, a family of functions i (f) L 1 (F,µ) becomes a martingale. Fi 0 Let (Ω,F,µ;(F i ) i Z ) be a σ-finite filtered measure space. Then a function τ : Ω { } Z {+ } is called a stopping time if for any i Z, we have {τ = i} F i. The family of all stopping times is denoted by T. Fixing i Z, we denote T i = {τ T : τ i}. Suppose that function f L, the Doob maximal operator is defined by Mf = sup i (f). i Z Fix i Z, we define the tailed Doob maximal operator by M i f = sup j (f).

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 7 Let α i, i Z, be a nonnegative bounded F i -measurable function and set α = (α i ). Let f,g L. We define the positive operator T α (f) and bilinear positive operator T α (f,g) by respectively. T α f := i Z α i i (f) and T α (f,g) := i Z α i i (f) i (g), 2.2. Definitions of Weights. By a weight we mean a nonnegative function which belongs to L and, by a convention, we will denote the set of all weights by L +. Let B F, w L +, we always denote Ω χ Bdµ and Ω χ Bωdµ by B and B ω, respectively. Then we define several kinds of weights. Definition 2.1. Let v and ω be weights and 1 < p <. We say that the couple of weights (v, ω) satisfies the condition A p, if there exists a positive constant C such that (2.1) sup j (v) j (ω 1 p ) p p C, j Z where 1 p + 1 p = 1. We denote by [v,ω] Ap the smallest constant C in (2.1). Definition 2.2. Let ω be a weight and 1 < p <. We say that the weight ω satisfies the condition A p, if there exists a positive constant C such that (2.2) sup j (ω) j (ω 1 p ) p p C, j Z where 1 p + 1 p = 1. We denote by [ω] Ap the smallest constant C in (2.2). Definition 2.3. Let ω be a weight. We say that the weight ω satisfies the condition A exp, if there exists a positive constant C such that (2.3) sup j (ω)exp j (logω 1 ) C. j Z We denote by [ω] A exp the smallest constant C in (2.3). Definition 2.4. Let v and ω be weights and 1 < p <. Denote σ = ω 1 p 1 L +. We say that the couple of weights (v, ω) satisfies the condition Sp, if (2.4) [v,ω] S p := sup i Z, F 0 i ( M i (σχ ) p vdµ σ() )1 p <. Definition 2.5. Let v and ω be weights and 1 < p <. Denote that σ = ω 1 p 1 L +. We say that the couple of weights (v, ω) satisfies the condition B p, if there exists a positive constant C such that for all i Z we have ( ) (2.5) i (v) i (σ) p Cexp i (log(σ)). We denote by [v,ω] Bp the smallest constant C in (2.5).

8 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO Definition 2.6. Let ω be a weight. We say that the weight ω satisfies the condition A, if there exists a positive constant C such that for all i Z and Fi 0 we have (2.6) M i (ωχ )dµ Cω(). We denote by [ω] A the smallest constant C in (2.6). Remark 2.7. We summarize basic properties about the conditions. Let ω A p and σ = ω 1 p. Then p (1) σ A p and [σ] A p = [ω] 1 p A p ; (2) ω A exp and [ω] A exp [ω] A p ; (3) ω A and [ω] A [ω] A exp 1. Following from Remark 2.7, we give the mixed condition (A p ) 1 p (A )1 p by ( M (2.7) [σ] 1 := sup esssup((ω F i )(σ F i ) p 1 Q i (σχ Q )dµ ) (A p ) p (A )1 p i Z,Q Fi 0 Q Q 3. Construction of principal sets In this section, we give construction of principal sets which is the main tool of our proofs. Let i Z, h L +. Fixing k Z, we define a stopping time For Ω 0 Fi 0, we denote that τ := inf{j i : (h F j ) > 2 k+1 }. (3.1) 0 := {2 k 1 < (h F i ) 2 k } Ω 0, and assume µ( 0 ) > 0. It follows that 0 F 0 i. We write K 1 ( 0 ) := i and K 2 ( 0 ) := k. We let 1 := { 0 } which we call the first generation of principal sets. To get the second generation of principal sets we define a stopping time τ 0 := τχ 0 + χ c 0, where c 0 = Ω \ 0. We say that a set 0 is a principle set with respect to 0 if it satisfies µ() > 0 and there exist j > i and l > k +1 such that = {2 l 1 < (h F j ) 2 l } {τ 0 = j} 0 = {2 l 1 < (h F j ) 2 l } {τ = j} 0. Noticing that such j and l are unique, we write K 1 () := j and K 2 () := l. We let ( 0 ) be the set of all principal sets with respect to 0 and let 2 := ( 0 ) which we call the second generalization of principal sets. We now need to verify that µ( 0 ) 2µ ( ( 0 ) ) )1 p.

where Indeed, we have It follows that This clearly implies For any 0 ( 0 F 0 i WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 9 ( 0 ) := 0 {τ 0 = } = 0 {τ = } = 0 \ µ ( 0 {τ 0 < } ) 2 k 1 0 {τ 0 < } ( 0 ) (h F τ0 )dµ. = 2 k 1 (h F τ0 )χ {τ0 < }dµ 0 = 2 k 1 (h F τ0 )χ {τ0 =j}dµ = 2 k 1 µ ( 0 {τ 0 < } ) 2 k 1 0 i = 2 k 1 0 0 0 ( (h F j )χ {τ0 =j}dµ. ) (hχ {τ0 =j} F j ) dµ i (hχ {τ0 =j})dµ = 2 k 1 0 i (hχ {τ0 < })dµ 2 k 1 0 i (h)dµ 1 2 µ( 0). µ( 0 ) 2µ ( ( 0 ) ). ), there exists a set Ω 0 F0 i such that 0 = 0 Ω 0 = {2k 1 < (h F i ) 2 k } Ω 0 Ω 0. Taking Ω 0 = Ω 0 Ω 0, we have 0 = {2k 1 < (h F i ) 2 k } Ω 0. Using Ω 0 instead of Ω 0 in (3.1), we deduce that µ( 0) 2µ ( ( 0) ). Moreover, we obtain that χ 0 dµ = µ( 0 0 ) = µ( 0) 2µ ( ( 0) ) = 2µ ( 0 {τ = } ) 0 = 2µ ( 0 0 {τ = } ) = 2 = 2 i (χ (0 ))dµ. 0 0 χ (0 )dµ

10 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO Since 0 is arbitrary, we have χ 0 2 i (χ (0 ))χ 0. The next generalizations are defined inductively, n+1 := (), n and we define the collection of principal sets by := n. It is easy to see that the collection of principal sets satisfies the following properties:.1 The sets () where, are disjoint and 0 = ();.2 F K1 ();.3 χ 2(χ () F K1 ())χ ;.4 2 K2() 1 < (h F K1 ()) 2 K2() on ;.5 sup j (hχ ) 2 K 2()+1 on (); n=1.6 χ {K1 () j<τ()} j (h) 2 K 2()+1. We use the principal sets to represent the tailed Doob maximal operator and obtain the following lemma. Lemma 3.1. Let i Z and h L +. Fixing k Z and Ω 0 Fi 0, we denote If µ( 0 ) > 0, then 0 := {2 k 1 < (h F i ) 2 k } Ω 0. M i (h)χ 0 = M i (hχ 0 )χ 0 = M i (hχ 0 )χ () 4 2 (K 2() 1) χ (). The following lemma is a Carleson embedding theorem associated with the collection of principal sets, which is essentially [48, Lemma 2.2]. We provide a different proof. Lemma 3.2. We have roof of Lemma 3.2. µ()2 p(k2() 1) 2(p ) p hχ 0 p L p (dµ). µ()2 p(k 2() 1) = (hχ 0 F K1 ()) p dµ (hχ 0 F K1 ()) p χ dµ.

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 11 Combining it with.3 of the construction of principle sets, we have µ()2 p(k 2() 1) 2 (hχ 0 F K1 ()) p (χ () F K1 ())dµ 2 (hχ 0 F K1 ()) p χ () dµ = 2 (hχ 0 F K1 ()) p dµ () In the view of the definition of Doob s maximal operator, we have µ()2 p(k2() 1) 2 (M(hχ 0 )) p dµ (M(hχ Ω 0 )) p dµ. () It follows from boundedness of Doob s maximal operator that µ()2 p(k2() 1) 2(p ) p hχ 0 p L p (dµ). The following lemma can be found in [47, Theorem 4.1] or [8, Theorem 3.2]. Lemma 3.3. Let v,ω be weights, 1 < p < and σ = ω 1 p 1. Then the following statements are equivalent: (1) There exists a positive constant C 1 such that (3.2) M(f) L p (v) C 1 f L p (ω), where f L p (ω); (2) The couple of weights (v,ω) satisfies the condition S p. Moreover, we denote the smallest constant C 1 in (3.2) by M. Then M [v,ω] S p 4. roofs of main results We provide the proofs of our main results in this section. For simplicity we denote operator T α by T in the proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.5. roof of Theorem 1.1. (1) (2) is trivial and we omit it. Note that we do not use ω A 1 and σ A 1 in this part. (2) (1) Let i Z be arbitrarily taken and be fixed. By a standard limiting argument, it suffices to prove that the inequality α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ Ω [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 f pθ L p (σ) +[σ,ω] α,p,q[σ] A1 g q θ L q (ω), θ := 1 p + 1 q, holds (the rest follows from the homogeneity).

12 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO We set (4.1) F j := { ω j (g)q ω σ j (f)p σ} and G j := Ω\F j. We shall prove that (4.2) Ω χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 f pθ L p (σ) and (4.3) Ω χ Gj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ [σ,ω] α,p,q [σ] A1 g q θ L q (ω). Since the proofs of (4.2) and (4.3) can be done in a completely symmetric way, we only prove (4.2) in the following. We estimate χ F j α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ for = 0 Fi 0, where σ( 0) > 0 and, for some k Z, 0 := {2 k 1 < σ i(f) 2 k }. For the above i, 0, σdµ and f, we apply the construction of principal sets. Using the principal sets, we can decompose the left-hand side of (4.2) as follows: χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ = = χ Fj α j σ j (f)ω j (g) j(σ) j (ω)dµ j K 1 () {j<τ } χ Fj α j σ j(f) ω j(g) j (σ) j (ω)dµ. Because of ω A 1, we have χ Fj α j σ j (f)ω j (g) j(σ) j (ω)dµ j K 1 () {j<τ } 2 K2()+1 [ω] A1 2 K2()+1 [ω] A1 = 2 K 2()+1 [ω] A1 j K 1 () j K 1 () α j j (σ)χ Fj ω j(g)ωdµ {j<τ } j K 1 () α j j (σ) α j j (σ) sup K 1 () j<τ() sup K 1 () j<τ() (χ Fj ω j (g))ωdµ (χ Fj ω j (g))ωdµ.

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 13 Combining it with Hölder s inequality, we have j K 1 () {j<τ } 2 K 2()+1 [ω] A1 ( χ Fj α j σ j (f)ω j (g) j(σ) j (ω)dµ ( j K 1 () In view of the definition of F j, we obtain j K 1 () {j<τ } [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 (2 p(k 2()+1) σ() )1 ) ( qωdµ q ( α j j (σ) χ Fj α j σ j (f)ω j (g) j(σ) j (ω)dµ ( )1 p ( sup K 1 () j<τ() sup K 1 () j<τ() )1 [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 (2 ( ) 1 p(k2()+1) p σ() 2 p(k2()+1) q σ(). It follows from θ = 1 p + 1 q 1 that Using Lemma 3.2, we have (4.4) Note that χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 ( ) q (χ Fj ω j(g)) ( σ j (f)) ) pσdµ ) 1 q ( ) θ 2 p(k2()+1) σ() ) θ 2 p(k2()+1) σ() ( θ. [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 2 σ()) p(k2() 1) χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 fχ 0 pθ L p (σ). Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ = Ωχ k Z = k Z {2 k 1 < σ i (f) 2k } {2 k 1 < σ i (f) 2k } ωdµ χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ. ) 1 q.

14 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO Combining this with (4.4), we have χ Fj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ Similarly, we obtain Ω [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] ( A 1 k Z ( [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 Ω k Z = [ω,σ] α,q,p [ω] A 1 f pθ L p (σ). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. roof of Corollary 1.3. We change (4.1) to {2 k 1 < σ i (f) 2k } {2 k 1 < σ i (f) 2k } ) θ f p σdµ ) θ f p σdµ χ Gj α j j (fσ) j (gω)dµ [σ,ω] α,p,q [σ] A1 g q θ L q (ω). (4.5) F j := { ω j(g) q ω j(f) p } and G j := Ω\F j. The proofs of Corollary 1.3 is similar to that of Theorem 1.1, and we omit the details. Now we intend to prove two-weight weak type inequality. roof of Theorem 1.5. (1) (2) Note that ω L 1 F 0. It follows from duality for Lorentz spaces that T(fω) L p (σ) T f L q,1 (ω). Fix Fi 0,i Z. For f = χ, we have ( ( ) p ) 1 p α j j (ω) σdµ T(fω) L p (σ) T f L q,1 (ω) = T ω() 1 q. Thus [σ,ω] α,p,q T. (2) (1) Fix f L p (σ) and λ > 0. We bound the set {T(fσ) > 2λ}. For n Z, we denote T n (fσ) = j=n α j j (fσ) and T n (fσ) = j=n α j j (fσ). Let τ = inf{n : T n (fσ) > λ} and Q λ = {{τ = n} : n Z}. For n Z, we have λχ {τ=n} T n 1 (fσ)χ {τ=n}. Then, λχ {τ=n} {T(fσ)>2λ} T n (fσ)χ {τ=n} {T(fσ)>2λ}. For η (0,1) to be determined later, we denote { } = {τ = n} : ω({τ = n} {T(fσ) > 2λ}) < ηω({τ = n})

and F = Q λ \. It follows that WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 15 (2λ) q ω({t(fσ) > 2λ}) ( η(2λ) q ω({τ = n})+2 q λ q η q ω({τ = n} {T(fσ) > 2λ}) ω({τ = n}) ω({τ = n}) F ( ) q η(2λ) q ω({τ = n})+2 q η q {τ=n} ω({τ = n}) Tn (fσ)ωdµ. ω({τ = n}) F ) q Note that ( ) q {τ=n} ω({τ = n}) Tn (fσ)ωdµ ω({τ = n}) n Z = ( q ( ) 1 q T (fσ)ωdµ) n ω {τ = n} n Z {τ=n} = ( q ( 1 q. T n (ωχ {τ=n} )fσdµ) ω {τ = n}) n Z {τ=n} Using Hölder s inequality, we obtain ( ) q {τ=n} ω({τ = n}) Tn (fσ)ωdµ ω({τ = n}) n Z ( ) q ( )q p p T n (ωχ {τ=n} ) p σdµ f p σdµ ω({τ = n}) 1 q n Z {τ=n} {τ=n} = ( ( ) ) 1 q ( T n (ωχ {τ=n} ) p p σdµ (ω{τ = n}) 1 )q q f p p σdµ. n Z {τ=n} {τ=n} In view of the condition (1.11), we have ( ) q ( {τ=n} ω({τ = n}) Tn (fσ)ωdµ [σ,ω] q α,p,q ω({τ = n}) Thus n Z where C(η) = 2 (1 2 q η) 1q η = [σ,ω] q α,p,q ( n Z T α (fσ) L q, (ω) C(η)[σ,ω] α,p,q f L p (σ), Ω {τ=n} )q f p p σdµ. f p σdµ. The function C(η) attains its minimum for η = q 1 and the 1+q 2 q minimum is equal to 2 q+11+q q (1+q)1 q. It follows that T [σ,ω]α,p,q. )q p

16 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO roof of Theorem 1.6. Let i Zbearbitrarilychosen andfixed. ByLemma 3.3, we estimate M i (σχ ) p vdµ for any Fi 0. Since M i (σ) p vdµ = M i (σχ ) p vdµ, it suffices to estimate M i (σχ ) p vdµ for = 0 Fi 0, where µ( 0 ) > 0 and, for some k Z, 0 := {2 k 1 < (σ F i ) 2 k }. For the above i, 0 and σ, we apply the construction of principal sets. We have M i (σ) p vdµ M i (σ) p vdµ 0 () () 2 p(k 2() 1) vdµ 2 p(k 2() 1) vdµ. roof of (1). It follows from the definition of B p that 2 p(k2() 1) vdµ = 2 p(k2() 1) (v F K1 ())dµ (σ F K1 ()) p (v F K1 ())dµ [v,ω] Bp exp((logσ F K1 ()))dµ. Note that exp((logσ F K1 ()))dµ = = exp((log(σχ 0 ) F K1 ()))dµ exp((log(σχ 0 ) F K1 ()))χ dµ. In view of.3 of the construction of principle sets, it follows that 2 p(k2() 1) vdµ 2[v,ω] Bp exp((log(σχ 0 ) F K1 ()))(χ () F K1 ())dµ = 2[v,ω] Bp exp((log(σχ 0 ) F K1 ()))χ () dµ = 2[v,ω] Bp exp((log(σχ 0 ) F K1 ()))dµ. () Using Jensen s inequality for conditional expectation, for any q > 1, we have ( ) ( exp (log(σχ 0 ) F K1 ()) (σχ 0 ) 1 q q FK1 ()) M((σχ0 ) 1 q ) q.

Then WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 17 M i (σ) p vdµ [v,ω] Bp 0 [v,ω] Bp () M((σχ 0 ) 1 q ) q dµ. 0 M((σχ 0 ) 1 q ) q dµ. Combining it with the boundedness of Doob s maximal operator, we deduce that M i (σ) p vdµ [v,ω] Bp (q ) q σdµ. 0 0 Letting q, we obtain (q ) q e. Thus 0 M i (σ) p vdµ [v,ω] Bp σ( 0 ). roof of (2). It follows from the definition of A p that 2 p(k2() 1) vdµ = 2 p(k2() 1) (v F K1 ())dµ (σ F K1 ()) p (v F K1 ())dµ [v,ω] Ap (σ F K1 ())dµ. Note that (σ F K 1 ())dµ = (σχ 0 F K1 ())χ dµ. In view of.3 of the construction of principle sets, it follows that (σχ 0 F K1 ())χ dµ 2 (σχ 0 F K1 ())(χ () F K1 ())dµ = 2 (σχ 0 F K1 ())dµ Then Because of σ A, we have 2 () () M i (σ) p vdµ [v,ω] Ap 0 M K1 ( 0 )(σχ 0 )dµ. () M K1 ( 0 )(σχ 0 )dµ. [v,ω] Ap 0 M K1 ( 0 )(σχ 0 )dµ. 0 M i (σ) p vdµ [v,ω] Ap [σ] A σ( 0 ).

18 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO roof of (3). For a Z, define Q a = { : 2 a 1 < esssup((ω F K1 ())(σ F K1 ()) p 1 ) 2 a }. It follows from Hölder s inequality that 1 = j (ω 1 p ω 1 p ) p j (ω) j (σ) p 1 [ω] Ap, for any j Z. Set K = [log 2 [ω] Ap ]+1, we have K = Q a. Then Note that a=0 2 p(k2() 1) ωdµ = ( ) (σ F K1 ()) p (ω F K1 ()) χ esssup It follows that 2 p(k2() 1) ωdµ 2 p(k 2() 1) (ω F K1 ())dµ (σ F K1 ()) p (ω F K1 ())dµ. ((σ F K1 ()) p 1 (ω F K1 ())χ )esssup(σ F K1 ()χ ). 2 = 2 K 2 a a=0 a=0 Q a Q a K 2 a K 2 a a=0 Q a esssup(σ F K1 ())dµ (σ F K1 ())dµ σdµ. Let Q a max 1 be the collection of maximal sets in Q a, we obtain σdµ = σdµ = Q a Q Q a max Q a, Q Q Q a max Q a, Q σχ dµ. In view of.3 of the construction of principle sets, it follows that σdµ 2 σ(χ () F K1 ())dµ Q a Q Q a max Q a, Q = 2 Q Q a max Q a, Q (σ F K1 ())χ () dµ. Let Q. In view of Zorn s Lemma, for Q ordered by containment, we have that Q contains at least one maximal element. Then, we denote the collection of maximal elements in Q by Q max.

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 19 Because of (σ F K 1 ())χ () dµ = (σχ () Q F K1 ())dµ, we have σdµ 2 M K1 (Q)(σχ Q )dµ Then Q a 0 M i (σ) p ωdµ K 2 a a=0 K Q Q a max Q a, Q 2 Q Q a max a=0 Q Q a max Q Q a max Q Q () M K1 (Q)(σχ Q )dµ. M K1 (Q)(σχ Q )dµ ( ) esssup (ω F K1 (Q))(σ F K1 (Q)) p 1 M K1 (Q)(σχ Q )dµ. Q Q By (2.7) the definition of (A p ) 1 p (A )1 p, we have Thus 0 M i (σ) p ωdµ [σ] p (A p ) [σ] p (A p ) = [σ] p (A p ) 0 M i (σ) p ωdµ [σ] p (A p ) The proof of Theorem 1.6 is complete. [σ] p (A p ) K 1 p (A )1 p a=0 Q Q a max K 1 p (A p ) 1 a=0 1 p (A )1 p 1 p (A )1 p 1 p (A )1 p Q σdµ σdµ 0 (K +1) σdµ. 0 (3+log 2 [ω] Ap ) σdµ 0 (1+log 2 [ω] Ap ) σdµ. 0 References [1] Bañuelos, R. and Osȩkowski A., Burkholder inequalities for submartingales, Bessel processes and conformal martingales, Amer. J. Math., 135(2013), no. 6, 1675 1698. [2] Bañuelos, R. and Osȩkowski A., Sharp maximal Lp-estimates for martingales, Illinois J. Math., 58(2014), no. 1, 149 165. [3] Bañuelos, R. and Osȩkowski A., Sharp martingale inequalities and applications to Riesz transforms on manifolds, Lie groups and Gauss space, J. Funct. Anal., 269(2015), no. 6, 1652 1713. [4] Buckley S., stimates of operator norms on weighted spaces and reverse Jensen inequalities, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 340(1993), 253 272. [5] Burkholder D. L., A sharp inequality for martingale transforms, Ann. robab., 7(1979), 858 863. [6] Chang X. Q., Some Sawyer type inequalities for martingales, Studia Math., 111(1994), 187 194.

20 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO [7] Chen W. and Jiao Y., Weighted estimates for the multisublinear maximal function on filtered measure spaces, (submitted 2016). [8] Chen W. and Liu. D., Weighted inequalities for the generalized maximal operator in martingale spaces, Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B, 32(2011), 781 792. [9] Coifman R. R., Fefferman C., Weighted norm inequalities for maximal functions and singular integrals Studia Math., 51(1974), 241 250. [10] Damián W., Lerner A. K. and eréz C., Sharp weighted bounds for multilinear maximal functions and Calderon-Zygmund operators, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., 21(2015), 161 181. [11] Dellancherie C. and Meyer. A., robabilities and potential, North-Holland ublishing Co., Amsterdam, 1988. [12] Doob J. L., Stochastic rocesses, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York; Chapman & Hall, Limited, London, 1953. [13] Doob J. L., Semimartingales and subharmonic functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 77(1954), 86 121. [14] García-Cuerva J. and Rubio de Francia J. Weighted norm inequalities and related topics Volume 116 of North-Holland Mathematics Studies, North Holland ublishing Co., Amsterdam, 1985. [15] Grafakos, L., Classical Fourier Analysis, Third edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 249. Springer, New York, 2014. [16] Hytönen T., The sharp weighted bound for general Calderón-Zygmund Operators, Ann. of Math., 175(2012), 1473 1506. [17] Hytönen T. and Kairema A., Systems of dyadic cubes in a doubling metric space, Colloq. Math. 126(2012), 1 33. [18] Hytönen T. and Lacey M. T., The A p -A inequality for general Calderón-Zygmund operators, Indiana U. Math. J., 61(2012), 2041 2092. [19] Hytönen T., Lacey M. T. and érez C., Sharp weighted bounds for the q-variation of singular integrals, Bull. London Math. Soc., 45(2013), 529 540. [20] Hytönen T., van Neerven J., Veraar M.C. and Weis L.W., Analysis in Banach spaces Volume I: Martingales and Littlewood-aley theory (version: May 20, 2016). http://wiki.helsinki.fi/pages/viewpage.action?pageid=31427518 [21] Hytönen T. and érez C., Sharp weighted bounds involving A, Anal. and D., 6(2013), 777 818. [22] Izumisawa M. and Kazamaki N., Weighted norm inequalities for martingales, Tôhoku Math. J., 29(1977), 115 124. [23] Jawerth B., Weighted inequalities for maximal operators: linearization, localization and factorization, Amer. J. Math., 108(1986), 361 414. [24] Kairema A., Two-weight norm inequalities for potential type and maximal operators in a metric space, ubl. Mat., 57(2013), 3-56. [25] Kairema A., Sharp weighted bounds for fractional integral operators in a space of homogeneous type, Math. Scand., 114(2014), 226 253. [26] Kazamaki N., Continuous exponential martingales and BMO, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1579 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. [27] Lacey M. T., The linear bound in A 2 for Calderón-Zygmund operators: a survey, Marcinkiewicz centenary volume, 97 114, Banach Center ubl., 95, olish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw, 2011. [28] Lacey M. T., An A p -A inequality for the Hilbert transform, Houston J. Math., 38(2012), 799 814. [29] Lacey M. T., Moen K., érez C. and Torres R. H., Sharp weighted bounds for fractional integral operators, J. Funct. Anal. 259(2010), 1073 1097. [30] Lacey M. T., Sawyer. and Uriarte-Tuero I., Two weight inequalities for discrete positive operators, https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.3437 (2009). [31] Lerner A., An elementary approach to several results on the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator, roc. Amer. Math. Soc., 136(2008), 2829 2833. [32] Lerner A., A simple proof of the A 2 conjecture, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, 14(2013), 3159 3170..

WIGHTD STIMATS ON TH FILTRD MASUR SAC 21 [33] Lerner A. and Moen K., Mixed A p A estimates with one supremum, Studia Math. 219(2013), 247-267. [34] Long R. L., Martingale spaces and inequalities, eking University ress, Beijing; Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1993. [35] Long R.L. and eng L.Z., (p, q) maximal inequalities with two weights in martingale theory, (Chinese) Acta Math. Sinica, 29(1986), 253 258. [36] Muckenhoupt B., Weighted norm inequalities for the Hardy maximal function, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 165(1972), 207 226. [37] Muckenhoupt B. and Wheeden R., Weighted norm inequalities for fractional integrals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 192(1974), 261 274. [38] Nazarov F., Treil S. and Volberg A., The T b-theorem on non-homogeneous spaces, Acta Math., 190(2003), 151 239. [39] Neveu J., Discrete-arameter Martingales. North-Holland ublishing Co., Amsterdam, revised edition, 1975. [40] Osȩkowski A., Sharp Martingale and Semimartingale Inequalities. Monogr. Mat., vol.72, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2012. [41] etermichl S., Dyadic shifts and a logarithmic estimate for Hankel operators with matrix symbol, C. R. Acad. Sci. aris Sér. I Math., 330(2000), 455 460. [42] Rosenblum M., Summability of Fourier series in L p (dµ), Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 105(1962), 32 42. [43] Sawyer., A characterization of a two-weight norm inequality for maximal operators, Studia Math., 75(1982), 1 11. [44] Sawyer., A characterization of two weight norm inequalities for fractional and oisson integrals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 308(1988), 533 545. [45] Schilling R., Measures, integrals and martingales, Cambridge University ress, New York, 2005. [46] Stroock D. W., robability theory. An analytic view., Second edition, Cambridge University ress, Cambridge, 2011. [47] Tanaka H. and Terasawa Y., ositive operators and maximal operators in a filtered measure space, J. Funct. Anal., 264(2013), 920-946. [48] Tanaka H. and Terasawa Y., A characterization for the boundedness of positive operators in a filtered measure space, Arch. Math. (Basel)., 101(2013), 559-568. [49] Treil S., Sharp A 2 estimates of Haar shifts via Bellman function. Recent trends in analysis, 187 208, Theta Ser. Adv. Math., Theta, Bucharest, 2013. [50] Treil S., A remark on two weight estimates for positive dyadic operators, https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1455 (2012). [51] Uchiyama A., Weight functions on probability spaces, Tôhoku Math. J., 30(1978), 463 470. [52] Weisz F., Martingale Hardy spaces and their applications in Fourier analysis, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1568, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. MR 1320508 [53] Williams D., robability with martingales. Cambridge Mathematical Textbooks. Cambridge University ress, Cambridge, 1991.

22 W. CHN, C. X. ZHU, Y. H. ZUO, AND Y. JIAO Wei Chen, School of Mathematical Sciences, Yangzhou University, 225002 Yangzhou, China -mail address: weichen@yzu.edu.cn Chunxiang Zhu, School of Mathematical Sciences, Yangzhou University, 225002 Yangzhou, China -mail address: cxzhu yzu@163.com Yahui Zuo, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China -mail address: zuoyahui@csu.edu.cn Yong Jiao, School of Mathematics and Statistics, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China -mail address: jiaoyong@csu.edu.cn