Two classes of integral operators over the Siegel upper half-space
Congwen Liu, Yi Liu, Pengyan Hu, Lifang Zhou

TL;DR
This paper characterizes the boundedness of two classes of integral operators on weighted L^p spaces over the Siegel upper half-space, providing precise conditions for their boundedness.
Contribution
It precisely determines the conditions under which these two classes of integral operators are bounded on weighted L^p spaces over the Siegel upper half-space.
Findings
Exact boundedness conditions established
Applicable to weighted L^p spaces
Enhances understanding of integral operators in complex analysis
Abstract
We determine exactly when two classes of integral operators are bounded on weighted spaces over the Siegel upper half-space.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Two classes of integral operators over the Siegel upper half-space
Congwen Liu
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, People’s Republic of China.
and
Wu Wen-Tsun Key Laboratory of Mathematics, USTC, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, People’s Republic of China.
,
Yi Liu
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, People’s Republic of China.
,
Pengyan Hu
Colledge of Mathematics and Statistics, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong 518060, People’s Republic of China.
and
Lifang Zhou
Department of Mathematics, Huzhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, People s Republic of China
Abstract.
We determine exactly when two classes of integral operators are bounded on weighted spaces over the Siegel upper half-space.
Key words and phrases:
Siegel upper half-space; Bergman type operators; weighted spaces; boundedness
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 32A35, 47G10; Secondary 32A26, 30E20
The first author was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grants 11571333, 11471301; the fourth author was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang province grant (No. LQ13A010005), the Scientific Research and Teachers project of Huzhou University(No. RP21028) and partially by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grant 11571105.
1. Introduction
This short note is motivated by the work of Kures and Zhu [7], in which the authors characterized the boundedness of two classes of integral operators induced by Bergman type kernels on weighted Lebesgue spaces on the unit ball of .
Fix three real parameters and define two integral operators and by
[TABLE]
where is the volume measure on , normalized so that . Also, for any real parameter we define .
Kures and Zhu [7] obtained the following two theorems.
Theorem A**.**
Suppose . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- (i)
The operator is bounded on . 2. (ii)
The operator is bounded on . 3. (iii)
The parameters satisfy
[TABLE]
Theorem B**.**
The following conditions are equivalent:
- (i)
The operator is bounded on . 2. (ii)
The operator is bounded on . 3. (iii)
The parameters satisfy
[TABLE]
Actually, these two theorems were proved in [7] under the additional assumption that is neither [math] nor a negative integer. Recently, Zhao [11] removed this extra requirement as well as generalized these two theorems by characterizing the boundedness of and , from to .
The case of Theorems A is well known and being extensively used, see for example [12, Theorem 2.10]. It is also worthy to mention that, recently, a variant of Theorem A played a crucial role in the proof of the corona theorem for the Drury-Arveson Hardy space, see [2, Lemma 24].
In this note we consider the counterparts of Theorems A and B for two classes of integral operators over the Siegel upper half-space. The situation turns out to be quite different in this setting.
Before stating our main result, we introduce some definitions and notation.
We fix a positive integer throughout this paper and let denote the -dimensional complex Euclidean space. For any two points and in , we write
[TABLE]
and . The open unit ball in is the set
[TABLE]
For , we also use the notation
[TABLE]
The Siegel upper half-space in is the set
[TABLE]
It is biholomorphically equivalent to the unit ball in , via the Cayley transform given by
[TABLE]
and so it is also referred to as the unbounded realization of the unit ball in .
We denote by the Lebesgue measure on . For any real parameters , , and , we consider two integral operators as follows.
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and . These operators are modelled on the weighted Bergman projections on . Recall that the Bergman projection on is given by
[TABLE]
See, for instance, [4, Proposition 5.1].
For real parameter , we define
[TABLE]
As usual, for , the space consists of all Lebesgue measurable functions on for which
[TABLE]
is finite.
Our main result gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the boundedness of the operators and on in terms of parameters , and .
Theorem 1**.**
Suppose and . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
- (i)
The operator is bounded on . 2. (ii)
The operator is bounded on . 3. (iii)
The parameters satisfy the conditions
[TABLE]
When , these conditions should be interpreted as
[TABLE]
Note that Condition (iii) in Theorem 1 is different from the corresponding ones in Theorems A and B. In particular, unlike and , both and are unbounded whenever . This is due to the unboundedness of the Siegel upper half-space and the homogeneity of the operators and .
The proof follows the same main lines as in [7]. However, the computations here are more subtle. For instance, in the proof of the necessity for the boundedness of , we cannot simply choose polynomials to serve as test functions as in [7], since polynomials do not belong to . Instead, we consider the functions of the form , with appropriate choices of the parameters involved. This leads to more complicated calculations than those arising in the unit ball setting. Hence, an essential role is played by the following lemma, which might be of independent interest.
Key Lemma**.**
Suppose that , and . Then
[TABLE]
holds for all , where
[TABLE]
The formula (3), with implicit constant , is not new; it is a special case of [1, Lemma 2.2’]. The novelty here is to find the explicit expression (4) of .
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we recall some basic materials about Möbius transformations and the Cayley transform. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of Key Lemma. Our main result, Theorem 1 will be proved in Sections 4. Finally, in Section 5, two examples are given to illustrate the use of Theorem 1.
2. Preliminaries
We begin by recalling that the Cayley transform is given by
[TABLE]
It is easy to check that the identity
[TABLE]
holds for all , and the real Jacobian of at is
[TABLE]
The group of all one-to-one holomorphic mappings of onto (the so-called automorphisms of ) will be denoted by . It is generated by the unitary transformations on along with the Möbius transformations given by
[TABLE]
where , is the orthogonal projection onto the space spanned by , and .
It is easily shown that the mapping satisfies
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for all ,
[TABLE]
Finally, an easy computation shows that
[TABLE]
holds for all .
The best general reference here is [9, Chapter 2].
The following lemma, usually called Schur’s test, is one of the most commonly used results for proving the -boundedness of integral operators. See, for example, [13, Theorem 3.6].
Lemma 2**.**
Suppose that is a -finite measure space and is a nonnegative measurable function on and is the associated integral operator
[TABLE]
Let and . If there exist a positive constant and a positive measurable function on such that
[TABLE]
for almost every in and
[TABLE]
for almost every in , then is bounded on with .
3. The proof of Key Lemma
We begin with two lemmas.
Lemma 3**.**
Suppose that , and . Then
[TABLE]
holds for any and .
Proof.
We may further assume that ; if we prove the lemma in this special case, the general case follows by analytic continuation.
According to [8, Lemma 2.3], the identity
[TABLE]
holds for all , and . Note that
[TABLE]
since . Letting , by the dominated convergence theorem and using the well-known formula
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Lemma 4**.**
Suppose that , and . Then
[TABLE]
holds for all .
Proof.
We make the change of variables in the integral, where is the Möbius transformation of the unit ball, as defined in Section 2, as well as apply the formulas (8) and (9). After simplification, we obtain
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3 and the formula (7), this equals
[TABLE]
which establishes the formula. ∎
Now we turn to the proof of Key Lemma.
By the change of variables in the integral and using (5), we obtain
[TABLE]
In view of (4), this equals
[TABLE]
where we used (5) to obtain the last equality. The proof is complete.
We single out a special case of Key Lemma as the following lemma, which will be used repeatedly.
Lemma 5**.**
Let . Then we have
[TABLE]
for all , where
[TABLE]
Proof.
It remains to show that the integral is finite if and only if and .
Before proceeding, we recall the definition of the Heisenberg group and some basic facts which can be found in [10, Chapter XII].
We denote by the Heisenberg group, that is, the set
[TABLE]
endowed with the group operation
[TABLE]
To each element of , we associate the following (holomorphic) affine self-mapping of :
[TABLE]
It is easy to check that
[TABLE]
for any and any .
For fixed , we put . It is easy to check that , where , and
[TABLE]
for all . Using (16) and making the change of variables in the integral, we see that
[TABLE]
By Fubini’s theorem, this equals
[TABLE]
which is finite if and only if and . ∎
4. The proof of Theorem 1
(ii) (i):
Obvious.
(i) (iii):
Suppose that is bounded on .
Case 1: . Note that the constant function cannot serve as a test function at this moment, since . Instead, we consider the function
[TABLE]
Each is a unit vector in and
[TABLE]
for every . Since for all , where denotes the operator norm of acting on , by Lemma 5, we have
[TABLE]
which is clearly nothing but (2).
Case 2: . Note that the boundedness of on implies the boundedness of on , where is the adjoint of . It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
So we can apply the previous case to to obtain
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
Case 3: .
We first show that . In order that be always well-defined for , it is necessary and sufficient that
[TABLE]
for all , where is the conjugate exponent of . Again by Lemma 5, this happens if and only if
[TABLE]
Summing up the two inequalities, we get .
For , we put
[TABLE]
where are real parameters satisfying the conditions
[TABLE]
By Lemma 5, Conditions (C.1)–(C.3) guarantee that and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Also, in view of Conditions (C.1)–(C.3) and that , we can apply Key Lemma to obtain
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since , again by Lemma 5, it is necessary that
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
where equals
[TABLE]
Since is bounded on , there is a positive constant , independent of , such that for all . Taking (18) and (20) into account, we can find another positive constant , independent of , such that
[TABLE]
for all . But this is true only when .
Having proved that and , we proceed to show that . Note that the boundedness of on is equivalent to the boundedness of on , where is the adjoint of , as is given by (17). Applying (19) to , we conclude that
[TABLE]
which is exactly the same as
[TABLE]
(iii) (ii):
The cases and are direct consequences of Lemma 5.
In the case , the proof appeals to Schur’s test. Let
[TABLE]
and , where . Again, it follows from Lemma 5 that
[TABLE]
holds for every . Similarly,
[TABLE]
holds for every . Hence, by Lemma 2, is bounded on with
[TABLE]
The proof is complete.
5. Applications
We present two examples to illustrate the use of our main result.
In order to state the first example we need to introduce more notation. It is known that the Bergman kernel function induces a Riemannian metric on a domain in . The infinitesimal Bergman metric is defined by
[TABLE]
and the complex matrix
[TABLE]
is called the Bergman matrix of . For a curve , the Bergman length of is defined by
[TABLE]
If , then their Bergman distance is
[TABLE]
where the infimum is taken over all curves from to . If , are two domains in and is a biholomorphic mapping of onto , then for all . Hence,
[TABLE]
Furthermore, a computation shows that
[TABLE]
Let and be real numbers. We consider the operator
[TABLE]
It is a modification of the integral operator in Theorem 1, with an extra unbounded factor in the integrand.
Theorem 6**.**
Suppose and . If and then the operator is bounded on .
Proof.
Pick so small that . Since holds for any and any , it follows from (21) that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
where and . The desired result then follows from Theorem 1. ∎
We denote by the Bergman space, that is, the closed subspace of consisting of holomorphic functions on . As usual, we write . The following result plays an important role in the study of the Besov spaces over the Siegel upper half-space.
Theorem 7**.**
Suppose , and . Then is a bounded linear operator from into .
Proof.
According to [3, Theorem 2.1], if with and satisfying the assumption of the theorem, then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
By Theorem 1, this implies
[TABLE]
as asserted. ∎
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to an anonymous referee for several valuable suggestions and especially for pointing out a gap in the proof of Theorem 1 in the original version of this paper. We also wish to thank Professor H. Turgay Kaptanoglu for constructive comments and for bringing the paper by Ruhan Zhao to our attention.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R. R. Coifman and R. Rochberg, Representation theorem for holomorphic and harmonic functions in L p superscript 𝐿 𝑝 L^{p} , pp. 12-66, Astérisque , 77, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1980.
- 2[2] S. Costea, E.T. Sawyer and B.D. Wick. The corona theorem for the Drury-Arveson Hardy space and other holomorphic Besov-Sobolev spaces on the unit ball in ℂ n superscript ℂ 𝑛 \mathbb{C}^{n} . Anal. PDE 4 (2011), no. 4, 499–550.
- 3[3] M. M. Djrbashian and A. H. Karapetyan, Integral representations for some classes of functions holomorphic in a Siegel domain, J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 179 (1993), 91–109.
- 4[4] S. G. Gindikin, Analysis in homogeneous domains, Russian Math. Surveys 19(4) (1964), 1–89.
- 5[5] S. G. Krantz, Function theory of several complex variables. Reprint of the 1992 edition. AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2001.
- 6[6] S. G. Krantz, Explorations in harmonic analysis: with applications to complex function theory and the Heisenberg group. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2009.
- 7[7] O. Kures and K. Zhu, A class of integral operators on the unit ball of C n superscript 𝐶 𝑛 C^{n} , Integral Equations and Operator Theory 56 (2006), 71–82.
- 8[8] C. Liu, Sharp Forelli-Rudin estimates and the norm of the Bergman projection, Journal of Functional Analysis , 268 (2015), 255–277.
