Exceptional sets for length under restricted families of projections onto lines in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$

Abstract.

It is shown that if $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is a Borel set of Hausdorff dimension $\dim A>1$, and if $\rho_{\theta}$ is orthogonal projection to the line spanned by $(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,1)$, then $\rho_{\theta}(A)$ has positive length for all $\theta$ outside a set of Hausdorff dimension at most $\frac{3-\dim A}{2}$.

1. Introduction

Let $I$ be a compact subinterval of $\mathbb{R}$, and let $\gamma:I\to S^{2}$ be a $C^{2}$ curve with $\det\left(\gamma,\gamma^{\prime},\gamma^{\prime\prime}\right)$ nonvanishing on $I$. Let $\rho_{\theta}$ be orthogonal projection onto the span of $\gamma(\theta)$, given by

$$\rho_{\theta}(x)=\langle x,\gamma(\theta)\rangle\gamma(\theta).$$

The model example is when $\gamma(\theta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,1\right)$ and $I=[0,2\pi]$, but everything stated below holds in the general case. The main result of this work is the following theorem (see Subsection 1.2 for notation).

Theorem 1.1.

Suppose that $1<\alpha\leq 3$, and let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Borel measure on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that $c_{\alpha}(\mu)<\infty$. Then

$$\dim\left\{\theta\in I:\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\not\ll\mathcal{H}^{1}\right\}\leq\frac{3-\alpha}{2}.$$

The following slightly stronger inequality will be shown via the same method of proof.

Theorem 1.2.

Suppose that $1<\alpha\leq 3$. Then for any $\beta>\frac{3-\alpha}{2}$, there exists a $p=p(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ with $1<p\leq 2$ and a constant $C=C(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ such that the following holds. If $\mu$ is a Borel measure on $B_{3}(0,1)$ such that $c_{\alpha}(\mu)<\infty$, and if $\lambda$ is a Borel measure on $I$ such that $c_{\beta}(\lambda)<\infty$, then

$$\int_{I}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{p}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{p}\,d\lambda(\theta)\leq Cc_{\alpha}(\mu)^{p-1}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{\frac{2-p}{2}}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{\frac{p}{2}}.$$

By a theorem of Mattila [14], a corollary of Theorem 1.2 is the following.

Corollary 1.3.

Suppose that $t>1$, and that $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is $\mathcal{H}^{t}$-measurable with $0<\mathcal{H}^{t}(A)<\infty$. Then there is a set $E_{\theta}\subseteq I$ with

$$\dim E_{\theta}\leq\frac{3-t}{2},$$

such that for any $\theta\in I\setminus E_{\theta}$,

$$\mathcal{H}^{1}\left\{y\in\operatorname{span}\gamma(\theta):\dim\left(\rho_{\theta}^{-1}(y)\cap A\right)=t-1\right\}>0.$$

Corollary 1.3 is an exceptional set version of (one half of) Theorem 1.4 from [7]. By Frostman’s lemma and a theorem of Davies [1] that a Borel (or analytic) set of dimension strictly greater than $t$ (or even $\mathcal{H}^{t}(A)=\infty$) contains an $\mathcal{H}^{t}$-measurable set of positive finite measure, a consequence of Corollary 1.3 is the following.

Corollary 1.4.

If $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is Borel (or analytic) and $\dim A>1$, then there is a set $E_{\theta}\subseteq I$ with

$$\dim E_{\theta}\leq\frac{3-\dim A}{2},$$

such that for any $\epsilon>0$ and $\theta\in I\setminus E_{\theta}$,

(1.1) $$\mathcal{H}^{1}\left\{y\in\operatorname{span}\gamma(\theta):\dim\left(\rho_{\theta}^{-1}(y)\cap A\right)\geq\dim A-1-\epsilon\right\}>0.$$

If $\mathcal{H}^{t}(A)>0$ where $\dim A=t$, then the same holds with $\epsilon=0$ in (1.1).

Any example with $\dim A=t$ but $\mathcal{H}^{t}(A)=0$ shows that $\epsilon$ cannot be taken equal to zero in (1.1) (using e.g. [13, Theorem 7.7]). By taking $\epsilon$ in (1.1) positive but strictly smaller than $\dim A-1$, a consequence of Corollary 1.4 is the following.

Corollary 1.5.

If $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is Borel (or analytic) and $\dim A>1$, then

(1.2) $$\dim\left\{\theta\in I:\mathcal{H}^{1}(\rho_{\theta}(A))=0\right\}\leq\frac{3-\dim A}{2}.$$

Rather than going through intersections, Corollary 1.5 also follows directly from Theorem 1.1 just by Frostman’s lemma and the definition of absolute continuity. Similarly, Corollary 1.5 can be deduced directly from Theorem 1.2. Theorem 1.1 also implies (see the proof of Theorem 1.3 in [9]) that if $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is $\mathcal{H}^{t}$-measurable with $0<\mathcal{H}^{t}(A)<\infty$ for some $t>1$, then there is a Borel set $E_{\theta}$ with $\dim E_{\theta}\leq(3-t)/2$, such that any $\mathcal{H}^{t}$-measurable set $B\subseteq A$ with $\mathcal{H}^{t}(B)>0$ satisfies $\mathcal{H}^{1}(\rho_{\theta}(B))>0$ for all $\theta\in I\setminus E_{\theta}$.

The previous exceptional set inequality for the set in (1.2) was $\frac{4-\dim A}{3}$, from [9]. However, with the zero length condition $\mathcal{H}^{1}(\rho_{\theta}(A))=0$ replaced by the slightly stronger condition $\dim(\rho_{\theta}(A))<1$, Gan, Guth, and Maldague proved in [6] that

(1.3) $$\dim\left\{\theta\in I:\dim\left(\rho_{\theta}(A)\right)<1\right\}\leq\frac{3-\dim A}{2}.$$

Therefore, Corollary 1.5 is a refinement of (1.3) which weakens the requirement $\dim(\rho_{\theta}(A))<1$ to just $\rho_{\theta}(A)$ having zero length (see also Remark 3 in [6] for a brief discussion). More generally, in [6] they also showed that if $0\leq s\leq 1$ and $A\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is a Borel set with $\dim A=t$, then

(1.4) $$\dim\left\{\theta\in I:\dim\left(\rho_{\theta}(A)\right)<s\right\}\leq\max\left\{0,\frac{2-(t-s)}{2}\right\}.$$

There are some examples which suggest that the exceptional set inequality (1.3) corresponding to $s=1$ might be sharp. If true, this would imply the sharpness of the exceptional set bound in Corollary 1.5, Corollary 1.4, Corollary 1.3 and Theorem 1.1; since improving any of these exceptional set bounds would improve the exceptional set bound in (1.3).

The above inequalities are often referred to as “Falconer-type” exceptional set bounds, because Falconer proved [2] that

$$\dim\left\{\theta\in[0,\pi):\mathcal{H}^{1}(\pi_{\theta}(A))=0\right\}\leq 2-\dim A,$$

whenever $A$ is a Borel set in the plane with $\dim A>1$, and $\pi_{\theta}$ is orthogonal projection to the line spanned by $\left(\cos\theta,\sin\theta\right)$. Returning to the restricted projection problem in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, for $t=s$, Pramanik, Yang, and Zahl [15] proved that if $A$ is a Borel set with $\dim A=t<1$, then

$$\dim\left\{\theta\in I:\dim\left(\rho_{\theta}(A)\right)<t\right\}\leq t,$$

which is better than (1.4) when $t$ is close to $s$, and is usually referred to as a “Kaufman-type” exceptional set bound (after [11]). An earlier exceptional set bound was proved by Käenmäki, Orponen, and Venieri in [10], which solved the almost everywhere restricted projection problem for the curve $\gamma(\theta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\cos\theta,\sin\theta,1\right)$, but their exceptional set bound was superseded by (1.4).

1.1. Notes on the method

The main improvement to the exceptional set inequality over the one from [9] comes from using a “small cap” wave packet decomposition instead of a standard wave packet decomposition for the cone. This decomposes the cone in frequency space into small caps (or tubes) instead of standard caps (or planks), and correspondingly decomposes physical space into slabs dual to these small caps (instead of planks). This is more natural for the projections $\rho_{\theta}$, because the inverse of a $\delta$-interval under $\rho_{\theta}$ is a $\delta$-slab (a $\delta$-neighbourhood of a light plane). As in [9], the approach to proving Theorem 1.1 is via a “good-bad” decomposition of the measure $\mu$ (adapting arguments from [8, 12] originally set up for the distance set problem), and using small caps makes the bound on the “bad” part less wasteful. Unfortunately, the approach to bounding the “good” part in [9] used refined decoupling, which does not seem to work well with small caps. Instead, the “good” part is converted back into a standard wave packet decomposition for the cone over planks $T$. For a given plank $T$ inside a slab $S$, there are either very few other planks $T^{\prime}$ inside $S$ with $\mu(T)\sim\mu(T^{\prime})$, or the $\mu$-measure of $T$ must be much smaller than $\mu(S)$. In either of these situations there is a gain in the argument over the one in [9], and a pigeonholing trick is used to make the argument precise and extract the optimal gain. This pigeonholing trick and the switching between wave packet decompositions (from around (3.13) to (3.21)) is the main novelty of the argument, and the key difference from [9].

The argument from [6] also used small caps, and used (fractal) $L^{4}$ small cap decoupling for the cone. Small cap decoupling is not used here, but only standard $L^{6}$ (refined) decoupling for the cone, so although there are some analogies to the argument in [6], and the use of small caps is inspired by [6], the two methods are substantially different. Since there is no yet known small cap decoupling for the 2-dimensional cone generated by the moment curve in higher dimensions (as far as I am aware), the approach used here might be more generalisable to higher dimensions. See [5] for the proof of the (almost everywhere) Hausdorff dimension version of the higher dimensional restricted projection problem.

The exponent $p>1$ obtained in Theorem 1.2 is extremely close to 1 and tends to 1 as $\alpha\to 1^{+}$; because the argument is formulated to optimise the bound on the exceptional set, which is unaffected by the value of $p$. The argument in [7] obtains a $p$ arbitrarily close to $3/2$ (thus bounded away from 1 as $\alpha\to 1^{+}$), but only if the measure $\lambda$ on $I$ is the Lebesgue measure, and the use of the Lebesgue measure in [7] is very important. Therefore, the two methods do not seem to be comparable.

1.2. Notation

1. For a measure $\mu$ on $X$ and a measurable function $f:X\to Y$, the notation $f_{\sharp}\mu$ denotes the pushforward of $\mu$ under $f$, which is a measure on $Y$ defined by

   $$(f_{\sharp}\mu)(E)=\mu(f^{-1}(E)),$$

   for any measurable set $E\subseteq Y$. Pushforwards are defined similarly for finite complex measures.

2. The Hausdorff measure on Euclidean space will be denoted by $\mathcal{H}^{s}$. In particular, $\mathcal{H}^{3}$ denotes Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, and $\mathcal{H}^{1}$ on any line in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is the Lebesgue measure on that line.

3. For a Borel measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $\alpha>0$,

   $$c_{\alpha}(\mu):=\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n},r>0}\frac{\mu(B(x,r))}{r^{\alpha}}.$$

4. Given two measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ defined on the same $\sigma$-algebra, the notation $\mu\ll\nu$ means that $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$, meaning that $\mu(A)=0$ whenever $A$ is measurable and $\nu(A)=0$. The notation $\mu\not\ll\nu$ means that $\mu$ is not absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$.

5. For a subset $A$ of Euclidean space, $\dim A$ denotes the Hausdorff dimension of $A$.

2. Small cap wave packet decomposition

This section sets up the analogues of Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 from [9] for the small cap wave packet decomposition. Throughout the next two sections, $\gamma:I\to S^{2}$ will be a fixed $C^{2}$ curve of unit speed (without loss of generality), with $\det(\gamma,\gamma^{\prime},\gamma^{\prime\prime})$ nonvanishing on $I$, where $I$ is a compact interval. The unit speed assumption implies that $\left\{\gamma(\theta),\gamma^{\prime}(\theta),\left(\gamma\times\gamma^{\prime}\right)(\theta)\right\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, for any $\theta\in I$.

Definition 2.1.

Let

$$\Lambda=\bigcup_{j\geq 1}\Lambda_{j},$$

where each $\Lambda_{j}$ is a collection of boxes (“small caps”) $\tau$ of dimensions $1\times 1\times 2^{j}$ with $\operatorname{dist}\left(\tau,\{0\}\right)\geq 2^{j-1}$, forming a boundedly overlapping cover of the $\sim 1$-neighbourhood of the truncated light cone $\Gamma_{j}$, where

$$\Gamma_{j}=\left\{t\gamma(\theta):2^{j-1}\leq\lvert t\rvert\leq 2^{j},\quad\theta\in I\right\}.$$

Each $\tau\in\Lambda_{j}$ has an angle $\theta_{\tau}$ such that the long axis of $\tau$ is parallel to $\gamma(\theta_{\tau})$. Let $\{\psi_{\tau}\}_{\tau\in\Lambda}$ be a smooth partition of unity subordinate to the cover $\left\{1.1\tau:\tau\in\Lambda\right\}$ of $\bigcup_{\tau\in\Lambda}\tau$, such that for any $\tau\in\Lambda_{j}$, $\xi,v\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$, $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and any positive integer $n$,

(2.1) $$\left\lvert\left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{n}\psi_{\tau}(\xi+tv)\right\rvert\lesssim_{n}\\ \left\lvert 2^{-j}\left\langle v,\gamma(\theta_{\tau})\right\rangle\right\rvert^{n}+\left\lvert\left\langle v,\gamma^{\prime}(\theta_{\tau})\right\rangle\right\rvert^{n}+\left\lvert\left\langle v,(\gamma\times\gamma^{\prime})(\theta_{\tau})\right\rangle\right\rvert^{n}.$$

Fix $\widetilde{\delta}>0$. For each $\tau\in\Lambda$, let $\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$ be a collection of boxes (referred to as “slabs”) of dimensions $2^{j\widetilde{\delta}}\times 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}}\times 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}$, forming a boundedly overlapping cover of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, such that for each $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$, the short direction of $S$ is parallel to $\gamma(\theta_{\tau})$. Let $\{\eta_{S}\}_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}}$ be a smooth partition of unity subordinate to the cover $\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$ of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, such that for any $x,v\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$, any $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and any positive integer $n$,

(2.2) $$\left\lvert\left(\frac{d}{dt}\right)^{n}\eta_{S}(x+tv)\right\rvert\lesssim_{n}\\ \left\lvert 2^{j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\left\langle v,\gamma(\theta_{\tau})\right\rangle\right\rvert^{n}+\left\lvert 2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}}\left\langle v,\gamma^{\prime}(\theta_{\tau})\right\rangle\right\rvert^{n}+\left\lvert 2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}}\left\langle v,(\gamma\times\gamma^{\prime})(\theta_{\tau})\right\rangle\right\rvert^{n}.$$

Given a finite complex Borel measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, $\tau\in\Lambda$ and $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$, define

$$M_{S}\mu=\eta_{S}\left(\mu\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}\right).$$

The following non-stationary phase lemma will be important later.

Lemma 2.2.

There exists an $r>0$, depending only on $\gamma$, such that the following holds. Let $j\geq 1$ and let $\tau\in\Lambda_{j}$. If $\theta\in I$ is such that $2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\leq\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\rvert\leq r$, then for any $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$, for any positive integer $N$ and for any finite complex Borel measure $\mu$,

$$\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\leq C2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}\lvert\mu\rvert(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

where $C=C\left(N,\gamma,\widetilde{\delta}\right)$.

Remark 1.

The idea is that $\mu\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}$ is Fourier supported in $1.1\tau$, and therefore $M_{S}\mu=\eta_{S}\left(\mu\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}\right)$ is essentially Fourier supported in $1.11\tau$. Since $\widehat{\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu}=\widehat{\mu}\circ\rho_{\theta}$, this means that the Fourier transform of $\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu$ will be negligible when $2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\leq\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\rvert\leq r$, since it is evaluating $\widehat{M_{S}\mu}$ outside its essential support.

Proof.

Since $\rho_{\theta}(S)$ has diameter $\lesssim\left\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\right\rvert$, it suffices to prove that

$$\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{\infty}\lesssim 2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}\left\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\right\rvert^{-1}\lvert\mu\rvert(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

By Hausdorff-Young (in one dimension), it suffices to bound

$$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{S}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert\,dt=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\widehat{\eta_{S}}(\xi)\psi_{\tau}(t\gamma(\theta)-\xi)\widehat{\mu}(t\gamma(\theta)-\xi)\,d\xi\right\rvert\,dt\\ \lesssim 2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}\left\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\right\rvert^{-1}\lvert\mu\rvert(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Since $\left\lVert\widehat{\mu}\right\rVert_{\infty}\leq\lvert\mu\rvert(\mathbb{R}^{3})$, it suffices to prove that

(2.3) $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert\widehat{\eta_{S}}(\xi)\right\rvert\left\lvert\psi_{\tau}(t\gamma(\theta)-\xi)\right\rvert\,d\xi\,dt\leq C_{N}2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}\left\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\right\rvert^{-1}.$$

Let $\widehat{S}$ be the box of dimensions $2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}}\times 2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}}\times 2^{j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}$ around the origin dual to the slab $S$. If $\xi\in 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}/2}\widehat{S}$, it will be shown that $t\gamma(\theta)-\xi\notin 1.1\tau$ for any $t\in\mathbb{R}$, for any $\theta$ with $2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\leq\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\rvert\leq r$. Suppose for a contradiction that $t\gamma(\theta)-\xi\in 1.1\tau$ for some $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\xi\in 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}{2}}\widehat{S}$. Then $\lvert t\rvert\sim 2^{j}$ since $\lvert\xi\rvert\ll 2^{j}$. Write

$$\xi=\xi_{1}\gamma(\theta)+\xi_{2}\gamma^{\prime}(\theta)+\xi_{3}(\gamma\times\gamma^{\prime})(\theta),$$

where

$$\lvert\xi_{1}\rvert\leq 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}/2}2^{j(1-\widetilde{\delta})},\quad\lvert\xi_{2}\rvert,\lvert\xi_{3}\rvert\leq 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}/2}2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}}.$$

Then $\left\lvert\langle\gamma(\theta),\gamma^{\prime}(\theta_{\tau})\rangle\right\rvert\sim\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\rvert$ for all $\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\rvert\leq r$ by $C^{2}$ Taylor approximation (for $r$ sufficiently small depending only on $\gamma$, using that $\gamma$ has unit speed). Hence $\left\lvert\langle(t-\xi_{1})\gamma(\theta),\gamma^{\prime}(\theta_{\tau})\rangle\right\rvert\gtrsim 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}}$, and therefore

$$\left\lvert\langle t\gamma(\theta)-\xi,\gamma^{\prime}(\theta_{\tau})\rangle\right\rvert\gtrsim 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}},$$

contradicting the assumption that $t\gamma(\theta)-\xi\in 1.1\tau$. Therefore, to prove (2.3) it remains to show that

(2.4) $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}/2}\widehat{S}}\left\lvert\widehat{\eta_{S}}(\xi)\right\rvert\,d\xi\leq C2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N};$$

where Fubini was used, and that the inner integral from (2.4) is $\lesssim\left\lvert\theta-\theta_{\tau}\right\rvert$.

It is straightforward to check (e.g. by (2.2) and integration by parts) that if $\xi\notin\widehat{S}$, then

$$\left\lvert\widehat{\eta_{S}}(\xi)\right\rvert\leq C_{N}\mathcal{H}^{3}(S)\operatorname{dist}\left(\xi,\widehat{S}\right)^{-N},$$

for any $N$. Substituting into (2.4), using that $\mathcal{H}^{3}(S)\mathcal{H}^{3}(\widehat{S})\lesssim 1$, and summing the geometric series over the dyadic distance of $\xi$ from $\widehat{S}$, yields

$$\eqref{statphase2}\lesssim C2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}.$$

This finishes the proof. ∎

The proof of the following lemma is very similar to [9, Lemma 2.4], but the details are included.

Lemma 2.3.

Let $j\geq 1$ and let $\tau\in\Lambda_{j}$. For any finite complex Borel measure $\mu$ and any $S\in\mathbb{T}_{\tau}$,

$$\left\lVert M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}\leq 2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}\lvert\mu\rvert(2S)+C_{N}2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}\left\lvert\mu\right\rvert(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

for any positive integer $N$.

Proof.

It will be assumed that $\mu$ is positive; the complex case is similar by replacing $\mu$ by $\lvert\mu\rvert$ in (2.5) and (2.6). By definition,

$$\left\lVert M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})} =\int\eta_{S}(x)\left\lvert\int\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x-y)\,d\mu(y)\right\rvert\,dx$$

(2.5) $$\leq\int_{S}\int_{2S}\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x-y)\right\rvert\,d\mu(y)\,dx$$

(2.6) $$\quad+\int_{S}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus 2S}\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x-y)\right\rvert\,d\mu(y)\,dx.$$

By Hausdorff-Young and since $\mathcal{H}^{3}(\tau)\mathcal{H}^{3}(S)\lesssim 2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}$, the integral in (2.5) satisfies

(2.7) $$\int_{S}\int_{2S}\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x-y)\right\rvert\,d\mu(y)\,dx\lesssim 2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}\mu(2S).$$

The integral in (2.6) satisfies

$$\int_{S}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus 2S}\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x-y)\right\rvert\,d\mu(y)\,dx\leq\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus S_{0}}\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}\right\rvert,$$

where $S_{0}$ is the translate of the slab $S$ to the origin, parallel to $S$. Integration by parts (using (2.1)) gives that for any $k\geq 0$, for any $x\in\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus 2^{k}S_{0}$,

$$\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x)\right\rvert\lesssim_{N}2^{-kN-j\widetilde{\delta}N}\mathcal{H}^{3}(\tau).$$

Summing a geometric series over $k\geq 0$, using $\mathcal{H}^{3}(\tau)\mathcal{H}^{3}(S)\lesssim 2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}$ again, gives

(2.8) $$\int_{S}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus 2S}\left\lvert\widecheck{\psi_{\tau}}(x-y)\right\rvert\,d\mu(y)\,dx\leq C_{N}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})2^{-j\widetilde{\delta}N}.$$

Substituting (2.7) and (2.8) into (2.5) and (2.6) finishes the proof. ∎

3. Proofs of the main results

The first lemma of this section, Lemma 3.1 below, is the main ingredient needed to prove Theorem 1.1. It does not trivially imply Theorem 1.1, but the actual proof of Theorem 1.1 will be very similar to the proof of Lemma 3.1, and will also use Lemma 3.1 in a crucial way. Moreover, Lemma 3.1 does imply (1.3). In the statement, the lower integral $\int_{*}f$ of a function $f$ is the supremum over the integrals of measurable functions $\phi$ with $0\leq\phi\leq f$ (see [13, p. 13]). The application of Lemma 3.1 will be in the case where the integrand is measurable and the lower integral is just a standard integral, but using the lower integral avoids having to consider measurability issues in the statement.

Lemma 3.1.

Let $\beta\in[0,1]$ and let $\alpha=3-2\beta$. Then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ and $C=C(\delta,\epsilon,\gamma)$ such that

(3.1) $$\int_{*}(\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu)\left(\bigcup_{D\in\mathbb{D}_{\theta}}D\right)\,d\lambda(\theta)\leq CR^{-\delta}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2},$$

for any $R\geq 1$, for any Borel measure $\lambda$ on $I$ with $c_{\beta}(\lambda)<\infty$, for any Borel measure $\mu$ on $B_{3}(0,1)$ with $c_{\alpha}(\mu)\leq 1$, and for any family of sets $\{\mathbb{D}_{\theta}\}_{\theta\in I}$, where each $\mathbb{D}_{\theta}$ is a collection of radius $R^{-1}$ intervals in the span of $\gamma(\theta)$, of cardinality $\lvert\mathbb{D}_{\theta}\rvert\leq R^{1-\epsilon}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})$.

Proof of Lemma 3.1.

It may be assumed that $\gamma$ is restricted to an interval of diameter smaller than $r=r(\gamma)$ on which Lemma 2.2 holds.

Let $\phi_{R}$ be a non-negative bump function supported in $B(0,R^{-1})$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\phi_{R}=1$, defined by

$$\phi_{R}(x)=R^{3}\phi(Rx),$$

for some fixed non-negative bump function $\phi$ supported in $B(0,1)$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\phi=1$. For any $\theta$ and any $D\in\mathbb{D}_{\theta}$, the Lipschitz property of orthogonal projections implies that

$$\left[\rho_{\theta\sharp}(\mu\ast\phi_{R})\right](2D)\geq(\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu)(D),$$

where $2D$ is the interval with the same centre as $D$, but twice the radius. Moreover,

$$c_{\alpha}(\mu\ast\phi_{R})\lesssim c_{\alpha}(\mu),$$

so it suffices to prove (3.1) with $\mu\ast\phi_{R}$ in place of $\mu$. To simplify notation the new measure will not be relabelled, but it will be assumed throughout that $\mu$ is a non-negative Schwartz function, and that

(3.2) $$\left\lvert\widehat{\mu}(\xi)\right|\leq C_{K}(R/\xi)^{K},\quad\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{3},$$

for any positive integer $K$, where $C_{K}$ is a constant depending only on $K$ (i.e., $\widehat{\mu}$ is rapidly decaying outside $B(0,R)$).

The conclusion of the lemma holds trivially for any $\epsilon>1$. Let $\epsilon_{0}$ be any positive real number which is strictly larger than the the infimum over all positive $\epsilon$ for which the conclusion of the lemma is true (which is well-defined by the preceding remark). It suffices to prove that the lemma holds for any $\epsilon>\frac{2\epsilon_{0}}{3}$, so let such an $\epsilon$ be given. Let $R\geq 1$ and choose a non-negative integer $J$ such that $2^{J}\sim R^{\epsilon/1000}$. Let $\varepsilon>0$ be such that $\varepsilon\ll\epsilon-\frac{2\epsilon_{0}}{3}$. Choose $\widetilde{\delta}>0$ such that $\widetilde{\delta}\ll\min\{\delta_{\epsilon_{0}},\varepsilon\}$, where $\delta_{\epsilon_{0}}$ is a $\delta$ corresponding to $\epsilon_{0}$ that satisfies (3.1).

Define the “bad” part of $\mu$ by

(3.3) $$\mu_{b}=\sum_{j\geq J}\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}M_{S}\mu,$$

where, for each $\tau\in\Lambda_{j}$, the set of “bad” slabs corresponding to $\tau$ is defined by

(3.4) $$\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}=\left\{S\in\mathbb{T}_{\tau}:\mu(100S)\geq 2^{-j(1-\epsilon_{0})}\right\},$$

where $100S$ is a slab with the same centre as $S$, but with side lengths scaled by a factor of 100. Define the “good” part of $\mu$ by

$$\mu_{g}=\mu-\mu_{b}.$$

The rapid decay of $\widehat{\mu}$ outside $B(0,R)$ in (3.2) implies that the sum in (3.3) converges (for example) in the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$. This implies that $\mu_{b}$ and $\mu_{g}$ are finite complex measures. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

$$\int_{*}\left(\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\right)\left(\bigcup_{D\in\mathbb{D}_{\theta}}D\right)\,d\lambda(\theta)\leq\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)\\ +\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}\sup_{\theta\in I}\mathcal{H}^{1}\left(\bigcup_{D\in\mathbb{D}_{\theta}}D\right)^{1/2}\left(\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\right\rVert_{L^{2}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{2}\,d\lambda(\theta)\right)^{1/2}.$$

The contribution from the “bad” part will be bounded first. By the triangle inequality,

$$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta) \leq\sum_{j\geq J}\int\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)$$

(3.5) $$=\sum_{j\geq J}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)$$

(3.6) $$\quad+\sum_{j\geq J}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert>2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

The sum in (3.6) is negligible by Lemma 2.2, so it may be assumed that (3.5) dominates. By the inequality

$$\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}f\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\leq\left\lVert f\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})},$$

followed by Lemma 2.3,

$$\eqref{mainpart} \leq\sum_{j\geq J}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}\,d\lambda(\theta)$$

$$\lesssim\sum_{j\geq J}2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\mu(2S)\,d\lambda(\theta),$$

where the negligible tail term from Lemma 2.3 can be assumed to not dominate since the desired bound already follows in that case. The above satisfies

(3.7) $$\sum_{j\geq J}2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\mu(2S)\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\sum_{j\geq J}2^{10j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\mu(B_{j}(\theta))\,d\lambda(\theta),$$

where, for each $\theta\in I$ and each $j$,

$$B_{j}(\theta)=\bigcup_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}}\bigcup_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}2S.$$

The inequality (3.7) used that for each $j$ and each $\theta\in I$, each of the slabs $2S$ in the union defining $B_{j}(\theta)$ intersects $\lesssim 2^{2j\widetilde{\delta}}$ of the others. Since the conclusion of the lemma holds for $\epsilon_{0}$, and since (by (3.4)) the number of slabs in the union defining $B_{j}(\theta)$ is $\lesssim 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}}2^{j(1-\epsilon_{0})}$, it follows that for each $j\geq J$,

$$\int\mu(B_{j}(\theta))\,d\lambda(\theta)\leq\int\left(\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\right)\left(\bigcup_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}}\bigcup_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}2\rho_{\theta}(S)\right)\,d\lambda(\theta)\\ \lesssim 2^{j\left(-\delta_{\epsilon_{0}}/2+10\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}.$$

The set $B_{j}(\theta)$ is piecewise constant in $\theta$ over a partition of $I$ into Borel sets, so the integral above equals the lower integral as in the statement of the lemma. Since $\widetilde{\delta}\ll\delta_{\epsilon_{0}}$, summing the above inequality over $j$ yields

$$\eqref{mainpart}\lesssim\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})2^{-(J\delta_{\epsilon_{0}})/100}\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\\ \lesssim\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})R^{-(\epsilon\delta_{\epsilon_{0}})/10^{5}}\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}.$$

It remains to bound the contribution from $\mu_{g}$. By the assumptions in the lemma,

$$\sup_{\theta\in I}\mathcal{H}^{1}\left(\bigcup_{D\in\mathbb{D}_{\theta}}D\right)\lesssim R^{-\epsilon}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Since $\varepsilon\ll\epsilon-(2\epsilon_{0})/3$, it suffices to prove that

(3.8) $$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\right\rVert_{L^{2}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{2}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\max\left\{R^{2\epsilon_{0}/3+1000\varepsilon},R^{\epsilon/2}\right\}c_{\beta}(\lambda)\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

By Plancherel’s theorem in 1 dimension,

(3.9) $$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\right\rVert_{L^{2}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{2}\,d\lambda(\theta)=\int\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\lvert\widehat{\mu_{g}}(t\gamma(\theta))\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

By symmetry and since $\widetilde{\delta}\ll\varepsilon$, to prove (3.8) it will suffice to show that

(3.10) $$\int\int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^{j}}\left\lvert\widehat{\mu_{g}}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim 2^{j\left(\frac{2\epsilon_{0}}{3}+100\varepsilon+O\left(\widetilde{\delta}\right)\right)}c_{\beta}(\lambda)\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

for any $j\geq 2J$. The contribution from the small frequencies ($j<2J$) is controlled by the definition $2^{J}\sim R^{\epsilon/1000}$ of $J$ (this is the reason for the $R^{\epsilon/2}$ term in (3.8)), and the contribution from the large frequencies ($2^{j}\geq R^{1+\widetilde{\delta}}$) is controlled by the rapid decay of $\widehat{\mu}$ outside $B(0,R)$ (see (3.2)) instead of (3.10). For each $\tau\in\Lambda$, define the set of “good” slabs corresponding to $\tau$ by

$$\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}=\mathbb{S}_{\tau}\setminus\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}.$$

Fix a $j\geq 2J$ as in (3.10). Then, apart from a negligible error term which can be assumed to not dominate,

(3.11) $$\int\int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^{j}}\left\lvert\widehat{\mu_{g}}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta)\\ \lesssim\int\int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^{j}}\left\lvert\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime}}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}}\widehat{M_{S}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

Let $\Phi_{j}$ be a boundedly overlapping cover of the $\sim 1$ neighbourhood of the cone at distance $\sim 2^{j}$ from the origin into standard boxes $\phi$ of dimensions $\sim 1\times 2^{j/2}\times 2^{j}$ (separated by a distance $\sim 2^{j}$ from the origin). Let $\{\psi_{\phi}\}_{\phi}$ be such that each $\psi_{\phi}$ is a bump function supported in $\phi$, and such that each $\Lambda_{j^{\prime}}$ with $\lvert j-j^{\prime}\rvert\leq 2$ can be partitioned as $\Lambda_{j^{\prime}}=\bigcup_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$, where each $\tau\in\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$ satisfies $1.1\tau\subseteq\phi$ and has the property that $\psi_{\phi}=1$ on $1.1\tau$. Then

$$\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime}}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}}\widehat{M_{S}\mu}=\sum_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}}\widehat{M_{S}\mu}.$$

Since the $\phi$’s and then the $\tau$’s are boundedly overlapping,

(3.12) $$\eqref{pause29}\lesssim\sum_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\int\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\lvert\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}}\widehat{M_{S}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta),$$

where again the negligible error terms can be assumed to not dominate, and the integration domain is now over $\mathbb{R}$ in order to apply Plancherel. If $\theta$ is fixed and then the application of the 1-dimensional Plancherel theorem (see (3.9)) is reversed, then the sets $\rho_{\theta}(S)$ with $S\in\bigcup_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\lvert j^{\prime}-j\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime}}:\left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\lesssim 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}}\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$ are $\lesssim 2^{2j\widetilde{\delta}}$ overlapping, and these are the only $S$ making a non-negligible contribution to the sum inside the integral in (3.12) (e.g. by Lemma 2.2). It follows that

(3.13) $$\eqref{intermezzo}\lesssim\sum_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}}\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{S}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

For each $\phi\in\Phi_{j}$, let $\mathbb{T}_{\phi}$ be a boundedly overlapping cover of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by planks of dimensions $2^{j\widetilde{\delta}}\times 2^{j\left(\widetilde{\delta}-1/2\right)}\times 2^{j\left(\widetilde{\delta}-1\right)}$ dual to $\phi$, and let $\{\eta_{T}\}_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi}}$ be a corresponding smooth partition of unity subordinate to this cover. For each $S$ and $T$, let

$$M_{S,T}\mu=\eta_{S}\left(\left[\eta_{T}\left(\mu\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\phi(T)}}\right)\right]\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\tau(S)}}\right).$$

This can be written as

$$M_{S,T}\mu=M_{S}\left(M_{T}\mu\right),$$

where

$$M_{T}\nu:=\eta_{T}\left(\nu\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\phi(T)}}\right).$$

For any $S$, if $\tau(S)\in\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$, then $\psi_{\phi}=1$ on $1.1\tau$, and therefore

$$M_{S}\mu=\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi}}M_{S,T}\mu.$$

For each $\phi$ and dyadic number $\kappa$, let $\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ be the set of $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi}$ with $\kappa\leq\mu(4T)<2\kappa$. By Cauchy-Schwarz, and since there are $\lesssim\log(2^{j})$ many dyadic values $\kappa$ contributing substantially to (3.13), there is a fixed dyadic number $\kappa=\kappa(j)$ such that

(3.14) $$\eqref{intermezzo3}\lesssim\\ \log(2^{j})^{2}\sum_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}}\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\widehat{M_{S,T}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

By further dyadic pigeonholing, there is a dyadic number $N=N(j)$ such that for every $\phi\in\Phi_{j}$ and $\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$, there is a subset $\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}\subseteq\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g}$ such that every $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}$ is such that $2S$ intersects a number $\#\in[N,2N)$ many $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$, and such that

(3.15) $$\eqref{firstpigeon}\lesssim\\ \log(2^{j})^{3}\sum_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}}\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\widehat{M_{S,T}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

In (3.15), if $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ does not intersect any set $2S$ with

$$S\in\bigcup_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N},$$

then, by the complex case of Lemma 2.3, it makes negligible contribution to (3.15), so after removing some of the $T$ from each $\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$, it may be assumed that for every $\phi\in\Phi_{j}$, every $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ intersects some set $2S$ with $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}$ for some $\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$. This refinement does not affect the pigeonholed property that for every $\phi\in\Phi_{j}$, every $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}$ with $\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$ is such that $2S$ intersects a number $\#\in[N,2N)$ many $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$. This implies the following:

(3.16) $$\mu(4T)\lesssim 2^{-j(1-\epsilon_{0})}N^{-1},\qquad\forall T\in\bigcup_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}.$$

To verify (3.16), let $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ for some $\phi\in\Phi_{j}$. Then (by the refinement) there exists $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}$ with $\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}$ and $2S\cap T\neq\emptyset$, so by definition of $\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}$ there are $\gtrsim N$ many (boundedly overlapping) $T^{\prime}\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ with $4T^{\prime}\subseteq 100S$ and $\mu(4T^{\prime})\sim\mu(4T)$. This relies on the geometric property that

$$T\cap 2S\neq\emptyset\Rightarrow 4T\subseteq 100S\qquad\text{ for }\tau(S)\in\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi(T)}.$$

Since the $T^{\prime}\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ are boundedly overlapping, this yields

$$N\mu(4T)\lesssim\mu(100S).$$

The inequality (3.16) then follows from the above together with the defining property $\mu(100S)<2^{-j(1-\epsilon_{0})}$ of the good slabs from (3.4).

For each fixed $\phi\in\Phi_{j}$ (with $j$ still fixed), the innermost double sum from (3.15):

(3.17) $$\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}}\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\widehat{M_{S,T}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta),$$

will be bounded in two different ways.

For the first (simpler) bound, since $M_{S,T}\mu$ is essentially supported in a ball of radius $\approx 1$, the uncertainty principle implies that the integrand can be treated as essentially constant on balls of radius $\approx 1$ (this is a standard heuristic, but for a rigorous version of this argument, see [9, p. 9]). Using the fractal property of $\lambda$, the integral in the right-hand side of (3.17) is bounded by $2^{-j\beta}c_{\beta}(\lambda)$ times the integral of the same function over $\mathbb{R}^{3}$:

(3.18) $$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)2^{-j\left(\beta-100\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\widehat{M_{S,T}\mu}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\xi,$$

where the $2^{j\left(100\widetilde{\delta}\right)}$ factor incorporates the technical adjustments necessary to make the above argument rigorous. By writing

$$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}M_{S,T}\mu=M_{S}\left(\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}M_{T}\mu\right),$$

and then applying Plancherel’s theorem in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ to (3.18), followed by the bounded overlap of the $S$, then the $\tau$, then the $T$,

(3.19) $$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)2^{-j\left(\beta-100\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{T}\mu}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\xi.$$

This proves the first bound of (3.17).

For the second (more difficult) bound of (3.17), the idea is that if there were only one plank $T$ in the sum defining the integrand of (3.17), then, since $M_{T}\mu$ is just a wave packet, all of the $S$ containing $T$ should correspond to functions $M_{S,T}\mu$ of approximately equal amplitude. This means that the function

$$\sum_{S:T\subseteq S}\lvert M_{S,T}\mu(t\gamma(\theta))\rvert^{2}$$

can be treated as constant as $\theta$ varies over a larger arc of length $2^{-j/2}$ rather than $2^{-j}$, resulting in less loss obtained by removing the fractal measure $\lambda$. This would replace the factor $2^{-j\beta}$ in (3.19) by the smaller factor $2^{-j\left(\frac{1+\beta}{2}\right)}$. Since there are $\sim N$ planks intersecting a slab instead of just one, forcing this heuristic to work results in a loss by a factor of $N$, so a suitable weighted geometric mean of this bound with the preceding bound (3.19) will be used, in such a way that the factor of $N$ cancels with a later gain of $N^{-1}$ obtained by applying (3.16). This heuristic will be made precise. By Cauchy-Schwarz,

$$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim\\ \sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,g,N}}\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}N\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{S,T}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta),$$

where the contribution from those $T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ with $T\cap 2S=\emptyset$ was ignored by using Lemma 2.3. The sum can be replaced by a sum over all $S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}$, since the properties of the “good slabs” are already contained in the planks $T$:

$$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim\\ \sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}N\sum_{\tau\in\bigcup_{\left\lvert j^{\prime}-j\right\rvert\leq 2}\Lambda_{j^{\prime},\phi}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}}\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{S,T}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

By applying the 1-dimensional Plancherel theorem (see (3.9)) again, using the $\lesssim 2^{2j\widetilde{\delta}}$ overlap of the sets $\rho_{\theta}(S)$ over those $S$ contributing significantly to the sum (see Lemma 2.2), followed by the bounded overlap of the $\tau$,

$$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim\\ \sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}N2^{2j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\int_{2^{j-10}}^{2^{j+10}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{T}\mu}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

By the uncertainty principle (this is standard heuristic, but a similar formal argument to the one in [9] can be used to make this precise), each $\widehat{M_{T}\mu}$ can be treated as constant on the essential domain of integration (which is a plank of dimensions $\sim 2^{j}\times 2^{j/2}\times 1$). By the Frostman condition on $\lambda$, this yields

(3.20) $$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)N2^{-j\left(\frac{1+\beta}{2}-100\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{T}\mu}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\xi.$$

This is the second bound on (3.17).

By taking a weighted geometric mean of (3.19) and (3.20),

(3.21) $$\eqref{aboveintegral}\lesssim\eqref{uncertainty1}^{1/3}\eqref{uncertainty2}^{2/3}\\ \lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)N^{2/3}2^{-j\left(\frac{1+2\beta}{3}-100\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert\widehat{M_{T}\mu}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\xi.$$

By substituting (3.21) into (3.15), then (3.14), then (3.13), then (3.12), then (3.11), to prove (3.10) it suffices to show that for any $j\geq 2J$, with $N=N(j)$,

(3.22) $$\sum_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert M_{T}\mu\right\rvert^{2}\,dx\lesssim N^{-2/3}2^{j\left(\frac{1+2\beta}{3}+\frac{2\epsilon_{0}}{3}+200\varepsilon\right)}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

The remainder of the proof will be devoted to verifying (3.22). Since the small cap wave packet decomposition has been converted to a standard wave packet decomposition, the application of refined decoupling is nearly identical to proof of (2.18) in [9], but the details will be included, with the key gain over [9] coming from the extra $N^{-1}$ factor in (3.16). Let

$$\mathbb{T}_{j,g}=\bigcup_{\phi\in\Phi_{j}}\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}.$$

For each $T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}$, let

(3.23) $$f_{T}:=\left[\eta_{T}M_{T}\mu\right]\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\phi(T)}}.$$

For each $T$, by unpacking the definition $M_{T}\mu=\eta_{T}\left(\mu\ast\widecheck{\psi_{\phi(T)}}\right)$ of one of the $M_{T}\mu$’s in (3.22), the left-hand side of (3.22) is equal to

(3.24) $$\int\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}f_{T}\,d\mu.$$

By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with respect to the measure $\mu$,

(3.25) $$\eqref{cauchymeasure}\leq\left(\int\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}f_{T}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\mu\right)^{1/2}\cdot\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})^{1/2}.$$

By the uncertainty principle (since each $f_{T}$ is Fourier supported in a ball of radius $\sim 2^{j}$),

$$\left(\int\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}f_{T}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\mu\right)^{1/2}\lesssim\left(\int\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}f_{T}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\mu_{j}\right)^{1/2},$$

where $\mu_{j}=\mu\ast\phi_{j}$ and $\phi_{j}(x)=\frac{2^{3j}}{1+\left\lvert 2^{j}x\right\rvert^{N_{1}}}$ , where $N_{1}\sim 1000/\widetilde{\delta}^{2}$. Here $\mu_{j}$ should be thought of as the smoothed out version of $\mu$ at scale $2^{-j}$ and constant on balls of radius $2^{-j}$. By dyadic pigeonholing (with $2\leq p\leq 6$ to be chosen), there exists a collection $\mathbb{W}\subseteq\mathbb{T}_{j,g}$ with $\left\lVert f_{T}\right\rVert_{p}$ constant over $T\in\mathbb{W}$ up to a factor of 2, and a union $Y$ of disjoint $2^{-j}$-balls $Q$ such that each $Q$ intersects $\sim M$ planks $2T$ with $T\in\mathbb{W}$ for some dyadic number $M$, and such that (ignoring negligible error terms which can be assumed to not dominate)

$$\left(\int\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}f_{T}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\mu_{j}\right)^{1/2}\lesssim j^{10}\left(\int_{Y}\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\mu_{j}\right)^{1/2}.$$

Let $p=6$. By Hölder’s inequality with respect to Lebesgue measure,

(3.26) $$\left(\int_{Y}\left\lvert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}\right\rvert^{2}\,d\mu_{j}\right)^{1/2}\leq\left\lVert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}\right\rVert_{L^{p}(Y)}\left(\int_{Y}\mu_{j}^{\frac{p}{p-2}}\right)^{\frac{p-2}{2p}},$$

By the dimension condition $c_{\alpha}(\mu)\leq 1$ on $\mu$, the definition of $Y$, and the property (3.16),

(3.27) $$\int_{Y}\mu_{j}^{\frac{p}{p-2}} \lesssim 2^{\frac{2j(3-\alpha)}{p-2}}\int_{Y}\mu_{j}$$

$$\leq 2^{\frac{2j(3-\alpha)}{p-2}}\sum_{Q\subseteq Y}\int_{Q}\mu_{j}$$

$$\lesssim 2^{\frac{2j(3-\alpha)}{p-2}}\left(\frac{1}{M}\right)\sum_{Q\subseteq Y}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}T\in\mathbb{W}\\ 2T\cap Q\neq\emptyset\end{subarray}}\int_{Q\cap 3T}\mu_{j}$$

$$\lesssim 2^{\frac{2j(3-\alpha)}{p-2}}\left(\frac{1}{M}\right)\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}\int_{3T}\mu_{j}$$

$$\lesssim 2^{\frac{2j(3-\alpha)}{p-2}}\left(\frac{1}{M}\right)\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}\mu(4T)+2^{-100j}$$

$$\lesssim 2^{\frac{2j(3-\alpha)}{p-2}-j\left(1-\epsilon_{0}\right)}\left(\frac{\left\lvert\mathbb{W}\right\rvert}{M}\right)N^{-1}.$$

This bounds the second factor in (3.26), so it remains to bound the first factor.

By rescaling by $2^{j}$, applying the refined decoupling inequality (see Theorem A.1), and then rescaling back,

(3.28) $$\left\lVert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}\right\rVert_{L^{p}(Y)}\lesssim 2^{j\varepsilon}\left(\frac{M}{\left\lvert\mathbb{W}\right\rvert}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}}\left(\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}\left\lVert f_{T}\right\rVert_{p}^{2}\right)^{1/2}.$$

By recalling the definition (3.23) of the $f_{T}$’s and applying the Hausdorff-Young inequality, followed by Hölder’s inequality,

$$\left\lVert f_{T}\right\rVert_{p}\lesssim\left\lVert M_{T}\mu\right\rVert_{2}2^{\frac{3j}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)}.$$

Substituting into (3.28) gives

(3.29) $$\left\lVert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}\right\rVert_{L^{p}(Y)}\lesssim 2^{\frac{3j}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}+\varepsilon\right)}\left(\frac{M}{\left\lvert\mathbb{W}\right\rvert}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}}\left(\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\left\lVert M_{T}\mu\right\rVert_{2}^{2}\right)^{1/2}.$$

Substituting (3.29) and (3.27) into (3.26) and then (3.25) gives (after some algebra)

$$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\left\lVert M_{T}\mu\right\rVert_{2}^{2}\\ \lesssim N^{-\frac{p-2}{2p}}2^{j\left[\frac{5-2\alpha}{2p}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\epsilon_{0}(p-2)}{2p}+\frac{3\varepsilon}{2}\right]}\left(\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\left\lVert M_{T}\mu\right\rVert_{2}^{2}\right)^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})^{1/2}.$$

This gives, by cancelling the common factor,

(3.30) $$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\left\lVert M_{T}\mu\right\rVert_{2}^{2}\lesssim N^{-\frac{p-2}{p}}2^{j\left[\frac{5-2\alpha}{p}+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\epsilon_{0}(p-2)}{p}+3\varepsilon\right]}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

By taking $p=6$ and recalling that $\alpha=3-2\beta$, this simplifies to

$$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert M_{T}\mu\right\rvert^{2}\lesssim N^{-2/3}2^{j\left(\frac{1+2\beta}{3}+\frac{2\epsilon_{0}}{3}+3\varepsilon\right)}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

which verifies (3.22) and therefore concludes the proof of Lemma 3.1. ∎

The proof of Theorem 1.1 will be very similar to the proof of the Lemma 3.1.

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

As in the proof of Lemma 3.1, it may be assumed that $\gamma$ is restricted to an interval of diameter at most $r=r(\gamma)$ on which Lemma 2.2 holds. It may also be assumed that $\alpha\leq 3$, $c_{\alpha}(\mu)\leq 1$ and that $\mu$ has support in the unit ball. Since the exceptional set is Borel measurable (see [9]), by Frostman’s lemma it suffices to prove that for any $\beta>(3-\alpha)/2$, $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\ll\mathcal{H}^{1}$ for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$, whenever $\lambda$ is a measure on $I$ with $c_{\beta}(\lambda)<\infty$. Therefore, let $\beta$ be such that $\beta>(3-\alpha)/2$, and let $\lambda$ be a Borel measure supported on $I$ with $c_{\beta}(\lambda)<\infty$. Let $\epsilon>0$ be such that $\epsilon\ll\beta-\frac{3-\alpha}{2}$. Choose $\widetilde{\delta}>0$ such that $\widetilde{\delta}\ll\min\left\{\epsilon,\delta_{\epsilon}\right\}$, where $\delta_{\epsilon}$ is an exponent corresponding to $\epsilon$ from Lemma 3.1. Using Definition 2.1, define $\mu_{b}$ by

$$\mu_{b}=\sum_{j\geq 1}\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}M_{S}\mu,$$

where, for each $j\geq 1$ and $\tau\in\Lambda_{j}$, the set of “bad” slabs corresponding to $\tau$ is defined by

$$\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}=\left\{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau}:\mu(100S)\geq 2^{-j(1-\epsilon)}\right\}.$$

For $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$,

(3.31) $$\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}:=\sum_{j\geq 1}\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu,$$

where, for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$, the series will be shown to be absolutely convergent in $L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$. The $\lambda$-a.e. absolute convergence of (3.31) in $L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$ will imply that $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}\in L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$ for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$ and that the series is $\lambda$-a.e. well-defined as an $L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$ limit. Define

$$\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}=\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu-\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b},$$

for each $\lambda\in I$ such that the sum defining $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}$ converges in $L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$. It will be shown that

$$\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\in L^{2}(\mathcal{H}^{1}),$$

for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$. Together with $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}\in L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$ for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$, this will imply that $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\in L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$ (or equivalently $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\ll\mathcal{H}^{1}$) for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$.

It will first be shown that

(3.32) $$\int\sum_{j\geq 1}\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

The proof of this is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.1, but the details will be sketched. The left-hand side of (3.32) can be written as

$$\sum_{j\geq 1}\int\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)$$

(3.33) $$\quad=\sum_{j\geq 1}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)$$

(3.34) $$\qquad+\sum_{j\geq 1}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert>2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

By Lemma 2.2,

$$\eqref{negligible2}\lesssim\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})\lambda(\mathbb{R}).$$

By Lemma 2.3,

$$\eqref{mainpart2} \leq\sum_{j\geq 1}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{3})}\,d\lambda(\theta)$$

$$\lesssim\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})\lambda(\mathbb{R})+\sum_{j\geq 1}2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\mu(2S)\,d\lambda(\theta).$$

As in the proof of Lemma 3.1, the non-tail term satisfies

$$\sum_{j\geq 1}2^{3j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\\ \left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\end{subarray}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\mu(2S)\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\sum_{j\geq 1}2^{10j\widetilde{\delta}}\int\mu(B_{j}(\theta))\,d\lambda(\theta),$$

where, for each $\theta\in I$ and each $j$,

$$B_{j}(\theta)=\bigcup_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}}\bigcup_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}2S.$$

For any $\theta$, the set of possible $S$ occurring above has cardinality $\leq\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})2^{j(1-\epsilon)}$; by disjointness and the definition of the “bad” slabs. By Lemma 3.1, for each $j\geq 1$,

$$\int\mu(B_{j}(\theta))\,d\lambda(\theta)\leq\int\left(\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\right)\left(\bigcup_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}:\left\lvert\theta_{\tau}-\theta\right\rvert\leq 2^{-j\left(1-\widetilde{\delta}\right)}}\bigcup_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}2\rho_{\theta}(S)\right)\,d\lambda(\theta)\\ \lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}2^{j\left(-\delta_{\epsilon}/2+10\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Since $\widetilde{\delta}\ll\delta_{\epsilon}$, summing the above inequality over $j$ gives

$$\eqref{mainpart2}\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

It remains to show that $\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\in L^{2}(\mathcal{H}^{1})$ for $\lambda$-a.e. $\theta\in I$. To prove this, by Plancherel’s theorem in 1 dimension it suffices to show that

(3.35) $$\int\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left\lvert\widehat{\mu_{g}}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

By symmetry, it is enough to show that for any $j\geq 1$,

$$\int\int_{2^{j-1}}^{2^{j}}\left\lvert\widehat{\mu_{g}}\left(t\gamma(\theta)\right)\right\rvert^{2}\,dt\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim 2^{-j\epsilon}c_{\beta}(\lambda)\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

By similar reasoning justifying that (3.22) suffices in Lemma 3.1, it suffices to show that for any $j\geq 1$,

(3.36) $$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert M_{T}\mu\right\rvert^{2}\,dx\lesssim N^{-2/3}2^{j\left(\frac{1+2\beta}{3}-10\epsilon\right)}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

the main difference from (3.22) being the negative sign in front of the $\epsilon$. Here $\{\phi\}_{\phi}$ is a partition of the cone at distance $\sim 2^{j}$ from the origin into standard boxes of dimensions $\sim 2^{j}\times 2^{j/2}\times 1$, and $\mathbb{T}_{j,g}=\bigcup_{\phi\in\Theta_{j}}\bigcup_{\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}}$. The parameter $\kappa$ is a fixed dyadic number, and for each $\phi$, the set $\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$ is a subset of the cover $\mathbb{T}_{\phi}$ of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by a boundedly overlapping set of planks of dimensions $2^{j\left(-1+\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\times 2^{j\left(-1/2+\widetilde{\delta}\right)}\times 2^{j\widetilde{\delta}}$ dual to $\phi$, with $\mu(T)\sim\kappa$ for all $T\in\bigcup_{\phi}\mathbb{T}_{\phi,\kappa}$, and each $T$ satisfies (3.16) with $N=N(j)$, but with $\epsilon_{0}$ replaced by $\epsilon$.

By a similar argument to the justification of (3.30) in the proof of Lemma 3.1,

$$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert M_{T}\mu\right\rvert^{2}\lesssim N^{-2/3}2^{j\left[\frac{5-2\alpha}{p}+\frac{1}{2}+100\epsilon\right]}.$$

Since $\alpha>3-2\beta$, $p=6$ and $\epsilon\ll\beta-\frac{3-\alpha}{2}$, this implies that

$$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{T}_{j,g}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{3}}\left\lvert M_{T}\mu\right\rvert^{2}\lesssim N^{-2/3}2^{j\left(\frac{1+2\beta}{3}-10\epsilon\right)},$$

which verifies (3.36) finishes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎

Only a very brief sketch of the proof of Theorem 1.2 will be given, since it is more or less identical to the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

The notation and setup is the same as in the proof of Theorem 1.1. By scaling it may be assumed that $c_{\alpha}(\mu)=1$. One simplification is that, since $p>1$ (where $p$ will be chosen in a moment), the dual of $L^{p}$ has a dense subspace of continuous functions, which means that, by approximation and a simple duality argument, it suffices to prove Theorem 1.2 for $\mu$ a positive smooth function supported in the unit ball. This simplifies the convergence (e.g. in the Schwartz space) in the sum defining $\mu_{b}$, and implies the trivial identity

(3.37) $$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)=\lambda(\mathbb{R})\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3})\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Let $\sigma>0$ be a small parameter to be chosen. By the triangle inequality followed by Hölder’s inequality, to prove that

(3.38) $$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}\right\rVert_{L^{p}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{p}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

it suffices to show that

(3.39) $$\int\sum_{j\geq 1}\left\lVert\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{p}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{p}2^{\sigma j}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

The first step is the (blunt) inequality

(3.40) $$\left\lVert\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{p}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{p}\lesssim\left\lVert\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}2^{10^{10}j(p-1)}\\ \leq\sum_{\tau\in\Lambda_{j}}\sum_{S\in\mathbb{S}_{\tau,b}}\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}M_{S}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}2^{10^{10}j(p-1)}.$$

The proof of (3.32) in the proof of Theorem 1.1 involves a decaying geometric series in $j$, so the loss in (3.40) can be absorbed by taking $p$ very close to 1, and the decaying geometric series can also absorb the loss of $2^{\sigma j}$ in (3.39) by taking $\sigma$ very small. This proves (3.39) and therefore (3.38). Moreover, the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.1 also shows that

$$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{b}\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Combining with (3.37) using the triangle inequality yields

(3.41) $$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\right\rVert_{L^{1}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Since there is already a bound on the $L^{2}$ norm of the “good” part from the proof of Theorem 1.1 (see (3.35)):

$$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\right\rVert_{L^{2}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{2}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim c_{\beta}(\lambda)\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$

interpolating with (3.41) using Hölder’s inequality yields

$$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu_{g}\right\rVert_{L^{p}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{p}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{\frac{2-p}{2}}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{\frac{p}{2}}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

Combining with (3.38), using that $\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{1/2}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{1/2}\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{\frac{2-p}{2}}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{\frac{p}{2}}$ for $1\leq p\leq 2$, gives

$$\int\left\lVert\rho_{\theta\sharp}\mu\right\rVert_{L^{p}(\mathcal{H}^{1})}^{p}\,d\lambda(\theta)\lesssim\lambda(\mathbb{R})^{\frac{2-p}{2}}c_{\beta}(\lambda)^{\frac{p}{2}}\mu(\mathbb{R}^{3}).$$

This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.2. ∎

Appendix A Refined decoupling

The inequality in Theorem A.1 below is the refined decoupling inequality for cones, from [4]. Although the proof from [4] appears rather technical, the idea is the same as in the parabola case in [8]. The proof is by induction on scales, and the theorem at one scale follows from the theorem at a larger scale by the standard decoupling theorem and Lorentz rescaling (the analogue of parabolic rescaling).

Theorem A.1 ([4, Theorem 9]).

Let $I$ be a compact interval, and let $\gamma:I\to S^{2}$ be a $C^{2}$ unit speed curve with $\det(\gamma,\gamma^{\prime},\gamma^{\prime\prime})$ nonvanishing on $I$. Then if $c>0$ is sufficiently small (depending only on $\gamma$), then for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta_{0}>0$ such that the following holds for all $0<\delta<\delta_{0}$, and any $R\geq 1$. Let $\Theta_{R}$ be a maximal $cR^{-1/2}$-separated subset of $I$, and for each $\theta\in\Theta_{R}$, let

$$\tau(\theta):=\\ \left\{\lambda_{1}\gamma(\theta)+\lambda_{2}\gamma^{\prime}(\theta)+\lambda_{3}(\gamma\times\gamma^{\prime})(\theta):1/2\leq\lambda_{1}\leq 1,\lvert\lambda_{2}\rvert\leq R^{-1/2},\lvert\lambda_{3}\rvert\leq R^{-1}\right\}.$$

For each $\tau=\tau(\theta)$, let $\mathbb{T}_{\tau}$ be a $\sim 1$-overlapping cover of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ by translates of

$$\left\{\lambda_{1}\gamma(\theta)+\lambda_{2}\gamma^{\prime}(\theta)+\lambda_{3}(\gamma\times\gamma^{\prime})(\theta):\lvert\lambda_{1}\rvert\leq R^{\delta},\lvert\lambda_{2}\rvert\leq R^{1/2+\delta},\lvert\lambda_{3}\rvert\leq R^{1+\delta}\right\}.$$

If $2\leq p\leq 6$, and

$$\mathbb{W}\subseteq\bigcup_{\theta\in\Theta_{R}}\mathbb{T}_{\tau(\theta)},$$

and

$$\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}$$

is such that $\lVert f_{T}\rVert_{p}$ is constant over $T\in\mathbb{W}$ up to a factor of 2, with $\operatorname{supp}\widehat{f_{T}}\subseteq\tau(T)$ and

$$\lVert f_{T}\rVert_{L^{\infty}(B(0,R)\setminus T)}\leq AR^{-10000}\lVert f_{T}\rVert_{p},$$

and $Y$ is a disjoint union of balls in $B_{3}(0,R)$ of radius 1, such that each ball $Q\subseteq Y$ intersects at most $M$ planks $2T$ with $T\in\mathbb{W}$, then

$$\left\lVert\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}f_{T}\right\rVert_{L^{p}(Y)}\leq C_{A,\gamma,c,\epsilon,\delta}R^{\epsilon}\left(\frac{M}{\left\lvert\mathbb{W}\right\rvert}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}}\left(\sum_{T\in\mathbb{W}}\left\lVert f_{T}\right\rVert_{p}^{2}\right)^{1/2}.$$