A TRILINEAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION ESTIMATE VIA ARITHMETIC

COMBINATORICS

CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

Abstract. By means of a primarily combinatorial argument, we show that the discrete

operator
1 ∑
N ∑
N
T (f, g, h)(x) := sup 2
f (x + s)g(x + t)h(x + s + t)
N ≥1 (2N + 1)
s=−N t=−N
obeys some non-trivial estimates.

1. Introduction
Define an interval to be any set of the form I = {x − N, . . . , x + N }, where x ∈ Z,
N ∈ Z+ . We refer to x = xI as the length of I and N = NI as the radius. One can think
of the space of intervals as a discrete half-space Z2+ ; it will be convenient to work on this
space instead of on the integers, and our notation for maximal functions etc. shall reflect
this perspective.
For any sets E, F , G of integers, consider the quantities
1
T (E, F, G)(I) := 2 |{(y, z) : y ∈ E ∩ I, z ∈ F ∩ I, y + z − xI ∈ G ∩ I}|
|I|
1
M (E)(I) := |E ∩ I|
|I|
and their associated maximal functions
T (E, F, G)(x) := sup T (E, F, G)(I); M (E)(x) := sup M (E)(x).
I:xI =x I:xI =x

Clearly we have the trivial estimate

T (E, F, G)(I) ≤ min(M (E)(I)M (F )(I), M (E)(I)M (G)(I), M (F )(I), M (G)(I)).
(1)
Thus from the Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality
|{x : M (E)(x) > λ}| ≤ Cλ−1 |E| (2)
(which is, incidentally, a special case of Theorem 2.7) we immediately obtain the distrib-
utional inequality
|{x : T (E, E, E)(x) > λ2 }| ≤ Cλ−1 |E|.
The purpose of this note is to obtain the following improvement:
Theorem 1.1. There exists an absolute constant ε > 0 such that
|{x : T (E, E, E)(x) > λ2 }| ≤ Cλ−1+ε |E|. (3)
1
2 CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

for some absolute constant ε > 0 and all 0 < λ ≤ 1 (the claim is vacuously true for
λ > 1).
This claim will be superceded by a later paper in which we show that ε can be taken
arbitrarily close to 1/3 by using time-frequency analysis, similar to that used to prove
Carleson’s theorem. However, here we present a more elementary approach based on
arithmetic combinatorics.

2. An abstract maximal function inequality

Let G be a discrete abelian group. Given any two sets A, B ⊂ G, we can define the sum
set A + B := {a + b : a ∈ A, b ∈ B} and the difference set A − B := {a − b : a ∈ A, b ∈ B},
and then define iterated sums 2A = A + A, 3A = A + A + A, 2A − A = A + A − A, etc.
We recall the following definition from [3]:
Definition 2.1. [3, Definition 2] Let k ≥ 1 and let A be a finite non-empty subset of G.
We say that A is k-covering if there exists a finite set T ⊂ G of cardinality k such that
A − A ⊆ A + T − T.
Examples 2.2. A finite subgroup of G is 1-covering, as is any coset of that subgroup.
An arithmetic progression is 2-covering. Using the obvious generalization of the above
concept to continuous groups, any interval in IR is 2-covering, while a rectangle in IR2 is
3-covering. One should view sets that are k-covering for small k should be
A set which is k-covering has good properties with respect to iterated sumsets. For
instance, it is clear that |A − A| ≤ |A||T ||T | ≤ k 2 |A|; another example is that
2A − 2A = (A − A) − (A − A)
⊆ (A + T − T ) − (A + T − T )
= (A − A) + (2T − 2T )
⊆ A + (2T − 2T ) + (T − T )
= A + 3T − 3T
and hence |2A − 2A| ≤ k 6 |A|.
Conversely, if a set A has small sumset, then A − A is k-covering for a small k:
Lemma 2.3. [3, Lemma 3] Let A be a finite non-empty subset of G such that |A + A| ≤
K|A| for some K ≥ 1. Then A − A is 2K 2 − 1-covering.
We also observe that the intersection of two k-covering sets is also k-covering for a small
k (generalizing the observation that the intersection of two cosets of different subgroups
is again a coset of a third subgroup):
Lemma 2.4. Let A, B be two non-empty finite subsets of G such that A is k-covering
and B is k ′ -covering. Let E := (A − A) ∩ (B − B), so that E is a finite subset of G which
contains 0. Then E is (kk ′ )6 -covering.
Proof By hypothesis, we have A − A ⊆ A + T − T and B − B ⊆ B + T ′ − T ′ for some
sets T, T ′ of cardinality k, k ′ respectively. In particular we have
(2A − 2A) ⊆ A + 3T − 3T ; (2B − 2B) ⊆ B + 3T ′ − 3T ′
 A TRILINEAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION 3

and hence
∪
E−E ⊆ (2A−2A)∩(2B−2B) ⊆ (A+3T −3T )∩(B+3T ′ −3T ′ ) = (A+t)∩(B+t′ ).
t∈3T −3T,t′ ∈3T ′ −3T ′

Now observe that if x, y are any two elements of (A + t) ∩ (B + t′ ), then x − y ∈ (A − A) ∩

(B − B) ∈ E. Thus every set of the form (A + t) ∩ (B + t′ ) can be covered by a translate
of E. Since the number of pairs (t, t′ ) is at most (kk ′ )6 , the claim follows.

Remark 2.5. It is quite likely that one can improve the bound (kk ′ )6 here substantially,
for instance by using the ideas from [3]. This would lead to an improvement of the final ε
in our bounds.
A related lemma is
Lemma 2.6. Let H be a finite non-empty subset of G, and let A, B be non-empty subsets
of H. Then
|A||B||H|
|(A − A) ∩ (B − B)| ≥ .
|H − A||H − B|
Proof Observe that ∑
χA+y ≥ |A|χH
y∈H−A
and ∑
χB+z ≥ |B|χH
z∈H−B
and hence on multplying
∑ ∑
χ(A+y)∩(B+z) ≥ |A||B|χH .
y∈H−A z∈H−B

Taking L1 norms of both sides and then using the pigeonhole principle, we can thus find
y, z such that
|A||B||H|
|(A + y) ∩ (B + z)| ≥ .
|H − A||H − B|
Now the claim follows since
((A + y) ∩ (B + z)) − ((A + y) ∩ (B + z)) ⊆ (A − A) ∩ (B − B).

Now we prove a “Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality” for k-covering sets.

Theorem 2.7 (Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality). Let k ≥ 1, and let E1 ⊂ E2 ⊂
. . . ⊂ EN be any nested sequence of finite non-empty subsets of G, such that each Ej is
k-covering. For any summable function f ∈ l1 (G), define the maximal function
1 ∑
ME1 ,... ,EN f (x) := sup |f (x + s)|.
1≤n≤N |En |
s∈E n

Then we have the weak-type inequality

|{x ∈ G : ME1 ,... ,EN f (x) ≥ λ}| ≤ k 2 ∥f ∥l1 (G) /λ
for all λ > 0.
4 CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

Proof Call a set of the form x + En heavy if we have

∑
|f (x + s)| ≥ λ|En |.
s∈En

Observe that
{x ∈ G : ME1 ,... ,EN f (x) ≥ λ} = {x ∈ G : x + En is heavy for some 1 ≤ n ≤ N }.
Now we use a Vitali covering argument to select a disjoint collection F of heavy sets, by
performing the following algorithm.
• Step 0. Initialize F to be the empty set, and n to be the integer N .
• Step 1. If there is a heavy set x + En for some x ∈ G which is disjoint from all
the sets in F, add it to F and then repeat Step 1. Otherwise, go to Step 2.
• Step 2. If n = 1, then we stop the algorithm. Otherwise, we replace n by n − 1
and return to Step 1.
It is clear that all the sets x + En that are placed in F by this algorithm are heavy and
disjoint. In particular we have
∑
λ|En | ≤ ∥f ∥l1 (G) , (4)
x+En ∈F

which ensures (since |En | ≥ 1 for all n) that F is finite, and the algorithm thus terminates
in finite time. Now suppose that x ∈ G is such that M f (x) ≥ λ. Then there exists
1 ≤ n ≤ N such that x + En is heavy. By construction, there must exist a heavy set
y + Em ∈ F with m ≥ n such that y + Em intersects x + En (otherwise x + En itself would
have been added to F at some stage, at which point one could take y + Em = x + En ).
In particular x ∈ y + Em − En ⊂ y + Em − Em . Thus we have
∪
{x ∈ G : ME1 ,... ,EN f (x) ≥ λ} ⊂ y + Em − Em .
y+Em ∈F

Since Em is k-covering, we have |Em − Em | ≤ k 2 |Em |, and so

∪ ∑
| y + Em − Em | ≤ k 2 |Em |.
y+Em ∈F y+Em ∈F

Applying (4), the claim follows.

3. A trilinear maximal function

We now prove (3). The problem is that of multiple scales; for a single scale we have a
good bound:
Lemma 3.1. For any fixed length scale L > 0, we have
|{x : T (E, E, E)[x − L, x + L] > λ2 }| ≤ Cλ−2/3 |E|.
Proof By dividing the integers up into intervals of length 2L, then decomposing E
accordingly, one sees that it suffices to verify the claim when E is localized to a single
such interval, e.g. [−L, L] (possibly after lowering λ by a factor of 2 or so), thanks to the
local nature of the T operator. But then one has the crude bound
|{x : T (E, E, E)[x − L, x + L] > λ2 }| ≤ CL
 A TRILINEAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION 5

(since the interval [x − L, x + L] has to intersect E), while from Chebyshev’s inequality
we have
1 ∑
|{x : T (E, E, E)[x − L, x + L] > λ2 }| ≤ 2 T (E, E, E)[x − L, x + L]
λ x
1
≤ |{(x, y, z) : y, z, y + z − x ∈ E}|
λ2 L 2
|E|3
≤ .
λ2 L 2
Combining these two estimates, the result follows.
Now we prove (3). In light of (1), (2), it would suffice to show the “good-lambda”
inequality
|{x : T (E, E, E)(x) > λ2 and λ ≤ M (E)(x) ≤ λ1−ε }| ≤ Cλ−1+ε |E|. (5)
Observe that since E is finite, that there are only finitely many I which can be involved
in the above set.
To prove (5) we begin with the following observation.
Lemma 3.2. If I is an interval such that T (E, E, E)(I) > λ2 /2 and λ ≤ M (E)(x) ≤ λ1−ε
then there exists a non-empty set P ⊂ I which is Cλ−Cε -covering and such that
C −1 λ1+Cε |I| ≤ |P ∩ E| ≤ max(|E ∩ I|, |P |) ≤ Cλ1−Cε |I|.
Proof By hypothesis, we have
|{(y, z) : y, z, y + z − xI ∈ E ∩ I}| > λ2 |I|2 /2
and
|E ∩ I| ≤ λ1−ε |I|
and hence by (1)
λ|I| ≤ |E ∩ I| ≤ λ1−ε |I|. (6)
Thus if we let A := E ∩ I and G ⊂ A × A be the set of those pairs (y, z) for which
y + z − xI ∈ A, then
|G| ≥ λ2ε |A|2 /2
and
|{y + z : (y, z) ∈ G}| ≤ |A|.
By the Balog-Szemerédi-Gowers theorem (see [2, Proposition 12]) we can thus find a
non-empty subset A′ of A such that
|A′ | ≥ C −1 λCε |A|
and
C −1 λCε |A| ≤ |A′ − A′ | ≤ Cλ−Cε |A|
By Lemma 2.3, A′ − A′ is Cλ−Cε -covering. We now set P := A′ − A′ + a for some arbitrary
element a in A′ , then P is also Cλ−Cε -covering and has cardinality
C −1 λCε |A| ≤ |P | ≤ Cλ−Cε |A|
and since P contains A′ ,
|A ∩ P | ≥ |A′ | ≥ C −1 λCε |A|.
6 CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

The claims then follow from (6).

Now we introduce our key decomposition.
Proposition 3.3 (Atomic decomposition). There exists an integer n ≥ 1 and a sequence
of triples
(I1 , P1 , E1 ), . . . , (In−1 , Pn−1 , En−1 ),
wiith the following properties.
• (a) For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, each Ii is an interval which obeys the monotonicity
|I1 | ≥ |I2 | ≥ . . . ≥ |In−1 | (7)
and the total size bound
∑
n−1
|Ii | ≤ Cλ−Cε λ−1 |E|. (8)
i=1

• (b) For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, Pi is a non-empty subset of Ii which is Cλ−Cε -covering

and such that
C −1 λ1+Cε |Ii | ≤ |Pi ∩ Ei−1 | ≤ max(|Ei−1 ∩ Ii |, |Pi |) ≤ Cλ1−Cε |Ii |. (9)
• (c) For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, we have
∪
Ei := E\ Pj . (10)
1≤j≤i

In other words, with the convention that E0 := E, we have Ei = Ei−1 \Pi for all
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1.
• (d) For all intervals I, we have T (En−1 , En−1 , En−1 )(I) < λ2 /2. More generally,
we have
T (Ei , Ei , Ei )(I) < λ2 /2 whenever |I| > |Ii+1 | (11)
(with the convention that |In | = 0).
Proof
We construct the triples (Ii , Pi , Ei ) by performing the following algorithm.
• (Step 0) Initialize n to equal 1.
• (Step 1) Locate an interval In such that T (En−1 , En−1 , En−1 )(In ) ≥ λ2 /2, and
such that the length |In | of the interval is maximal with respect to this property.
(Note that since E is finite, that there are only finitely many intervals In for
which T (En−1 , En−1 , En−1 )(In ) ≥ λ2 /2). If no such interval can be found, then we
terminate the algorithm. Otherwise, we move on to Step 2.
• (Step 2) Using Lemma 3.2, find a non-empty set Pn ⊂ In which is Cλ−Cε -covering
and such that
C −1 λ1+Cε |In | ≤ |Pn ∩ En−1 | ≤ max(|En−1 ∩ In |, |Pn |) ≤ Cλ1−Cε |In |. (12)
• (Step 3) We set En := En−1 \Pn , and then return to Step 1.
 A TRILINEAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION 7

It is clear that this algorithm will ensure the properties (10), (9), (11). Since Pn ∩ En−1
is non-empty by construction, we see that En is strictly smaller than En−1 ; since E is
finite, we thus see that this algorithm terminates in finite time.
Since the quantities T (Ei , Ei , Ei )(I) are monotone decreasing in i, it is easy to verify
the nesting property (7) also. To prove (8), we observe from construction that the sets
Pi ∩ Ei−1 are disjoint subsets of E, thus
∑
n−1
|Pi ∩ Ei−1 | ≤ E,
i=1

and the claim then follows from (12).

We return to the proof of (5). Since Pi is Cλ−Cε -covering, we see from (9) that
|2Pi − Pi | ≤ Cλ−Cε |Pi | ≤ Cλ−Cε λ|Ii |,
and thus from (8) we have
∑
n−1
∥ χ2Pi −Pi ∥L1 ≤ Cλ−Cε |E|,
i=1

and so by the Hardy-Littlewood maximal inequality we have

∑n−1
|{x : M ( χ2Pi −Pi )(x) > λ1−Cε } ≤ Cλ1+ε |E|
i=1

for C chosen suitably large. Thus we may exclude this set from (5). In other words, if we
define a bad interval to be any I such that
∑n−1
T (E, E, E)(I) > λ ; 2
λ ≤ M (E)(xI ) ≤ λ 1−ε
; M( χ2Pi −Pi )(xI ) ≤ λ1−Cε
i=1

then it suffices to show that

|{xI : I is a bad interval }| ≤ Cλ1+ε |E|.
Now let I be a bad interval. Let 1 ≤ i0 ≤ n − 1 be the least integer such that
T (Ei0 , Ei0 , Ei0 )(I) ≥ λ2 /2;
from (11) we see that such an integer exists, and |I| ≤ |Ii0 +1 |. By telescoping series we
thus have
∑
i0
T (Ei−1 , Ei−1 , Ei−1 )(I) − T (Ei , Ei , Ei )(I) ≥ λ2 /2.
i=1
We may clearly restrict the sum to those i for which Pi ∩ I is non-empty, since the
summands vanish otherwise. On the other hand, Pi is contained in an interval Ii which
is larger than I, hence if Pi intersects I then Pi and I are both contained in the interval
2Ii − Ii . Applying Lemma 2.6 we see that
|Pi ||I|
|(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)| ≥ C −1 ,
|Ii |
8 CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

hence by (9)
|(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |I|. (13)
Since Pi intersects I, we have
|(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)| ≤ |(2Pi − Pi ) ∩ (2I − I)|
and hence
M (χ2Pi −Pi )(2I − I) ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε .
On the other hand, since I is a bad interval, we have
∑
n−1
M (χ2Pi −Pi )(2I − I) ≤ Cλ1−Cε
i=1

and hence there are at most Cλ−Cε values of i for which Pi ∩ I is non-empty. By the
pigeonhole principle, we may therefore find 1 ≤ i ≤ i0 such that
T (Ei−1 , Ei−1 , Ei−1 )(I) − T (Ei , Ei , Ei )(I) ≥ C −1 λ2+Cε .
By (8), it thus suffices to show that
|{xI : I is a bad interval and T (Ei−1 , Ei−1 , Ei−1 )(I)−T (Ei , Ei , Ei )(I) ≥ C −1 λ2+Cε }| ≤ CλC0 ε |Ii |
for some large absolute constant C0 . Note that the trivial bound here is C|Ii | since xI
must lie in 2Ii − Ii . We can discard those intervals I for which |I| ≥ C −1 λ1/100 |Ii | since
those intervals can be dealt with by Lemma 3.1 (actually we can discard many more
intervals than this using dyadic decomposition).
We crudely estimate
T (Ei−1 , Ei−1 , Ei−1 )(I) − T (Ei , Ei , Ei )(I) ≤ T (Ei ∩ Pi , Ei , Ei )(I)
+ T (Ei , Ei ∩ Pi , Ei )(I)
+ T (Ei , Ei , Ei ∩ Pi )(I)
so at least one of these three terms has to be at least C −1 λ2+Cε . Let us say it is the first
term; the others are similar. Thus we need to show
|{xI : I is a bad interval and |I| ≤ C −1 λ1/100 |Ii | and T (Ei ∩ Pi , Ei , Ei )(I) ≥ C −1 λ2+Cε }| ≤ CλC0 ε |Ii |.
(14)
Let Imin be the interval of minimal length which contributes to the above set (which we
can of course assume is non-empty). Since Imin is a bad interval, we know that
|(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (Imin − Imin )| ≤ |(2Pi − Pi ) ∩ |2Imin − Imin |
= |2Imin − Imin |M (χ2Pi −Pi )(2Imin − Imin ) (15)
≤ Cλ1−Cε |Imin |.
This implies a certain “even spacing” property for Pi − Pi .
Lemma 3.4. There exists a set Xi of integers with cardinality
|Xi | ≤ Cλ−Cε (16)
such that for any integer x with |x| ≤ C −1 λ1/100 |Ii |, there exists a y ∈ Xi such that
|[x − y − 2|Imin |, x − y + 2|Imin |] ∩ (Pi − Pi )| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |Imin |.
 A TRILINEAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION 9

Proof From (9) we have

|Pi ∩ Ii | ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |Ii |
and hence
|{(x, t) : x ∈ 2Ii − Ii ; |t| ≤ |Imin |/2; x + t ∈ Pi ∩ Ii }| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |Ii ||Imin |.
On the other hand, from (15) we have for any integer x ∈ 2Ii − Ii that
|{t : |t| ≤ |Imin |/2; x + t ∈ Pi ∩ Ii }| ≤ |(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (Imin − Imin )| ≤ Cλ1−Cε |Imin |,
hence there must exist a subset A ⊂ 2Ii − Ii with |A| ≥ CλCε |Ii | such that
|{t : |t| ≤ |Imin |/2; x + t ∈ Pi ∩ Ii }| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |Imin | for all x ∈ A.
Now, consider a maximal disjoint collection of translates y + A of A, where |y| ≤
C −1 λ1/100 |Ii |; let Xi denote the set of such x’s. Since all these sets lie inside 3Ii − 2Ii
(say), we have |Xi ||A| ≤ |3Ii − 2Ii |, which implies (16). On the other hand, for any
|x| ≤ C −1 λ1/100 |Ii |, there must exist y ∈ Xi such that x + A intersects y + A (other-
wise this would contradict the maximality of A). Thus there exists a, a′ ∈ A such that
x = y +a−a′ . But then there exists |t| ≤ |Imin |/2 such that a+t ∈ Pi ∩Ii , and there exists
at least C −1 λ1+Cε |Imin | values of t′ such that a′ + t′ ∈ Pi ∩ Ii . Observe that (a + t) − (a + t′ )
lies in [x − y − 2|Imin |, x + y + 2|Imin |] and also in Pi − Pi , and the claim follows.
For each N ≥ 1, let BN := (4Pi − 4Pi ) ∩ [−N, N ], and introduce the maximal function
|Ei ∩ (2Ii − Ii ) ∩ BN |
mi (z) := sup .
N |BN |
From Lemma 2.6 we know that each BN is Cλ−Cε -covering, hence by Theorem 2.7 we
have
|Ei ∩ (2Ii − Ii )|
|{z : mi (z) > α}| ≤ Cλ−Cε for all α > 0.
α
Since 2Ii − Ii contains the one bad interval I, and M(E)(xI ) ≤ Cλ1−Cε , we thus have
|Ei ∩ (2Ii − Ii )| ≤ Cλ1−Cε |Ii |.
Thus if let A ≫ 1 be a large absolute constant to be chosen later, and set
Ω := {z : mi (z) > λAε }
then
|Ω| ≤ Cλ1−(A+C)ε |Ii |. (17)
One can think of Ω as a slight thickening of Ei ∩ Ii . We enlarge it further by defining
Ω̃ := Ω ∪ (Ω − Xi ) ∪ (Ω − 2Xi )
and observe from (17), (16) that
|Ω̃| ≤ Cλ1−(A+C)ε |Ii |. (18)
Now we claim
Lemma 3.5. If I contributes to the set (14), and A is a large enough absolute constant,
then
T (Ω̃, Ω̃, Ω̃)([xI − 5|Imin |, xI + 5|Imin |]) ≥ Cλ2+Cε . (19)
10 CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

The point is that the interval I has been replaced by an interval of a fixed size, so that
Lemma 3.1 is now applicable.
Proof Since T (Ei ∩ Pi , Ei , Ei )(I) ≥ C −1 λ2+Cε , we have
|{(y, z) : y ∈ Ei ∩ Pi ∩ I; z, y + z − xI ∈ Ei ∩ I}| ≥ C −1 λ2+Cε |I|2 .
Also, since I is bad, we know that
|Ei ∩ I| = |I|M (Ei )(I) ≤ Cλ1−Cε |I|
and thus
|Ei ∩ Pi ∩ I| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |I|,
while since I is bad we also know that
|Pi ∩ I| ≤ |(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)| ≤ C|I|M (2Pi − Pi )(2I − I) ≤ Cλ1−Cε |I|.
To summarize, we have
C −1 λ1+Cε |I| ≤ |Ei ∩ Pi ∩ I|, |Ei ∩ I|, |Pi ∩ I|, |(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)| ≤ Cλ1−Cε |I|
(20)
Observe that every y ∈ Pi ∩ I has at least |Pi ∩ I| representations of the form y = y ′ − t,
where y ′ ∈ Pi ∩ I and t ∈ (Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I). Thus
|{(y ′ , t, z) : y ′ ∈ Pi ∩ I; t ∈ (Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I); z, y ′ − t + z − xI ∈ Ei ∩ I} ≥ C −1 λ3+Cε |I|3 .
Now substitute z ′ := z − t to obtain
|{(y ′ , t, z ′ ) : y ′ ∈ Pi ∩ I; t ∈ (Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I); z ′ + t, z ′ + y ′ − xI ∈ Ei ∩ I} ≥ C −1 λ3+Cε |I|3 .
We can rewrite this as ∑
f (z ′ )g(z ′ ) ≥ C −1 λ3+Cε |I|3
z′
where
f (z ′ ) := |{y ′ ∈ Pi ∩I : z ′ +y ′ −xI ∈ Ei ∩I}|; g(z ′ ) := |{t ∈ (Pi −Pi )∩(I−I) : z ′ +t ∈ Ei ∩I}|.
Now observe from (20) that
∑
f (z ′ ) = |Pi ∩ I||Ei ∩ I| ≤ Cλ2−Cε |I|2
z′

and ∑
g(z ′ ) = |(Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)||Ei ∩ I| ≤ Cλ2−Cε |I|2
z′
and also
f (z ′ ), g(z ′ ) ≤ |Ei ∩ I| ≤ Cλ1−Cε |I| for all z ′ .
Combining all these bounds for f, g together, we see that there must exist z0 such that
f (z0 ), g(z0 ) ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |I|.
Let y0 be an arbitrary element of Pi ∩I. Writing y ′ = y0 +t for some t ∈ (Pi −Pi )∩(I −I),
we thus see that
|{t ∈ (Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I) : z0 + y0 − xI + t ∈ Ei ∩ I}|,
(21)
|{t ∈ (Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I) : z0 + t ∈ Ei ∩ I}| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |I|.
 A TRILINEAR MAXIMAL FUNCTION 11

By Lemma (3.4), there exists integers a, b ∈ Xi such that

|[y0 − xI − a − 2|Imin |, y0 − xI − a + 2|Imin |] ∩ (Pi − Pi )| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |Imin |
(22)
and
|[z0 − xI − b − 2|Imin |, z0 − xI − b + 2|Imin |] ∩ (Pi − Pi )| ≥ C −1 λ1+Cε |Imin |
(23)
Now fix a, b and suppose that
c ∈ [y0 − xI − a − 2|Imin |, y0 − xI − a + 2|Imin |] ∩ (Pi − Pi )
and
d ∈ [z0 − xI − b − 2|Imin |, z0 − xI − b + 2|Imin |] ∩ (Pi − Pi ).
Then
y0 − a − c, z0 − b − d ∈ [xI − 2|Imin |, xI + 2|Imin |]
and thus
(y0 − a − c) + (z0 − b − d) − xI ∈ [xI − 4|Imin |, xI + 4|Imin |].
Also, since
((y0 − c) + B5|I| ) ⊇ y0 + ((Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I)) ⊇ Pi ∩ I
we have
m(y0 − c) ≥ Cλ−Cε
and hence y0 ∈ Ω + Xi ⊆ Ω̃ (if A is large enough). Similarly, since
(z0 − d) + B5|I| ⊇ z0 + ((Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I))
we see from (21) that
m(z0 − d) ≥ Cλ−Cε
and hence z0 ∈ Ω + Xi ⊆ Ω̃. Finally, since
(y0 − c) + (z0 − d) − xi + B5|I| ⊇ (z0 + y0 − xI ) + ((Pi − Pi ) ∩ (I − I))
we see from (21) that
m(z0 + y0 − xI − c − d) ≥ Cλ−Cε
and hence z0 + y0 − xI ∈ Ω + 2Xi ⊆ Ω̃. The claim (19) now follows from (22), (23).
From (17), (16), and Lemma 3.1 we have

|{xI : T (Ω̃, Ω̃, Ω̃)([xI − 5|Imin |, xI + 5|Imin |]) ≥ Cλ2+Cε }| ≤ Cλ1/3−(A+C)ε |Ii |
and (16) then follows from Lemma 3.5 if ε is sufficiently small depending on A.
12 CIPRIAN DEMETER, TERENCE TAO, AND CHRISTOPH THIELE

References
[1] A. Balog, E. Szemerédi, A statistical theorem of set addition, Combinatorica, 14 (1994), 263–268.
[2] T. Gowers, A new proof of Szemerédi’s theorem for arithmetic progressions of length four, GAFA 8
(1998), 529–551.
[3] B. Green, I. Ruzsa, Sets with small sumsets and rectification, preprint. math.NT/0403338
[4] I. Ruzsa, An analog of Freiman’s theorem in groups, Structure theory of set addition, Astérisque No.
258 (1999), 323–326.

Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles CA 90095-1555

E-mail address: demeter@math.ucla.edu

Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles CA 90095-1555

E-mail address: tao@math.ucla.edu

Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles CA 90095-1555

E-mail address: thiele@math.ucla.edu