Sharp Sobolev regularity of restricted X-ray transforms

Abstract: We study $L^p$-Sobolev regularity estimate for the restricted X-ray transforms generated by nondegenerate curves. Making use of the inductive strategy in the recent work by the authors, we establish the sharp $L^p$-regularity estimates for the restricted X-ray transforms in $\mathbb R^{d+1}$, $d\ge 3$. This extends the result due to Pramanik and Seeger in $\mathbb R^3$ to every dimension.

\section{Introduction}
Let $\gamma$ be a smooth curve  from $I=[-1,1]$ to $\mathbb R^{d}$.
We consider
\[
\mathfrak R f(x,s)=\psi(s)\int f(x+t\gamma(s),t)\chi(t)dt,  \quad f\in \mathcal S(\mathbb{R}^{d+1}),
\]
where $\psi$ and $\chi$ are smooth functions supported in the interior of the intervals $I$ and  $[1,2]$, respectively. The operator
$\mathfrak Rf$ is referred to as the restriction of X-ray transform to the line complex  generated in the direction $(\gamma,1)$.
We say  $\gamma$ is  nondegenerate  if
\begin{align}\label{nonv}
\det( \gamma'(s), \dots, \gamma^{(d)}(s) )\neq0,
\quad  s\in I.
\end{align}

The operator $\mathfrak Rf$ is a model case of general class of restricted X-ray transforms (see \cite{GG, GS00, GU1, GU2, GU3}).
Especially in $\mathbb R^3$, under the nondegeneracy assumption \eqref{nonv}, $\mathfrak Rf$  is
a typical example of Fourier integral operators with one sided fold singularities (\cite{GS94}).
Regularity properties of $\mathfrak Rf$ have been studied in terms of $L^p$ improving and $L^p$ Sobolev regularity estimates.
$L^p$ improving property of $\mathfrak R$  is well understood by now (see \cite{GS98, GSW, Ob, La}).  In fact, the problem was  considered in a more general framework:
$L^p$--$L_s^q(L_x^r)$ mixed norm estimates for $\mathfrak R$ were studied by various authors (see \cite{W, E, CE1}), so the optimal estimates were established
 except for some endpoint cases.   (See also \cite{CE2, TW, G,  DS1, DS2} for related results.)

The $L^2$--$L_{1/(2d)}^2$ estimate is easy to obtain via $TT^*$ argument and van der Corput's lemma (\cite{GS00})
(see also \cite{GU3, GS94} for the sharp $L^2$ Sobolev estimates for general class of operators).
Interpolation
 between this estimate and the trivial $L^\infty$ estimate gives the sharp $L^p$--$L_{1/(pd)}^p$ estimate for $p\ge 2$, which
 is optimal in that $L^p$--$L_{\alpha}^p$ fails if $\alpha < 1/(pd)$  (see Proposition \ref{nece} below).
However, when $p< 2$,  the sharp $L^p$ regularity estimate  is less straightforward.
Such estimate was not known until recently. When $d=2$,  the optimal $L^p-L_{1-1/p}^p$ estimate was established for
$1< p<4/3$ by Pramanik and Seeger's conditional result \cite{PS06}
and the sharp decoupling inequality for the cone (in $\mathbb R^3$) due to
Bourgain and Demeter \cite{BD}.  Via interpolation those estimates  give the sharp $L^p$--$L_{1/(2d+)}^p$ estimate  for $4/3\le p<2$ but
it remains open whether the endpoint
$L^p$--$L_{1/(2d)}^p$ estimate  holds for $4/3\le p<2$. (See Conjecture \ref{sobolev} below.)  In $\mathbb R^3$, the result has been  extended to more general operators.
Pramanik and Seeger \cite{PS20} obtained sharp $L^p$ regularity estimates for  Fourier integral operator with folding canonical relations.
Bentsen \cite{Bentsen2} (also see \cite{Bentsen}) extended  their result to a class of radon transforms
with fold and blowdown singularities.

\medskip

However, in higher dimensions ($d\ge 3$) the sharp $L^p$ regularity estimate for $\mathfrak R$ has been left open for $1<p<2$.
We set $p_d=\frac{2d}{2d-1}$ and
 \[
\alpha(p)=
\begin{cases}
1-\frac 1p, & \ 1\le p<  p_d,
\\
\ \frac 1{2d},  & \ p_d \le p\le  2.
\end{cases}
\]
 It is natural to conjecture the following.

\begin{conj} \label{sobolev}
Let $d\ge3$ and $1< p < 2$. Suppose $\gamma$ is a smooth  nondegenerate curve.
Then, $\mathfrak R$ boundedly maps  $L^p$ to $L_\alpha^p$
for $\alpha \le \alpha(p)$.
\end{conj}

\noindent
Failure of  $L^p$--$L_\alpha^p$ boundedness for $\alpha> \alpha(p)$ can be shown by a slight modification of the examples in \cite{PS06}.
See Proposition \ref{nece}.
The following is our main result which verifies the conjecture except some endpoint cases.

\begin{thm} \label{thm:improving}
Let $d\ge3$. Suppose $\gamma$ is nondegenerate.
Then, for $1\le p<p_d$,
\begin{equation}
\label{A1}
\|\mathfrak R f\|_{L^p_{1-1/p}(\mathbb R^{d+1})}\le C\|f\|_{p}.
\end{equation}
\end{thm}

Interpolation  with $L^2-L_{1/(2d)}^2$ estimate   yields   \eqref{A1}  for  $\alpha <\alpha(p)$ when $p_d \in [p_d,2)$.
By a standard scaling argument (\cite{PS06, PS07}) the result in Theorem \ref{thm:improving} can be extended to the curves of finite type.
We say that a curve $\gamma: I \mapsto \mathbb R^{d}$ is  of finite  type  if  there is an $L$ such that  $\sspan \{ \gamma^{(1)}(s), \dots, \gamma^{(L)}(s)\}=\mathbb R^d$ for each $s\in I$.
For the finite type curve, the smallest of such $L$ is defined to be  the type of $\gamma$ at $s$. The supremum of the type over all $s \in I$ is called the maximal type of $\gamma$ (see, e.g., \cite{PS07, HL}).

\begin{cor}\label{type}
Let $d\ge3$, $1<p<2$,  and $L>d$. Suppose $\gamma$ is a curve of maximal type $L$.
Then,   $\mathfrak Rf$ is bounded  from $L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})$ to $L_\alpha^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})$
if  $\alpha \le \min( \alpha(p), 1/(Lp))$.
\end{cor}

For $p\in [2,\infty]$ it  is easy to obtain the sharp $L^p$ to $L_{1/(Lp)}^p$ estimate, which can be shown by using $L^2$ to $L_{1/(2L)}^2$ boundedness and
interpolation in a similar manner as above. Corollary \ref{type} and Proposition \ref{nece}  settle the problem of   the optimal Sobolev regularity estimate for $\mathfrak R$ if $L\ge 2d$.
However, some endpoint cases remain left open  when $d<L\le 2d-1$, not to mention such estimates for the nondegenerate curve.

\medskip

In order to prove  Theorem \ref{thm:improving} we  adapt   the inductive strategy developed by the authors  in \cite{KLO} to  obtain   the sharp $L^p$ regularity estimates
for the convolution operator
\[ \mathcal A_t  g(x) =\int g(x-t\gamma(s)) \psi(s)\,ds,  \quad t\neq 0,  \]
for $  g\in \mathcal S(\mathbb{R}^{d})$.
It is known (see \cite{PS07, BGHS}) that
$\mathcal A_t$  maps $L^p(\mathbb R^{d})$ boundedly into
$L^p_{\alpha}(\mathbb R^{d})$ only if $\alpha\le \widetilde\alpha (p)$ for $2\le p\le \infty$ where
\[
\widetilde\alpha (p)=
\begin{cases}
\frac 1d(\frac 12+\frac 1p),  & \ 2 \le  p \le 2(d-1),
\\[3pt]
  \  \  \frac 1p, &  \ 2(d-1)< p \le \infty.
\end{cases}
\]
When $d=3$, the sharp $L^p$--$L_{1/p}^p$ estimate of $\mathcal A_t$ for $p>4$ is due to
Pramanik and Seeger \cite{PS07} and the aforementioned decoupling inequality \cite{BD} (see also \cite{OS, OSS, TV} for earlier results).
The result was extended to $d=4$ by the recent work of Beltran, Guo, Hickman, and Seeger \cite{BGHS}.
When  $d\ge5$, the sharp $L^p-L_{\widetilde \alpha(p)-} ^p$ boundedness  was recently  established  in \cite{KLO} (see also \cite{PS07, KLO2, BGHS2} for recent progress in related problems).
A modification of  the argument in \cite{KLO} yields the optimal  $L^p$--$L_{1/p}^p$ estimate for  $p >2(d-1)$. See Remark \ref{optimal}.
Since its proof is almost identical to that of Theorem \ref{thm:improving},  we state the result without proof.

\begin{thm}\label{averaging}
Let $d\ge5$ and $p>2d-2$. Suppose $\gamma$ is a smooth nondegenerate curve. Then, $\mathcal A_t$ maps $L^p(\mathbb R^{d})$ boundedly into $L^p_{1/p}(\mathbb R^{d})$.
\end{thm}

For nonnegative quantities $A$ and $ D$, we denote  $A\lesssim D$ if there exists a  (independent)  constant $C$ such that $A\le CD$,
however  the constant   $C$ may differ at each occurrence  depending  on the context.

\section{Estimates with localized frequency}
In this section, we reduce the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:improving}  to obtaining Proposition \ref{microlocal} which we prove at the end of this section.
In order to prove Theorem \ref{thm:improving}, we consider the dual operator $\mathcal R:=\mathfrak R^*$, which is given by
\[\mathcal R f(x,t)=\chi(t)\int f(x-t\gamma(s),s)\psi(s)ds.\]
By duality it suffices to show
\begin{align}\label{dual2}
\| \mathcal Rf\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})} \lesssim \|f\|_{L_{-1/p}^p}, \quad 2d<p<\infty.
\end{align}
For the purpose we closely follow the lines of argument in \cite{KLO}.

For a smooth function $a(s,t,\xi)$ defined on $I \times [1,2] \times \mathbb R^d$,
we define an integral operator by
\[
\mathcal R[a]f(x,t)=(2\pi)^{-d}\iint  e^{i(x-t\gamma(s))\cdot\xi}a(s,t,\xi)  \,\mathcal F_x f (\xi,s)ds d\xi.
\]
Here $\mathcal F_x$ denotes the Fourier transform in $x$. Note that $\mathcal Rf =\mathcal R[a]f$ if $a(s,t,\xi)=\psi(s)\chi(t)$.
We assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{curveB}
\sum_{j=0}^{3d+1}|\gamma^{(j)}(s)|\,\le\, 10^{-2} B, \quad s\in I
\end{equation}
for some constant $B\ge1$. We obtain
the estimate \eqref{dual2} in an inductive manner under the localized nondegeneracy assumption:
\begin{align}
\label{sumN}  \sum_{\ell=1}^L & |\langle \gamma^{(\ell)}(s),  \xi\rangle| \ge B^{-1}|\xi|.
\end{align}
When $L<d$,  \eqref{sumN}  can  not be true in general even if $\gamma$ is nondegenerate. However,
an appropriate decomposition in frequency domain makes it possible that  \eqref{sumN} holds if  $(s,t,\xi) \in \supp a$ for some $t$.

For an integer $1 \le L \le d$, by $ \Vol (v_1,\dots,v_L)$ we denote the $L$-dimensional  volume of the parallelepiped generated by
vectors $v_1,\dots, v_L \in \mathbb R^d$. We denote
\[
\mathbb A_k=\{ \xi \in \mathbb R^d: 2^{k-1} \le |\xi| \le 2^{k+1}\}, \quad k\ge 0.
\]

\begin{thm}\label{lclb}

Let $1\le L \le d$,  $B\ge1$, and  $\gamma\in \mathrm C^{3d+1}(I)$ satisfy  \eqref{curveB}.
Suppose
$a(s,t,\xi)$ is a smooth function supported in $I \times [1,2]\times \mathbb A_k$ such that
\[
|\partial_t^{j}\partial_\xi^\alpha a(s,t,\xi)|\le  B |\xi|^{-|\alpha|}
\]
for $0\le j\le 2L$ and $|\alpha|\le d+L+2$.
Suppose
 \begin{equation} \label{lindepN} \Vol \big( \gamma^{(1)}(s), \dots, \gamma^{(L)}(s) \big) \ge B^{-1}, \quad  s\in I, \end{equation}
 and suppose \eqref{sumN}
holds whenever $(s,t,\xi) \in \supp a$ for some $t$.
Then, for $p> 2L$
\begin{align}\label{smoothing}
\|
\mathcal R[a]f\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})}\le
C 2^{-\frac{k}p}\|f\|_p.
\end{align}
\end{thm}

Once we have Theorem \ref{lclb}, the estimate \eqref{dual2} is rather easy to show.  Let $\beta \in \mathrm C_0^\infty((1/2,2))$ such that $\sum_{k}\beta(2^{-k} s)=1$ for $s>0$ and $\beta_0\in \mathrm C_0^\infty([-1,1])$ such that $\beta_0= 1$ on $[-1/2,1/2]$.
We define  $f_k$ by
\[\widehat{f_k}(\xi,\tau)=\beta(2^{-k}|\xi|) \beta_0(r_1^{-1}2^{-k}|\tau|)\widehat f(\xi,\tau),\] where $r_1=1+\sup_{s \in \supp \psi}|\gamma'(s)|$. Then
\[\mathcal F_x(\mathcal R(f_k-f))(\xi,t)=(2\pi)^{-1}\chi(t)\iint e^{i(s\tau-t\gamma(s)\cdot \xi)}\psi(s) ds (\widehat{f_k}- \widehat{f}\,)(\xi,\tau)d\tau.\]
One can easily see that $\| \mathcal Rf-\mathcal Rf_k \|_{L^2(\mathbb R^{d+1})}\lesssim 2^{-kN}\|f\|_2$ for any $N>0$ if $\widehat f$ is supported on $\mathbb A_k$.\footnote{By integration by parts, we have $\int e^{i(s \tau-\gamma(s)\cdot \xi)}\psi(s)ds=O((1+|\tau|)^{-N})$ for $|\tau| \ge r_1|\xi|$.}
Since $\gamma$ is nondegenerate, using Theorem \ref{lclb} with $L=d$ and $a=\psi(s)\chi(t)\beta(2^{-k}|\xi|)$,
we get
\begin{align}\label{one}
\| \mathcal R f_k\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})} \lesssim 2^{-\frac kp} \|f\|_p
\end{align}
for $p>2d$.
Then, making  use of the vector-valued version of the Fefferman-Stein
inequality for the $\#$-function, one can obtain \eqref{dual2}  from \eqref{one}.
This can be done  in the same manner as in  \cite{PS06} (also see \cite{PS07, BGHS}). So, we omit the details.

\medskip

We prove Theorem \ref{lclb} by induction on $L$. When $L=1$, the estimate \eqref{smoothing} is easy to prove by $TT^*$ argument.
Indeed, let us set $\widetilde{\mathcal R}f=\mathcal F_x(\mathcal R[a] \mathcal F_x^{-1}\!f)$ so that
\[
\widetilde{\mathcal R}f(\xi,t) = \int e^{-it\gamma(s)\cdot \xi} a(s,t,\xi) f(\xi,s)\,ds.
\]
Then, we have $\widetilde{\mathcal R}^*\widetilde{\mathcal R}f(\xi,s)=\int \mathcal K(s,s',\xi)f(\xi,s')\,ds'$ where $\mathcal K$ is given by
$\mathcal K(s,s',\xi)=\int e^{-it(\gamma(s)-\gamma(s'))\cdot \xi} \overline a(s,t,\xi) a(s',t,\xi)\,dt$.
Since \eqref{sumN} holds with $L=1$ on the support of $a$, by integration by parts we have
\[
|\mathcal K(s,s',\xi)| \le C (1+2^k|s-s'|)^{-2}.
\]
Thus, $|\widetilde{\mathcal R}^* \widetilde{\mathcal R}f(\xi,s)|\le C \int (1+2^k|s-s'|)^{-2} |f(\xi,s')|\,ds'$.
By Young's convolution inequality
we get $\|\widetilde{\mathcal R}^* \widetilde{\mathcal R}f \|_2 \lesssim 2^{-k}\|f\|_2$.
Via Plancherel's theorem this gives $\| \mathcal R[a]f\|_2 \lesssim 2^{-k/2}\|f\|_2$.
Interpolating this with the trivial $L^\infty$ estimate, we obtain Theorem \ref{lclb} for $L=1$.

Theorem \ref{lclb} with $L\ge2$ follows from the next proposition.

\begin{prop}\label{newprop}
Let $2 \le N  \le d$. Suppose Theorem \ref{lclb} holds with $L=N-1$.
Then Theorem \ref{lclb} holds with $L=N$.
\end{prop}

We now fix $2\le N\le d$.
For the rest of the paper we assume
\begin{align*}
2^{-k /N}\le \delta \le  2^{-3dN}B^{-N}.
\end{align*}

\subsection{A class of symbols adapted to $\gamma$}
We define a class of symbols adapted to the curve $\gamma$.  For $\gamma$ satisfying \eqref{lindepN} with $L=N-1$ and $s\in I$,  we define a linear map $\widetilde {\mathcal L}_s^\delta :\mathbb R^d \mapsto \mathbb R^d$  by
\begin{align*}
(\widetilde{\mathcal L}_{s}^\delta)^\intercal \gamma^{(j)}(s)
&=\delta^{N-j}\gamma^{(j)}(s),   \qquad j=1,\dots,N-1, \\
(\widetilde{\mathcal L}_{s}^\delta)^\intercal v &=v.
\qquad \qquad   \quad~  v\in  \big(\text{span} \big\{ \gamma^{(j)}(s) : j=1,\dots,N-1 \big\}\big)^{\perp}.
\end{align*}
 Let $(\tau,\xi)\in \mathbb R \times \mathbb R^d$.
We also set a linear map $\mathcal L_s^\delta: \mathbb R^{d+1} \mapsto \mathbb R^{d+1}$ by
\[
\mathcal L_{s}^\delta(\tau, \xi)=
\big(\delta^N \tau - \gamma(s)\cdot   \widetilde{\mathcal L}_s^\delta \xi,\, \widetilde{\mathcal L}_s^\delta \xi\big).
\]
We set
\[ G(s)=(1,\gamma(s))\]
 and define a class of symbols  which are adapted to  subcurves  of $G(s)$ with length about  $\delta$.

\begin{defn}
Let  $\gamma$ be a smooth curve satisfying  \eqref{curveB} and \eqref{lindepN} with $L=N-1$.  Let  $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}} \in (-1,1)$ and $0<\delta \le1$ such that
$[s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta,  s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta]\subset I$. Then,   we set
\begin{align*}
\Lambda_k(\delta,s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})=\big\{(\tau,\xi) \in \mathbb R \times \mathbb A_k :
&\,|\langle G^{(j)}(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}),(\tau,\xi)\rangle| \le  B2^{k+5} \delta^{N-j}, \, j=0,\dots N-1\big\}.
\end{align*}
We denote by $\mathfrak A_k(\delta,s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})=\mathfrak A_k(\delta, s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}},d,N,B,\gamma)$
the set of smooth functions $\mathfrak a$ which satisfy the following\,$:$
\begin{align}\label{symsupp}
\supp \mathfrak a &(s,t,\tau,\xi) \subset [s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta,s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta]\times [1,2]\times \Lambda_k(\delta,s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}),
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\label{symineq2}
&\big|\partial^{j}_t\partial^{\alpha}_{\tau, \xi}
\mathfrak a\big( s,t,  \mathcal L_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta(\tau,\xi) \big) \big|
\le B|(\tau,\xi)|^{-|\alpha|}
\end{align}
 for $0\le j\le 2N$ and $|\alpha|\le d+N+2$.
\end{defn}

We set  $\supp_{\xi} \mathfrak a=\cup_{s,t,\tau} \supp \mathfrak a(s,t,\tau,\cdot)$ and  $\supp_{s,\xi} \mathfrak a=\cup_{t,\tau} \supp \mathfrak a(\cdot,t,\tau,\cdot)$. Also
$\supp_{\tau,\xi} \mathfrak a$ and $\supp_{s} \mathfrak a$ are defined in the same manner. We  say  \emph{a  statement $S(s, \xi)$, depending on  $(s, \xi)$,
 holds on   $\supp \mathfrak a$ $($the support of $\mathfrak a$$)$ if $S(s,\xi)$ holds for  $(s,\xi)\in \supp_{s,\xi} \mathfrak a$}, i.e., $(s,t, \tau,\xi) \in \supp \mathfrak a$ for some $t$ and $\tau$.
 We also adopt  the same  convention with other variables.

We define
\begin{align}\label{T}
\mathcal F(\mathcal T [\mathfrak a] f)(\xi,\tau) =\iint e^{-it'(\tau+ \gamma(s)\cdot \xi)}\mathfrak a(s,t',\tau,\xi)dt' \, \mathcal F_x f (\xi,s)ds.
\end{align}
Clearly, we have $\mathcal R[a]=\mathcal T[a]$ for $a=a(s,t,\xi)$ by the Fourier inversion formula.
The following is an analogue of \cite[Lemma 2.6]{KLO}
which is obtained by estimating the kernel of $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a]$.

\begin{lem}\label{kernel}
Let  $\widetilde \chi \in \mathrm C_0^\infty((2^{-2},2^2))$ such that $\widetilde \chi=1$ on $[3^{-1},3]$.
Let $\mathfrak a$ be a smooth function  which satisfies  \eqref{symsupp}
and \eqref{symineq2} with $j=0$ and $|\alpha| \le d+3$. Then, we have
\begin{equation}\label{ker-est} \| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f\|_{L^\infty(\mathbb R^{d+1})} \le C\delta \|f\|_\infty, \end{equation}
and
\begin{align}\label{ker-est2}
\|(1-\widetilde\chi(t)) \mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})} \le C2^{-k}\delta^{1-\frac 1p-N} \|f\|_p
\end{align}
 for $p\ge2$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Note that $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f (x,t) = \int K[\mathfrak a](s,t, \cdot)\ast f(\cdot,s)(x) \,ds$
where
\[
K[\mathfrak a](s,t,x)=C_d  \iiint e^{i(t-t')\tau+i(x-t\gamma(s))\cdot \xi}\mathfrak a(s,t',\tau,\xi) \, d\xi d\tau dt'
\]
for $C_d=(2\pi)^{-d-1}$. Since \eqref{symineq2} holds with $j=0$ and $|\alpha| \le d+3$, by changing variables $(\tau,\xi) \rightarrow 2^k\mathcal L_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta(\tau,\xi)$ followed by  repeated integration by parts, we have
\[|K[\mathfrak a](s,t,x)|\lesssim \delta^{\frac {N(N+1)}2}2^{k(d+1)}\int\big(1+2^k|(\delta^N(t-t'),(\widetilde{\mathcal L}_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^\intercal(x-t\gamma(s)))|\big)^{-d-3}dt'.
\]
This yields $\|K[\mathfrak a](s,t,\cdot)\|_{L^1_x}\lesssim 1$.     From \eqref{symsupp}  we have $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f (x,t) = \int_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta}^{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta} K[\mathfrak a](s,t, \cdot)\ast f(\cdot,s)(x) \,ds$. Thus,  \eqref{ker-est} follows.

By  \eqref{symsupp}     and
H\"older's inequality we see
\begin{align*}
\|(1-\widetilde\chi)\mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f\|_p^p\lesssim \delta^{p-1} \int_1^2 \int_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta}^{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta} \|(1-\widetilde\chi(t))K[\mathfrak a](s,t, \cdot)\ast f(\cdot,s)\|_{L^p_x}^pdsdt.
\end{align*}
Using  the previous   estimate for  $K[\mathfrak a](s,t,x)$, we have $\|(1-\widetilde\chi(t))K[\mathfrak a](s,t,\cdot)\|_{L^1_x}\lesssim 2^{-k} \delta^{-N} |t-1|^{-1}(1-\widetilde\chi(t))$.
This and Young's convolution inequality give \eqref{ker-est2}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Frequency localization}
To prove Proposition \ref{newprop} we make some preliminary decompositions and reductions.
Recall that $\beta_0\in \mathrm C_0^\infty([-1,1])$ such that $\beta_0= 1$ on $[-1/2,1/2]$.
For a fixed constant $\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ which is to be chosen later, we set
\[
a_N(s,t,\xi)=a(s,t,\xi)\prod_{j=1}^{N-1} \beta_0 \Big(100dB\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^{-N}\frac{\gamma^{(j)}(s)\cdot\xi}{|\xi|} \Big).
\]

Suppose \eqref{sumN} holds with $L=N$. Then,
we have
\begin{align}\label{lowerN}
|\gamma^{(N)}(s)\cdot\xi|\ge (2B)^{-1}|\xi|
\end{align}
on the support of $a_N$ since $|\gamma^{(j)}(s)\cdot\xi|\le (100dB)^{-1}\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^N|\xi|$ for $1\le j\le N-1$.
Clearly, \eqref{sumN} holds with $L=N-1$ and  $B$ replaced with $(100dB)^{-1}\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^N$ on  $\supp (a-a_N)$.
Thus, by the induction hypothesis  (Theorem \ref{lclb} with $L=N-1$ and  $B$ replaced by $(100dB)^{-1}\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^N$) we have
\[
\|\mathcal R[a-a_N]f\|_p\lesssim 2^{-\frac kp}\|f\|_p
\]
for $p> 2(N-1)$.
So, we need only to  consider $\mathcal R[a_N]$ instead of $\mathcal R[a]$.

We set
\[
\Gamma_k(a_N,h)=\big\{ \xi \in \mathbb A_k: \dist( |\xi|^{-1}\xi, |\xi'|^{-1} \xi') \le h,
\quad~ \text{for some } \xi' \in \supp_\xi a_N \big\}.
\]
By finite decomposition of the support of $a_N$, we may assume that \eqref{lowerN}
holds for $s \in [-1-\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}},1+\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}]$ and $\xi \in \Gamma_k(a,\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$ for a small constant $\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}>0$, which we specify later.
Thus, by the implicit function theorem, there is a $\mathrm C^{2d+2}$ function $\sigma(\xi)$ such that
\[
\langle\gamma^{(N-1)}(\sigma(\xi)),\xi\rangle=0.
\]
In what follows, any symbol which subsequently  appears is given by decomposing the symbol $a_N$. Consequently,
we may assume  the symbols  are supported in $\Gamma_k(a_N,\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$\footnote{Thus, $\sigma$ is a well defined on the $\xi$-supports of symbols.} and \eqref{lowerN} holds on their supports.
Furthermore, by  finite decomposition we may assume
\[\supp_s a_N \subset [s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}, s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}]\] for some $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}} \in (-1,1)$.

It is not difficult to see  that the contribution of the frequency part  $\{(\tau,\xi): |\tau+\gamma(s)\cdot \xi| \gtrsim  2^{k+1} \delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^N, \, \forall s \in I\}$ is not  significant.
To see this, let us set
\[
{\mathfrak a}_0(s,t,\tau,\xi)= a_N(s,t,\xi) 	\beta_0 \big(
	\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^{-2N} 2^{-2k}|\tau+\gamma(s)\cdot \xi |^2\big)
\]
and $\mathfrak a_1(s,t,\tau,\xi)=\mathfrak a_0(s,t,\tau,\xi)-a_N(s,t,\xi)$. By  Fourier inversion, we have
\[
\mathcal R[a_N]f = \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_0]f +\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_1]f.
\]
For the operator  $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_1]$, we have a better estimate.
Note that $|\tau+\gamma(s)\cdot\xi| \gtrsim  2^{k} \delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^N$ on $\supp \mathfrak a_1$.
Integration by parts in $t$ gives
\begin{align*}
\mathcal F(\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_1] f)(\xi,\tau) =\iint e^{-it'(\tau+ \gamma(s)\cdot \xi)}
\frac{ \partial_{t'} \mathfrak a_1(s,t',\tau,\xi)}{i(\tau+ \langle \gamma(s), \xi \rangle)}dt' \, \mathcal F_x f (\xi,s)ds.
\end{align*}
Since $\mathfrak a=2^{k}\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^{N}(\tau+\langle \gamma(s), \xi \rangle )^{-1} \partial_{t'}\mathfrak a_1$ satisfies \eqref{symsupp} and \eqref{symineq2} with $\delta=\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ and $B=C_1\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}^{-C}$ for some $C,C_1$ when $j=0$ and $|\alpha| \le d+3$, Lemma \ref{kernel} gives
\[
\|\mathcal T [ \mathfrak a_1]f\|_p\lesssim 2^{-k}\|f\|_p,  \quad p\ge 2.
\]

Thus, disregarding $\mathcal T [ \mathfrak a_1]$,  we need only to show
$\|
\mathcal T [ \mathfrak a_0]f\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})}\le
C 2^{-\frac{k}p}\|f\|_p$ instead of  \eqref{smoothing}. Let us fix a constant
\begin{equation}\label{delta-min}
\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}=\min\{ \delta_*, 2^{-3dN}B^{-N} \}
\end{equation}
where $\delta_*$ is a small number  to be chosen later (see \eqref{delta-def} below). Since $\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ is the fixed constant, it is clear that $C^{-1} \mathfrak a_\nu \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}},s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$ for a large constant  $C>0$.

Therefore, Proposition \ref{newprop} follows if we show the next proposition.

\begin{prop}\label{microlocal}
Let $ \mathfrak a\in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}},{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}})$.
Suppose   $\gamma$ satisfies   \eqref{lindepN} with $L=N$
and suppose Theorem \ref{lclb} holds with $L=N-1$.
Then,  for  $p> 2N$ we have
\begin{align}\label{overline-a0}
\big\| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f \big\|_{p}
\le C 2^{-\frac{k} p}\|f\|_{p}.
\end{align}
\end{prop}

\subsection{Decoupling of $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a^\mu]$}
Let  $\delta_0$ and $\delta_1$ be positive numbers such that
\begin{align}\label{orderB}
2^{3d}B\delta_0^{(N+1)/N} \le \delta_1\le \delta_0 \le \delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}.
\end{align}
For $n\ge 0$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{Jnmu}
\mathfrak J_n^\mu=\{ \nu \in \mathbb Z: |2^n\delta_1 \nu - \delta_0 \mu| \le \delta_0\}.
\end{equation}
We prove Proposition \ref{microlocal} by using the following proposition iteratively (cf. \cite[Proposition 4.1]{KLO}), which we show in Section \ref{sec3}.
\begin{prop}\label{iterative}
Let $\delta_0$ and  $\delta_1$ be positive numbers satisfying \eqref{orderB} and  $2^{-k/N}\le \delta_1$.
Let $\mathfrak a^\mu \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_0,\delta_0\mu)$ for $\delta_0\mu \in [-1,1]\cap \delta_0\mathbb Z$ such that
$\supp_{\xi} \mathfrak a^\mu\subset \Gamma_k(a, \delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$ for each $\mu$. Suppose   \eqref{lindepN}
holds with $L=N$  and suppose Theorem \ref{lclb} holds with $L=N-1$.
 Then, if  $2N<p\le N(N+1)$, there exist $\epsilon=\epsilon(p,N)>0$,  a constant $C=C(p,d,N,B)$
and symbols $\mathfrak a_{\nu} \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_1,\delta_1\nu)$,
$\nu \in \cup_\mu\mathfrak J_0^\mu$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq-iter}
\Big( \sum_\mu \| \mathcal T[ \mathfrak a^\mu]f\|_p^p\Big)^{\frac 1p}\!
\! \le \! C
	\Big( \frac{\delta_0}{\delta_1} \Big)^{1-\frac {N+1}{p}-\epsilon}\!
	\Big( \sum_\nu \| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{\nu}]f\|_p^p\Big)^{\frac 1p}
\!\!\!+\!C \delta_0^{1-\frac {N+1}p } 2^{-\frac{k}p}\|f\|_p.
\end{align}
\end{prop}

In \cite{KLO} a similar inequality was used to show the sharp smoothing estimate for $\mathcal A_t$ with  $\epsilon$-loss on the regularity.
Compared with \cite{KLO}, we have the optimal bound $C2^{-k/p}$ for the error part  in the right hand side of  \eqref{eq-iter}.
  This is possible since  we have the optimal regularity estimate
when $L=1$, i.e., Theorem \ref{lclb} with $L=1$.  Such bound allows us to impose an induction assumption with the optimal regularity in Proposition  \ref{newprop}.
Even if the decoupling inequality has  $\epsilon$-loss in its bound, as to be seen below,  the  loss  is harmless.
Consequently, we can obtain   the optimal estimate  \eqref{one}.

\begin{rmk}
\label{optimal} The same argument continues to work for the convolution
operator $\mathcal A_t$ since we also have the optimal regularity estimate for $\mathcal A_t$, that is to say,
\[\| \mathcal A _t[a]f \|_{L^p(\mathbb R^d)} \le C 2^{-k/p} \|f\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^d)}, \quad  2 \le p \le \infty\]
when  \eqref{sumN} holds with $L=2$.  {\rm(}See \cite[Section 5]{KLO}{\rm)}. Therefore, we get Theorem \ref{averaging}. However,
a similar approach breaks down if one attempts to obtain  the optimal local smoothing estimate for  $\mathcal A_t$ $($see  \cite[Theorem 1.3]{KLO}$)$.
To remove epsilon-loss in the local smoothing estimates, we need the decoupling inequality \eqref{c-decoupling2} for $4N-2<p \le N(N+1)$.
However, there is no such estimate when $N=2$.
Since the proof is based on the induction, the approach does not work for the local smoothing estimate to give the optimal estimate.
\end{rmk}

The proof of Proposition \ref{iterative} is based on a conic extension of the decoupling inequality for  the nondegenerate curve, see Theorem \ref{rcdecoupling}.
We first prove Proposition \ref{microlocal} using Proposition \ref{iterative}, whose proof is given in Section \ref{sec3}.

\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{microlocal}}
Let $\epsilon$ and $C$ be the numbers in Proposition \ref{iterative}, which depend only on $d,p,N, B$.
Let us set
\begin{equation}\label{delta-def}
\delta_*= (2^{3d}B)^{-N} C^{-2N/\epsilon}.
\end{equation}
We  take $\delta_0=\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ (\eqref{delta-min}). Then,  for $j=1,\dots, J-1$, we set
\begin{align}\label{defn-j}
\delta_j=(2^{3d}B)^{N(\frac{N+1}N)^{j}-N} \delta_0^{(\frac{N+1}N)^{j}},
\end{align}
where $J$ is the largest integer such that $\delta_{\!J-1}>2^{-k/N}$. We also set
\[
\delta_{\!J}=2^{-\frac kN}.
\]
Then, $J\le C_1 \log k$ for some $C_1$.
It is easy to check
\begin{align} \label{del-con}
2^{3d}B\delta_j^{\frac{N+1}N} \le \delta_{j+1}< \delta_j,   \quad \, j=0, \dots, J-1.
\end{align}

Since $\mathfrak a \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_0,\delta_0\mu)$ and \eqref{del-con} holds,
by applying Proposition \ref{iterative}
there are symbols $\mathfrak a_{\nu_1} \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_{1}, \delta_{1}\nu)$
such that \eqref{eq-iter} holds with $\mathfrak a_{\nu}$ replaced by $\mathfrak a_{\nu_1}$.
Applying Proposition \ref{iterative} repeatedly, we have symbols $\mathfrak a_\nu \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_{\!J}, \delta_{\!J}\nu)$, $\delta_{\!J}\nu\in  [s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}, s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}]$, such that
\begin{align}\label{sum1}
\big\| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f \big\|_{p}
\le  C^J\delta_{\!J}^{\frac {N+1}{p}-1+\epsilon}
	\Big( \sum_\nu \| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{\nu}]f\|_p^p\Big)^{\frac 1p}
\!+\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}C^{j+1} \delta_j^{\epsilon } 2^{-\frac{k}p}\|f\|_p.
\end{align}
Since $\delta_0 \le (2^{3d}B)^{-N} C^{-2N/\epsilon}$, it follows from \eqref{defn-j} that
$\delta_j \le (2^{3d}B)^{-N} C^{-\frac {2N}\epsilon (\frac{N+1}N)^j}$ for $0 \le j \le J-1$. Thus, it follows that
$
\sum_{j=0}^{J-1}C^{j+1} \delta_j^{\epsilon }\le (2^{3d}B)^{-\epsilon N} \sum_{j=0}^{J-1}2^{-j} \le C_2
$
for some constant $C_2=C_2(d,B,p,N)$.

For $2\le p \le\infty$, we claim
\begin{align}\label{center}
\Big( \sum_\nu \| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{\nu}]f\|_p^p\Big)^{\frac 1p}\lesssim \delta_J^{1-\frac 1p}\|f\|_p
\end{align}
where $\mathfrak a_\nu \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_{\!J}, \delta_{\!J}\nu)$ and $\delta_{\!J}\nu\in  [s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}, s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}]$.
Indeed,  by \eqref{ker-est} we have \eqref{center} for $p=\infty$.
Since $\supp_s \mathfrak a_\nu \subset I_\nu:=[\delta_{\!J}\nu-\delta_{\!J}, \delta_{\!J}\nu+\delta_{\!J}]$, using \eqref{T},  Plancherel's Theorem, and Holder's inequality in $s$,
we obtain
\[
\sum_{\nu} \| \mathcal T [\mathfrak a_\nu] f\|_2^2
\lesssim \sum_\nu \Big( \int_{I_\nu} \, \| \mathcal F_x f(\cdot, s) \|_2 \,ds \Big)^2 \lesssim \delta_J \|f\|_2^2.
\]
This gives \eqref{center} with $p=2$ and the desired bound \eqref{center} follows by interpolation.

Combining \eqref{center} with \eqref{sum1}, we have
\[
\big\| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f \big\|_{p}
\le (C^{J}2^{ -\frac kp}2^{- \frac{k} N\epsilon} + C_2 2^{-\frac kp})\|f\|_p.
\]
Since $J\le C_1\log k$, taking $k$ sufficiently large  we get \eqref{overline-a0}
for $2N<p\le N(N+1)$.
Interpolating this and the trivial estimate with $p=\infty$, we obtain \eqref{overline-a0} for $p>2N$. This completes the proof of  Proposition \ref{microlocal}.

\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{iterative}}
\label{sec3}

In this section, we prove Proposition \ref{iterative} by making use of the decoupling inequality for the curve.
To do this, we need to decompose   carefully a given symbol $\mathfrak a$ near the set $\{(\xi,s)\in \supp_{\xi,s} \mathfrak a: \gamma^{(N-1)}(s)\cdot \xi=0\}$.

Before proceeding to prove Proposition \ref{iterative}, we first  consider the operator $\mathcal R[a]$ given by a symbol $a$ adapted to
a short curve.

\subsection{Rescaling}

Let $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}} \in (-1,1)$ and $0<\delta \le \delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ satisfy   $[s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta,  s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta]\subset I$.
Suppose $\gamma$ is a smooth curve satisfying
\eqref{lindepN} with $L=N$.  Then,   \eqref{lindepN} with $L=N-1$  holds with $B$ replaced by $B^{2}$.
We  set
\[
\mathcal M_s^\delta= \delta^{-N} \widetilde{\mathcal L}_s^\delta
\]
and define  $\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta=\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta(s;N)$ by
\[
\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta(s)=
(\mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^\intercal \big(\gamma(\delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})-\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})\big).
\]
By Taylor expansion of $\gamma^{(j)}(\delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$ at $s=0$,
we see  $\gamma=\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta$ satisfies \eqref{curveB}  with $B$ replaced by  $2B$ if $\delta$ is sufficiently small.  We define
\[
\mathcal  R^{\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^{\delta}}[a]f(x,t)=(2\pi)^{-d}\iint  e^{i(x-t\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^{\delta}(s))\cdot\xi}a(s,t,\xi)  \mathcal F_x f (\xi,s)ds d\xi.
\]

The next lemma which is  an analogue of \cite[Lemma 2.7]{KLO} is  important for carrying out our inductive argument.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:res}
Let $2\le N\le d$, $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}} \in (-1,1)$, and
$\mathfrak a \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta,s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$.
Let $\gamma \in \mathrm C^{3d+1}(I)$ satisfy \eqref{curveB}  and \eqref{lindepN}
with $L=N$. Suppose
\[
\sum_{j=1}^{N-1} \delta^{j} |\langle \gamma^{(j)}(s), \xi \rangle |\ge
B^{-1}2^k \delta^N
\]
holds on $[s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}-\delta, s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}+\delta]\times \supp_\xi \mathfrak a$.
Then, there exist   $\widetilde a $, $\widetilde f$, and constants  $C$, $\widetilde B$, and $\tilde\delta_{*}=\tilde\delta_{*}(B,N,d)$
such that
\begin{align}\label{res:TA}
\big\|  \widetilde\chi \mathcal T [\mathfrak a] f \big\|_p
=  \delta^{1-\frac 1p}
\big\|\mathcal  R^{\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^{\delta}}
[\, \raisebox{-.2ex}{$\widetilde {a}$} \,]
\widetilde f \big\|_p,
\end{align}
$ \|\widetilde f\|_p=\|f\|_p$  and the following hold for $0<\delta<\tilde\delta_{*}$$:$
\begin{align}
\label{Vol1}
&\Vol \big( (\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^{(1)}(s), \dots, (\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^{(N-1)}(s) \big) \ge  \widetilde B, \quad s\in I {\,\rm ;}
 \\
 \label{lowerg}
\qquad \sum_{j=1}^{N-1} &\big| \big\langle(\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^{(j)}(s),\xi \big\rangle \big|\ge \widetilde B^{-1}2^k\delta^N,
            \quad (s,\xi)\in I\times \supp_\xi \widetilde{a} {\,\rm ;}
 \\
\label{fourierF}
\supp \widetilde a(s,t,\xi) &\,\subset\, I \times [2^{-2},2^2] \times \big\{ \xi  \in \mathbb R^d: C^{-1}\delta^N 2^k \le |\xi | \le C \delta^N 2^{k} \big\}{\,\rm ;}
\\
\label{diff:a}
&\qquad\quad | \partial_t^{j}\partial_\xi^\alpha \widetilde a(s,t,\xi)
| \le \widetilde B   |\xi|^{-|\alpha|}
\end{align}
for $0\le j \le 2N-2$, and $|\alpha|\le d+N+1$.

\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Using  \eqref{T}, by  Fourier inversion  and changing variables $s\rightarrow \delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ and $(\tau,\xi)\rightarrow (\tau-\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})\cdot \xi, \xi)$, we have
\[
\mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f(x,t)=C_d\delta \iint e^{i\langle x-t\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}),\xi \rangle} b(s,t,\xi) \mathcal F_xf(\xi, \delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})\,ds d\xi
\]
where $b(s,t,\xi)$ is given by
\[
b(s,t,\xi)= \iint e^{it\tau} e^{-it' ( \tau+ \langle \gamma(\delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})-\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}), \xi \rangle)} \mathfrak a(\delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}, t', \tau-\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})\cdot \xi, \xi)\,dt' d\tau.
\]
Let $\widetilde f$ be given by $\mathcal F_x \widetilde f (\xi,s)= \delta^{\frac 1p} |\det \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta|^{1-\frac 1p} \mathcal F_x f(\mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta \xi, \delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$.
Then we have $\|\widetilde f\|_p=\|f\|_p$.
Changing  variable $\xi \rightarrow \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta \xi$, we have
\[
\mathcal T[\mathfrak a]f(x,t) =  C_d \delta^{1-\frac 1p} |\det \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta |^{\frac 1p} \iint e^{i \langle x-t\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}), \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta \xi \rangle} b(s,t, \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta\xi ) \mathcal F_x \widetilde f(\xi,s)\,ds d\xi.
\]
Note that $(\tau-\gamma (s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}) \cdot \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta \xi, \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta \xi)=\delta^{-N} \mathcal L_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta (\tau,\xi)$. Thus, if we set
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{ a}(s,t,\xi)&=\frac 1{2\pi}\iint e^{-it'(\tau+\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta(s)\cdot \xi)}\widetilde{\chi}(t)\mathfrak a(\delta s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}},t+t',\delta^{-N}\mathcal L_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta(\tau,\xi))dt'd\tau,
\end{align*}
then $\widetilde \chi(t) b(s,t, \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta \xi) = 2\pi e^{-it\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta (s)\cdot \xi} \widetilde a(s,t,\xi)$ and
\begin{align*}
\widetilde \chi(t)\mathcal T [\mathfrak a]f(x,t)
=\delta^{1-\frac 1p} |\det \mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta|^{\frac 1p} \mathcal R^{\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta}
[  \,\raisebox{-.3ex}{$\widetilde a$} \,]
\widetilde f \big( (\mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^{\intercal} (x-t\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})),t\big).
\end{align*}
Therefore, changing of variable $x \rightarrow (\mathcal M_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^\delta)^{-\intercal}x+t\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})$, we obtain \eqref{res:TA}.

It now remains to prove \eqref{Vol1}, \eqref{lowerg}, \eqref{fourierF} and \eqref{diff:a}.
One can easily show those estimates following the argument  in \cite{KLO}.
So, we omit the details.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Decomposition}
We apply the decoupling inequality after projecting the support of $\mathfrak a^\mu$ to the subspace $\mathrm V_\mu$ generated by
$\{G^{(j)}(\delta_0\mu) ,  j=0,\dots,N\}$ for each $\mu$.
In order to appropriately decompose the symbols $\mathfrak a^\mu$,
we  need to approximate  $\langle G(s), (\tau,\xi) \rangle $ in a local coordinate.
For the purpose we follow
the argument \cite[Section 4.2]{KLO} to which we refer the reader for the details.

For each $\mu$, we  define
\[
y_\mu^j(\tau,\xi)= \langle G^{(j)}(\delta_0\mu ),(\tau,\xi)\rangle,
\quad j=0,1,\dots,N.
\]
Then, by \eqref{lowerN} we have
\begin{equation}\label{lowYN}
|y_\mu^N(\tau,\xi)|\ge(2B)^{-1}|\xi|.
\end{equation}
We also set
\[
\omega_\mu(\tau,\xi) = \frac{y_\mu^{N-1}(\tau,\xi)}{ y_\mu^N(\tau,\xi)}.
\]

Now we approximate $y_\mu^j(\tau,\xi)$
via Taylor series expansion of $G^{(j)}(s)$ at $s=\sigma(\xi)$.
To do this, we set
\[
\mathfrak g_\mu^N(\tau,\xi)=y_\mu^N(\tau,\xi),
\]
and then define  $\mathfrak g_\mu^{j}$, $j=N-1,\dots,1,0$, recursively by
\begin{align}\label{u-w}
\mathfrak g_\mu^{j}(\tau,\xi)=y^{j}_\mu(\tau,\xi)-\sum_{\ell=j+1}^{N}\frac{\mathfrak g^{\ell}_\mu(\tau,\xi)}{(\ell-j)!}
(\omega_\mu(\tau,\xi))^{\ell-j}.
\end{align}
In particular,  $\mathfrak g_\mu^{N-1}(\tau,\xi)=0$.
By \eqref{u-w}, we can write $y_\mu^m$ in terms of $\mathfrak g_\mu^j$ and $\omega_\mu$:
\begin{equation}\label{uw2}
y_\mu^m(\tau,\xi) = \sum_{\ell=m}^N \frac{\mathfrak g_\mu^\ell(\tau,\xi)}{(\ell-m)!} (\omega_\mu(\tau,\xi))^{\ell-m}, \quad m=0,\dots,N.
\end{equation}
Here $y_\mu^j$, $\mathfrak g_\mu^j$ are independent of $\tau$ except for $j=0$
but we include $\tau$ as a variable for notational convenience.
 We can now approximate $\delta_0\mu-\sigma(\xi)$ and $\langle G^{(j)}(\sigma(\xi)),(\tau,\xi)\rangle$ in terms of  $\omega_\mu^j$ and  $\mathfrak g^{j}_\mu$.

\begin{lem}[{\cite[Lemma 4.3]{KLO}}]
We have
\begin{align}\label{angle}
\delta_0\mu-\sigma(\xi) = \omega_\mu(\tau,\xi)-\mathcal E_1(\xi)
\end{align}
and  $\mathcal E_1(\xi)=O(2^n\delta_1)$. Also, for $j=0,\dots,N-1$, we have
\[
\mathfrak g_\mu^j(\tau,\xi)= \langle G^{(j)}(\sigma(\xi)), (\tau,\xi) \rangle
-\sum_{\ell=j+1}^N \frac{\mathfrak g_\mu^\ell(\tau,\xi)}{(\ell-j)!} O(\delta_0^{2(\ell-j)})
+y_\mu^N(\tau,\xi) O(\delta_0^{N-j+1}).
\]
\end{lem}

To decompose  $\mathfrak a^\mu \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_0,\delta_0\mu)$, we denote
\[
\mathfrak G_N(s,\tau,\xi)=\sum_{j=0}^{N-2}(2^{-k}|\mathfrak g^{j}_\mu(\tau,\xi)|)^{\frac{2N!}{N-j}}+(s-\sigma(\xi))^{2N!}.
\]
Setting $\beta_N=\beta_0-\beta_0(2^{2N!}\cdot)$, we define
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak a_{0,\nu}^\mu(s,t,\tau,\xi)
	&=\mathfrak a^\mu (s,t,\tau,\xi) \, \beta_0 \big(
	\delta_1^{-2N!} \, \mathfrak G_N(s,\tau,\xi) \big) \, \zeta(\delta_1^{-1}s-\nu),  \quad\, \nu \in \mathfrak J_0^\mu;
	\\[1ex]
\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu(s,t,\tau,\xi)
	&=\mathfrak a^\mu(s,t,\tau,\xi)\, \beta_N \big( (2^{n}\delta_1)^{-2N!}
	\, \mathfrak G_N(s,\tau,\xi) \big) \,	\zeta(2^{-n}\delta_1^{-1}s-\nu)
\end{align*}
 for $n\ge1$ and $\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu$ (see \eqref{Jnmu}). Then, it follows that
\begin{align}\label{split}
\sum_\mu \mathfrak a^\mu(s,t,\tau,\xi)= \sum_{n\ge 0}\sum_\mu \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu} \mathfrak a^\mu_{n,\nu}(s,t,\tau,\xi).
\end{align}
The following tells that $\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$ is contained in a proper symbol class.

\begin{lem}
[{\cite[Lemma 4.4]{KLO}}]\label{symcheck}
There exists a constant $C$ such that $C^{-1}\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu\in \mathfrak A_k(2^n\delta_1,2^n\delta_1\nu)$.
\end{lem}

\subsection{Decoupling inequality}

Let us set
\[
\gamma_{\circ, N+1}(s)=(s,s^2/2!,\dots, s^{N+1}/(N+1)!).
\]
We consider an anisotropic neighborhood of the curve.

\begin{defn}
Let $N\ge2$ and $\gamma_\circ=\gamma_{\circ, N+1}$. For $s \in I$, let $\mathbf b(s,\delta,N; \gamma_\circ)$ be the set of $(\tau,\xi) \in \mathbb R \times \mathbb R^N$ such that
\begin{align*}
2^{-1} \le &| \langle \gamma_{\circ \phantom{1}}^{(N+1)}(s), (\tau,\xi) \rangle|  \le1,
\\
&| \langle \gamma_{\circ \phantom{1}}^{(j)}(s),(\tau,\xi) \rangle|  \le   \delta^{N+1-j}, \quad j=1,\dots,N.
\end{align*}
Let $\{s_k\}$ be $2^{-1}\delta$-separated points contained in $I$ such that  $\cup_j [s_j-\delta, s_j+\delta]$ covers $I$. Then, we say $\mathcal B(\delta) =\{ \mathbf b(s_1,\delta,N; \gamma_\circ), \dots, \mathbf b(s_k,\delta, N;\gamma_\circ)\}$ is a reverse $\delta$-adapted cover generated by $\gamma_\circ$.
\end{defn}

We recall the decoupling inequality for a reverse $\delta$-adapted cover,  which was shown in \cite{BGHS} (see also \cite[Corollary 3.4]{KLO}).

\begin{thm}\label{rcdecoupling}
Let $0<\delta\le1$.
Let $\mathcal B(\delta)=\{\mathbf b(s_j,\delta, N;\gamma_\circ): 1\le j\le k\}$
be a reverse $\delta$-adapted cover generated by $\gamma_{\circ, N+1}$.
Suppose $F=\sum_{\mathbf b \in \mathcal B(\delta)} F_{\mathbf b}$ and  $\supp \widehat {F}_{\mathbf b}\subset \mathbf b$. Then, if   $2 \le p\le N(N+1)$,  for $\epsilon>0$  we have
\begin{align*}
\big\| F \big\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{N+1})}\le C_\epsilon  \delta^{-\epsilon}
\Big(\sum_{\mathbf b \in \mathcal B(\delta)} \|F_{\mathbf b}\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{N+1})}^2
\Big)^{\frac 12}.
\end{align*}
\end{thm}

By H\"older's inequality, we have
\begin{align}\label{c-decoupling2}
\big\| F \big\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{N+1})}\le C_\epsilon  \delta^{-\frac12+\frac 1p-\epsilon}
\Big(\sum_{\mathbf b \in \mathcal B(\delta)} \|F_{\mathbf b}\|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{N+1})}^p
\Big)^{\frac 1p}
\end{align}
for $2 \le p \le N(N+1)$. We prove Proposition \ref{iterative} using \eqref{c-decoupling2}.

\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{iterative}}
The proof of Proposition \ref{iterative} is similar with that of
\cite[Proposition 4.1]{KLO}. So,  we shall be brief.  Some details can be found in \cite{KLO}.

Recalling \eqref{split} and applying  the Minkowski inequality, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Minkowski}
\Big( \sum_\mu \| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a^\mu] f\|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}
\le \sum_{n\ge0} \Big( \sum_\mu \big\| \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu} \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu]f \|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}.
\end{equation}
In order to apply Theorem \ref{rcdecoupling} to the right hand side, we need to show that for each fixed $\mu,n$, the projections of the Fourier supports of $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu]f$,
$\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu$ are contained in a reverse adapted cover generated by $\gamma_\circ=\gamma_{\circ, N+1}$.

Let us set $V=\sspan \{ \gamma'(\delta_0\mu),\dots, \gamma^{(N)}(\delta_0\mu)\}$.
Since \eqref{lindepN} holds with $L=N$, we may write
$\xi=\overline \xi+\sum_{j=N+1}^d y_j(\xi)v_j$ for $\overline \xi \in V$ and an orthonormal basis $\{v_{N+1},\dots,v_d\}$ of $V^\perp$.
We denote
\[
\overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi)=(y_\mu^0(\tau,\xi),\cdots, y_\mu^N(\tau,\xi)).
\]
Making change of variable
$(\tau,\xi) \rightarrow \mathrm Y_\mu(\tau,\xi):= (\overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi), y_{N+1}(\xi),\dots,y_d(\xi))$,
it suffices  to consider the coordinate system generated by $\{ \overline y_\mu,y_{N+1},\dots,y_d\}$
instead of $(\tau,\xi)$.

As before,  denote $\gamma_\circ=\gamma_{\circ, N+1}$ for simplicity.
We  now claim that
\begin{align}
|\langle \overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi),\gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(N+1)} (2^n\delta_1\nu-\delta_0&\mu) \rangle | \sim 2^k,
\label{claim2}
\\
|\langle \overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi),\gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(j)}(2^n\delta_1\nu-\delta_0\mu) \rangle|
	&\lesssim 2^k (2^n\delta_1)^{N+1-j}, \quad 1 \le j  \le N,  \label{claim1}
\end{align}
whenever $(\tau,\xi) \in \supp_{\tau,\xi} \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$. Denoting $\gamma_\circ=((\gamma_{\circ})_1,\dots, (\gamma_{\circ})_{N+1})$ and using \eqref{uw2},  we have
\[
y_\mu^{m-1} (\tau,\xi)(\gamma_{\circ})_{m}^{(j)}(2^n\delta_1\nu-\delta_0\mu)=
\sum_{\ell=m-1}^N \frac{\mathfrak g_\mu^\ell(\tau,\xi) (2^n\delta_1\nu-\delta_0\mu)^{m-j}}{(\ell+1-m)!(m-j)!} (\omega_\mu)^{\ell+1-m}
\]
for $m\ge j$.
Thus, summation over $j \le m \le N+1$ gives
\[
\langle \overline y_\mu, \gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(j)}(2^n\delta_1\nu-\delta_0\mu) \rangle
=\sum_{\ell=j-1}^N \frac{ \mathfrak g_\mu^\ell(\tau,\xi) }{(\ell+1-j)!} (2^n\delta_1 \nu- \delta_0\mu+\omega_\mu)^{\ell+1-j}.
\]
Since $|\sigma(\xi)-2^n\delta_1\nu| \le 2^{n+1}\delta_1$ on  $\supp \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$,
by \eqref{angle} we have $|2^n\delta_1\nu-\delta_0\mu+\omega_\mu| \lesssim 2^n\delta_1$.
Note  $\mathfrak G_N \le (2^n\delta_1)^{2N!}$ on $\supp \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$. So, we have  $|\mathfrak g_\mu^j(\tau,\xi)| \le 2^k(2^n\delta_1)^{N-j}$ for $0\le j \le N-2$ on  $\supp \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$. Since $\mathfrak g_\mu^{N-1}=0$, we see \eqref{claim1} holds.
The bound \eqref{claim2} follows from \eqref{lowYN} and this proves the claim.

Let us consider the  $(N+1)\times (N+1)$ matrix $\mathcal D_{\!s}^{\delta}=(\delta \gamma'(s),  \dots, \delta^{N+1}\gamma^{(N+1)}(s))$.
Since $\gamma_\circ(\delta_0 s-\delta_0\mu)-\gamma_\circ(-\delta_0\mu)=\mathcal D_{\!-\delta_0 \mu}^{\delta_0} \gamma_\circ(s)$, we note that  $\gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(j)}(\delta_0 s - \delta_0 \mu)=\delta_0^{-j} \mathcal D_{\!-\delta_0\mu}^{\delta_0} \gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(j)}(s)$ for $j\ge 1$.
If we change variables $\overline y_\mu \rightarrow 2^{k}\delta_0^{N+1} (\mathcal D_{\!-\delta_0\mu}^{\delta_0})^{-\intercal} \overline y_\mu$,
\eqref{claim2} and \eqref{claim1} are, respectively,  equivalent to
\begin{align*}
&\big| \big\langle \overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi),\gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(N+1)}  \Big( \frac{2^n\delta_1}{\delta_0}\nu \Big) \big\rangle \big| \sim 1,
\\
&\big| \big\langle \overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi),\gamma_{\vphantom{1}\circ}^{(j)}\Big( \frac{2^n\delta_1}{\delta_0}\nu \Big) \big\rangle \big|
	\lesssim  \Big(\frac{2^n\delta_1}{\delta_0}\Big)^{N+1-j}, \quad 1 \le j  \le N.
\end{align*}
We  define a linear map  $\mathrm Y_\mu^{\delta_0}$   by setting
\[  \mathrm Y_\mu^{\delta_0}(\tau,\xi)= \Big( 2^k \delta_0^{N+1} (\mathcal D_{\!-\delta_0\mu}^{\delta_0})^{-\intercal} \overline y_\mu(\tau,\xi),\, y_{N+1}(\xi),\dots,\,y_d(\xi)\Big).
\] Then,   it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{supp-supp}
\mathrm Y_\mu^{\delta_0} ( \supp_{\tau,\xi} \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu )
\subset  \mathbf b_\nu:=\mathbf b\Big(\frac{2^n\delta_1}{\delta_0}\nu, C\frac{2^n\delta_1}{\delta_0}, N; \gamma_\circ\Big) \times \mathbb R^{d-N}
\end{equation}
for some $C>0$.
For $p>2N$, we take $\epsilon_*=1/4-N/(2p)>0$ so that $1/2-1/p+\epsilon_*=1-(N+1)/p-\epsilon_*$.
We obtain the decoupling inequality   \eqref{c-decoupling2} with $\delta=2^n\delta_1/\delta_0$,  $\epsilon=\epsilon_*$  and $\mathcal B(\delta)=\{ \mathbf b_\nu :\nu\in \mathfrak J_{n}^\mu\} $. Thus, by a trivial extension via the Minkowski's inequality we have
\[
\big\| \sum_{\nu\in \mathfrak J_{n}^\mu}  F_\nu \big\|_p
	\le C
	\Big( \frac{\delta_0}{2^n\delta_1} \Big)^{1-\frac {N+1} {p}-\epsilon} \Big(\sum_{\nu\in \mathfrak J_{n}^\mu}
	\big\| F_\nu \big\|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}
\]
for $2N<p \le N(N+1)$ provided that  $\supp \widehat{F_\nu}\subset \mathbf b_\nu$.

From \eqref{T} we note that $\mathcal F(\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu]f)$ is contained in $ \supp_{\tau,\xi} \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$.
Using \eqref{supp-supp} and the harmless change of variables
  $(\tau, \xi)\rightarrow ( \mathrm Y_\mu^{\delta_0})^{-1}(\tau,\xi)$, we obtain
\[
\big\| \sum_{\nu\in \mathfrak J_{n}^\mu} \mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu]f \big\|_p
	\le C
	\Big( \frac{\delta_0}{2^n\delta_1} \Big)^{1-\frac {N+1} {p}-\epsilon} \Big(\sum_{\nu\in \mathfrak J_{n}^\mu}
	\big\| \mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu]f \big\|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}
\]
for $2N<p \le N(N+1)$.  Combining this  and \eqref{Minkowski}, we get
\begin{align*}
\Big( \sum_\mu \| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a^\mu] f\|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}
	\le
	C\Big( \frac{\delta_0}{\delta_1} \Big)^{1-\frac {N+1} {p}-\epsilon}
	\Big( \sum_\mu \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_0^\mu} \big\| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{0,\nu}^\mu]f \|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p} +\mathrm S
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\mathrm S=	C\sum_{n\ge1}\Big( \frac{\delta_0}{2^n\delta_1} \Big)^{1-\frac {N+1} {p}-\epsilon}
\Big( \sum_\mu \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu} \big\| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu]f \|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}.
\end{align*}
By Lemma \ref{symcheck}, note that $C^{-1}\mathfrak a_{0,\nu}^{\mu} \in \mathfrak A_k(\delta_1,\delta_1\nu)$ for some $C>0$.
We set $\mathfrak a_{\nu}=C^{-1}\mathfrak a_{0,\nu}^{\mu(\nu)}$
where $\mu(\nu)$ satisfies $|\nu-\mu(\nu)|\le|\nu-\mu|$ for any $\mu$.

To complete the proof, it remains to show $\mathrm S \le C \delta_0^{1-\frac {N+1}p} 2^{-\frac kp}\|f \|_p$.
For $n\ge1$, we further decompose $\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^\mu$.
Let
\[
\mathfrak G_N^0(s,\tau,\xi)=\sum_{j=1}^{N-2}(2^{-k}|\mathfrak g^{j}_\mu(\tau,\xi)|)^{\frac{2N!}{N-j}}+(s-\sigma(\xi))^{2N!}.
\]
Note that  $\mathfrak G_N^0=\mathfrak G_N-(2^{-k} \mathfrak g_\mu^0)^{2(N-1)!}$.
For $C_0 \ge 2^{3d}100B$, we set
\[
\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1} (s,t,\tau,\xi) =
\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu} (s,t,\tau,\xi) \beta_0 \Big(  \frac{2^{-k} \mathfrak g_\mu^0(\tau,\xi) )^{2(N-1)!}}
{C_0^{2N!} \mathfrak G_N^0(s,\tau,\xi)} \Big)
\]
and $\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2} = \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu}-\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}$, so that   we have
$\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu} = \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}+\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}. $
To prove \eqref{eq-iter}, it suffices to show
\begin{equation}\label{S12}
\mathrm S_i \le C \delta_0^{1-\frac {N+1}p } 2^{-\frac{k}p}\|f\|_p, \quad i=1,2,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}\label{Si}
\mathrm S_i=	C\sum_{n\ge1}\Big( \frac{\delta_0}{2^n\delta_1} \Big)^{1-\frac {N+1} {p}-\epsilon}
\Big( \sum_\mu \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu} \big\| \mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,i}]f \|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p}, \quad i=1,2.
\end{align}

Before proceeding further,  we note that  $C^{-1} \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,i} \in \mathfrak A_k(2^n\delta_1,2^n\delta_1\nu)$, $i=1,2$ for some $C>0$. This can be checked by following the proof of Lemma \ref{symcheck} (see \cite{KLO}). We also recall  the following from \cite{KLO}.

\begin{lem}[Lemma 4.7 in \cite{KLO}]
For $n\ge 1$ and a sufficiently large $C_0>1$,
\begin{align}
\label{sumss}
\sum_{j=1}^{N-1} (2^n\delta_1)^{-(N-j)} |\langle\gamma^{(j)}(s),\xi\rangle|\gtrsim 2^k \  \text{on  }  \supp \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1},
\\
\label{sumss2}
(2^n\delta_1)^{-N} |\tau+\langle\gamma(s),\xi\rangle|\gtrsim 2^{k}  \ \text{on  }  \supp \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}.
\end{align}
\end{lem}

We first show \eqref{S12} with $i=1$.
Since $C^{-1}\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1} \in \mathfrak A_k(2^n\delta_1,2^n\delta_1\nu)$ for some $C>0$ and \eqref{sumss} holds, by applying Lemma \ref{lem:res} with $\delta=2^n\delta_1$ to $\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\big\|  \widetilde\chi \mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}] f \big\|_p
=  (2^n\delta_1)^{1-\frac 1p}
\big\|\mathcal  R^{\gamma_{s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}}^{2^n\delta_1}}
[\, \raisebox{-.2ex}{$\widetilde {a}$} \,]
\widetilde f \big\|_p.
\end{align*}
By decomposing $\supp_t \widetilde{a}$ and rescaling, we may assume that $\supp_t \widetilde{a} \subset [1,2]$. Thus we apply the induction hypothesis (Theorem \ref{lclb} with $L=N-1$) and obtain
$
\|\widetilde \chi\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}]f \|_p\lesssim (2^n\delta_1)^{1-\frac{N+1}p}2^{-\frac kp}\|f \|_p.
$
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{kernel}, we have
$
\|(1-\widetilde \chi)\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}]f \|_p\lesssim 2^{-k} (2^n\delta_1)^{1-\frac 1p-N}\|f \|_p.
$
Combining those two bounds gives
\begin{equation}\label{T11}
\|\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}]f \|_p\lesssim (2^n\delta_1)^{1-\frac{N+1}p}2^{-\frac kp}\|f \|_p.
\end{equation}

For ${\tilde s}\in I$, we define a projection operator $\mathcal P_{\tilde s}^\delta$ by
\[
\mathcal P_{\tilde s}^\delta f =\mathcal F_\xi^{-1} \big(   \beta_0 \big( (C_02^k)^{-1}| (\widetilde{\mathcal L}_{\tilde s}^\delta)^{-1}\xi | \big) \mathcal F_x (f (\cdot,s))(\xi)\big).
\]
The projection operator $\mathcal P_{\tilde s}^\delta$ is slightly different from a similar projection operator  used
in \cite[Section 4.3]{KLO} since there is an extra variable $s$. However, we can handle $\mathcal P_{\tilde s}^\delta$ in the same way.
Since  $C^{-1}\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}\in \mathfrak A_k(2^n\delta_1, 2^n\delta_1\nu)$ and  $\supp_\xi \mathfrak a^{\mu,1}_{n,\nu}\subset \Gamma_k(a_N,  \delta_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}} )$,
 we can choose  $C_0>0$ large enough so that $ \beta_0 \big( (C_02^k)^{-1}| (\widetilde{\mathcal L}_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1})^{-1}\xi | \big) =1$ on the support of $\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}$
 (see \cite[Lemma 4.8]{KLO}). Thus, it follows
$\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}]f=\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,1}] \mathcal P_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1} f$.
By disjointness of the supports of $ \beta_0 \big( (C_02^k)^{-1}| (\widetilde{\mathcal L}_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1})^{-1}\cdot | \big)$, one can easily see
\begin{equation}\label{Psum}
\Big( \sum_\mu \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu} \big\| \mathcal P_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1} f\big\|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p} \le C\|f\|_p
\end{equation}
for $2 \le p \le \infty$, which can be shown by interpolating \eqref{Psum} with $p=2$ and  $p=\infty$. The estimate \eqref{Psum} with $p=2$  follows by Plancherel's theorem.
Thus, combining \eqref{T11} and \eqref{Psum}, we get \eqref{S12} for $i=1$.

Now we consider the estimate for $\mathrm S_2$, which is easier.
By \eqref{T} and integration by parts  we have
\[
\mathcal F(\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}]f)(\xi,\tau)
=\iint e^{-it'(\tau+ \gamma(s)\cdot \xi)} \frac{\partial_{t'} \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2} (s,t',\tau,\xi)}{i(\tau+ \langle \gamma(s),\xi \rangle)} dt' \, \mathcal F_x (f (\cdot,s))(\xi)ds.
\]
Since $C^{-1} \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2} \in \mathfrak A_k(2^n\delta_1,2^n\delta_1\nu)$  for some $C>0$, by \eqref{sumss2} we see   \eqref{symsupp} and \eqref{symineq2} hold with $\mathfrak a=2^k (2^n\delta_1)^{N} (\tau+\langle\gamma(s),\xi\rangle)^{-1}\partial_t \mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}$ and $\delta=2^n\delta_1$ for $j=0$ and $|\alpha| \le d+3$.
Thus, by Lemma \ref{kernel} we have
\[
\|\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}]f \|_\infty \lesssim (2^n\delta_1)^{1-N}2^{-k}\|f\|_\infty.
\]
As before, noting  $\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}]f=\mathcal T[\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}] \mathcal P_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1} f$,
by Plancherel's theorem and \eqref{sumss2}  we have
\[
\big\|\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}] f \big\|_2
\lesssim
2^{-k} (2^n\delta_1)^{-N} \int_{\{s: |s-2^n\delta_1\nu| \lesssim 2^n\delta_1 \}}\, \big\| \mathcal F_x (\mathcal P_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1}f) (\cdot, s) \big\|_2\,ds.
\]
Then, H\"older's inequality gives
$
\big\|\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}] f \big\|_2
\lesssim 2^{-k} (2^n\delta_1)^{-N+\frac 12} \big\| \mathcal P_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1} f\big\|_2.
$
We interpolation  this and the $L^\infty$ estimate to get $\|\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}]f \|_p \lesssim 2^{-k} (2^n\delta_1)^{-N+1-\frac 1p} \| \mathcal P_{2^n\delta_1\nu}^{2^n\delta_1}f\|_p$ for
$2\le p\le \infty$.
Then, combining this  with  \eqref{Psum}, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\Big( \sum_{\nu \in \mathfrak J_n^\mu} \|\mathcal T [\mathfrak a_{n,\nu}^{\mu,2}]f \|_p^p \Big)^{\frac 1p} \lesssim 2^{-k} (2^n\delta_1)^{-N+1-\frac 1p}\|f\|_p.
\end{equation*}
Since $2^{-\frac kN} \le \delta_1$, by \eqref{Si}, we get \eqref{S12} for $i=2$.

\section{Necessary conditions}
In this section, we obtain necessary conditions for $L^p$--$L_\alpha^p$ boundedness of $\mathfrak Rf$ when $\gamma$ is of maximal type $L$.
When $d=2$, the  necessary conditions were obtained in  \cite{PS06}.  Modifying the examples in  \cite{PS06},
we obtain the following.

\begin{prop}\label{nece}
Let $d\ge3$, $L\ge d$, and $1 \le p \le \infty$. Let $\psi$ and $\chi$ be nontrivial, nonnegative continuous functions supported in the interiors of  $I$ and $[1,2]$, respectively.
Suppose there is an $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$ such that $\psi(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})\neq0$ and $\gamma$ is of type $L$ at $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$.
Then, $\mathfrak Rf$ maps $L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})$ boundedly to $L_\alpha^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})$  only if
\[\alpha\le \min\big\{ 1-p^{-1}, \ (2d)^{-1}, \ (Lp)^{-1} \big \}.\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}[Proof of  $\alpha \le 1-p^{-1}$]
Let $t_{\mathsmaller 0} \in (1,2)$ such that $\chi(t_{\mathsmaller 0})>0$.
We choose $\zeta \in \mathcal S(\mathbb R^{d})$ such that $\zeta \ge1$ on $[-1,1]^{d}$,
$\supp \widehat \zeta \subset [1/2,4]^d$, and $\widehat\zeta=1$ on $[1,2]^d$.
Let $\psi_0\in \mathrm C_c^\infty((-1,1))$ satisfy $\psi_0=1$ on $[-1/2,1/2]$.
We take
\[
f(x,t)=\zeta(\lambda x)\psi_0(\lambda r_0 |t-t_{\mathsmaller 0}|)
\]
where $r_0=1+\sup_{s \in I}|\gamma(s)|$.
Then,  we have $\mathfrak Rf(x,s) \gtrsim \lambda^{-1}$  if  $|x+t_{\mathsmaller 0}\gamma(s)|\le c \lambda^{-1}$ and $|s-s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}|<c$.
Thus,  $\| \mathfrak Rf \|_{L^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})} \gtrsim \lambda^{-1-d/p}$.
We note
\[
\mathcal F_x(\mathfrak Rf(\cdot, s)) = \lambda^{-d} \psi(s)\int \widehat \zeta(\lambda^{-1}\xi) e^{it\gamma(s)\cdot \xi}\psi_0(\lambda|t-t_{\mathsmaller 0}|)\chi(t)\,dt.
\]
Since $\supp_\xi \mathcal F_x(\mathfrak Rf)$ is contained in $\{ \xi : |\xi| \sim \lambda \}$, $\| \mathfrak Rf(\cdot,s) \|_{L_\alpha^p(\mathbb R^{d};dx)} \gtrsim \lambda^{\alpha-1-d/p}$.
So, we have  $\| \mathfrak Rf\|_{L_\alpha^p(\mathbb R^{d+1})} \gtrsim \lambda^{\alpha-1-d/p}$.
Since $\|f\|_p \lesssim \lambda^{-(d+1)/p}$, we get $\alpha \le 1-1/p$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of  $\alpha \le 1/(2d)$]
Let  $\widetilde I \subset (-1,1)$ be a nonempty compact  interval  such that \eqref{nonv} holds for $s \in \widetilde I$.
Also, we fix a constant $\rho \gg1$ which we choose later.
Let $\{s_\ell\}\subset \widetilde I$ be a collection of $\rho\lambda^{-1/d}$-separated   points which are as many as $C\rho^{-1}\lambda^{1/d}$.
Since $G(s_\ell), G'(s_\ell), \dots, G^{(d-1)}(s_\ell)$ are linearly independent in $\mathbb R^{d+1}$,  there is a  unit vector $\Xi_\ell \in \big( \{ G^{(j)}(s_\ell): j=0,1,\dots,d-1\} \big)^\perp$.

Let $\phi \in \mathcal S(\mathbb R^{d+1})$ such that $\phi \ge1$ on $[-3r_0,3r_0]^{d+1}$
 and $\widehat \phi$ is supported in $[-1,1]^{d+1}$ where $r_0=1+\sup_{s \in I} |\gamma(s)|$.
Let $\varepsilon_\ell \in \{\pm 1\}$ be independent random variables. Then,
we consider
\[
f(x,t)=\sum_\ell \varepsilon_\ell  f_\ell(x,t):=   \sum_\ell \varepsilon_\ell \phi(x,t) e^{i\lambda \Xi_\ell \cdot (t,x)}.
\]

Since $\langle \Xi_\ell, G^{(j)}(s_\ell) \rangle=0$ for $j=0,\dots,d-1$,
by Taylor's theorem we have
\begin{align}\label{est2}
\langle \Xi_\ell, G(s) \rangle =\frac1{d!}\langle \Xi_\ell, G^{(d)}(s_\ell) \rangle(s-s_\ell)^{d}+O(|s-s_\ell|^{d+1}).
\end{align}
Thus $|t\Xi_\ell \cdot G(s)| \le 2^{-2}\lambda^{-1}$ whenever
$s \in I_\ell:=\{ s \in \widetilde I : |s-s_\ell| \le c \lambda^{-1/d}\}$
for a  $c>0$ small enough.
Noting that
\begin{align}\label{est1}
\mathfrak Rf_\ell(x,s)= \psi(s)  e^{i\lambda \Xi_\ell \cdot (0,x)}\int \phi (x+t\gamma(s),t ) e^{i\lambda t\Xi_\ell \cdot G(s)} \chi(t)\,dt,
\end{align}
we see
$|\mathfrak Rf_\ell(x,s)| \gtrsim1$ if $ (x,s) \in B_\ell:=B(0,  c ) \times I_\ell.$  Hence,
$
\sum_\ell \big\| \mathfrak Rf_\ell \big\|_{L^p(B_\ell)}^p \gtrsim \rho^{-1}.
$
On the other hand, by \eqref{est1}, \eqref{est2},  and  integration by parts in $t$  we have
$
|\mathfrak Rf_m(x,s)| \lesssim (1+\lambda |s_\ell-s_m|^{d})^{-N}
$
for any $N\ge1$ if $m\neq \ell$ and $s \in I_\ell$.
Since $\{s_\ell\}$ are $\rho \lambda^{-\frac{1}{d}}$-separated, we obtain
\[
\sum_\ell \big\| \sum_{m\neq \ell} |\mathfrak Rf_m| \big\|_{L^p(B_\ell)}^p \lesssim \sum_\ell \sum_{m \neq \ell} (1+\lambda |s_\ell-s_m|^{d})^{-pN}  \lambda^{- 1/d} \lesssim \rho^{-pdN-1}.
\]
Therefore, taking $\rho,N$ sufficiently large,   we have $\|\mathfrak Rf \|_p \gtrsim 1$ for any choice of $\varepsilon_\ell$.

By our choice of $\phi$ it follows that  $\mathcal F_x (\mathfrak Rf)$ is supported on $\{\xi : C_1\lambda \le |\xi| \le  C_2 \lambda \}$ for some
positive constant $C_1, C_2$. Thus, we have
$\| \mathfrak Rf \|_{L_\alpha^p} \gtrsim  \lambda^\alpha\|\mathfrak Rf\|_p $. Combining this with the $L^p$--$L_\alpha^p$ estimate
gives
$\lambda^\alpha   \le C  \|f\|_p $
for any choice of $\varepsilon_\ell$. By Khinchine's inequality we have  $
\mathbb E (\| f \|_p^p) \sim \int (\sum_\ell | f_\ell|^2 )^{\frac p2}\,dxdt \sim C_\rho \lambda^{\frac{p}{2d}}.$
Therefore, we see $\lambda^\alpha\lesssim \lambda^\frac1{2d}$ and then $\alpha \le 1/(2d)$ taking $\lambda\to \infty$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of $\alpha \le 1/(Lp)$]
Since $\gamma$ is of type $L$ at $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$, by affine transformation and taking $\psi$ supported near $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}$, we may assume
\[
\gamma(s+s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})=\gamma(s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}})+(s^{a_1} \varphi_1(s),\dots, s^{a_d} \varphi_d(s))
\]
for $1\le a_1 <\dots<a_d=L$  and  smooth functions $\varphi_j$, $j=1,\dots,d$,
where  $\|\varphi_j-1/a_j!\|_{\mathrm C^{a_d+1}(I)}\le c$ for a small constant $c>0$.
We may also assume $s_{\!\,\mathsmaller{0}}=0$ and furthermore $\gamma(0)=0$ by replacing $f(x,t)$ by $f(x-t\gamma(0),t)$.

Let $\phi_1\in \mathcal S(\mathbb R)$ such that $\phi_1 \ge1$ on $[-1,1]$,
and $\supp \widehat \phi_1\subset [1/2,4]$ with $\widehat\phi_1=1$ on $[1,2]$.
Let $\psi_0\in \mathrm C_c^\infty((-1,1))$ satisfy $\psi_0=1$ on $[-1/2,1/2]$. We consider
\[
f(x,t)=\prod_{j=1}^{d-1} \psi_0 ( \lambda^{a_j/L}x_j )
\phi_1 ( \lambda x_{d} ) \chi(t).
\]
Denoting $\|a\|=\sum_{j=1}^d a_j$, we have $\|f\|_p \lesssim \lambda^{-\|a\|/(Lp)}$.
Set
$
E_\lambda=\big\{ (x,s) \in \mathbb R^d \times I: |x_j| \le c \lambda^{-a_j/L}, j=1,\dots,d, \quad~ |s| \le c \lambda^{-1/L} \big\}
$
for a sufficiently small $c>0$.
Since $\gamma(s)=(s^{a_1} \varphi_1(s),\dots, s^{a_d} \varphi_d(s))$,
$
| \langle x+t\gamma(s),e_j \rangle| \le 2^{-1}\lambda^{-a_j/L},$ $j=1,\dots,d$,
for  $(x,s) \in E_\lambda$ and $t\in [1,2]$. So, it follows  $\mathfrak Rf (x,s)\gtrsim 1$ for  $(x,s) \in E_\lambda$. Hence,
$\| \mathfrak Rf\|_p\gtrsim \lambda^{-(\|a\|+1)/(Lp)}$.
Since $\supp \mathcal F_{x_{d}} (\mathfrak Rf) \subset \{ \xi_{d} : |\xi_{d}| \sim \lambda\}$,
$
\| \mathfrak Rf \|_{L_\alpha^p} \gtrsim \lambda^{\alpha-(\|a\|+1)/(Lp)}.
$
Therefore,  we obtain  $\alpha \le 1/(Lp)$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

\subsection*{Acknowledgement} H. Ko  was  supported by NRF2019R1A6A3A01092525. S.  Lee and S.  Oh were  supported by  NRF2021R1A2B5B02001786.

Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA); Analysis of PDEs (math.AP)


A LeVeque-Type Inequality on the ring of $p$-adic integers

Abstract: We derive an inequality on the discrepancy of sequences on the ring of $p$-adic integers $\ZZ_p$ using techniques from Fourier analysis. The inequality is used to obtain an upper bound on the discrepancy of the sequence $\alpha_n = na +b$, where $a$ and $b$ are elements of $\ZZ_p$. This is a $p$-adic analogue of the classical LeVeque inequality on the circle group $\RR/\ZZ$.

\section{Introduction}
\label{section: introduction}
The theory of  equidistribution of sequences modulo one was initiated by Hermann Weyl in $1916$. Since then, it has spurred a lot of interest in many areas of mathematics, including number theory, harmonic analysis, and ergodic theory. The standard reference in this subject is Kuipers and Niederreiter \cite{book:MR0419394}.

Equidistribution of sequences on the ring of $p$-adic integers was previously studied in \cite{article:MR0237441, article:MR0245528, article:MR0147467}. In particular, Cugiani in \cite{article:MR0147467} defines equidistribution and shows that the sequence $na + b$ is equidistributed if $a$ is a unit. Beer does a quantitative analysis in \cite{article:MR0237441} and \cite{article:MR0245528}.
Our aim is to derive a LeVeque-type inequality on the discrepancy of a finite sequence using Fourier analysis.

Let $| \cdot |_p$ denote the $p$-adic absolute value on ${\mathbb Q}_p$, and let
\[ {\mathbb Z}_p = \{ x \,| \,\,  |x|_p \leq 1    \},
\]
be the ring of $p$-adic integers. Any element of ${\mathbb Z}_p$ can be given a unique canonical expansion of the form $x = a_0 + a_1p + a_2p^2 + ....$, where the $a_i$ are elements of $\{0,1,2,...,p-1\}$ (see for example \cite{book:MR1488696,book:MR2298943}).

For $k \geq 0$, and $a \in {\mathbb Z}_p$,  we denote by
\begin{eqnarray*}
D(a,1/p^k) &=& \{ x \,| \,\,  |x-a|_p \leq 1/p^k\} \cr
          &=&  a + p^k{\mathbb Z}_p,
\end{eqnarray*}
 a disc of radius $1/p^k$ centered at $a$. Note that ${\mathbb Z}_p$ can be written as the union of $p^k$ disjoint discs of the form
\[
     {\mathbb Z}_p = \bigcup_{j=0}^{p^k-1} D(j,1/p^k).
\]
Hence, it is natural to define a notion of equidistribution using such sets.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn: equidist}
A sequence $\{ \alpha_n \}$ is said to be equidistributed in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ if for every $a$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ and every $k \in {\mathbb N} $, we have
\[ \lim_{N \to \infty} \left|  \frac{\left|D(a,1/p^k) \cap \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_N \} \right|}{N}  -  \frac{1}{p^k} \right| = 0.
\]
\end{dfn}
That is, the proportion of the first $N$ elements of $\{ \alpha_n\}$ lying in a disc $D(a,1/p^k)$ is equal to its measure in the limit of large $N$, and this holds true for all such discs.

This definition of equidistribution in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ was first given by Cugiani in \cite{article:MR0147467}, where propositions \ref{prop: Weyl} and \ref{prop: linear-sequence} were also proved. The details are also given in Kuipers and Niederreiter \cite{book:MR0419394}. One also wants to measure how well a sequence distributes itself. To this end, we define the notion of discrepancy to quantify the idea that some sequences are better equidistributed than others.
\begin{dfn}
\label{dfn: discrepancy}
The discrepancy of a finite sequence $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...,\alpha_N \}$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ is
\[  D_N  = \mathrm{sup}_{a \in {\mathbb Z}_p, \, k \in {\mathbb N}} \left| \frac{\left|D(a,1/p^k) \cap \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_N \} \right|}{N} - \frac{1}{p^k} \right|.
\]
\end{dfn}
Some elementary arguments show that
\[   \frac{1}{N}  \leq D_N \leq 1.
\]
The main aim of this paper is to prove a Fourier analytic upper bound on the discrepancy of a set of $N$ elements $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...,\alpha_N \}$  in ${\mathbb Z}_p$.

 Let ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ denote the Pr\"{u}fer $p$-group, the group of all $p$-th power roots of unity in ${\mathbb C}$. Suppose that $\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ has order $p^n$, and let $x \in {\mathbb Z}_p$ have the canonical expansion $x = a_0 + a_1p + a_2p^2 +.... + a_{n}p^{n} + .....$. Then we interpret the notation $\zeta^x$ as
\[     \zeta^x =  \zeta^{a_0 + a_1p + a_2p^2 +.... + a_{n-1}p^{n-1}}.
\]
Every element of ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ has finite order, and we denote the order of $\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ by $\|\zeta\|$.
\begin{thm}[Main Theorem]
\label{thm: Main}
The discrepancy of a finite sequence $\{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_N\}$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ is bounded by
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_N &\leq & C(p)
    \left(\sum_{\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)\backslash \{1\}  }   \frac{1}{\|\zeta \|^3} \left|\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \zeta^{\alpha_n} \right|^2 \right)^{\frac{1}{4}},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C(p)$ is a constant dependent on $p$.
\end{thm}
As an example application of Theorem \ref{thm: Main}, we have the following corollary
\begin{cor}
\label{cor: Linear-sequence}
The sequence $na + b$ where $a$ is a unit in  ${\mathbb Z}_p$ has discrepancy
\[   D_N   = O\left( N^{-1/2} \right).
\]
\end{cor}

Some quantitative results on the discrepancy of $p$-adic sequences were done by Beer in \cite{article:MR0237441} and \cite{article:MR0245528}. In particular, the author proves in \cite{article:MR0237441} that the discrepancy of the sequence $na + b$ with $a$ a unit is exactly equal to $D_N = N^{-1}$, the best possible.

It is not surprising that the LeVeque type inequality gives us a weaker bound, as this is the case in the classical setting on ${\mathbb R}/{\mathbb Z}$. Montogomery in \cite{book:MR1297543} provides a detailed discussion and considers some examples. In particular, the sequence $n\theta$ where $\theta = \frac{1 +\sqrt{5} }{ 2}$ has discrepancy $D_N \ll \log(N)/N$, where as the use of the LeVeque inequality gives only $D_N \ll N^{-2/3}$.

Our paper is structured as follows. In section \ref{section: fanalysis-padic} we set up the relevant Fourier analysis that is required for our calculations. We prove the main theorem in section \ref{section: Main-theorem}. We analyze the quantitative behavior of the linear sequence $\alpha_n= na + b$ in section \ref{section: Linear-sequence}, and prove Corollary \ref{cor: Linear-sequence}.

\section{Fourier analysis on ${\mathbb Z}_p$}
\label{section: fanalysis-padic}
If $G$ is a compact abelian group, then the set of all continuous group homomorphisms (or characters) from $G$ to the multiplicative unit circle ${\mathbb T} = \{z \in {\mathbb C} \, | \, |z| = 1 \}$ forms a discrete group under multiplication, the Pontyagrin dual group $\widehat{G}$ (see for example \cite{book:MR1038803}). Note that ${\mathbb Z}_p$ is a compact abelian group. The next lemma states that the dual group $\widehat{{\mathbb Z}}_p$ of ${\mathbb Z}_p$ is isomorphic to the Pr\"{u}fer $p$-group ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$. The result is known, but we include a proof due to the lack of a suitable reference.
\begin{lem}
	\label{lem: dualgroup}
	For each $\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$, the map $x \mapsto  \zeta^x $ is a character of ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Moreover, the map
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\Psi: \,\, {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty) &\longrightarrow  &  \widehat{{\mathbb Z}}_p \cr
		\zeta             &\longmapsto &   (x \mapsto \zeta^x )
	\end{eqnarray*}
	is an isomorphism from the  Pr\"{u}fer $p$-group ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ to the Pontyagrin dual group of ${\mathbb Z}_p$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
	It is easily shown that the map $x \mapsto \zeta^x$ is a character of ${\mathbb Z}_p$.  To show the injectivity of $\Psi$, suppose that $\zeta_1^x = \zeta_2^x$ for all $x$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Then picking $x=1$, we get $\zeta_1 = \zeta_2$.

	We need argue that $\Psi$ is surjective. Let $\gamma$ be in the dual group of ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Since $\gamma(0) = 1$ and $\gamma$ is continuous, there exists a disc of radius $1/p^n$ centered at zero $D = p^n{\mathbb Z}_p$, such that $|\gamma(x) - \gamma(0)|< 1$ for all $x$ in $D$, and we can pick a smallest $n$ such that this is true. Moreover, since $D$ is a subgroup of ${\mathbb Z}_p$ we must have that the image $\gamma(D)$ is a subgroup of ${\mathbb T}$.

	Note that there does not exist any non-trivial subgroup of ${\mathbb T}$ satisfying the condition $|x -y| < 1$ for all elements $x$ and $y$ in the subgroup.  Hence, we conclude that $\gamma(D) = \{ 1 \}$.

	Now suppose that $\gamma(1) = \zeta = e^{2\pi i \theta}$ for some $\theta$ in $[0, 1)$. Then, $\gamma(p^n) = \gamma(1)^{p^n} = e^{2\pi i p^n \theta} = 1$ or $p^n \theta \in {\mathbb Z}$. We conclude that $\theta = \frac{m}{p^n}$, where $p \ndiv m$ by the minimality of $n$.

	For any integer value $k$, we have $\gamma(k) = \gamma(1)^k = \zeta^k$. This completely determines $\gamma$, since we can write ${\mathbb Z}_p$ as the union of $p^n$ disjoint balls ${\mathbb Z}_p = \cup_{k=0}^{p^n-1} \left( k + p^n{\mathbb Z}_p \right)$ and for any $x \in {\mathbb Z}_p$ we have $x = k + p^ny$, and $\gamma(x) = \gamma(k)$. We conclude that
	\[
	\gamma(x) = \zeta^x,
	\]
	for all $x$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ where $\zeta = e^{\frac{2\pi i m }{p^n}}$.
\end{proof}

Using Lemma ~\ref{lem: dualgroup}, we shall express the Fourier series of any $f \in L^1({\mathbb Z}_p)$ in terms of the elements of ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$. As a compact group there exists a normalized Haar measure $\mu$ on ${\mathbb Z}_p$ (see for example \cite{book:MR1681462}). Let $f \in L^1({\mathbb Z}_p)$. The  Fourier coefficients of $f$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
	\hat{f}(\zeta) = \int_{{\mathbb Z}^p} f(x) \zeta^{-x} d\mu,
\end{eqnarray*}
and the Fourier inversion formula gives
\[
f(x) = \sum_{\zeta \in  {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)} \hat{f}(\zeta) \zeta^x,
\]
whenever $\sum_{\zeta \in  {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)} |\hat{f}(\zeta)| < \infty$.

A Weyl type criterion holds for equidistribution in ${\mathbb Z}_p$. We state it here in terms of the elements of ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$, although it holds for a more general class of Riemann integrable functions on ${\mathbb Z}_p$ (see \cite{book:MR0419394}).
\begin{prop}[Weyl's Criterion]
	\label{prop: Weyl}
	A sequence $\{ \alpha_n \}$ is equidistributed in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ if and only if for every non-trivial $\zeta$ in $ {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty) $ we have
	\[
	\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \zeta^{\alpha_n} = 0.
	\]
\end{prop}

We denote by ${\mathcal X}_{D(a,R)}(x)$ the characteristic function of the disc $D(a,R)$ centered at $a$ of radius $R$. We have the following change of variables formula, the proof of which is elementary and we omit.

\begin{prop}
	\label{prop: subformula}
	Let $f: {\mathbb Z}_p \to {\mathbb C}$ be an integrable function. Then
	\[  \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} {\mathcal X}_{D(a,1/p^k)}(x)f(x) \, d\mu(x) = \frac{1}{p^k} \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} f(a + p^kx) \, d\mu(x).
	\]
\end{prop}
We use Proposition \ref{prop: subformula} to calculate the Fourier coefficients of the characteristic function of a disc.

\begin{lem}
	\label{lemma: charfun}
	The Fourier coefficients of the characteristic function  ${\mathcal X}_{D(a,1/p^k)}(x)$ are
	\[
	\widehat{{\mathcal X}}_{D(a,1/p^k)}(\zeta) = \left\{
	\begin{array}{cc}
	\zeta^{-a} p^{-k} &  \text{if \,\,}  \|\zeta\| \leq p^k, \\
	& \\
	0  &    \text{if \,\,}  \|\zeta\| > p^k.
	\end{array}
	\right.
	\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma ~\ref{lemma: charfun}]
	Suppose that $ \|\zeta\| \leq p^k $, then $\zeta^{p^kx} = 1$ for all $x$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Therefore, we have
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} {\mathcal X}_{D(a,1/p^k)}(x) \zeta^{-x} \, d\mu(x) &=& p^{-k} \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} \zeta^{-(a + p^kx)} \, d\mu(x) \cr
		&=&  \zeta^{-a} p^{-k} \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} \zeta^{-p^kx} \, d\mu(x) \cr
		&=& \zeta^{-a} p^{-k}.
	\end{eqnarray*}
	On the other hand suppose $ \|\zeta\| > p^k$, and let $\omega = \zeta^{p^k}$. Then $\|\omega\| = \|\zeta\| / p^k > 1$ and hence
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} {\mathcal X}_{D(a,1/p^{k})}(x) \zeta^{-x} \,  d\mu(x) &=& \zeta^{-a}p^{-k} \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} \zeta^{-p^kx} \, d\mu(x) \cr
		&=& \zeta^{-a} p^{-k} \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} \omega^{-x} \, d\mu(x) \cr
		&=& 0.
	\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of the main theorem}
\label{section:  Main-theorem}

Let $\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...,\alpha_N \}$ be a finite sequence in ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Define the function $f: {\mathbb Z}_p \times {\mathbb Z}_p \longrightarrow {\mathbb R} $
\[
f(x,y) = \frac{ \left| \{\alpha_1, \alpha_2,...,\alpha_N \} \, \cap D(x,|y|_p) \right| }{N} - |y|_p,
\]
where $D(x,|y|_p)$ is a disc of radius $|y|_p$ centered at $x$. The discrepancy of the points $\{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_N \}$ is then
\[
D_N = \mathrm{sup}_{x, y \in {\mathbb Z}_p} \, \left| f(x,y) \right|.
\]
We suppress the $p$ in $|\cdot|_p$ as it would be clear from the context.
We can also write
\begin{eqnarray*}
	f(x,y) &=& \frac{1}{N} \left( \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\mathcal X}_{D(x,|y|)} (\alpha_n) \right) - |y| \cr
	& & \cr
	&=& \frac{1}{N} \left( \sum_{n=1}^{N} {\mathcal X}_{D(\alpha_n, |y|)} (x) \right) - |y|.
\end{eqnarray*}

Our proof of  Theorem \ref{thm: Main} proceeds as follows. We shall bound the $L^2$ norm $\displaystyle \|f\|_2^2 = \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} |f(x,y)|^2 \, d\mu(x) d\mu(y)$ from below by $D_N^4$ using geometrical arguments, and from above by using Parseval's theorem. The two steps are given below as lemmas

\begin{lem}
	\label{lemma: bound1}
	The discrepancy $D_N$ is bounded by
	\[  D_N^4 \leq C_1(p) \|f\|_2^2,
	\]
	where $C_1(p)$ is a constant dependent on $p$.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}
	\label{lemma: bound2}
	The $L^2$ norm of the function $f$ is bounded by
	\[  \|f\|_2^2 \leq C_2(p) \sum_{\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)\backslash \{1 \} }   \frac{1}{\|\zeta\|^3} \left|\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \zeta^{x_n} \right|^2.
	\]
	where $C_2(p)$ is a constant dependent on $p$.
\end{lem}

The proof of Theorem \ref{thm: Main} then follows by combining Lemmas \ref{lemma: bound1} and \ref{lemma: bound2}.

\begin{rem}
	For $x >0$, we use the notation $\lfloor x \rfloor $ and $\lceil x \rceil$ to denote
	\[
	\lfloor x \rfloor = \mathrm{max}\{p^k \, | \, k \in {\mathbb Z},\, p^k \leq x  \}
	\]
	\[
	\lceil x \rceil  = \min\{p^k \, | \, k \in {\mathbb Z},\, x \leq p^k  \}.
	\] \\
	Note that $ \lfloor x \rfloor \leq x < p \lfloor x \rfloor $ and  $\frac{1}{p}\lceil x \rceil < x \leq  \lceil x \rceil   $.
\end{rem}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma ~\ref{lemma: bound1}]
	Pick a point $(x_0,y_0)$ for which $f(x_0,y_0)$ is not zero.
	We consider each of the two possibilities $f(x_0,y_0) > 0$ and $f(x_0,y_0) <0$ separately. Our strategy in each case is to find a small neighborhood around the point $(x_0,y_0)$ where $|f(x,y)|$ is bounded away from zero. Using this fact and integrating over this neighborhood, we produce a bound of the form $\|f\|_2^2 \geq C(p) |f(x_0,y_0)|^4$, where $C(p)$ is a constant depending only on $p$.
	\subsection*{Case 1} Suppose that $\Delta = f(x_0,y_0) > 0.$
	Let $R = \lfloor \Delta +|y_0| \rfloor$. Since, $|y_0| < |y_0| + \Delta$ and $|y_0|$ is in the value group of ${\mathbb Q}_p$, we have $|y_0| \leq R$. We consider the two cases $|y_0| < R$ and $|y_0| = R$.
	\subsection*{Case 1.1:}
	Suppose that $|y_0| < R$. We must then have $|y_0| \leq \frac{1}{p}R$. If we fix $|y| = \frac{1}{p}R$ and $|x-x_0| \leq \frac{1}{p}R$, then $D(x_0,|y_0|) \subseteq D(x,|y|)$. We get a nonnegative lower bound on $f(x,y)$ as follows
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		f(x,y) &=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x,|y|) }(\alpha_n) - |y| \cr
		&\geq&  \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x_0,|y_0|) }(\alpha_n) - |y| \cr
		&=& |y_0| + f(x_0,y_0) - |y| \cr
		&=&  |y_0| + \Delta - |y| \cr
		&\geq& \left(1 - \frac{1}{p} \right)R.
	\end{eqnarray*}

	We can bound the $L^2$ norm of $f$ from below by evaluating the required integral only on the set $|y| = \frac{1}{p} R, |x-x_0| \leq \frac{1}{p}R $
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\|f\|_2^2  &=&  \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} |f(x,y)|^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&\geq&   \iint_{|y|=\frac{1}{p}R, |x-x_0| \leq \frac{1}{p}R} |f(x,y)|^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&\geq &  \iint_{|y|=\frac{1}{p}R, |x-x_0| \leq \frac{1}{p}R} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p}\right)^2 R^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&=&  \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p}\right)^3 \frac{1}{p^2} R^4 \cr
		&\geq& \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p}\right)^3  \frac{1}{p^6}\Delta^4 \cr
		&=& \frac{(p-1)^3 }{p^9} \Delta^4,
	\end{eqnarray*}
	using $R = \lfloor \Delta +|y_0| \rfloor \geq \frac{1}{p}(|y_0| + \Delta) \geq \frac{1}{p} \Delta$.

	\subsection*{Case 1.2: } Suppose that $|y_0|=R$.
	If we let $|y| = R$ and $|x-x_0| \leq R$, then $D(x_0,|y_0|) = D(x,|y|)$. From this, we get
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		f(x,y) &=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x,|y|) }(\alpha_n) - |y| \cr
		&=&  \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x_0,|y_0|) }(\alpha_n) - |y_0| \cr
		&=& |y_0| + f(x_0,y_0) - |y| \cr
		&=&  f(x_0,y_0) \cr
		&=& \Delta.
	\end{eqnarray*}
	Therefore,
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\|f\|_2^2  &=&  \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} |f(x,y)|^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&\geq&   \iint_{|y|= R, |x-x_0| \leq R} \Delta^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y)  \cr
		&=& \left(1- \frac{1}{p} \right) R^2 \Delta^2 \cr
		&\geq& \left(1- \frac{1}{p} \right) \frac{1}{(p-1)^2} \Delta^4 \cr
		&=& \frac{1}{p(p-1)} \Delta^4,
	\end{eqnarray*}
	using  $R + \Delta = |y_0| + \Delta < p\lfloor |y_0| + \Delta \rfloor = pR$ and therefore $\Delta < (p-1)R$.

	Finally, since $\frac{(p-1)^3}{p^9} < \frac{1}{p(p-1)}$ we conclude
	\[   \| f\|^2 \geq \frac{(p-1)^3}{p^9} \Delta^4
	\]
	holds in both cases 1.1 and 1.2, so it holds in general for case 1.
	\subsection*{Case 2:} Suppose that $f(x_0,y_0) <  0$ and
	$ \displaystyle \Delta = |f(x_0,y_0)| = -f(x_0,y_0). $
	In other words, the disc $D(x_0,|y_0|)$ contains fewer than the expected number of points $\alpha_n$.

	Now let $R = |y_0|$. Then if $|y| = R$ and $|x-x_0| \leq R$, by the strong triangle inequality $D(x,|y|) = D(x_0,|y_0|) $ and we have
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		f(x,y) &=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x,|y|) }(\alpha_n) - |y| \cr
		&=&  \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x_0,|y_0|) }(\alpha_n) - |y_0| \cr
		&=& f(x_0,y_0).
	\end{eqnarray*}
	Therefore,
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\|f\|_2^2  &=& \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} |f(x,y)|^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&\geq& \iint_{|y|=R, |x-x_0| \leq R} |f(x,y)|^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&=& \iint_{|y|=R, |x-x_0| \leq R} \Delta^2 \, d\mu(x)d\mu(y) \cr
		&=& \left(1- \frac{1}{p}\right) R^2 \Delta^2 \cr
		&\geq&  \left(1- \frac{1}{p}\right)\Delta^4,
	\end{eqnarray*}
	where the last line follows because $\Delta \leq R$. To see this, note that
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\Delta  &=&  - f(x_0,y_0) \cr
		&=& |y_0| -  \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N {\mathcal X}_{D(x_0,|y_0|) }(\alpha_n) \cr
		&\leq& |y_0| \cr
		&=& R.
	\end{eqnarray*}

\end{proof}
Next, we need to prove Lemma \ref{lemma: bound2}. Our goal is to find an upper bound on the $L^2$-norm of $f(x,y)$ using Parseval's theorem. Suppose $f(x,y)$ has a Fourier series
\[
f(x,y) = \sum_{\zeta, \omega \, \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty) } \hat{f} (\zeta,\omega) \zeta^x \, \omega^y.
\]
Then by Parseval's theorem we would get
\[  \|f \|_2^2 =   \sum_{\zeta, \omega \, \in  {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)  } |\hat{f}(\zeta,\omega)|^2.
\]
Therefore, we need to bound the Fourier coefficients of $f(x,y)$.
The Fourier coefficients are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn: FourierCoefficients}
\hat{f}(\zeta,\omega) & = & \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} f(x,y) \, \zeta^{-x}\omega^{-y} \,\, d\mu(x) d\mu(y) \cr
& = & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} {\mathcal X}_{D(\alpha_n, |y|)}(x) \, \zeta^{-x}\omega^{-y} \,\, d\mu(x) d\mu(y) \,\,  \cr
& &  -  \, \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} |y| \, \zeta^{-x}\omega^{-y} \,\, d\mu(x) d\mu(y).
\end{eqnarray}
Note that if $\zeta = 1$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqn: zerocoefficients}
\hat{f}(1,\omega) &=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} {\mathcal X}_{D(\alpha_n, |y|)}(x) \, \omega^{-y} \,\, d\mu(x) d\mu(y) \,\, -  \, \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} |y| \,\omega^{-y} \,d\mu(y) \cr
&=& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} |y| \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y) \, - \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \,d\mu(y) \cr
&=& 0.
\end{eqnarray}
When $\zeta \neq 1$, the second integral in line 2 of Equation  (\ref{eqn: FourierCoefficients}) is zero
\begin{eqnarray*}
	\iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} |y| \, \zeta^{-x}\omega^{-y} \,\, d\mu(x) d\mu(y) &=& \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} |y| \omega^{-y} \left(\int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} \zeta^{-x} \, d\mu(x) \right) \, d\mu(y) \cr
	&=& 0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,
\[
\hat{f}(\zeta, \omega) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \iint_{{\mathbb Z}_p^2} {\mathcal X}_{D(\alpha_n, |y|)}(x) \, \zeta^{-x}\omega^{-y}\,\, d\mu(x) d\mu(y).
\]
Using Lemma \ref{lemma: charfun}, we have
\[
\int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} {\mathcal X}_{D(\alpha_n,|y|)}(x) \zeta^{-x} \, d\mu(x)  = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\zeta^{-\alpha_n}\,|y|  &  \text{if \,} \|\zeta \| \leq 1/|y|, \\
& \\
0  &    \text{else}.
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Hence, for $\zeta \neq 1$,
\[
\hat{f}(\zeta, \omega) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \zeta^{-\alpha_n} \, \int_{|y| \leq 1/\|\zeta\| } |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y).
\]
The following lemma makes some estimates that are useful in our succeeding calculations
\begin{lem}
	\label{lemma: IntegralEst}
	Let $R = p^k, k \in {\mathbb Z}$ satisfy $0 < R < 1$, and let $\omega \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty).$ Then,
	\begin{equation}
	\label{eqn: IntegralEst1}
	\left|\int_{|y| \leq R} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y)  \right| \leq \frac{p}{\mathrm{max}(1/R, \|\omega \|)^2}.
	\end{equation}
	Moreover,
	\begin{equation}
	\label{eqn: IntegralEst2}
	\sum_{\omega \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)} \left|\int_{|y| \leq R} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y)  \right|^2 \leq 2p^2R^3.
	\end{equation}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma: IntegralEst}]
	Let $R = 1/p^k$ and let $\|\omega\| = p^l$. We have
	\begin{eqnarray}
	\label{eqn: IntegralEst3}
	\int_{|y| \leq R} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y) &=& \sum_{j \geq k} \frac{1}{p^j} \int_{|y| = 1/p^j } \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y) \cr
	&=& \sum_{j \geq k} \frac{1}{p^j} \int_{{\mathbb Z}_p} \left({\mathcal X}_{D(0,1/p^j) }(y) - {\mathcal X}_{D(0,1/p^{j+1}) }(y)\right)
	\omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y).
	\end{eqnarray}
	When $\|\omega\| \leq 1/R$, that is when $l \leq k$, using Lemma \ref{lemma: charfun} and (\ref{eqn: IntegralEst3}) we have
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\int_{|y| \leq R} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y) &=& \sum_{j \geq k} \frac{1}{p^j}\left(\frac{1}{p^j} - \frac{1}{p^{j+1}} \right) \cr
		&=& \frac{p}{(p+1)(1/R)^2}.
	\end{eqnarray*}
	Thus (\ref{eqn: IntegralEst1}) holds in this case. If $\|\omega\| > 1/R$, that is when $l \geq k+1$, again using Lemma \ref{lemma: charfun} and (\ref{eqn: IntegralEst3}) we have
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\int_{|y| \leq R} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y) &=& \sum_{j \geq l} \frac{1}{p^j}\left(\frac{1}{p^j} - \frac{1}{p^{j+1}} \right) - \frac{1}{p^{l-1}p^l} \cr
		&=& -\frac{p^2}{(p+1)\|\omega\|^2},
	\end{eqnarray*}
	and thus (\ref{eqn: IntegralEst1}) holds in this case as well.

	To check (\ref{eqn: IntegralEst2}) , we use the fact that for each $j \geq 1$, the group ${\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ contains $p^j$ elements of order at most $p^j$, and $p^j - p^{j-1}$ elements of order exactly $p^j$. We then have
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\sum_{\omega \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)} \left|\int_{|y| \leq R} |y| \, \omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y)  \right|^2 &\leq& p^2 \sum_{\omega \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)} \frac{1}{\mathrm{max}(1/R, \|\omega \|)^4} \cr
		&=& p^2\left(\sum_{\|\omega\| \leq 1/R} R^4 + \sum_{\|\omega\| > 1/R}  \frac{1}{\|\omega\|^4}\right) \cr
		&=& p^2  \left(R^3 + \frac{p-1}{p(p^3-1)}R^3 \right) \cr
		&<& 2p^2R^3.
	\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove Lemma \ref{lemma: bound2}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemma: bound2}]
	Applying Parseval's theorem to $f(x,y)$ and using Equations (\ref{eqn: zerocoefficients}) and (\ref{eqn: IntegralEst2}), we conclude
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		\|f\|^2 &=& \sum_{\zeta, \omega \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty) \atop \zeta \neq 1} |\hat{f}(\zeta,\omega)|^2 \cr
		&=& \sum_{\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty) \atop \zeta \neq 1}
		\left( \sum_{\omega \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)}
		\left| \int_{|y| \leq 1/\|\zeta\|} |y|\omega^{-y} \, d\mu(y) \right|^2 \right) \left|\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n= 1}^N \zeta^{\alpha_n} \right|^2 \cr
		&\leq& 2p^2 \sum_{\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty) \atop \zeta \neq 1}
		\frac{1}{\| \zeta\|^3} \left|\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n= 1}^N \zeta^{\alpha_n} \right|^2.
	\end{eqnarray*}

\end{proof}

\section{The linear sequence $na+b$ in ${\mathbb Z}_p$}
\label{section: Linear-sequence}
Consider the sequence $\alpha_n = na + b $. We have the following proposition, a proof of which is given in \cite{book:MR0419394} using elementary number theory. We present an alternate proof using Fourier analysis.
\begin{prop}
	\label{prop: linear-sequence}
	The sequence $\alpha_n = n a + b$ is equidistributed in ${\mathbb Z}_p$ if and only if $a$ is a unit in ${\mathbb Z}_p$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
	The forward implication follows from Weyls criterion (Proposition \ref{prop: Weyl}). For suppose, $a$ was not a unit. Then $a = p^kc$, where $k>0$ and $c$ is a unit. Now let $\zeta = e^{2\pi i/p^k}$.  Then $\zeta^a =1$, and Weyl's criterion will not hold.

	For the reverse implication, let $\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)$ with $\| \zeta \| = p^k$ for $k \geq 1$. There exists an $m$ such that $1 \leq m < p^k $, with $p \ndiv m$ and $\displaystyle \zeta = e^{2\pi im/p^k}$. Suppose that $a $ is a unit in ${\mathbb Z}_p$. Let $a = t_0 + t_1p + t_2p^2 +...$ be the canonical expansion of $a$, with $t_0 \neq 0$.  Then we let $a_k = t_0 + t_1p + ... + t_{k-1}p^{k-1}$ be the truncation of this expansion to the first $k$ terms. We have
	\begin{eqnarray}
	\frac{1}{N}\left| \sum_{n=1}^{N} \zeta^{na + b} \right|
	&=&  \frac{1}{N}\left| \sum_{n=1}^{N} \zeta^{na} \right| \cr
	&  & \cr
	&=&    \frac{1}{N} \left| \frac{ 1-   \zeta^{(N+1)a_k} }{1 -  \zeta^{a_k}}  \right| \cr
	& & \cr   \label{eqn: lin-sequence}
	&\leq& \frac{1}{N} \frac{2}{\left|1 -  \zeta^{a_k}  \right| } \cr
	&\leq& \frac{1}{N} \left| \frac{1}{\sin(\pi m a_k/p^k)} \right|.
	\end{eqnarray}
Since $p \ndiv m$ and $p \ndiv a_k$, $\displaystyle \sin(\pi m a_k/p^k) \neq 0$ and hence $\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \zeta^{na + b}  \to 0$ as $N \to \infty$; the proof of equidistribution now follows from Weyl's criterion.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor: Linear-sequence}]
	Applying the bound given by Theorem \ref{thm: Main}  we get
	\begin{eqnarray}
	\label{eqn: CorEqn1}
	D_N^4 &\ll& \sum_{\zeta \in {\mathbb Z}(p^\infty)\backslash \{1\}  }   \frac{1}{\|\zeta \|^3} \left|\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \zeta^{  na + b} \right|^2 \cr
	& & \cr
	&\leq& \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{p^{3k}}  \sum_{1 \leq m < p^k \atop p \nmid m} \frac{1}{ \left|\sin \left(\pi \, m a_k/ p^k \right) \right|^2} \cr
	& & \cr
	&\leq& \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{p^{3k}}  \sum_{1 \leq m < p^k} \frac{1}{ \left|\sin \left(\pi \, m a_k/ p^k \right) \right|^2} \cr
	& & \cr
	&\leq& \frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{p^{3k}}  \sum_{1 \leq l < p^k} \frac{1}{ \left|\sin \left(\pi \, l/ p^k \right) \right|^2} \cr
	& & \cr
	&\leq& \frac{2}{N^2} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{1}{p^{3k}}  \sum_{1 \leq l \leq p^k/2} \frac{1}{ \left|\sin \left(\pi \, l/ p^k \right) \right|^2}.
	\end{eqnarray}

	Note that the second inequality in Equation (\ref{eqn: CorEqn1}) comes from the last inequality in (\ref{eqn: lin-sequence}). For the fourth inequality, note that since $a$ is a unit we have $p \ndiv a_k$. Hence, $\gcd(a_k,p^k) =1$ and so $a_k$ generates ${\mathbb Z}/p^k{\mathbb Z}$. That is, ${\mathbb Z}/p^k{\mathbb Z} = \left\{ma_k \, | \, m = 0,..,p^k-1 \right\}$. The final inequality follows from the identities $|\sin(\theta)| = |\sin(-\theta)| = |\sin(\pi - \theta)|$, so that for $p^k/2 \leq l <p^k$ we have $|\sin(\pi l /p^k)| = |\sin(\pi(p^k-l)/p^k) |$. This allows us to double the sum over the first half of the interval.

	Note that in the interval $[0,\, \pi/2]$, $\sin(\theta)$ is bounded from below by $2\theta/\pi$, so that
	\[  \frac{1}{|\sin(\theta)|} \leq \frac{\pi}{2\theta}.
	\]
	This gives us
	\begin{eqnarray}
	\label{eqn: CorEqn2}
	\sum_{1 \leq l \leq p^k/2} \frac{1}{ \left|\sin \left(\pi \, l/ p^k \right) \right|^2}
	&\leq&  \sum_{1 \leq l \leq p^k/2} \frac{p^{2k} }{4 l^2 } \cr
	& & \cr
	&\leq& \frac{p^{2k}}{4} \sum_{1 \leq l <\infty} \frac{1}{l^2} \cr
	&  & \cr
	&\leq& \frac{p^{2k} \pi^2}{24}.
	\end{eqnarray}

	Finally, applying the bound from (\ref{eqn: CorEqn2}) to (\ref{eqn: CorEqn1}) we get
	\begin{eqnarray*}
		D_N^4  &\ll& \frac{\pi^2}{12N^2} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{p^{k}}.
	\end{eqnarray*}
	We conclude that $D_N =  O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\right)$.
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{siam}