Reflections on the proof of

the Vinogradov mean value

conjecture
Vinogradov mean value conjecture
Vinogradov system:

n1j + ... + nsj = ns+1

j j
+ ... + n2s for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k, (V )

Js,k (N) = the number of integer solutions of (V) with 1 ≤ ni ≤ N.

The Vinogradov mean value conjecture estimates Js,k (N) up to a

factor of C (, k)N  .

Conjecture
 k(k+1)

(Vinogradov, 1930s) Js,k (N) ≤ C (, k)N  N s + N 2s− 2 .
Vinogradov mean value conjecture, exponential sum
version

n1j + ... + nsj = ns+1

j j
+ ... + n2s for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k, (V )

Js,k (N) = the number of integer solutions of (V) with 1 ≤ ni ≤ N.

e(x) = e 2πix .
P 2s
 N
 n=1 e(nα1 + n2 α2 + ... + nk αk ) dα.
R
Js,k (N) =

[0,1]k

Conjecture (Vinogradov, 1930s)

 k(k+1)

Js,k (N) ≤ C (, k)N  N s + N 2s− 2 .
Vinogradov mean value conjecture, exponential sum
version
Conjecture (Vinogradov, 1930s)
 k(k+1)

Js,k (N) ≤ C (, k)N  N s + N 2s− 2 .

Vinogradov proved this conjecture for some values of s and k.

He used his estimates to give much better estimates for Weyl sums
and the Waring problem in high degree.
Vinogradov mean value conjecture, exponential sum
version
Conjecture (Vinogradov, 1930s)
 k(k+1)

Js,k (N) ≤ C (, k)N  N s + N 2s− 2 .

The full conjecture was proven in the last decade. There are now
several proofs.

I Wooley, k=3, efficient congruencing.

I Bourgain-Demeter-G, all k, decoupling.
I Wooley, all k, efficient congruencing.
I Guo-Li-Yang-Zorin-Kranich, all k, 10 pages, combined ideas.
Goals of the talk
Main goal: Describe some main ideas of the proof(s) of the mean
value conjecture.

I All proofs involve complex formulas and computations. But

we will try to explain the ingredients of the computations
without writing long formulas.
I I will focus on the decoupling proof, but I will try to make
some comments that apply to all the proofs.

If time: Discuss some limitations of the method and some open

problems.
Comments on the proof
The decoupling proof of the Vinogradov mean value conjecture is
purely analytic. The ingredients are things like

I Orthogonality
I Holder’s inequality
I Integeration by parts.
I Induction on scales. (Or we could say, combining estimates
from many scales.)

Historical remark. Decoupling is based on a 2014 breakthrough

result by Bourgain-Demeter. They proved “sharp decoupling for
the paraboloid”, which gives sharp Lp estimates for some
exponential sums related to periodic solutions to PDE. I was
shocked that they could prove such a result using only the tools
above. Similarly, I and other people were surprised that the mean
value conjecture could be proven by such tools.
Comments on the proof 2
The decoupling proof of the Vinogradov mean value conjecture is
purely analytic. The ingredients are things like

I Orthogonality
I Holder’s inequality
I Integeration by parts.
I Induction on scales. (Or we could say, combining estimates
from many scales.)

The induction on scales is crucial. It plays a crucial role in

Vinogradov’s work and in all the proofs of the mean value
conjecture.

Goal: Explain what we mean by induction on scales and discuss

why it is helpful.
Comments on the proof 3
The decoupling proof of the Vinogradov mean value conjecture is
also quite visual (or geometric).

We will draw pictures.

At the beginning we choose a coordinate system that makes the

pictures nice.

To keep the discussion simple, we will focus on dimension k = 2

and we will prove a weaker estimate. The discussion will illustrate
some of the main tools in the proof of the mean value conjecture.
Our exponential sum
x = (x1 , x2 ) ∈ R2 .
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

2
The frequencies ( Nn , Nn 2 ) lie on a parabola:

Wz
•
←
Wz=w ?

so

•
•

' ' ' '

W
In
,

I
Our exponential sum
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

(Here x ∈ R2 .)

We write QS (x) for a square of side length S centered at x.

The mean value conjecture is an estimate for

6
R
QN 2 (0) |f (x)| dx.
Our exponential sum
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

I f (0) = N. √
I Because of orthogonality, |f (x)| ≤ 10 N for most points x.
I f (x) is N-periodic in x1 variable.
I |f (x)| is roughly constant on each unit square.

N2
• unit balls

where

/ fcx ) / ~
N
X2

g• µ•
• • • •
0 2N z
N

✗ ,
Our exponential sum
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

N2
• unit balls

where

/ fcx ) / ~
N
X2

g• µ•
• • • •
0 2N z
N

✗ ,

Uλ (f ) := {x : |f (x)| > λ}. |U| = measure of U.

Theorem (Baby version of mean value conjecture)

|UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .
Robustness
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

Theorem (Baby version of mean value conjecture)

|UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

This theorem has short slick proofs using number theory.

The proof we will give is robust if we perturb the frequencies.

Original

÷÷:÷:
" " " "" es

⇐ ÷)
• Perturbed

frequencies
W
,
Notation to remember:

I QS (x) is a cube of side S centered at x.

I Uλ (f ) := {x : |f (x)| > λ}.
I |U| = measure of U.

 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

We will now introduce one tool at a time and see how close we get
to our goal.
  
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 1: Orthogonality.
 
n2
The functions {e Nn x1 + x
N2 2
}N
n=1 are orthogonal on each QN .

So |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN (x)| ≤ CN for any x.

So |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 (0)| ≤ CN 3 .

N2
Red

:/
•
shows

• o
i how

(f)
o / 4¥
• •
look
i. :
✗2 0
may
or
•
• a • given
what we

2: T
• Know 50
-
a •
far .

→
✗ NZ
,
N
  
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 2: Pieces of the sum. If I ⊂ {1, ..., N},

 
P n n2
fI (x) = n∈I e N x1 + x
N2 2
.

We can partition {1, ..., N} into intervals I of length L, and then

P
f (x) = I length L fI (x).

All proofs of mean value conjecture involve estimates for fI for

many different I . This idea goes back to Vinogradov.

No new estimate yet.

  
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 2: Pieces of the sum. If I ⊂ {1, ..., N},

 
P n n2
fI (x) = n∈I e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
P
f (x) = I length L fI (x).

If |f (x)| big then many of the |fI (x)| must be big.

I |f (x)| ≤ N and each |fI (x)| ≤ L.

I The number of I in the sum is N/L.

N
Claim. If |f (x)| > N/10, then |fI (x)| ≥ L/20 for at least 20L
different I .
  
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 3: The shape of fI .

2
The set of frequencies {( Nn , Nn 2 )}n∈I lie in a small box of
2
dimensions NL × NL 2 .

Wz
•
←
Wz =
Wf

÷
•

'÷ I
.
W
,
Tool 3: The shape of fI .
2
The set of frequencies {( Nn , Nn 2 )}n∈I lie in a small box.
TI is a tiling of R2 by rectangles that are dual to the small box.

Wz

✗2

¥ w
.

✗
,

Then |fI (x)| is roughly constant on each rectangle in the tiling.

Tool 3: The shape of fI .
2
The set of frequencies {( Nn , Nn 2 )}n∈I lie in a small box.
TI is a tiling of R2 by rectangles that are dual to the small box.

Wz

✗2

¥ w
.

✗
,

2
The box on the left has dimensions NL × NL 2 .
2
Each tile on the right has dimensions NL × NL2 .
The long axis of the tile corresponds to the short axis of the box
on the left.
Recap and combine
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 1: The exponentials in the sum are orthogonal on each QN .

Tool 2: Look at fI for many different intervals. I ⊂ {1, ..., N}

interval of length L.

N 2
Tool 3: The shape of fI . |fI | roughly constant on rectangle L × NL2 .

Let us combine all these tools and see what we can figure out
about fI when L = N 1/2 . We would like to understand UL/20 (fI ).

Tool 1 tells us that |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN | ≤ CN 3/2 .

Tool 3 tells us that UL/20 (fI ) is organized into N 1/2 × N rectangles.
So there are O(1) rectangles in each QN .
Recap and combine
We study fI where I has length L = N 1/2 .
Tool 1 (orthogonality) tells us that |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN | ≤ CN 3/2 .
Tool 3 tells us that UL/20 (fI ) is organized into N 1/2 × N rectangles.
So there are O(1) rectangles in each QN .

Wz

✗2

⇐ W

]
,

U÷ff± ) ×
,
  
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 4: Transversality. For different I , the rectangles are oriented

in different directions.

Wz

✗2

_¥¥¥
U If ) Etc ×
⇐
,
I .
.
  
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 4: Transversality.

Wz

✗2

_¥¥¥
U If ) Etc ×
⇐
,
I .
.

If |f (x)| is big, then |fI (x)| is big for many I .

If x ∈ UN/10 (f ), then x lies in a rectangle of (almost) every color.
Tool 4: Transversality. For different I , the rectangles are oriented
in different directions.

0
Wz

✗a
O

E.
'

⇐ ¥
0

✓ If ) Etc ☒
⇐
,
-1 .
.

circles
Wyo (f) c- red 0

UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN is contained in O(1) smaller squares QN 1/2 .

Tool 4: Transversality.

0
Wz

✗a
O

E.
'

⇐ ¥
0

✓ If ) Etc ☒
⇐
,
-1 .
.

circles
Wyo (f) c- red 0

UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN is contained in O(1) smaller squares QN 1/2 .

Can iterate this argument at many scales. (Skip details.)
UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 1/2 contained in O(1) smaller squares QN 1/4 etc.

|UN/10(f ) ∩ QN | ≤ N  . So |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ N 2+ .

Historical remarks
0
Wz

✗a
O

E.
'

⇐ ¥
0

✓ If ) Etc ☒
⇐
,
-1 .
.

circles
Wyo (f) c- red 0

Transversality depends on the curvature of the parabola.

Stein began a program to investigate this connection between
curvature and Fourier analysis in the 1960s.
It was developed by many people.

The argument we just sketched is due to Wolff and

Bennett-Carbery-Tao.
We will call it the orthogonality/transversality argument.
Taking stock
 
PN n n2
f (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Just orthogonality: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ CN 3 .

Orthogonality/transversality: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ CN 2+ .

This was the best estimate available in harmonic analysis before

Bourgain-Demeter.
  
PN n n2
fN (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Tool 5: Induction on scales.

We discussed estimates for fI and for UL/20 (fI ).

This is actually similar to our original problem.

For each I of length L, there is a linear change of variables that

converts fI to fL , our original function but with L in place of N.
So our previous tools give estimates about UL/20 (fI ).
  
PN n n2
fN (x) = n=1 e N x1 + x
N2 2
.
Goal: |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .

Look again at fI with length L = N 1/2 .

I Local orthogonality bounds |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN | for each QN .

I Induction on scales bounds |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN 2 |.

Wz

✗2

m¥
✗

U÷(f± )
,
Now look at all the fI with length L = N 1/2 .

I Local orthogonality bounds |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN | for each QN .

I Induction on scales bounds |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN 2 |.

0 0
Wz

✗2
0

F- ¥ o

☒
,

0¥ (f) lies in red circles

This improves bound for |UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | all the way to the goal.
 I Local orthogonality bounds |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN | for each QN .
I Induction on scales bounds |UL/20 (fI ) ∩ QN 2 |.

0 0
Wz

✗2
0

F- ¥ o

☒
,

0¥ (f) lies in red circles

The two bounds are complementary.

Induction gives a better bound on the number of tiles in UL/20 (fI ).
Local orthogonality controls how the tiles pack.
Recap of our approaches
1. Just orthogonality.

|UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ CN 3 .
2. Orthogonality and transversality.
(Harmonic analysis of the 70s, 80s, 90s.)

|UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 2+ .
3. Orthogonality and transversality and induction on scales.
(Decoupling theory of Wolff and Bourgain-Demeter.)

|UN/10 (f ) ∩ QN 2 | ≤ C N 1+ .
Sharp up to factor of N  .
Reflecting on the induction step
Why does the induction step help so much?

In the orthogonality/transversality argument, we considered fI at

scale L = N 1/2 .
We used transversality between the rectangles at that scale.
We did an iteration that used scales: L = N 3/4 , L = N 7/8 , etc.

When we use induction and unwind the induction, the argument

involves a dense set of scales.
(More precisely, logN L is dense in [0, 1].)

After unwinding the induction, every proof of mean value

conjecture

I uses fI at a dense set of scales.

I takes advantage of some type of transversality at all those
scales.
Comparing with an open problem
PN
fk,N (α) = n=1 e(nα1 + n2 α2 + ... + nk αk ), where α ∈ Rk .

|fk,N |p for all p.

R
Vinogradov mean value conjecture estimates [0,1]k

PN k α),
hk,N (α) = n=1 e(n where α ∈ R.

Conjecture (Hardy-Littlewood)
R1
0 |hk,N |2k ≤ C (, k)N k+ .

Known for k = 2 but wide open for any k ≥ 3.

Comparing with an open problem
PN k α),
hk,N (α) = n=1 e(n where α ∈ R.

Conjecture (Hardy-Littlewood)
R1
0 |hk,N |2k ≤ C (, k)N k+ .

What tools from the proof of Vinogradov mean value conj apply:

1. Orthogonality. YES
P
2. f = I fI where I denotes an interval in {1, ..., N}. YES
3. Shape of fI (locally constant on rectangles). ISSUE
4. Transversality.
5. Induction on scales. ISSUE
The issue with induction on scales
PN k α).
hk,N (α) = n=1 e(n

Conjecture (Hardy-Littlewood)
R1
0 |hk,N |2k ≤ C (, k)N k+ .

P
hN = I hI where I denotes an interval in {1, ..., N} of length L.
R1
Along the way, we might want to estimate 0 |hI |p .

Z 1 Z 1
p
|hI | 6= |hL |p .
0 0

Would need a more complex induction that includes not just hk,N
but all the hI .
The issue with the shape of fI
PN k α).
hk,N (α) = n=1 e(n

Conjecture (Hardy-Littlewood)
R1
0 |hk,N |2k ≤ C (, k)N k+ .

In Vinogradov setting, |fI | is roughly constant on large rectangles

with shape depending on I .

Bourgain (1989) and Fu-G-Maldague (2021) investigated

analogues of this fact for hI .

I If I is short, then there is a non-trivial analogue of this fact.

I If I is too long, then there is no non-trivial analogue of this
fact.
Is there a robust version of the Hardy-Littlewood
conjecture?
The decoupling proof of Vinogradov mean value is robust for small
perturbations of the frequencies.
Suppose φ(z) obeys

I φ ∈ C k ([0, N]).
I 0 = φ(0) = φ0 (0) = ... = φ(k−1) (0).
I The k th derivative obeys 1 ≤ φ(k) (z) ≤ 2 for all z.

PN
hφ (α) = n=1 e(φ(n)α).

Conjecture (Generalization of Hardy-Littlewood)

R1
0 |hφ |2k ≤ C (, k)N k+ .

I don’t know any counterexample for any k. Open for k ≥ 2.