Next Article in Journal
Bounds for the Second Hankel Determinant and Its Inverse in Specific Function Classes
Previous Article in Journal
Perfect Fluid Spacetimes Admitting Almost Riemann Solitons
Previous Article in Special Issue
Necessary Density Conditions for Sampling and Interpolation of Certain Entire Functions with Doubling Weights
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Boundedness and Compactness for the Iterated Commutators of Bilinear Fractional Maximal Operators on Weighted Morrey Spaces

1
Department of Science, Zhejiang University of Science and Technology, Hangzhou 310023, China
2
School of Information Engineering, Zhijiang College of Zhejiang University of Technology, Shaoxing 312030, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2026, 15(2), 131; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15020131
Submission received: 23 December 2025 / Revised: 30 January 2026 / Accepted: 9 February 2026 / Published: 11 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Harmonic Analysis)

Abstract

Let M α be the bilinear fractional maximal operator. In this paper, we prove that the commutators M α , b i in the i-th entry ( i = 1 , 2 ) and the bilinear iterated commutators M α , b of M α are bounded operators from product weighted Morrey spaces L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 × L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 to weighted Morrey spaces L q , κ v w q , provided that b BMO ( R n ) and b = ( b 1 , b 2 ) BMO ( R n ) × BMO ( R n ) . Furthermore, by using the techniques of function decompositions and the Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem on weighted Morrey spaces, the compactness of M α , b i ( i = 1 , 2 ) and M α , b are also established whenever b CMO ( R n ) and b = ( b 1 , b 2 ) CMO ( R n ) × CMO ( R n ) , where CMO ( R n ) denotes the closure of C c ( R n ) in the BMO ( R n ) topology.

1. Introduction

For 0 < α < 2 n , f ,   g L loc p ( R n ) , the bilinear fractional integral I α and the bilinear fractional maximal operator M α are defined, respectively, by
I α ( f , g ) ( x ) = R n R n f ( y ) g ( z ) ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z
and
M α ( f , g ) ( x ) = sup B x 1 | B | 2 α n B B | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z ,
where the supremum is taken over all balls B containing x in R n . It is easy to see that
M α ( f , g ) ( x ) I α ( | f | , | g | ) ( x ) ,
where the implicit constant depends only on n and α . Kenig and Stein in [1], Grafakos and Kalton in [2] considered the L p -boundedness of I α and M α , respectively. For b L Loc 1 ( R n ) , we define the linear commutators of the bilinear fractional integral I α and the bilinear fractional maximal operator M α as follows
I α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) = R n R n b ( y ) b ( x ) ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z , I α , b 2 ( f , g ) ( x ) = R n R n b ( z ) b ( x ) ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z ,
and
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) = sup B x 1 | B | 2 α n B B | b ( x ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z , M α , b 2 ( f , g ) ( x ) = sup B x 1 | B | 2 α n B B | b ( x ) b ( z ) | | f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z .
For b = b 1 , b 2 BMO × BMO : = BMO 2 , we define the iterated commutator of the bilinear fractional integral I α and the maximal iterated commutator of M α as
I α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) = R n R n b 1 ( x ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z
and
M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) = sup B x 1 | B | 2 α n B B b 1 ( x ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x ) b 2 ( z ) | f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z .
The weighted boundedness of the bilinear fractional integral I α and the bilinear fractional maximal operator M α on Lebesgue Spaces are obtained by Moen [3]. He also introduced a multilinear fractional type of weight A ( p , q ) (see Definition 6) and gave a characterization of that class. The multiple fractional type weights A ( p , q ) are somewhat different from the weights in [4]. But it is a natural generalization of the classical A p , q weights in [5].
In 1978, Uchiyama [6] improved the boundedness result by establishing compactness for Calderón-Zygmund operators with symbols where b CMO , where CMO denotes the closure of C c in the topology of BMO. Hereafter, we write BMO and CMO instead of BMO ( R n ) and CMO ( R n ) , respectively. The boundedness and compactness of commutators of classical operators have attracted the attention of many scholars (see [7,8,9,10,11], for example). In [12], Chen and Xue established strongly weighted bounded results for the linear commutators I α , b i on Lebesgue spaces. Subsequently, Xue [13] also proved the following weighted strong type estimates for the iterated commutators I α , b and M α , b with A ( p , q ) weights on Lebesgue spaces. Furthermore, Chen and Wu [14] established an important improvement over the original results of Chen and Xue concerning strong-type weighted norm inequalities for multilinear commutators as follows.
Theorem 1
([14]). Let  0 < α < 2 n ,  b BMO and  b = b 1 , b 2 BMO 2 . For  1 < p 1 , p 2 < ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 and  1 q = 1 p α n , if   w = w 1 , w 2 A ( p , q ) , then there exists a constant  C > 0 such that
I α , b i ( f , g ) L q v w q C b BMO f L p 1 w 1 p 1 g L p 2 w 2 p 2 , I α , b ( f , g ) L q v w q C b BMO 2 f L p 1 w 1 p 1 g L p 2 w 2 p 2 ,
where  v w = w 1 w 2 ,  i = 1 , 2 .
Remark 1.
From Theorem 1, we can obtain the following conclusions:
M α , b i ( f , g ) L q v w q C b BMO f L p 1 w 1 p 1 g L p 2 w 2 p 2 , M α , b ( f , g ) L q v w q C b BMO 2 f L p 1 w 1 p 1 g L p 2 w 2 p 2 ,
with the same conditions as in Theorem 1 and  i = 1 , 2 .
In [15], the compactness on weighted Lebesgue spaces of the bilinear fractional maximal linear commutators M α , b i and the bilinear fractional maximal iterated commutator M α , b was established, where b CMO and b CMO × CMO . According to ([14], Lemma 3.1), this result can be further improved as follows.
Theorem 2.
Let  0 < α < 2 n ,  1 < p 1 , p 2 < ,  1 < q < ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 and  1 q = 1 p α n . If  w A ( p , q ) ,  b CMO and  b = b 1 , b 2 CMO 2 , where  v w = w 1 w 2 , then  M α , b i and  M α , b are compact from  L p 1 w 1 p 1 × L p 2 w 2 p 2 to  L q v w q .
As we all known, it was Morrey [16] who first introduced the classical Morrey space L p , λ in 1938 and applied it to the study of elliptic partial differential equations. Subsequently, Morrey spaces have found numerous applications in the field of partial differential equations, such as applications in the Navier-Stokes equations [17], Schrödinger equations [18], etc. In 2009, Komori and Shirai [19] considered a weighted generalization and introduced the following weighted Morrey spaces L p , κ ( w ) .
Definition 1
(Weighted Morrey space [19]). For  1 p < ,  0 < κ < 1 and a weight  w , the weighted Morrey space is defined as follows:
L p , κ ( w ) : = f L loc p ( w ) : f L p , κ ( w ) < ,
where
f L p , κ ( w ) = sup B 1 w ( B ) κ B | f ( t ) | p w ( t ) d t 1 p
and the supremum is taken over all balls B in  R n .
Remark 2.
We give some explanation about the weighted Morrey spaces.
(i) 
If  w 1 and  κ = λ / n with  0 < λ < n , then  L p , κ ( w ) = L p , λ R n , which is the classical Morrey space.
(ii) 
Let w satisfies the doubling condition (6) in Section 3. If  κ = 0 ,  L p , 0 ( w ) = L p ( w ) . If   κ = 1 ,  L p , 1 ( w ) = L ( w ) by the Lebesgue differentiation theorem with respect to w; see [20] for more details.
In order to handle the fractional case, Komori and Shirai [19] also introduced weighted Morrey spaces with two weights.
Definition 2
(Weighted Morrey space with two weights [19]). Assume that  1 p < and  0 < κ < 1 . For a pair of weights  ( μ , λ ) , the two-weighted Morrey space is defined as
L p , κ ( μ , λ ) = f L l o c p ( μ ) : f L p , κ ( μ , λ ) < ,
where
f L p , κ ( μ , λ ) = sup B 1 λ ( B ) κ B | f ( t ) | p μ ( t ) d t 1 p
and the supremum is taken over all balls B in  R n . When  μ = λ , we use the simplified notation  L p , κ ( μ ) .
Moreover, the Morrey space boundedness of the bilinear fractional integral I α and the bilinear fractional maximal operator M α has been studied by several authors; see [21,22,23,24], for example. By using a refined function decomposition technique coupled with sharp A ( p , q ) weight inequalities, Tao and Gao [25] established the boundedness of the bilinear fractional integral I α and the bilinear fractional maximal operator M α on weighted Morrey spaces.
Theorem 3
([25]). Let  0 < α < 2 n ,  0 < κ < 1 ,  1 < p 1 , p 2 < ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 ,  1 q 1 = 1 p 1 α 2 n ,  1 q 2 = 1 p 2 α 2 n and  1 q = 1 q 1 + 1 q 2 = 1 p α n ,  w = w 1 , w 2 A ( p , q ) ,  w 1 q 1 , w 2 q 2 A and  v w = w 1 w 2 . Then
I α ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 ,
M α ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Here and in what follows,  A denotes the class of Muckenhoupt weights (see Definition 5 in Section 2 for the precise definition)
The boundedness and compactness of many classical operators on Morrey spaces in harmonic analysis have also been extensively studied; see, e.g., [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Recently, Ding and Mei [35] gave the boundedness and compactness of the commutators I α , b i and I α , b on product Morrey spaces. In [36], the boundedness and compactness of commutators of the bilinear Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator on Morrey spaces were studied by Wang, Zhou, and Teng.
Therefore, one may ask whether the conclusions of Theorem 2 still hold if the weighted Lebesgue spaces extend to the weighted Morrey spaces. To this question, we provide a positive answer. In addition, we also get that the commutators are all bounded on weighted Morrey spaces.
The purpose of this paper is to obtain the boundedness and compactness of the bilinear fractional maximal linear commutators M α , b i and the bilinear fractional maximal iterated commutator M α , b on weighted Morrey spaces. This paper establishes the following main results.
Theorem 4
(Boundedness of M α , b i and M α , b ). Let  0 < α < 2 n ,  0 < κ < 1 ,  1 < p 1 , p 2 < ,  1 < q < ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 ,  1 q 1 = 1 p 1 α 2 n ,  1 q 2 = 1 p 2 α 2 n and  1 q = 1 q 1 + 1 q 2 = 1 p α n . If  w = ( w 1 , w 2 ) A ( p , q ) ,  w 1 q 1 , w 2 q 2 A ,  b BMO and  b = b 1 , b 2 BMO × BMO = : BMO 2 , where  v w = w 1 w 2 ,  i = 1 , 2 , then
M α , b i f , g L q , κ v w q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 , M α , b ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
For clarity, we explain the notation for the weighted Morrey spaces used in Theorems 4 and 5. The symbol L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 denotes a two-weighted Morrey space as defined in Definition 2, where the parameter κ p 1 q 1 is the Morrey-type smoothness index for this space.
Theorem 5
(Compactness of M α , b i and M α , b ). Let  0 < α < 2 n ,  0 < κ < 1 ,  1 < p 1 , p 2 < ,  1 < q < ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 ,  1 q 1 = 1 p 1 α 2 n ,  1 q 2 = 1 p 2 α 2 n and  1 q = 1 q 1 + 1 q 2 = 1 p α n . If  w A ( p , q ) ,  w 1 q 1 , w 2 q 2 A ,  b CMO and  b = b 1 , b 2 CMO 2 , where  v w = w 1 w 2 and  CMO ( R n ) denotes the closure of  C c ( R n ) in the  BMO ( R n ) topology, then  M α , b i and  M α , b are compact from  L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 × L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 to  L q , κ v w q .
Remark 3.
By Remark 2, if  κ = 0 ,  L p 1 , 0 w 1 p 1 , 1 = L p 1 w 1 p 1 ,  L p 2 , 0 w 2 p 2 , 1 = L p 2 w 2 p 2 and  L q , 0 v w q = L q v w q . If   w A ( p , q ) ,  b CMO and  b CMO 2 , where  v w = w 1 w 2 ,  M α , b i and  M α , b are compact operators from  L p 1 w 1 p 1 × L p 2 w 2 p 2 to  L q v w q , and also bounded provided that  b BMO and  b BMO 2 , with the same indexes as Theorem 2.
For the unweighted setting, if  w 1 = w 2 = 1 ,  L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 1 , 1 = L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 ( R n ) ,  L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 1 , 1 = L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 ( R n ) ,  M α , b i and  M α , b are also bounded operators from  L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 ( R n ) × L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 ( R n ) to  L q , κ provided that  b BMO and  b BMO 2 . If  b CMO and  b CMO 2 , then  M α , b i and  M α , b are also compact from  L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 ( R n ) × L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 ( R n ) to  L q , κ ( R n ) .
While our proof strategy follows a known framework, extending boundedness and compactness results from weighted Lebesgue spaces to the product weighted Morrey setting introduces several nontrivial obstacles that require new technical ideas. First, the product weighted Morrey space L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 ( w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 ) × L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 ( w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 ) has a two-layered structure: each weight w i appears with distinct exponents p i and q i , governing local integrability and global decay, respectively. Tracking their interplay and how they combine via the operator to yield the target weight v w q in L q , κ ( v w q ) complicates every estimate. Second, applying the Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem in this setting is not straightforward. Verifying the decay and equicontinuity conditions demands a delicate regional decomposition of the commutator, together with careful applications of Bernoulli’s inequality, the doubling property of weights, and Hölder’s inequality, not merely pointwise or in L q . Third, decomposing the symbol b CMO as b = ( b b 2 B ) χ 2 B + ( b b 2 B ) χ R n \ 2 B + b 2 B forces estimates that respect the local–global balance of the Morrey norm. Handling integrals over nested balls whose radii are linked to the Morrey parameter κ leads to inequalities more subtle than those in the Lebesgue case [25,35].
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 3, we first characterize of the class A ( p , q ) and some facts about weights A p . Then we prove the boundedness boundedness of the associated operators. In Section 4, we establish the compactness results.
Throughout this paper, we adopt the following notations. For p [ 1 , ) , The dual exponent of p is denoted by p , which satisfies p = p p 1 . Given a Lebesgue measurable set E R n , | E | will denote the Lebesgue measure of E, and χ E denotes its characteristic function. Let B = B ( x , r ) be a ball in R n centered at x with radius r, λ B denotes the ball with the sanme center as B and side length λ times the side length of B. C always denotes a positive constant independent of the main parameters involved, but whose value may differ from line to line. We use the symbol A B to indicate that there exists a positive constant C such that A C B . More notations appearing in this paper; see Table 1 for details.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we collect the definitions, notation that will be used throughout the paper.

2.1. Function Spaces

In this paper, our work will be built on the weighted Morrey space with two weights.
Definition 3
(Weighted Morrey space with two weights [19]). Assume that  1 p < and  0 < κ < 1 . For a pair of weights  ( μ , λ ) , the two-weighted Morrey space is defined as
L p , κ ( μ , λ ) = f L l o c p ( μ ) : f L p , κ ( μ , λ ) < ,
where
f L p , κ ( μ , λ ) = sup B 1 λ ( B ) κ B | f ( t ) | p μ ( t ) d t 1 p
and the supremum is taken over all balls B in  R n . When μ = λ , we use the simplified notation  L p , κ ( μ ) .
Next, let us recall the definition of bounded mean oscillation space BMO ( R n ) , as well as its subspace CMO ( R n ) .
Definition 4
(BMO and CMO). A locally integrable function b belongs to the space  BMO ( R n ) if
b BMO : = sup B 1 | B | B | b ( x ) b B | d x < ,
where  b B : = 1 | B | B b ( y ) d y . The space  CMO ( R n ) is defined as the closure of  C c ( R n ) in the  BMO ( R n ) topology.
The following property about BMO functions is classical, it will also play an impotant role in our proof of main theorems.
Lemma 1
([37]). Let  1 < q < and  w A , then the following inequality holds
1 w ( B ) B b ( x ) b B q w ( x ) d x 1 / q C b BMO .

2.2. Weights

Definition 5
(Muckenhoupt A p class). For  1 < p < , a weight w belongs to  A p if
[ w ] A p : = sup B 1 | B | B w 1 | B | B w 1 p p / p < ,
where  p = p / ( p 1 ) . For  p = 1 ,  w A 1 if there exists  C > 0 such that  M w ( x ) C w ( x ) for almost every  x R n . We also denote  A : = p 1 A p .
In order to prove our main Theorem, we need some facts about the weight A ( p , q ) and A p . The weight class A ( p , q ) , mentioned earlier, was introduced by Moen [3] independently.
Definition 6
(Class of A ( p , q ) [3]). Let  1 p 1 , p 2 ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 ,  p = p 1 , p 2 and  0 < q . One says that a vector of weights  w = w 1 , w 2 is in the multiple weights class  w A ( p , q ) if it satisfies
[ w ] A ( p , q ) : = sup B 1 | B | B v w q 1 q 1 | B | B w 1 p 1 1 p 1 1 | B | B w 2 p 2 1 p 2 < ,
where  v w = w 1 w 2 and  w i ( i = 1 , 2 ) are nonnegative and locally integrable functions on  R n . When  q = ,  1 | B | B v w q 1 q is understood as  e s s s u p x B v w . Moreover, when  p i = 1 ,  1 | B | B w i p i 1 p i is understood as  ess inf B w i 1 .
We will need the following characterization of multiple weights, which was established by Iida [38].
Lemma 2
([38]). Let  1 p 1 , p 2 ,  1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2 and  0 < q . A multiple weights  w A ( p , q ) if and only if
(i)  v w q A 1 + q 2 1 p , where  v w = w 1 w 2 ;
(ii)  w i p i A 1 + p i s i ( i = 1 , 2 ) , where  s i = 1 q + 2 1 p 1 p i ( i = 1 , 2 ) .
An analogous statement holds for  q = , if we regard the condition  v w A 1 + q 2 1 p as the condition  v w 1 2 1 p A 1 .
To handle the product weight v w , we need the following estimate which controls its L q norm by the L q 1 and L q 2 norms of w 1 and w 2 , respectively.
Lemma 3
([39]). Let  1 q 1 , q 2 < ,  0 < q < ,  1 q = 1 q 1 + 1 q 2 and  w 1 q 1 , w 2 q 2 A ,  v w = w 1 w 2 , then for any ball B in  R n , there exists an absolute constant  C > 0 such that
B w 1 q 1 q q 1 B w 2 q 2 q q 2 C B v w q .
The classical Muckenhoupt weights enjoy the following doubling condition and reverse Hölder type inequality; see [40], for example.
Lemma 4
([40]). If  w A p and  1 p < , then for any fixed ball B in  R n , we have
w ( λ B ) λ n p [ w ] A p w ( B ) .
Lemma 5
(Reverse Hölder property of A weights [40]). If  w A = 1 p < A p , then for any B in  R n and any set  E B , there exists a constant  θ > 0 such that
w ( E ) w ( B ) C | E | | B | θ .

3. Proof of Boundedness

In order to prove Theorem 4, we will use the techniques of function decomposition and the properties of weights.
Proof of Theorem 4. 
Let B = B ( x 0 , r ) R n be a fixed ball. We perform a standard truncation:
f = f χ 2 B + f χ ( 2 B ) c = : f 0 + f , g = g χ 2 B + g χ ( 2 B ) c = : g 0 + g .
Since M α , b 1 is a sub-linear operator, we can split M α , b 1 f , g as the following four part to estimate by Minkowski’s inequality,
1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b 1 f , g ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b 1 f 0 , g 0 ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q + 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b 1 f 0 , g ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q + 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b 1 f , g 0 ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q + 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b 1 f , g ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q = : A 1 + A 2 + A 3 + A 4 .
Regarding A 1 , the condition w A ( p , q ) yields v w q A 1 + q ( 2 1 p ) . Hence, it follows from the weighted L p boundedness for M α , b i in Remark 1, (5) and (6) that
A 1 1 v w q ( B ) κ q M α , b 1 f 0 , g 0 L q ( v w q ) 1 v w q ( B ) κ q b BMO f 0 L p 1 ( w 1 p 1 ) g 0 L p 2 ( w 2 p 2 ) = 1 v w q ( B ) κ q b BMO 2 B | f ( x ) | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( x ) d x 1 p 1 2 B | g ( x ) | p 2 w 2 p 2 ( x ) d x 1 p 2 w 1 q 1 ( 2 B ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( 2 B ) κ q 2 v w q ( B ) κ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 v w q ( 2 B ) v w q ( B ) κ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Consider now A 2 . To estimate A 2 , we need to use the properties of M α , so it’s natural to write
| M α , b 1 f 0 , g ( x ) | b ( x ) b B | M α f 0 , g ( x ) | + | M α b B b f 0 , g ( x ) | = : A 21 + A 22 .
For any x B , using (1), we have
| M α ( f 0 , g ) ( x ) | | I α ( | f 0 | , | g | ) ( x ) | ( 2 B ) c 2 B | f 0 ( y ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z 2 B | f ( y ) | d y j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B \ 2 j B | g ( z ) | d z j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B | f ( y ) | d y 2 j + 1 B | g ( z ) | d z .
Applying Hölder’s inequality and the fact that w A ( p , q ) and (5), we obtain
| M α f 0 , g ( x ) | j = 1 w 1 q 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 1 w 1 q 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 2 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 × 2 j + 1 B w 2 p 2 ( y ) d y 1 p 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 w 1 q 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 1 w 1 q 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 2 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n × | 2 j + 1 B | 2 + 1 q 1 p v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 ( w 1 q 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) q q 1 w 1 q 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) q q 2 ) κ q v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q .
Hence,
1 v w q ( B ) κ B A 21 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q j = 1 v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × 1 v w q ( B ) B | b ( x ) b B | q v w q ( x ) d x 1 q .
Note that v w q A 1 + q ( 2 1 p ) A . Thus, by (7), there exsits θ > 0 such that
v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) C | B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ .
By Lemma 1, we get
1 v w q ( B ) κ B A 21 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 1 2 j n ( 1 κ ) θ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 ,
where the last series converges due to θ > 0 and 0 < κ < 1 .
On the other hand, when x B ( x 0 , r ) , y 2 B ( x 0 , r ) and z ( 2 B ( x 0 , r ) ) c , we observe that | x y | + | x z |   | x 0 y |   +   | x 0 z | . In fact, since | x 0 x | r | x 0 y | , so
| x y | + | x z |     | x 0 y |   +   | x 0 z | + 2 | x x 0 |   3 ( | x 0 y | + | x 0 z | ) .
Similarly, using | x 0 x | r | x z | , it yields that
| x 0 y | + | x 0 z | | x y | + | x z | + 2 | x x 0 | 3 ( | x y | + | x z | ) .
Hence, we get
A 22 = | M α b B b f 0 , g ( x ) | ( 2 B ) c 2 B | b ( y ) b B | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z 2 B | b ( y ) b B | | f ( y ) | d y j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B 2 j B | g ( z ) | d z .
Note that w i p i A 1 + p i s i A . By Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 1, we can get
2 B | b ( y ) b B | | f ( y ) | d y 2 B | b ( y ) b 2 B | | f ( y ) | d y + 2 B | b 2 B b B | | f ( y ) | d y 2 B | b ( y ) b B | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 2 B | f ( y ) | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 + b BMO 2 B | f ( y ) | d y w 1 p 1 ( 2 B ) 1 p 1 b BMO 2 B | f ( y ) | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 .
For w = ( w 1 , w 2 ) A ( p , q ) , applying Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 2, we have
A 22 b BMO w 1 p 1 ( 2 B ) 1 p 1 2 B | f ( y ) | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1   × j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B \ 2 j B | g ( z ) | d z b BMO j = 1 w 1 p 1 ( 2 B ) 1 p 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 B | f ( y ) | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 × 2 j + 1 B \ 2 j B | g ( z ) | w ( z ) w 1 ( z ) d z b BMO j = 1 w 1 p 1 ( 2 B ) 1 p 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B | f ( y ) | p 1 w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 × 2 j + 1 B | g ( z ) | p 2 w 2 p 2 ( y ) d z 1 p 2 2 j + 1 B w 2 p 2 ( y ) d y 1 p 2 b BMO j = 1 w 1 p 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 p 1 w 2 p 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 p 2 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 × w 1 q 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 b BMO j = 1 w 1 q 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ q 2 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 × | 2 j + 1 B | 2 + 1 q 1 p v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 ( w 1 q 1 ( 2 j + 1 B ) q q 1 w 2 q 2 ( 2 j + 1 B ) q q 2 ) κ q v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q .
Thus, for 0 < κ < 1 , θ > 0 and 1 < p 1 < , the Minkowski inequality gives us that
1 v w q ( B ) κ B A 22 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × 1 v w q ( B ) κ B v w q ( x ) d x 1 q j = 1 | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 | B | | 2 j + 1 B | ( 1 κ ) θ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 1 2 j n θ ( 1 1 p 1 + 1 κ q ) b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Hence,
A 2 b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Similar to A 2 , we divide M α , b 1 f , g 0 into A 31 and A 32 to estimate A 3 as follows,
| M α , b 1 f , g 0 ( x ) |   b ( x ) b B | M α f , g 0 ( x ) | + | M α b B b f , g 0 ( x ) | = : A 31 + A 32 .
Similar to the approach outlined in (10) and (12) for handling A 21 , we get
A 31 b ( x ) b B f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q .
Since b BMO , a straightforward calculation gives
| b 2 j + 1 B b B | C ( j + 1 ) b BMO .
Thus, by the estimate (15), similar to estimate (13) and (14) of A 22 , we get
A 32 2 B ( 2 B ) c | b ( y ) b B | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z j = 1 2 B 2 j + 1 B \ 2 j B | b ( y ) b B | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 B | g ( z ) | d z 2 j + 1 B | b ( y ) b 2 j + 1 B | + | b 2 j + 1 B b B | | f ( y ) | d y b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 ( j + 1 ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q ,
which shows that
1 v w q ( B ) κ B A 32 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × 1 v w q ( B ) κ B v w q ( x ) d x 1 q j = 1 ( j + 1 ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 ( j + 1 ) v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 ( j + 1 ) | B | | 2 j + 1 B | ( 1 κ ) θ q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 ( j + 1 ) 1 2 j n θ ( 1 κ q ) b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Hence,
A 3 b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Finally, we turn to the term A 4 . The estimate for | M α ( f , g ) ( x ) | is similar to the method used for | M α ( f 0 , g ) ( x ) | . We outline the argument as follows.
| M α f , g ( x ) | | I α ( | f | , | g | ) ( x ) | ( 2 B ) c × ( 2 B ) c | f ( z ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z ( 2 B × 2 B ) c | f ( z ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z j = 1 2 j ( 2 B × 2 B ) \ 2 j 1 ( 2 B × 2 B ) | f ( z ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B | f ( y ) | d y 2 j + 1 B | g ( z ) | d z f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q .
Similarly, the following estimate for | M α b 2 B b f , g ( x ) | can also be obtained.
| M α b 2 B b f , g ( x ) | b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 j = 1 ( j + 1 ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) κ 1 q .
Combining the above estimates, we get
M α , b 1 f , g L q , κ v w q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
What’s more, it immediately follows that
M α , b 2 f , g L q , κ v w q b BMO f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Next, we prove the boundedness of the bilinear fractional maximal iterated commutator M α , b on weighted Morrey spaces. Under the same assumptions, it suffices to verify the following inequalities produced by the standard function decomposition (8):
D 1 : = 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b f 0 , g 0 ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 ,
D 2 : = 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b f 0 , g ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 ,
D 3 : = 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b f , g 0 ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 ,
D 4 : = 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b f , g ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
In the same way as estimate A 1 in (9) and using the weighted boundedness for M α , b in Remark 1, we can get the proof of (20), namely
D 1 b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
To estimate D 2 in (21), we still need to switch the commutator M α , b ( f 0 , g ) into fractional maximal operators, so we divided it into the following parts:
| M α , b ( f 0 , g ) | | b 1 ( x ) b 1 , B | | b 2 ( x ) b 2 , B | | M α ( f 0 , g ) ( x ) | + | b 2 ( x ) b 2 , B | | M α ( ( b 1 , B b 1 ) f 0 , g ) ( x ) | + | b 1 ( x ) b 1 , B | | M α ( f 0 , ( b 2 , B b 2 ) g ) ( x ) | + | M α ( ( b 1 , B b 1 ) f 0 , ( b 2 , B b 2 ) g ) ( x ) | = : D 21 + D 22 + D 23 + D 24 .
First, similar to the estimates of A 21 in (12), we have
1 v w q ( B ) κ B D 21 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q j = 1 v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × 1 v w q ( B ) B | b 1 ( x ) b 1 , B | q | b 2 ( x ) b 2 , B | q v w q ( x ) d x 1 q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Then, similar to (14) for A 22 and (16) and (17) for A 32 , we obtain, respectively,
1 v w q ( B ) κ B D 22 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2
and
1 v w q ( B ) κ B D 23 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 ( j + 1 ) v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Note that
| M α ( ( b 1 , B ( x ) b 1 ) f 0 , ( b 2 , B ( x ) b 2 ) g ) ( x ) | ( 2 B ) c 2 B | b 1 , B ( x ) b 1 ( y ) | | b 2 , B ( x ) b 2 ( z ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | ( | x y | + | x z | ) 2 n α d y d z 2 B | b 1 ( y ) b 1 , 2 B | | f ( y ) | d y j = 1 1 | 2 j + 1 B | 2 α n 2 j + 1 B \ 2 j B | b 2 ( z ) b 2 , 2 B ( x ) | | g ( z ) | d z b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 ( j + 1 ) | 2 B | | 2 j + 1 B | θ p 1 v w q ( B ) v w q ( 2 j + 1 B ) 1 κ q .
Therefore,
1 v w q ( B ) κ B D 24 q v w q ( x ) d x 1 / q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × j = 1 ( j + 1 ) 1 2 j n θ ( 1 1 p 1 + 1 κ q ) b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Then, we get
D 2 b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Similar results hold for D 3 and D 4 , the details of which are omitted here. Combining the estimates above, we obtain
M α , b f , g L q , κ v w q b BMO 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
We complete the proof of Theorem 4. □

4. Proof of Compactness

This section is devoted to establishing the compactness of commutators of bilinear fractional maximal operators on weighted Morrey spaces. The proof requires the following auxiliary lemmas.
First, we list some facts of the commutators of M α , which are obvious, we omit their proofs here.
Lemma 6.
If  0 < α < 2 n ,  0 < κ < 1 ,  1 < p < and  b , ν BMO . Then
(i) 
| M α , b i ( f , g ) ( x ) M α , ν i ( f , g ) ( x ) | M α , b ν i ( f , g ) ( x ) ;
(ii) 
M α , b i ( f , g ) χ E A L p , κ ( w ) M α , ν i ( f , g ) χ E A L p , κ ( w ) + M α , b ν i ( f , g ) χ E A L p , κ ( w ) , where  E A : = { x R n : | x | > A } , for every  A > 0 ;
(iii) 
For each  h R n ,
M α , b i ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , b i ( f , g ) ( · ) L p , κ ( w ) M α , ν i ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , ν i ( f , g ) ( · ) L p , κ ( w ) + M α , b ν i ( f , g ) L p , κ ( w ) + M α , b ν i ( f , g ) ( · + h ) L p , κ ( w ) .
For the sake of obtaining our compact results, we also need the following estimates for maximal operators.
Lemma 7.
Let  0 α < 2 n ,  b C c R n and  x , h R n . Consider concentric balls  B 1 : = B x 0 , r and  B 2 : = B x 0 , r + | h | such that  x B 1 . Then
B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 1 2 α n χ B 2 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z | h | M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | 1 s M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) ,
where  s > 1 ,  0 < α s < 2 n (equivalently,  1 < s < 2 n / α ),  1 s + 1 s = 1 and  M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) = M α s ( | f | s , | g | s ) ( x ) 1 s .
Proof. 
Let’s consider the following two cases: r | h | and r > | h | .
Case I r | h | . For any y B 2 , a simple calculation gives us
| b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | y x h | b L ( | y x 0 | + | x x 0 | + | h | ) b L ( r + | h | + r + | h | ) b L | h | b L .
Then
B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 1 2 α n χ B 2 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z | h | b L 1 | B 1 | 2 α n B 1 B 1 | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z + | h | b L 1 | B 2 | 2 α n B 2 B 2 | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z | h | b L M α ( f , g ) ( x ) .
Case II r > | h | . By the triangle inequality tells us that
B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 1 2 α n χ B 2 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 1 2 α n χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z + B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 2 2 α n χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z + B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n χ B 2 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z = : E 1 + E 2 + E 3 .
For any y B 1 , we simply have
| b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | y x h | b L ( | y x 0 | + | x x 0 | + | h | ) b L ( r + r + | h | ) b L r b L .
For E 1 , since the above estimate, we obtain
E 1 = B 2 2 α n B 1 2 α n B 2 2 α n B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z r b L R n B 2 2 α n B 1 2 α n B 2 2 α n 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z .
We now claim the following inequality holds
B 2 2 α n B 1 2 α n B 2 2 α n | h | r .
In fact, we have
B 2 2 α n B 1 2 α n B 2 2 α n = 1 | B 1 | | B 2 | 2 α n = r r + | h | 2 α n n 1 r + | h | r 2 α n n 1 1 + | h | r 2 α n n 1 .
When 0 < 2 α n 1 , by the Bernoulli inequality, we have
1 + | h | r 2 α n n 1 1 + 2 α n | h | r n 1 1 + 2 n α | h | r 1 | h | r .
On the other hand, for 1 < 2 α n 2 , a similar calculation yields
1 + | h | r 2 α n n 1 = 1 + | h | r 1 + | h | r 1 α n n 1 1 + | h | r n 1 + 1 α n | h | r n 1 1 + 1 α n | h | r n 1 1 + n α | h | r 1 | h | r .
Therefore, our claim (24) holds. It implies that
E 1 | h | b L M α ( f , g ) ( x ) .
Applying Hölder’s inequality with s ( 1 , ) and 1 s + 1 s = 1 yields
| b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | = | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | 1 s | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | 1 s | y x h | 1 s b L 1 s b L 1 s r 1 s b L 1 s b L 1 s .
Hence,
E 2 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 \ B 1 B 1 | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z r 1 s B 2 2 α n B 2 \ B 1 | g ( z ) | d z B 2 | f ( y ) | d y r 1 s | B 2 | | B 1 | | B 2 | 1 s 1 | B 2 | 2 α s n B 2 B 2 | f ( y ) | s | g ( z ) | s d y d z 1 s r 1 s ( r + | h | ) n r n ( r + | h | ) n 1 s M α s ( | f | s , | g | s ) ( x ) 1 s r 1 s | h | r 1 s M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) = | h | 1 s M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) .
By the same argument as for E 2 , we obtain
E 3 | h | 1 s M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) .
Thus, we get the desired result. □
The proof of Theorem 5 relies on the following characterization of strongly precompact subsets in L q , κ ( w ) , which is a variant of Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem on weighted Morrey spaces.
Lemma 8
([41]). Let  0 < κ < 1 ,  1 < p < ,  w A p ,  F be a subset in  L p , κ ( w ) . Then  F is strongly pre-compact in  L p , κ ( w ) if and only if the following three conditions are satisfied:
(1) 
sup f F f L p , κ ( w ) < ;
(2) 
lim A f χ E A L p , κ ( w ) = 0 , uniformly in  f F , where  E A = x R n : | x | > A ;
(3) 
lim | h | 0 f ( · + h ) f ( · ) L p , κ ( w ) = 0 , uniformly in  f F .
In order to check Fréchet–Kolmogorov theorem above for bilinear fractional maximal operators, the following results are necessary.
Lemma 9
([9]). Let  1 < p < , if  w A p , we have
lim A | x | > A w ( x ) | x | n p d x = 0 and lim A | x | > A w 1 p ( x ) | x | n p d x = 0 .
Now, we start the proof of compactness.
Proof of Theorem 5. 
We consider only the compactness of M α , b 1 and M α , b , as the proof for M α , b 2 is similar. Without loss of generality, it may be assumed that F and G are sets on L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 and L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 , respectively. We need to show the set F = { M α , b 1 ( f , g ) : f F , g G } is strongly pre-compact on L q , κ v w q when b CMO . According to a density argument, if b CMO , ϵ > 0 , then there exists a sequence of functions b ϵ C c such that
b b ϵ BMO < ϵ .
Thus, by Lemma 6 and (25), to prove Theorem 5, it suffices to establish the strong precompactness of F in L q , κ v w q for b C c . By Lemma 8, we only need to verify that conditions (1)–(3) hold uniformly in F for b C c . The proof is carried out in two steps, note that condition (1) is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.
Step I.  F satisfies condition (2) in Lemma 8.
As is well known, the uncentered and centered maximal operators control each other. Therefore, it suffices to consider the centered fractional maximal operator. Without loss of generality, we assume that f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 = g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 = 1 . For any x { x : | x | > A } , supp b B ( 0 , R ) , we have
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) sup r > 0 1 | B ( x , r ) | 2 α n B ( x , r ) B ( x , r ) | b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z sup r > 0 b L R n | B ( x , r ) | 2 α n B ( 0 , R ) | f ( y ) | d y B ( x , r ) | g ( z ) | d z .
Write
V 1 R ( x ) : = 1 | B ( x , r ) | 2 α n B ( 0 , R ) | f ( y ) | d y | z | | x | | g ( z ) | d z
and
V 2 R ( x ) : = 1 | B ( x , r ) | 2 α n B ( 0 , R ) | f ( y ) | d y | z | > | x | | g ( z ) | d z .
Since | x | > A max { 2 R , 1 } and B ( x , r ) supp b , we have r > | x | R > | x | / 2 . Applying Hölder’s inequality, it yields that
V 1 R ( x ) 1 | x | 2 n α B ( 0 , R ) f y d y B ( 0 , | x | ) g z d z 1 | x | 2 n α w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , | x | ) ) κ q 2 f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 × g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 y d y 1 p 1 B ( 0 , | x | ) w 2 p 2 z d z 1 p 2 1 | x | 2 n α w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , | x | ) ) κ q 2 × B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 y d y 1 p 1 B ( 0 , | x | ) w 2 p 2 z d z 1 p 2 .
Observe that for z B ( x , r ) , we get | z | | x | + r 3 r . Similarly, we have
V 2 R ( x ) B ( 0 , R ) f y d y | z | > | x | | g ( z ) | | z | 2 n α d z B ( 0 , R ) f y d y l = 1 1 ( 2 l 1 | x | ) 2 n α | z | 2 l | x | g z d z l = 1 w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , 2 l | x | ) ) κ q 2 ( 2 l 1 | x | ) 2 n α f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 × g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 y d y 1 p 1 B ( 0 , 2 l | x | ) w 2 p 2 z d z 1 p 2 l = 1 w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , 2 l | x | ) ) κ q 2 ( 2 l 1 | x | ) 2 n α × B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 y d y 1 p 1 B ( 0 , 2 l | x | ) w 2 p 2 z d z 1 p 2 .
Therefore, we get
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) l = 0 w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , 2 l | x | ) ) κ q 2 ( 2 l | x | ) 2 n α × B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 y d y 1 p 1 B ( 0 , 2 l | x | ) w 2 p 2 z d z 1 p 2 .
Thus, for any fixed ball B ˜ R n , by the Minkowski inequality, we obtain
1 v w q ( B ˜ ) κ B ˜ M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) q χ { | x | > A } ( x ) v w q ( x ) d x 1 q j = 1 1 v w q ( B ˜ ) κ B ˜ { 2 j 1 A < | x | 2 j A } M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) q v w q ( x ) d x 1 q 1 v w q ( B ˜ ) κ B ˜ { 2 j 1 A < | x | 2 j A } v w q ( x ) d x 1 q j = 1 l = 0 w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , 2 j + l A ) ) κ q 2 2 j + l 1 A 2 n α × B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 B 0 , 2 j + l A w 2 p 2 ( z ) d z 1 p 2 v w q ( B ˜ { 2 j 1 A < | x | 2 j A } ) 1 κ q j = 1 l = 0 w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , 2 j + l A ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , 2 j + l A ) ) κ q 2 2 j + l 1 A 2 n α × R 2 j + l A n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) B 0 , 2 j + l A w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 B 0 , 2 j + l A w 2 p 2 ( z ) d z 1 p 2 j = 1 l = 0 v w q ( B ( 0 , 2 j A ) ) v w q ( B ( 0 , 2 j + l A ) ) 1 κ q 1 2 j + l 1 A 2 n α R 2 j + l A n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) × B 0 , 2 j + l A v w q ( x ) d x 1 q B 0 , 2 j + l A w 1 p 1 ( y ) d y 1 p 1 B 0 , 2 j + l A w 2 p 2 ( z ) d z 1 p 2 j = 1 l = 0 v w q ( B ( 0 , 2 j A ) v w q ( B ( 0 , 2 j + l A ) ) 1 κ q 2 j + l A n ( 2 + 1 q 1 p ) 2 j + l 1 A 2 n α R 2 j + l A n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) j = 1 l = 0 v w q ( B ( 0 , 2 j A ) v w q ( B ( 0 , 2 j + l A ) ) 1 κ q 1 2 l n θ ( 1 p 1 + κ q 1 ) 1 2 j n θ ( 1 p 1 + κ q 1 ) R A n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) R A n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) ,
where θ > 0 , 0 < κ < 1 , q 1 , p 1 > 0 and the implict constant in the last inequality is independent of the ball B ˜ . Since R > 0 is a fixed constant reltated to the compact support of b and the exponent n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) is strictly positive, thus, as A , the term R A n θ ( κ q 1 + 1 p 1 ) tends to zero. Then, for 1 < q < , we have
lim A 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) q χ { | x | > A } ( x ) v w q ( x ) d x 1 q = 0
holds, where f F and g G .
Step II.  F satisfies condition (3) in Lemma 8.
Our goal is to prove the following estimate
lim | h | 0 M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( · ) L q , κ v w q = 0 .
Without loss of generality, consider fixed points x , h R n satisfying | h | < 1 , we assume that
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x + h ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) and M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) < .
Therefore, for any ϵ ( 0 , 1 ) , there is a ball B 1 = B x 0 , r x such that
( 1 ϵ ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 | b ( x ) b ( y ) f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z .
Since x + h B x 0 , r + | h | : = B 2 , we get
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x + h ) 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 B 2 | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z .
We also have
| M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x + h ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) | = ( 1 ϵ ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x + h ) + ϵ M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) .
Applying the inequalities (26) and (27), we can get
( 1 ϵ ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x + h ) 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 | b ( x ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 B 2 | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 | b ( x + h ) b ( x ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z + 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 B 2 | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z | h | b L ( R n ) M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 1 2 α n χ B 2 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n | b ( x + h ) b ( y ) | | f ( y ) | | g ( z ) | d y d z .
To optimize the bound, we let ϵ = | h | and apply the Lemma 7,
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x + h ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) | h | M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | 1 s M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( x ) .
Note that for 0 < α < 2 n , s > 1 ,
M α , s ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q = M α s ( | f | s , | g | s ) L q s , κ v w q 1 s | f | s L p 1 s , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 s , w 1 q 1 1 s | g | s L p 2 s , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 s , w 2 q 2 1 s = f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 .
Hence, by (3) and Theorem 4, for any s > 1 , we have
M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( · ) L q , κ v w q | h | + | h | 1 s f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 | h | + | h | 1 s .
Hence, we obtain the following desired estimate
lim | h | 0 M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , b 1 ( f , g ) ( · ) L q , κ v w q = 0 .
Next, we will prove the compactness of M α , b . Suppose that b CMO × CMO . For any ϵ > 0 , there exists b ϵ = b 1 ϵ , b 2 ϵ C c × C c such that b i b i ϵ BMO < ϵ , i = 1 , 2 , then by Theorem 4, we obtain
M α , b ( f , g ) M α , b ϵ ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q M α , b 1 b 1 ϵ , b 2 ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q + M α , b 1 , b 2 b 2 ϵ ( f , g ) L q , κ v w q C ϵ .
Thus, to prove the compactness of M α , b on L q , κ v w q for any b CMO × CMO , it suffices to show that M α , b is compact for any b C c × C c . For arbitrary subsets F L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 and G L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 , let
G = M α , b ( f , g ) : f F , g G .
Then, we shall prove that for any b C c × C c , G satisfies the conditions (1)–(3) of Lemma 8. By Theorem 4, condition (1) holds immediately.
Next we will prove that G satisfies condition (2) in Lemma 8. Assume that b i C c and supp b i B ( 0 , R ) , i = 1 , 2 . For any | x | > A max { 2 R , 1 } , using Hölder’s inequality and Lemma 5 yields
M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) sup r > 0 1 | B ( x , r ) | 2 α n B ( 0 , R ) B ( 0 , R ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z sup r > 0 b 1 L b 2 L | B ( x , r ) | 2 α n B ( 0 , R ) B ( 0 , R ) | f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z w 1 q 1 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 1 w 2 q 2 ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ q 2 | x | 2 n α f L p 1 , κ p 1 q 1 w 1 p 1 , w 1 q 1 g L p 2 , κ p 2 q 2 w 2 p 2 , w 2 q 2 × B ( 0 , R ) w 1 p 1 y d y 1 p 1 B ( 0 , R ) w 2 p 2 z d z 1 p 2 R | x | 2 n α v w q ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ 1 q ,
where the second from last step is due to r > | x | R > | x | / 2 and we used the fact that w A ( p , q ) and Lemma 3 in the last inequality. Using Lemma 2, 1 q < and 1 < 1 + q 2 1 p = q 2 α n < , we can get v w q A q 2 α n . Hence, we have for any fixed ball B ˜ ,
1 v w q ( B ˜ ) κ B ˜ M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) q χ { | x | > A } ( x ) v w q ( x ) d x 1 q j = 0 1 v w q ( B ˜ ) κ B ˜ { 2 j 1 A < | x | 2 j A } R | x | ( 2 n α ) q v w q ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ 1 v w q ( x ) d x 1 q j = 0 v w q ( B ( 0 , R ) ) κ 1 q R 2 j A 2 n α v w q ( B ˜ { | x | 2 j A } ) v w q ( B ˜ ) κ 1 q j = 0 R 2 j A 2 n α v w q ( B ˜ { | x | 2 j A } ) v w q ( B ( 0 , R ) ) 1 κ q j = 0 R 2 j A 2 n α 2 j A R 1 κ q q ( 2 n α ) j = 0 R 2 j A ( 2 n α ) κ ,
where we used the doubling condition in Lemma 4 in the fourth inequality. Therefore, together with Lemma 9 yields that
lim A 1 v w q ( B ) κ B M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) q χ { | x | > A } ( x ) v w q ( x ) d x 1 q = 0 .
Thus, condition (2) of Lemma 8 holds for all f F and g G .
Finally, we will prove that the set G satisfies condition (3) of Lemma 8, that is, to show that G is uniformly equicontinuous. It suffices to verify that for any ϵ ( 0 , 1 ) , f F and g G , the following estimate holds
M α , b ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( · ) L q v w q , κ ϵ ,
where | h | is sufficiently small and depends only on ϵ . Consider two fixed points x , h R n satisfying | h | < 1 , without loss of generality, we assume
M α , b ( f , g ) ( x + h ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) and M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) < .
Therefore, let ϵ ( 0 , 1 ) , there exists a ball B 1 = B x 0 , r x such that
( 1 ϵ ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 b 1 ( x ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z .
Since x + h B x 0 , r + | h | = : B 2 , we infer that
M α , b ( f , g ) ( x + h ) 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 B 2 b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z .
Applying the above inequalities (30) and (31), we have
( 1 ϵ ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x + h ) 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 b 1 ( x ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 B 2 b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( x ) b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( x ) | f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z + 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( x ) b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z + 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 1 b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( x ) b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( y ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z + 1 B 1 2 α n B 1 B 2 b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z 1 B 2 2 α n B 2 B 2 b 1 ( x + h ) b 1 ( y ) b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( z ) f ( y ) g ( z ) d y d z .
Consider the fact b i ( x + h ) b i ( x ) | h | b i L for i = 1 , 2 , we have
( 1 ϵ ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x + h ) | h | 2 b 1 L b 2 L M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | b 1 L b 2 L M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | b 1 L b 2 L M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + B 2 B 2 χ B 1 ( y ) χ B 1 ( z ) B 1 2 α n χ B 2 ( y ) χ B 2 ( z ) B 2 2 α n b 1 ( x + h ) b 2 ( y ) × b 2 ( x + h ) b 2 ( z ) | f ( y ) g ( z ) | d y d z .
Similar to the proof of Lemma 7. Let ϵ = | h | , then for any s > 1 , we obtain
M α , b ( f , g ) ( x + h ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) | h | M α ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | 1 s M α , s ( f , g ) ( x ) + | h | M α , b ( f , g ) ( x ) .
Thus, applying Lemma 2, Theorem 4 and (28), for any s > 1 , we get
M α , b ( f , g ) ( · + h ) M α , b ( f , g ) ( · ) L q , κ v w q | h | + | h | 1 s .
Thus, we conclude that (29) holds for whenever f F and g G . This completes the proof of Theorem 5. □

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Z., X.T., C.Z. and Z.L.; methodology, X.T., C.Z., K.Z. and Z.L.; validation, X.T., Z.L., C.Z. and K.Z.; formal analysis, K.Z., C.Z., X.T. and Z.L.; investigation, K.Z., C.Z., Z.L. and X.T.; resources, X.T.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Z., C.Z., Z.L. and X.T.; writing—review and editing, X.T., C.Z., K.Z. and Z.L.; supervision, X.T.; project administration, X.T., K.Z., C.Z. and Z.L.; funding acquisition, X.T., C.Z., Z.L. and K.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors are supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12271483) and the Zhejiang University of Science and Technology Graduate Student Science, Innovation Fund Program (Nos. 2024yjskc20, 2021yjsjg09) and A Project Supported by Scientific Research Fund of Zhejiang Provincial Education Department (No. Y202557823).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kenig, C.E.; Stein, E.M. Multilinear estimates and fractional integration. Math. Res. Lett. 1999, 6, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Grafakos, L.; Kalton, N. Some remarks on multilinear maps and interpolation. Math. Ann. 2001, 319, 151–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moen, K. Weighted inequalities for multilinear fractional integral operators. Collect. Math. 2009, 60, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lerner, A.K.; Ombrosi, S.; Pérez, C.; Torres, R.H.; Trujillo-González, R. New maximal functions and multiple weights for the multilinear Calderón-Zygmund theory. Adv. Math. 2009, 220, 1222–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Muckenhoupt, B.; Wheeden, R. Weighted norm inequalities for fractional integrals. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 192, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Uchiyama, A. On the compactness of operators of Hankel type. Tohoku Math. J. 1978, 30, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ding, L.; Wang, K. The Lp-Lq Boundedness and Compactness of Bergman Type Operators. Taiwanese J. Math. 2022, 26, 713–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guo, W.; He, J.; Wu, H.; Yang, D. Boundedness and compactness of commutators associated with Lipschitz functions. Anal. Appl. 2022, 20, 35–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guo, W.; Wen, Y.; Wu, H.; Yang, D. On the compactness of oscillation and variation of commutators. Banach J. Math. Anal. 2021, 15, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, W.; Wu, H.; Yang, D. A revisit on the compactness of commutators. Canad. J. Math. 2021, 73, 1667–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Saber, S. Compactness of the weighted dbar-Neumann operator and commutators of the Bergman projection with continuous functions. J. Geom. Phys. 2019, 138, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chen, X.; Xue, Q. Weighted estimates for a class of multilinear fractional type operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 362, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Xue, Q. Weighted estimates for the iterated commutators of multilinear maximal and fractional type operators. Studia Math. 2013, 217, 97–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chen, S.; Wu, H. Multiple weighted estimates for commutators of multilinear fractional integral operators. Sci. China Math. 2013, 56, 1879–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. He, Q.; Zhang, J. On weighted compactness of commutators of bilinear fractional maximal operator. J. Korean Math. Soc. 2022, 59, 495–517. [Google Scholar]
  16. Morrey, C.B., Jr. On the solutions of quasi-linear elliptic partial differential equations. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1938, 43, 126–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Taylor, M.E. Analysis on Morrey spaces and applications to Navier-Stokes and other evolution equations. Commun. Partial. Differ. Equ. 1992, 17, 1407–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shen, Z. The periodic Schrödinger operators with potentials in the Morrey class. J. Funct. Anal. 2002, 193, 314–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Komori, Y.; Shirai, S. Weighted Morrey spaces and a singular integral operator. Math. Nachr. 2009, 282, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Torchinsky, A. Real-Variable Methods in Harmonic Analysis; Pure and Applied Mathematics; Academic Press, Inc.: Orlando, FL, USA, 1986; Volume 123. [Google Scholar]
  21. Iida, T.; Sato, E.; Sawano, Y.; Tanaka, H. Multilinear fractional integrals on Morrey spaces. Acta Math. Sin. 2012, 28, 1375–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Iida, T.; Sato, E.; Sawano, Y.; Tanaka, H. Sharp bounds for multilinear fractional integral operators on Morrey type spaces. Positivity 2012, 16, 339–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tang, L. Endpoint estimates for multilinear fractional integrals. J. Aust. Math. Soc. 2008, 84, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tao, X.; Zheng, T. Multilinear commutators of fractional integrals over Morrey spaces with non-doubling measures. Nonlinear Differ. Equ. Appl. NoDEA 2011, 18, 287–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  25. Tao, S.; Gao, R. Estimates of multilinear fractional integrals and maximal operators on weighted morrey spaces. J. Shandong Univ. Nat. Sci. 2018, 53, 30. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen, Y.; Ding, Y.; Wang, X. Compactness of commutators of Riesz potential on Morrey spaces. Potential Anal. 2009, 30, 301–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, Y.; Ding, Y.; Wang, X. Compactness for commutators of Marcinkiewicz integrals in Morrey spaces. Taiwanese J. Math. 2011, 15, 633–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chen, Y.; Ding, Y.; Wang, X. Compactness of commutators for singular integrals on Morrey spaces. Can. J. Math. 2012, 64, 257–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chiarenza, F.; Frasca, M. Morrey spaces and Hardy-Littlewood maximal function. Rend. Mat. Appl. 1987, 7, 273–279. [Google Scholar]
  30. Duoandikoetxea, J.; Rosenthal, M. Singular and fractional integral operators on weighted local Morrey spaces. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 2022, 28, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nakamura, S.; Sawano, Y.; Tanaka, H. The fractional operators on weighted Morrey spaces. J. Geom. Anal. 2018, 28, 1502–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nakamura, S.; Sawano, Y.; Tanaka, H. Weighted local Morrey spaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 2020, 45, 67–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tanaka, H. Two-weight norm inequalities on Morrey spaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 2015, 40, 773–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yamaguchi, S.; Nakai, E. Compactness of commutators of integral operators with functions in Campanato spaces on Orlicz-Morrey spaces. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 2022, 28, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ding, Y.; Mei, T. Boundedness and compactness for the commutators of bilinear operators on Morrey spaces. Potential Anal. 2015, 42, 717–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, D.; Zhou, J.; Teng, Z. On the compactness of commutators of Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator. Anal. Math. 2019, 45, 599–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, H. Some estimates for commutators of fractional integrals associated to operators with Gaussian kernel bounds on weighted Morrey spaces. Anal. Theory Appl. 2013, 29, 72–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Iida, T. A characterization of a multiple weights class. Tokyo J. Math. 2012, 35, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, H.; Yi, W. Multilinear singular and fractional integral operators on weighted Morrey spaces. J. Funct. Spaces Appl. 2013, 11, 5795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. García-Cuerva, J.; Rubio de Francia, J. Weighted Norm Inequalities and Related Topics; North-Holland Mathematics Studies; Notas de Matemática [Mathematical Notes], 104; North-Holland Publishing Co.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1985; Volume 116. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mao, S.; Sun, L.; Wu, H. Boundedness and compactness for commutators of bilinear Fourier multipliers. Acta Math. Sinica 2016, 59, 317–334. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Summary of exponents and their relationships.
Table 1. Summary of exponents and their relationships.
SymbolDescriptionDefinition/Relationship
nDimension n N
α Fractional order 0 < α < 2 n
κ Morrey space parameter 0 < κ < 1
p 1 , p 2 Input exponents (Lebesgue) 1 < p 1 , p 2 <
pHarmonic mean of p 1 , p 2 1 p = 1 p 1 + 1 p 2
q 1 Intermediate exponent for w 1 1 q 1 = 1 p 1 α 2 n
q 2 Intermediate exponent for w 2 1 q 2 = 1 p 2 α 2 n
qOutput exponent (Morrey) 1 q = 1 q 1 + 1 q 2 = 1 p α n
w Weight pair w = ( w 1 , w 2 )
v w Product weight v w = w 1 w 2
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhu, K.; Lin, Z.; Tao, X.; Zhang, C. Boundedness and Compactness for the Iterated Commutators of Bilinear Fractional Maximal Operators on Weighted Morrey Spaces. Axioms 2026, 15, 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15020131

AMA Style

Zhu K, Lin Z, Tao X, Zhang C. Boundedness and Compactness for the Iterated Commutators of Bilinear Fractional Maximal Operators on Weighted Morrey Spaces. Axioms. 2026; 15(2):131. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15020131

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Kangmin, Zhiyu Lin, Xiangxing Tao, and Chunmei Zhang. 2026. "Boundedness and Compactness for the Iterated Commutators of Bilinear Fractional Maximal Operators on Weighted Morrey Spaces" Axioms 15, no. 2: 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15020131

APA Style

Zhu, K., Lin, Z., Tao, X., & Zhang, C. (2026). Boundedness and Compactness for the Iterated Commutators of Bilinear Fractional Maximal Operators on Weighted Morrey Spaces. Axioms, 15(2), 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms15020131

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop