\section{Introduction}
R. Oberlin, A. Seeger, T. Tao, C. Thiele, and J. Wright  prove in \cite{MR2881301} that the r-variation Carleson operator defined for $r>0$ and $f \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ by the formula

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 V_r: f \mapsto \sup_{K \in \mathbb{N}} ~~\sup_{N_1 < N_2<... <N_K} \left(\sum_{j=1}^{K-1} \left| \int_{N_j}^{N_{j+1}} \hat{f}(\xi) e^{2 \pi i \xi x} d \xi \right|^r \right)^{1/r}
 \end{eqnarray*}
 extends to a continuous map of $L^p(\mathbb{R})$ into $L^p(\mathbb{R})$  for all $r^\prime<p<\infty$ and $r>2$.  With this notation, $V_\infty$ is the Carleson operator $C:L^p (\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^p(\mathbb{R})$ for $1 < p <\infty$ and $V_1(f)=||\hat{f}||_1 1_{\mathbb{R}}$ for all $f$ belonging to the Wiener algebra. That $r \geq 2$ is necessary for estimates to hold is immediate by routine arguments using Rademacher functions. Moreover, estimates at the variational endpoint $r=2$ are ruled out by applying probabilistic arguments of Qian in \cite{MR1640349} combined with variation estimates developed by Jones and Wang in \cite{MR2067131}. Our first result provides a simple and direct counterexample to the boundedness of $V_2$ and manages to say a bit more through the use of Gaussian chirps like those appearing in work of Muscalu, Tao, and Thiele  \cite{MR1981900}. Before mentioning the precise statement, we introduce

 \begin{definition}
For any $f : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ and interval $I  = [ c_I - |I|/2, c_I + |I|/2] \subset \mathbb{R}$, let $f_I (x) := f(|I|^{-1}(x-c_I)) $.
\end{definition}
 \begin{theorem}\label{P1}
 There exists $\tilde{1} \in C^{\infty}([-1/2,1/2])$ and an almost disjoint collection of intervals $\{I\}=\mathcal{I}$ so that
 \begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{V}_2 : f \mapsto \sup_{\tau \in \mathbb{R}} \left( \sum_{I \in \mathcal{I}} \left|f* \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \tilde{1}_{I+\tau} \right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2}
 \end{eqnarray*}
satisfies no $L^p$ estimates.
 \end{theorem}

Next, a corollary of L. Grafakos and N. Kalton's work in \cite{MR1853518} is that symbols $m: \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ adapted to the singularity $\Gamma = \{\xi_1 + \xi_2 =0\}$ in the Mikhlin-H\"ormander sense that

 \begin{eqnarray*}
\left |\partial^{\vec{\alpha}} m(\vec{\xi})\right| \lesssim_{\vec{\alpha}} \frac{1}{dist(\vec{\xi}, \Gamma)^{|\vec{\alpha}|}}
 \end{eqnarray*}
 for arbitrarily many multi-indices $\vec{\alpha}$ need not be bounded operators on any $L^p(\mathbb{R})$ spaces. In \S{3} we construct an explicit counterexample:

 \begin{theorem}\label{P2}
 There exists a multiplier $m :\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ adapted to the singularity $\Gamma= \{ \xi_1 + \xi_2 = 0\}$ satisfying

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \left| \partial^{\vec{\alpha}} m(\vec{\xi})\right| \lesssim_{\vec{\alpha}} \frac{1}{|dist( \vec{\xi}, \Gamma)|^{|\vec{\alpha}|}}
 \end{eqnarray*}
 for all multi-indices $\vec{\alpha}$ such that $T_m: (f_1, f_2) \mapsto \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} m(\xi_1, \xi_2) \hat{f}_1(\xi_1) \hat{f}_2(\xi_2) e^{2 \pi i x (\xi_1 + \xi_2)} d \xi_1 d \xi_2$ (for all $\vec{f} \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})^2$) satisfies no $L^p$ estimates.
 \end{theorem}

In \S{4} we prove $L^p(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^p(\mathbb{R})$ estimates when $2 <p <\infty$ for a smooth restricted variant of $V_2$ denoted by $\mathcal{V}_2^{res}$, which is defined via the formula
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{V}^{res}_2 : f \mapsto \sup_{R \in \mathbb{R}} ~~\sup_{0 \leq \alpha  < R} ~~\left(\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}}  \left|f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \tilde{1}_{[\alpha + j R, \alpha + (j+1)R]}\right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2},
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that in moving from $V_2$ to $\mathcal{V}_2^{res}$ we have replaced sharp frequency cutoffs over all increasing sequences $N_1 < ... < N_K$ by mollified cutoffs only over those increasing sequences $N_1 < N_2 < ... < N_K$ for which $N_{j+2} - N_{j+1}= N_{j+1}- N_j$ for all $j \in \{1, ..., K-2\}$. The proof of $\mathcal{V}_2^{res}$ estimates relies on bounding a straightforward time-frequency model.

In \S{5} and \S{6} we study some bi-sublinear variants of $\mathcal{V}_2$ defined for a set $\Sigma = \{ \sigma \}$ and $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty([-1/2, 1/2])$ by the formula

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_\eta : (f,g) \mapsto \sup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \left| \sum_{\tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I_\tau^\sigma} \right] g*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I^\sigma_0} \right] \right| =: \sup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \mathcal{M}^\sigma _\eta (f,g)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $I_\tau ^\sigma := [ \tau \sigma -\sigma/2, \tau \sigma + \sigma/2]$ for each $\tau \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}_+$.
At each scale $\sigma \in \Sigma, \mathcal{M}^\sigma_\eta$  has an adjoint operator at the same scale adapted to $\{\xi_1 + \xi_2 = 0\}$.  Then, by Cauchy-Schwarz, the supremum of the adjoint over all scales satisfies some estimates. However, our main result in these sections shows that no non-trivial mixed estimates for  $\mathcal{M}^\Sigma_\eta$ are possible provided $|\Sigma| = \infty$ and $\eta \not \equiv 0 $ has all non-negative Fourier coefficients. The trivial mixed estimates take the form $W_\infty (\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R})$ with $1 < p_2 \leq \infty$. That is, we have

\begin{theorem}\label{P3}
Let $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty ([-1/2,1/2])$ satisfy $\eta \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]}$.  Let $\Sigma \subset \mathbb{R}$ satisfy $\#\left\{ \Sigma \right\}=\infty$.  Then

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}^\Sigma_\eta : (f, g) \mapsto \sup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \left| \sum_{\tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I_\tau^\sigma} \right] g*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I^\sigma_0} \right] \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $W_{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1p_2/(p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ iff $p_1 = \infty, 1 < p_2 \leq \infty$.
\end{theorem}

Lastly, we investigate in \S{7} a special collection of discretized Hilbert transforms and conclude that any bilinear multiplier with a symbol adapted to the singular line $\{\xi_1 + \xi_2 =0\}$ in the H\"{o}rmander-Mikhlin sense with the added property that along each scale the frequency projections are equally-spaced translated copies of each other maps $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1 p_2 /(p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ provided $2 \leq p_1, p_2 < \infty$ and $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}$.  More precisely, the following is true:

 \begin{theorem}\label{P4}
Fix $ \hat{\eta} \in C^{\infty} ([-1/2, 1/2])$. Let $m : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be given by

\begin{eqnarray*}
m(\xi_1, \xi_2) = \sum_{\vec{P} \in \mathbb{P}} \hat{\eta}_{P_1}(\xi_1)  \hat{\eta}_{P_2}(\xi_2)
\end{eqnarray*}
where

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P} := \bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}\left\{  \left[m2^{-k}-2^{-k-1}, m2^{-k} + 2^{-k-1}\right] \times  \left[m2^{-k}-2^{-k-1}+\Gamma 2^{-k} , m2^{-k} + 2^{-k-1}+\Gamma 2^{-k}\right]  \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, for every pair $(p_1, p_2)$ such that $2 \leq p_1, p_2 <\infty$ with $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} <1$

\begin{eqnarray*}
|| T_m(f_1, f_2) || _{\frac{p_1 p_2 }{p_1 + p_2}} \lesssim_{\vec{p}} || f_1||_{p_1} || f_2||_{p_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{theorem}

  \section{ $V_2$ Counterexample}
We first prove that a smooth variant of $V_2$ given by the maximal translation square function  corresponding to a fixed collection of  disjoint intervals $\mathcal{I}$ is unbounded. Recall
 \begin{reptheorem}{P1}
 There exists $\tilde{1} \in C^{\infty}([-1/2,1/2])$ and an almost disjoint collection of intervals $\{I\}=\mathcal{I}$ so that setting $\tilde{1}_I(x) =\check{\tilde{1}}(|I|^{-1}( x-c_I) ) $ for all intervals $I= [c_I - |I|/2, c_I + |I|/2] \subset \mathbb{R}$ ensures the operator

 \begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{V}_2 : f \mapsto \sup_{\tau \in \mathbb{R}} \left( \sum_{I \in \mathcal{I}} \left|f* \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \tilde{1}_{I+\tau} \right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2}
 \end{eqnarray*}
satisfies no $L^p$ estimates.

 \end{reptheorem}

 \begin{proof}
 Let $\mathcal{I} _k= \left\{ [k+\frac{l}{k}, k + \frac{l+1}{k}] : 0 \leq l <k \right\}$ and define $\mathcal{I} = \bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \mathcal{I}_k$.  Choose $\tilde{1} \in C^{\infty}([-1/2,1/2])$ to ensure $|\check{\tilde{1}}| \gtrsim 1_{[-2, 2]}$.  Fix $N \in \mathbb{N}$ together with $\phi \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $1_{[-1/4, 1/4]} \leq \hat{\phi} \leq 1_{[-1/2, 1/2]}$ and construct

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 f_N(x) := \sum_{1 \leq n \leq N} \phi(x-n) e^{2 \pi i nx}:= \sum_{1 \leq n \leq N} g_n(x)
 \end{eqnarray*}
in which case $supp~\hat{g}_n \subset [n-1/2, n+1/2]$. It clearly suffices to prove the claim $\mathcal{V}_2 (f_N)(x) \gtrsim \log^{1/2}(N) 1_{[1, N/2]}(x)$, for then $||\mathcal{V}_2(f_N) ||_p \simeq \log(N) N^{1/p}$, whereas $||f_N||_p \simeq N^{1/p}$.

To this end, let $x \in [j,j+1]$ and set $\tau = j$. Fix $ k \in [10, N-j]$ and consider $I \in \mathcal{I}_{k}+j$ so that $I \subset [k+j-1/4, k+j +1/4]$. Then $g_{k+j} * \check{\tilde{1}}_{I}=\check{\tilde{1}}_I(x-k-j) =k^{-1}\check{\tilde{1}}(k^{-1} (x-k-j))e^{2 \pi i c_I (x-k-j)} $ . There are $O(k)$ many such intervals in $\mathcal{I}_k$ with this property. Therefore, the total contribution from all intervals $I \in \mathcal{I}_k$ at $x \in [j, j+1]$  is at least $\sum_{I \in \mathcal{I}_k: I \subset [k+j-1/4, k+j +1/4]} \left| g_{k+j}*\check{\tilde{1}}_I \right|^2(x) = \sum_{I \in \mathcal{I}_k: I \subset [k+j-1/4, k+j +1/4]} \frac{1}{k^2} \left| \check{\tilde{1}}_I(x-k-j) \right|^2(x)  \gtrsim \frac{1}{k}$. Summing over $10 \leq k \leq N-j$ yields

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{V}^2_2(f_N)(x) \gtrsim \sum_{10 \leq k \leq N-j} ~\sum_{I \in \mathcal{I}_k: I \subset [k+j-1/4, k+j +1/4]} \left| g_{k+j}*\check{\tilde{1}}_I \right|^2(x) \gtrsim  \sum_{N-j \geq k \geq 10} \frac{1}{k} \gtrsim \log(N-j).
\end{eqnarray*}
Choosing $j \in [1, N/2]$ ensures $\log(N-j) \gtrsim \log(N)$.
\end{proof}

Replacing smooth frequency cutoffs $\left\{ \mathcal{F}^{-1}\left(\tilde{1}_I\right)\right\}_{I \in \mathcal{I}}$ with sharp ones $\{ \mathcal{F}^{-1} ( 1_I)\}_{I \in \mathcal{I}}$ is not a problem. Indeed, the tails of the sharp frequency projections decay even more slowly and one can shrink the size of intervals appearing in the collection $\mathcal{I}$ by a large enough constant factor $A$ to ensure $|\mathcal{F}^{-1} (1_{[-1/A, 1/A]})|\gtrsim_A 1_{[-2,2]}$.

  \section{Hilbert Transform Type Multiplier Counterexample}
 \begin{reptheorem}{P2}
 There exists a multiplier $m :\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ adapted to the singularity $\Gamma= \{ \xi_1 + \xi_2 = 0\}$ satisfying

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \left| \partial^{\vec{\alpha}} m(\vec{\xi})\right| \lesssim_{\vec{\alpha}} \frac{1}{|dist( \vec{\xi}, \Gamma)|^{|\vec{\alpha}|}}
 \end{eqnarray*}
 for all multi-indices $\vec{\alpha}$ such that $T_m: (f_1, f_2) \mapsto \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} m(\xi_1, \xi_2) \hat{f}_1(\xi_1) \hat{f}_2(\xi_2) e^{2 \pi i x (\xi_1 + \xi_2)} d \xi_1 d \xi_2$ (for all $\vec{f} \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})^2$) satisfies no $L^p$ estimates.
 \end{reptheorem}

 \begin{proof}
Choose $\Phi \in C^\infty([-1/2,1/2])$ real and symmetric such that $\hat{\Phi}(x) >1_{[-1,1]}(x)$. Note that $\hat{\Phi}$ is automatically real and symmetric.
Let $\Gamma >>1$.  Define a collection of  frequency squares

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \mathbb{Q} &:=&  \bigcup_{k \geq 8 }~ \bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}~ \bigcup_{-2^{k-8} < \lambda < 2^{k-8}} \vec{Q}_{k,m, \lambda},
\end{eqnarray*}
where for each $ k  \geq 8, m \in \mathbb{Z}, -2^{k-8} < \lambda < 2^{k-8}$

\begin{eqnarray*}
\vec{Q}_{k, m \lambda}  := [m+ \lambda 2^{-k}-2^{-k-1}, m + \lambda 2^{-k}+2^{-k-1} ] \times [ -m - \lambda 2^{-k}-2^{-k-1} + \Gamma 2^{-k}, -m - \lambda 2^{-k} +2^{-k-1} + \Gamma 2^{-k} ] .
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, assign
 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \eta^1_{\vec{Q}_{k,m, \lambda}}(x) &=& 2^{-k} \hat{\Phi}(x2^{-k}) e^{2 \pi i (m + \lambda 2^{-k}) x} \\
 \eta^2_{\vec{Q}_{k,m, \lambda}}(x)&=& 2^{-k} \hat{\Phi}(x2^{-k}) e^{-2 \pi i (m + \lambda 2^{-k}- \Gamma 2^{-k}) x} e^{ 2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} m}.
 \end{eqnarray*}
 Let $m(\xi_1 , \xi_2) = \sum_{k\geq 8} \sum_{|\vec{Q}|=2^{-k}} \hat{ \eta}^1_{Q_1} (\xi_1) \hat{\eta}^2_{Q_2}(\xi_2) \in \mathcal{M}_{\{ \xi_1 +\xi_2 =0\}}(\mathbb{R}^2)$.
 Moreover, letting $\epsilon =1/100$, choose $\phi \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ satisfying

 \begin{eqnarray*}
  1_{[-1/2+\epsilon, 1/2-\epsilon]} \leq \hat{\phi}  \leq1_{[-1/2, 1/2]}.
 \end{eqnarray*}
 In addition, for each $N \in \mathbb{N}$, construct $f_1^N (x) = \sum_{1 \leq n \leq N} \phi(x-n) e^{2 \pi i n x}$ and $f_2^N(x) = \sum_{1 \leq n \leq N} \phi(x-n) e^{-2 \pi i n x}$.  For a given $(c_{Q_1}, c_{Q_2}) = (m + \lambda 2^{-k}, -m - \lambda 2^{-k} + \Gamma 2^{-k})$ for which $[m+\lambda 2^{-k} -2^{-k-1}, m+\lambda 2^{-k}  + 2^{-k-1}] \cap  [n_1-1/2, n_1+1/2] \not = \emptyset  $ and $ [ m+ \lambda 2^{-k} - \Gamma 2^{-k}-2^{-k-1} , m+ \lambda 2^{-k} - \Gamma 2^{-k} + 2^{-k-1}] \cap [n_2-1/2, n_2+ 1/2] \not = \emptyset$, then $m= n_1=n_2$ for all $k \geq C_\Gamma$, in which case

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 &  [m+\lambda 2^{-k} -2^{-k-1}, m+\lambda 2^{-k}  + 2^{-k-1}] &\subset [m-1/2+\epsilon, m+1/2-\epsilon] \\ &  [m+\lambda 2^{-k} \Gamma 2^{-k} -2^{-k-1} , m+ \lambda 2^{-k} - \Gamma 2^{-k} + 2^{-k-1}]  &\subset [m-1/2+\epsilon, m+1/2-\epsilon].
 \end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, for each $k \geq C_\Gamma$, we have

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 && T^k_m(f_1, f_2)(x)\\&=& \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{-2^{k-8} < \lambda < 2^{k-8}}  \sum_{1\leq n_1, n_2 \leq N}  \left (\phi(\cdot -n_1) e^{2 \pi i n_1 \cdot}\right) * \eta^1_{\vec{Q}_{k,m, \lambda}} (x) \left(\phi(\cdot-n_2) e^{-2 \pi i n_2\cdot}\right) * \eta^2_{\vec{Q}_{k, m , \lambda}}(x) \\ &=&  \sum_{1 \leq m \leq N} \sum_{-2^{k-8} < \lambda < 2^{k-8}}   \left (\phi(\cdot -m) e^{2 \pi i m \cdot}\right) * \eta^1_{\vec{Q}_{k,m, \lambda}} (x) \left(\phi(\cdot-m) e^{-2 \pi i m\cdot}\right) * \eta^2_{\vec{Q}_{k, m , \lambda}}(x) \\ &=&  \sum_{1 \leq m \leq N} \sum_{-2^{k-8} < \lambda < 2^{k-8}}  2^{-2k} \hat{\Phi}((x-n)2^k) e^{2 \pi i(m+\lambda 2^{-k})  (x-m)} \hat{\Phi}((x-m)2^k) e^{-2 \pi i (m+\lambda 2^{-k} - \Gamma 2^{-k} ) (x-m)} e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} m} \\ &=& [ 2^{k-7}-1] 2^{-2k} \sum_{1 \leq m \leq N} ( \hat{\Phi}((x-m)2^k)))^2 e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} x}.
 \end{eqnarray*}
By the assumption $\hat{\Phi}$ is real-valued with $\hat{\Phi}(x) >1_{[-1,1]}(x)$, $|T^k_m(f_1, f_2)(x)| \gtrsim 1_{[1,N]}(x)$ for all $ C_\Gamma \leq k \lesssim \log(N)$.  Lastly, by picking $\Gamma =100$, say,

\begin{eqnarray*}
supp~ \mathcal{F}(T_m^k(f_1^N, f_2^N)) \subset [99\cdot 2^{-k}, 101\cdot 2^{-k}].
\end{eqnarray*}
Letting $1< p_1, p_2 <\infty$ satisfy $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} <1$, note by Littlewood-Paley equivalence

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \left| \left| T_{m} (f^N_1, f^N_2)  \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} &=&   \left| \left| \sum_{k \geq 8}T^k_m(f_1^N, f_2^N) \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}  \\ &\simeq&   \left| \left| \left( \sum_{k \geq 8} \left| T_m^k(f_1^N, f_2^N)\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} \\ &\gtrsim& \log(N)^{1/2} N^{\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}}.
 \end{eqnarray*}
 However, $||f_i||_{p_i} \simeq N^{1/p_i}$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$, so taking N arbitrarily large establishes the claim.

 \end{proof}

 \section{Estimates for $\mathcal{V}_2^{res}$}
We first establish
 \begin{prop}
The bi-sublinear operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{B} : (f_1, f_2) \mapsto \sup_{ k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \sum_{| \vec{P} | = 2^k}  f_1*\eta^1_{P_1} f_2* \eta^2_{-P_1} \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2} (\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1 p_2/(p_1 + p_2)} (\mathbb{R})$ provided $2 < p_1, p_2 <\infty$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
By routine arguments, $\mathcal{B}$ can be linearized, dualized, and discretized to form the model

\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{\vec{P} \in \mathbb{P}}\frac{1}{|I_P|^{1/2}} \langle f_1, \Phi^1_{P_1} \rangle \langle f_2, \Phi^2_{-P_1} \rangle \langle f_3 1_{\{x|N(x) = k\}} , \tilde{1}_{I_P} \rangle
\end{eqnarray*}
where for each dyadic tile $\vec{P} =(I_P, \omega_P) \in \mathbb{P}$,  $\Phi^1_{\vec{P}}$ and $\Phi^2_{\vec{P}}$ have Fourier support in $\omega_P$ and are rapidly decaying away from $I_P$.
By scaling invariance and interpolation, we only need to establish the corresponding restricted weak type estimates under the assumption $|f_i| \leq 1_{E_i}$ and $|E_3| = 1$. For some $0 \leq \alpha_1, \alpha_2 \leq 1$ to be determined, let

\begin{eqnarray*}
\Omega_{\alpha_1, \alpha_2} = \left\{ M 1_{E_1} \geq C |E_1|^{\alpha_1} \right\} \bigcup \left\{ M 1_{E_2} \geq C |E_2|^{\alpha_2} \right\}
\end{eqnarray*}
 with $C$ large enough to ensure $|\Omega_{\alpha_1, \alpha_2}| \leq 1/2$ and $\tilde{E}_3 := E_3 \cap \Omega_{\alpha_1, \alpha_2}^c$ is a major subset of $E_3$. For $d \geq 0$, define

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}_d = \left\{ \vec{P} \in \mathbb{P} : 1 + \frac{dist(I_P, \Omega_{\alpha_1, \alpha_2}^c)}{ I_P} \simeq 2^d \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\mathbb{I}^{1, n_1}$ be the collection of dyadic intervals maximal with respect to the property $I \subset \left\{ M 1_{E_1} \geq 2^{-n_1} \right\}$ and set $\mathbb{P}_d^{1, n_1}= \mathbb{P}_d \cap \left\{ I_P \subset \bigcup_{I \in \mathbb{I}^{1, n_1}} I ~ for~ which~ I_P \not \subset \mathbb{I}^{1, m}~for~any~m < n_1 \right\}$. Similarly define $\mathbb{P}_d^{2, n_2}$ by substituting $E_2$ for $E_1$. Lastly, define $\bar{\mathbb{P}}_d^{n_1, n_2} = \mathbb{P}_d ^{1, n_1} \cap \mathbb{P}_d^{2, n_2}$.

By construction,

\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{\vec{P} \in \bar{\mathbb{P}}^{n_1, n_2}_d} \frac{1}{|I_P|^{1/2}} \langle f_1, \Phi_{P_1} \rangle \langle f_2, \Phi_{-P_1} \rangle \langle f_3 1_{\tilde{E}_3} 1_{\{x|N(x) = k\}} , \tilde{1}_{I_P}   \rangle  \\ &=&  \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}~~ \sum_{\vec{P} \in \mathbb{P}^{n_1, n_2}_d : |I_P|=2^k} \frac{1}{|I_P|} \langle f_1, \Phi_{P_1} \rangle \langle f_2, \Phi_{-P_1} \rangle \langle f_3 1_{\tilde{E}_3}1_{\{x|N(x) = k\}} ,\tilde{1}_{I_P}\rangle \\&\lesssim &\sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{|I|=2^k} \left( \sum_{\vec{P}\in \mathbb{P}^{n_1, n_2}_d : I_P = I} \frac{ |\langle f_1, \Phi_{P_1} \rangle|^2 }{|I_P|}\right)^{1/2} \left( \sum_{\vec{P}\in\mathbb{P}^{n_1, n_2}_d : I_P = I} \frac{ |\langle f_2, \Phi_{-P_1} \rangle|^2 }{|I_P|}\right)^{1/2} \left| \langle f_31_{\tilde{E}_3} 1_{\{x|N(x) = k\}} , \tilde{1}_{I}\rangle \right| \\ &\lesssim& \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{|I| = 2^k } 2^{-n_1/2} 2^{-n_2/2}  \left| \langle f_3 1_{\tilde{E}_3}1_{\{x|N(x) = k\}}, \tilde{1}_{I_P}\rangle \right| \\&\lesssim& 2^{-n_1/2} 2^{-n_2/2} 2^{-C d}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, summing over all $n_1, n_2$ such that $2^{-n_1} \lesssim 2^d |E_1|^{\alpha_1}$ and $2^{-n_2} \lesssim 2^d |E_2|^{\alpha_2}$ yields $\left| \Lambda(f_1, f_2, f_31_{\tilde{E}_3})\right| \lesssim \sum_{ d \geq 0} \sum_{ n_1, n_2} |\Lambda_d^{n_1, n_2} (f_1, f_2, f_3 1_{\tilde{E}_3}) | \lesssim  |E_1|^{\alpha_1/2} |E_2|^{\alpha_2/2}$. Setting $\alpha_1 = 2 / p_1, \alpha_2 = 2/p_2$ gives us restricted weak type estimates of the form $(1/p_1, 1/p_2, 1-1/p_1- 1/p_2)$ for all $2 \leq p_1, p_2 \leq \infty$.

\end{proof}
 \begin{corollary}
The restricted variation
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{V}^{res}_2 : f \mapsto \sup_{R \in \mathbb{R}_+} ~~\sup_{0 \leq \alpha  < R} ~~\left(\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}}  \left|f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \tilde{1}_{[\alpha + j R, \alpha + (j+1)R]}\right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2}
\end{eqnarray*}

maps $L^p(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^p(\mathbb{R})$ for all $2 < p <\infty$.
 \end{corollary}
 \begin{proof}
 Expand bumps functions on shifted non-dyadic intervals as Fourier series on dyadic intervals.
 \end{proof}

For completeness, we include the following negative result:
\begin{prop}
The operator $\mathcal{V}_2^{res}$ does not map $L^2 (\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^2(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Fix $\phi \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ such that $1_{[-1, 1]} \leq \hat{\phi} \leq 1_{[-2,2]}$. Fix $|x| \simeq 2^{l}$ for some $l >0$.  Then $\sum_{|Q| = 2^{l}} |\phi*\eta_Q(x)|^2 \simeq 2^{-l} $. Hence,

\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{l \in \mathbb{Z}} \left( \sum_{|Q| = 2^{-l}} |\phi * \eta_{Q}(x)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \gtrsim \frac{ 1}{1+|x|^{1/2}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Clearly, $\phi \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $\frac{1}{1+|x|^{1/2}} \not \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$.
\end{proof}

\section{Counterexamples for a Maximal Adjoint}

\begin{definition}
For $\tau \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\sigma \in \mathbb{R}_+$ let $I_\tau ^{\sigma} := [ \tau \sigma  - \sigma/2 , \tau \sigma + \sigma/2].$
\end{definition}

 \begin{prop}
Let $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty ([-1/2,1/2])$ satisfy $\eta \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]}$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}_\eta: (f, g) \mapsto \sup_{k \in \mathbb{R}_+}\left|  \sum_{\tau\in \mathbb{Z} } f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I_\tau^{k}} \right]  g*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \eta_{I_0^{k}}\right] \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1 p_2 / (p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ iff $p_1=\infty$ and $1 < p_2 \leq \infty$.

\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
 Restrict $k \geq 1$. Let $\hat{\eta} (x) = \sum_{ n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n e^{2 \pi i n x}$ so that $f \mapsto \sum_{ \tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f* \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \eta_{I^{k}_\tau} \right]$ has multiplier given by $m_k(\xi) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n e^{2 \pi i nk^{-1} \xi}$, and the operator may be represented as $f \mapsto \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n f(x-k^{-1} n)$.  Fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. Note $c_1 =\eta(-1) =  \int_{\mathbb{T}} \hat{\eta}(\xi) e^{-2 \pi i \xi} d\xi >0$.  Pick $f$ satisfying $1_{[-k_0^{-1}, k_0^{-1}]} \leq f \leq 1_{[-2k_0^{-1},2 k_0^{-1}]}$ and $g=1_{[-1,1]}$. Then $g * \eta_{I_0^k} \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]} $ for all $k \geq 1$. Thus,  $\sup_{k \in \mathbb{R}} \left| \sum_{\tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\eta_{I_\tau^k}(x)\right| =\sup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n f(x-k^{-1} n)\right|$. As $c_n =\eta(-n) \geq 0$ for all $n$, it suffices to observe

 \begin{eqnarray*}
 \mathcal{M}(f, g)(x) &\gtrsim& \sup_{k \geq 1} \left| \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n f(x-k^{-1} n) 1_{[-1,1]} (x)\right| \\ &\geq&  \sup_{k \geq 1} \left| c_1  f(x-k^{-1} ) \right| 1_{[-1,1]} (x) \\ &\gtrsim& 1_{[-1,1]}(x).
 \end{eqnarray*}
 Therefore, $\left| \left|  \mathcal{M}(f_{k_0}, g) \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} \gtrsim 1$ while $||f_k||_{p_0} \sim k_0^{-1/p_1}$ and $||g||_{p_2} \simeq 1$. If $p_1 = \infty$, then estimates are trivially satisfied by virtue of $\mathcal{M}(f, g)(x) \lesssim ||f||_\infty Mg(x). $

\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
Fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $S \subset [1, 2^{k_0}] \cap \mathbb{N}.$ Then there exists $n \in [-2^{-k_0}, 2^{k_0}] \cap \mathbb{Z}$ such that

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left\{ 2^k + n \right\}_{0 \leq k < k_0} \cap S \right|  \geq  \frac{ k_0 |S|}{2 2^{k_0}+1}.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
It suffices to note

\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{|n| \leq 2^{k_0}} \sum_{1 \leq m \leq 2^{k_0}} 1_S(m) 1_{\{ 2^k +n\}_{0 \leq k < k_0}}(m) =\sum_{1 \leq x \leq 2^{k_0}} 1_S(m)\sum_{|n| \leq 2^{k_0}}  1_{\{ 2^k +n\}_{0 \leq k < k_0}}(m) = k_0 |S|.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
Fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. Then there exists a set $\mathcal{N}_{k_0} \in [-2^{k_0}, 2^{k_0}] \cap \mathbb{Z}$ satisfying $|\mathcal{N}_{k_0}|\sim 2^{k_0} /k_0$ and

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \bigcup_{ n \in \mathcal{N}_{k_0}} \left\{ 2^k +n \right\}_{ 0 \leq k  < k_0} \right| \geq 2^{k_0}/2.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Initialize $S_0 = [1, 2^{k_0}]$. Then select $S_1 = S_0 \cap \left[ \{2^k\}_{0 \leq k<k_0}\right]^c$. Apply the proceeding lemma to $S= S_1$. This yields an $n_1$ such that

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left\{ 2^k\right\} \bigcup  \left\{ 2^k + n_1 \right\} \right| \gtrsim 2 k_0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Inductively, we obtain $S_\mu: |S_\mu| \leq |S_{\mu-1}| \left[ 1-\frac{ k_0}{2 \cdot 2^{k_0}} \right]$ and points $n_\mu$ for which

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| [1, 2^{k_0} ] \cap \left\{ \bigcup_{1  \leq \gamma \leq \mu} \left\{ 2^k + n_\mu \right\}_{1 \leq k < k_0} \right\} ^c \right| = |S_\mu|.
\end{eqnarray*}
 Therefore, $|S_\mu| \leq \left[ 1-\frac{ k_0}{2 \cdot 2^{k_0}} \right]^\mu 2^{k_0} \leq 2^{k_0} /2$ so long as

 \begin{eqnarray*}
\mu \gtrsim \frac{1}{|\log(1-\frac{k_0} {2 2^{k_0}})|} \sim \frac{2^{k_0}}{k_0}.
 \end{eqnarray*}

\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
Let $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty ([-1/2,1/2])$ satisfy $\eta \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]}$. Then

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}_\eta : (f, g) \mapsto \sup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \sum_{ \tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[\hat{ \eta}_{I^{2^k}_\tau} \right]  g *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[  \hat{\eta}_{I^{2^k}_0} \right] \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1p_2/(p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ iff $p_1 = \infty, 1 < p_2 \leq \infty$. \end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Clearly,  $M_\eta (f, g) (x) \lesssim ||f||_\infty Mg(x)$, so all estimates of the form $L^{\infty} \times L^{p_2} \rightarrow L^{p_2}$ are available. For the other direction, observe $\hat{\eta}(x) = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} c_n e^{2 \pi i n x}$ satisfies $c_n \geq 0$ for all $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $c_1>0$.
Let $f_{k_0} = \sum_{ n \in \mathcal{N}_{k_0}} f(2^{k_0} (x-n))$ with $f=1_{[-2^{-k_0}, 2^{-k_0}]} $  and $g=1_{[-1,1]}$. Then $||f_{k_0}||_{p_1} \sim k_0^{-1/p_1}, ||g||_{p_2} \sim 1$, while $\left| \left|\mathcal{M}_\eta (f_{k_0}, g) \right| \right|_{p_1 p_2/ (p_1 + p_2)} \sim 1$. As $p_1 \not = \infty$, taking $k_0 \rightarrow \infty$ yields the claim.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
Fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. Let $\mathcal{K} \subset [1, 2^{k_0-1}]$ satisfy $|\mathcal{K}| = k_0$ and assume $\min_{x \not =y \in \mathcal{K}}  |x-y| \geq 1$. Then there exists a set $\mathcal{N}_{k_0} \subset [-2^{k_0}, 2^{k_0}]$ satisfying $|\mathcal{N}_{k_0}| \sim 2^{k_0}/k_0$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal{K}}\bigcup_{\theta \in \mathcal{N} }[k+ \theta -1/2, k+ \theta +1/2] \cap [1, 2^{k_0}] \right|  \geq  2^{k_0}/2.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
For any set $X \subset \mathbb{R}$, let $N_1[X] := \left\{ x \in \mathbb{R} : dist(x, X) < 1/2 \right\}$. It suffices to note that for any subset $S \subset [1, 2^{k_0}]$

\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{[-2^{k_0}, 2^{k_0}]} \int_{\mathbb{R}} 1_S(x) 1_{N_{1/2}}\left[\mathcal{K}+n \right](x) dx dn=\int_{\mathbb{R}} 1_S(x)\int_{[-2^{k_0}, 2^{k_0}]}  1_{N_{1/2}}\left[ \mathcal{K}+n \right](x)dn dx = k_0 |S|.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, there exists  $\theta_1:-2^{k_0} \leq \theta_1 \leq  2^{k_0}$ such that

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|  \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal{K}} [ k +\theta_1-1/2, k + \theta_1 + 1/2]  \cap S \right| \geq \frac{ k_0 |S|} {2^{k_0+1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Iterate this process exactly as before to obtain a set $\mathcal{N}$ of size $|\mathcal{K}| /k_0$ for which

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \bigcup_{\theta \in \mathcal{N}_{k_0}(\mathcal{K})} \bigcup_{k \in \mathcal{K}} [ k +\theta-1/2, k + \theta + 1/2] \cap [1, 2^{k_0} ]\right| \geq 2^{k_0} /2.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
Let $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty ([-1/2,1/2])$ satisfy $\eta \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]}$.  Let $\Sigma \subset \mathbb{R}$ satisfy  $\#\left\{ \Sigma \right\}=\infty$.  Then

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}^\Sigma_\eta : (f, g) \mapsto \sup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \left| \sum_{ \tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I^{\sigma}_\tau} \right] g *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[  \hat{\eta}_{I^{\sigma}_0} \right] \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1p_2/(p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ iff $p_1 = \infty, 1 < p_2 \leq \infty$. \end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. By scaling invariance, we may assume $\sigma \geq 2$ for at least $k_0$ many $\sigma \in \Sigma$. Denote this collection by $\Sigma_{k_0}$. Let $\Sigma^{-1}_{k_0}$ be the collection of reciprocals in $(0,1/2]$ and let $\delta_{k_0}$ be smaller than the minimum distance between two elements in $\Sigma^{-1}_{k_0}$ such that $ \lim_{k_0 \rightarrow \infty} k_0 \delta_{k_0}=0$. Then we may set $f(x)= 1_{[-\mathfrak{d}_k, \mathfrak{d}_k]}(x)$, $f_{k_0}(x) = \sum_{ n \in  \mathfrak{d}_k \mathcal{N}_{k_0}(\mathfrak{d}_k^{-1} \Sigma_{k_0}^{-1}) } f(\mathfrak{d}_{k_0}^{-1}(x-n))$, and $g=1_{[-1,1]}$. It is easy to observe $\mathcal{M}(f_{k_0}, g) \gtrsim 1_{\mathcal{S}_{k_0}}$ for some $\mathcal{S}_{k_0} \subset [0,1]$ with $|\mathcal{S}_{k_0}| \simeq 1$ while $||f_{k_0}||_{p_1} \sim k_0^{-1/p_1}$ and $||g||_{p_2} \sim 1$.
\end{proof}

\section{Mixed Counterexamples for a Maximal Adjoint}
\begin{definition}
For any $2 \leq p_1 \leq \infty$, let $W_{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) := \left\{ f \in L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}): \hat{f} \in L^{p_1^\prime}(\mathbb{R}) \right\}$ with $||f ||_{W_{p_2}(\mathbb{R})}:= || \hat{f}||_{L^{p_1^\prime}(\mathbb{R})}$.
\end{definition}
The Hausdorff-Young inequality says $|| f||_{L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R})} \leq  ||f ||_{W_{p_1}(\mathbb{R})} $ whenever $2 \leq p_2 \leq \infty$. Therefore, despite the fact that no $L^p$ estimates are available for $\mathcal{M}_\eta$, it is natural to ask whether any mixed estimates of the form $W_{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1 p_2 / (p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ hold for $2 < p_1 \leq \infty$ and $1 \leq p_1 \leq \infty$. This section shows that there are no non-trivial positive answers to the above question.

\begin{prop}
Let $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty ([-1/2,1/2])$ satisfy $\eta \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]}$. Then the maximal dyadic operator

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}_\eta : (f, g) \mapsto \sup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \sum_{ \tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I^{2^k}_\tau} \right] g *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{ \eta}_{I^{2^k}_0}\right] \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $W_{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1p_2/(p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ iff $p_1 = \infty, 1 < p_2 \leq \infty$. \end{prop}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove unboundedness for $(f,g) \mapsto \sup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| f(\cdot-2^{-k}) g*\eta_{I_0^{2^k}} \right|$. To this end, we exploit the structure of the set $\{2^k\}_{k \in \mathbb{Z}}$ using a few elementary number theoretic facts: for every $m \geq 1$, the orbit of $\{2^k~\mod 5^m \}_{0 \leq k < 4 \cdot 5^{m-1}}$ consists of $4 \cdot 5^{m-1}$ distinct points.  This follows from the fact that $\phi (5^m) = 4 \cdot 5^{m-1}$, $2$ is a primitive root of $(\mathbb{Z}/ (5 \mathbb{Z}))^\times$, and $2^{5-1} \not \equiv 1 \mod 5^2$ ensure $2$ is a primitive root $\mod 5^m$ for all $m \geq 1$. Next, fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. Choose $m_0$ so that $ 5^{m_0} \sim k_0$. Then observe

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \bigcup_{0 \leq \tau \leq 2^{k_0} /k_0} \bigcup_{0 \leq k \leq k_0} \left[2^{k} + \tau 5^{m_0} -1/2, 2^k + \tau 5^{m_0}  +1/2 \right] \right| \gtrsim 2^{k_0} .
\end{eqnarray*}
This observation enables us to choose $f_{k_0} (x) = \sum_{|\tau| \leq 2^{k_0}/k_0} f(2^{k_0}(x+ \tau 5^{m_0}))$ and with $g=1_{[-1,1]}$ in which case $\left| \left|\mathcal{M}_\eta (f_{k_0}, g) \right| \right|_{p_1p_2/(p_1 + p_2)} \gtrsim 1$ and $||g||_{p_2} \sim 1$. It remains to show $||\hat{f}_{k_0}||_{p_1^\prime} \sim k_0^{-1/p_1}$. By rescaling, it clearly suffices to the bound

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left| \sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda} e^{2 \pi i \lambda \cdot} \right| \right|_{L^{p^\prime}(\mathbb{T})} \sim |\Lambda|^{1/p}
\end{eqnarray*}
whenever $1 \leq p^\prime \leq 2$ and $\Lambda$ is an arithmetic progression of length $|\Lambda|$. Suppose $\Lambda = \left\{ \sigma + \gamma k \right\}_{k_0 \leq k \leq k_1}$. Then

\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{\lambda \in  \Lambda} e^{2 \pi i \lambda x} = e^{2 \pi i \sigma x} \frac{ e^{2 \pi i \gamma k_0 x} \left[ 1- e^{2 \pi i \gamma (k_1 - k_0  + 2)(x)}\right]}{1-e^{2 \pi i \gamma x} }.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is very simple to observe $\left| \left| \sum_{\lambda \in  \Lambda} e^{2 \pi i \lambda \cdot} \right| \right|_{L^{p^\prime}(\mathbb{T})} =\left| \left| \frac{ \sin ( \pi \gamma  \left[  k_1-k_0+2 \right] x)}{\sin ( \pi \gamma x)} \right| \right|_{L^{p^\prime}(\mathbb{T})}$. Changing variables yields

\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma^{-1/p^\prime} \left| \left| \frac{ \sin ( \pi  \left[  k_1-k_0+2 \right] x)}{\sin ( \pi x)} \right| \right|_{L^{p^\prime}(\gamma \mathbb{T})} \simeq  \left| \left| \frac{ \sin ( \pi  \left[  k_1-k_0+2 \right] x)}{\sin ( \pi x)} \right| \right|_{L^{p^\prime}(\mathbb{T})} \sim |k_1- k_0|^{1/p} \sim |\Lambda|^{1/p}.
\end{eqnarray*}
 Indeed, the routine computations are as follows: the integrand is $\lesssim |k_1 - k_0 +2| $ on a set of size $\frac{1}{|k_1-k_0| }$. On $|x| \gtrsim \frac{1}{|k_1-k_2 + 2|}$, the integrand is at most $\frac{1}{|x|}$. Integration yields $ \left[  \frac{1}{|k_1-k_2 + 2|} \right]^{(-p^\prime +1)/ p^\prime} =  \left[ |k_1-k_2 + 2| \right]^{1/p}  $.

\end{proof}

Note that we ruled out non-trivial mixed estimates for $\mathcal{M}_\eta$ by relying on two facts: (1) for each $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$, $\{2^k : 1 \leq k \leq k_0 \}$ consists of approximately $k_0$ distinct integers modulo some integer of the same magnitude as $k_0$; (2) the characteristic function of some $\delta-$ neighborhood of an arithmetic progression is a quasi-extremizer for the Hausdorff-Young inequality. It is clear, however, that ruling out non-trivial mixed estimates for $\mathcal{M}^\Sigma_\eta$ in the case of a generic infinite set $\Sigma$ cannot rely on fact $(1)$ and so requires other insights.  Of course, fact $(2)$ has nothing to do with  $\Sigma$ and therefore remains at our disposal.

The following lemma say that for any infinite set $\mathcal{S}\subset \mathbb{R}$ with a suitable growth condition it is the case that for  any $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ there is always some (potentially non-integer) length $\mathcal{L}_{k_0}(\mathcal{S})  \sim k_0$ so that the first $k_0$ elements of $\mathcal{S}$ are essentially disjoint modulo $\mathcal{L}_{k_0}(\mathcal{S})$. More precisely, we have

\begin{lemma}\label{HL}
Let $\mathcal{S}=\left\{ \alpha_j \right\} \subset \mathbb{R} ^+$ with $\alpha_1=1$ and rapidly increasing in the sense that $\alpha_{j+1}  \geq 2^j  \alpha_j $ for all $j \in \mathbb{N}$. Then there exists an absolute constant $C>0$ such that for every $k \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists $\theta_k \sim 1/k$ so that $|| \alpha_j \theta_k||_\mathbb{T} \sim j /k$ for all $\lceil C \log(k) \rceil\leq j \leq k$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note $\alpha _j \geq 2^{j-1} $.  Choose an absolute constant $C$ large enough so that there exists $\theta =:\theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil} \geq 1/k$ satisfying $0 \leq \theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil}- 1/k \leq  1/\alpha_{\lceil C \log(k)\rceil} \leq 1/(8k)$ and $|| \alpha_{\lceil C\log(k) \lceil} \theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil} ||_{\mathbb{T}}= 1/k$. Next, choose $\theta_2$ so that $|| \alpha_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil+1} \theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil+1}||_{\mathbb{T}} = 2/k$ and $0 \leq \theta_2 - \theta_1 \leq 1/ \alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k) \rceil+1} $. Observe that

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| || \alpha_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil}\theta_{\lceil C\log(k) \rceil+1}  ||_\mathbb{T} - || \alpha_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil} \theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil}||_\mathbb{T} \right| &\leq& || \alpha_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil} (\theta _{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil  +1} - \theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil }) ||_\mathbb{T} \\&\leq& 2^{-C \log(k)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, choose $\theta_{\rceil C\log(k)  \rceil+2}$ satisfying $||\alpha_{ \lceil C  \log(k) \rceil +2} \theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil +2}||_\mathbb{T} =3/k$ and such that $0 \leq \theta_3 - \theta_2 \leq  1/ \alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k) \rceil+2}$. This ensures

\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| || \alpha_{\lceil C\log(k) \rceil } \theta _{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil+2} || _\mathbb{T} - || \alpha_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil }  \theta _{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil} || _\mathbb{T} \right| \\&\leq&  || \alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k)\rceil} (\theta _{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil  +2}-\theta_{\lceil C \log(k)\rceil }) || _\mathbb{T}\\ & \leq & || \alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k) \rceil} (\theta _{\lceil C\log(k) \rceil +2}-\theta_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil +1}) || _\mathbb{T}+ || \alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k) \rceil } (\theta _{\lceil C \log(k)\rceil  +1}-\theta_{\lceil C\log(k)\rceil }) || _\mathbb{T} \\ &<& \frac{ \alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k) \rceil }}{ \alpha_{\lceil C \log(k) \rceil  +2}} + \frac{\alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k)\rceil }}{\alpha_{\lceil C  \log(k) \rceil +1}} \\ &\leq&   2^{-2C \log (k)  -1}  + 2^{-C \log (k)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Iterating this construction yields $\theta_k \sim 1/k$ so that $|| \alpha_j \theta_k||_\mathbb{T} \sim j/k$ for all $\lceil C \log(k)  \rceil \leq j \leq k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{reptheorem}{P3}
Let $\hat{\eta} \in C^\infty ([-1/2,1/2])$ satisfy $\eta \gtrsim 1_{[-1,1]}$.  Let $\Sigma \subset \mathbb{R}$ satisfy $\#\left\{ \Sigma \right\}=\infty$.  Then

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{M}^\Sigma_\eta : (f, g) \mapsto \sup_{\sigma \in \Sigma} \left| \sum_{ \tau \in \mathbb{Z}} f*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I^{\sigma}_\tau} \right] g * \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{I^{\sigma}_0}\right] \right|
\end{eqnarray*}
maps $W_{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1p_2/(p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ iff $p_1 = \infty, 1 < p_2 \leq \infty$.
 \end{reptheorem}

\begin{proof}
Fix $k_0 \in \mathbb{N}$. By scaling and translation invariance, we may assume $\sigma \geq 2$ for $k_0$ many $\sigma \in \Sigma$ which satisfy $2 = \sigma_1 \leq 2^{-1} \cdot \sigma_2 \leq 2^{-1-2} \sigma_3 \leq ... \leq 2^{-1-2- ... - k_0} \sigma_{k_0}$. That is,  $\sigma_j \leq 2^{-j} \sigma_{j+1}$ for all $j \in \{1, ..., k_0-1\}$.  Denote this collection by $\Sigma_{k_0}$. Let $\Sigma^{-1}_{k_0}$ be the collection of reciprocals in $(0,1/2]$ so that $\sigma_{k_0} \Sigma_{k_0}^{-1}$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma \ref{HL}. Therefore, invoke Lemma \ref{HL} to find $\theta_{k_0}$. Set $g(x) = \phi (x):= \langle x \rangle ^{-10} $ together with $f_{k_0}(x) = \sum_{| \tau| \leq \lceil \sigma_{k_0} \theta_{k_0} \rceil } \phi(\sigma_{k_0}(x- \tau /(\sigma_{k_0}\theta_{k_0})))$. Let $g= \phi$.   For each $j : C\log(k_0) \leq j \leq k_0$,  there exists $\tau:0 \leq  \tau \leq \lceil \sigma_{k_0} \theta_{k_0} \rceil $ so that $0 \leq \alpha_j \theta_{k_0}  - \tau< 1$. Then $\sigma_{k_0} \sigma_{k_0 - j +1}^{-1}:=\alpha_j  = \frac{j}{k_0 \theta_{k_0}}    +\frac{\tau}{ \theta_{k_0}} + O(1)$.  Let  $S_{k_0}: = \bigcup_{0 \leq \tau \leq \lceil \sigma_{k_0} \theta_{k_0} \rceil}\bigcup_{ C\log(k_0) \leq j \leq k_0}  \left\{\frac{  j }{\sigma_{k_0} k_0 \theta_{k_0}} + \frac{ \tau }{\sigma_{k_0}\theta_{k_0}} \right\}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{k_0} := \left\{ x: dist(x ,S_{k_0} ) \leq 1/ \sigma_{k_0} \right\}$.  Then $\mathcal{M}_\eta (f_{k_0}, g) \gtrsim 1_{\mathcal{S}_{k_0}}$ and $|\mathcal{S}_{k_0}| \simeq 1$, yet $||\hat{f}_k||_{p_1^\prime} \simeq k^{-1/p_1}$ and $||g||\simeq 1$.
\end{proof}

 \section{Estimates for Periodically Discretized Hilbert Transforms in the Plane}
As we have seen, symbols $m: \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ adapted to the singularity $\Gamma = \{\xi_1 + \xi_2 =0\}$ in the Mikhlin-H\"ormander sense that

 \begin{eqnarray*}
\left |\partial^{\vec{\alpha}} m(\vec{\xi})\right| \lesssim_{\vec{\alpha}} \frac{1}{dist(\vec{\xi}, \Gamma)^{|\vec{\alpha}|}}
 \end{eqnarray*}
 for arbitrarily many multi-indices $\vec{\alpha}$ need not be bounded operators on any $L^p(\mathbb{R})$ spaces. Of course, there are non-trivial multipliers obeying the above inequality such as $H_2:(f,g) \mapsto H(f \cdot g)$, which clearly satisfy all Banach $L^p$ estimates. Our next result says that any bilinear multiplier consisting of frequency localized pieces arranged in a Whitney decomposition with respect to the singular line $\{\xi_1 + \xi_2 =0\}$ with the additional property that at each scale its frequency projections are equally-spaced, translated copies of each other maps $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{p_1 p_2 / (p_1 + p_2)}(\mathbb{R})$ for all $2 \leq  p_1, p_2 <\infty$ satisfying $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2} <1$.
  \begin{reptheorem}{P4}
Fix $ \hat{\eta} \in C^{\infty} ([-1/2, 1/2])$. Let $m : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be given by

\begin{eqnarray*}
m(\xi_1, \xi_2) = \sum_{\vec{P} \in \mathbb{P}} \hat{\eta}_{P_1}(\xi_1)  \hat{\eta}_{P_2}(\xi_2)
\end{eqnarray*}
where

\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P} := \bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}\left\{  \left[m2^{-k}-2^{-k-1}, m2^{-k} + 2^{-k-1}\right] \times  \left[m2^{-k}-2^{-k-1}+\Gamma 2^{-k} , m2^{-k} + 2^{-k-1}+\Gamma 2^{-k}\right]  \right\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, for every pair $(p_1, p_2)$ such that $2 \leq p_1, p_2 <\infty$ with $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} <1$

\begin{eqnarray*}
|| T_m(f_1, f_2) || _{\frac{p_1 p_2 }{p_1 + p_2}} \lesssim_{\vec{p}} || f_1||_{p_1} || f_2||_{p_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{reptheorem}

\begin{proof}
We may assume that $|\vec{P}| \leq 1$ for all $\vec{P} \in \mathbb{P}$ using scaling invariance and a standard limiting argument. In addition, we may assume $f_1, f_2 \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ by density.   Next, by expanding each function in Fourier series on each translated smooth interval $I_n= [n-1/2, n+1/2]$, we face for $\bar{1}_{I_n}(x):= \bar{1}(x-n)$ for some $\bar{1} \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ satisfying $1_{[-1/4,  1/4]} \leq \bar{1} \leq 1_{[3/4, 3/4]}$

\begin{eqnarray*}
f_1(x) &=& \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} f_1(x) \bar{1}_{I_n}(x) =  \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{ \mu \in \mathbb{Z}} c_{1,n}^\mu e^{2 \pi i \frac{2}{3} \mu (x-n)}\bar{1}_{I_{n}} (x)  \\
f_2(x) &=&  \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} f_2(x) \bar{1}_{I_n}(x) =  \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{ \mu \in \mathbb{Z}} c_{2,n}^\mu e^{2 \pi i \frac{2}{3} \mu (x-n)}\bar{1}_{I_{n}} (x) .
\end{eqnarray*}
By standard L-P equivalence, we have that

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left|   \sum_{k \geq 0} \sum_{|\vec{P}| = 2^{-k}} f_1  * \eta_{P_1} f_2 * \eta_{P_2}  \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} \simeq \left| \left|\left(  \sum_{k \geq 0} \left| \sum_{|\vec{P}| = 2^{-k}} f_1  * \eta_{P_1} f_2 * \eta_{P_2} \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
 At this stage, it is helpful to introduce mollify the frequency projections. Motivation for this approach is mainly technical and should become clearer in the course of the proof. By introducing more smoothness in frequency we expect to extract more decay in time.

 Consider the periodic tent function $T$ defined to be $1-2|x|$ for $|x| \leq 1/2$ and $T(x)=T(y)$ for any $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $x-y\in \mathbb{Z}$, i.e. T is the periodic extension with period 1 of the tent function to all of $\mathbb{R}$. Also, construct the shifted periodic  tent function $\tilde{T}:= T(x+1/2)$. It is simple matter to see $T(x) + \tilde{T}(x) = 1$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. Define for any $\vec{Q} = (Q_1, Q_2)$

\begin{eqnarray*}
a_{\vec{Q}}&=& T(c_{Q_1}-|Q|/2) \\
b_{\vec{Q}} &=& \tilde{T}(c_{Q_1}-|Q|/2).
\end{eqnarray*}
By construction, $a_{\vec{Q}} + b_{\vec{Q}} =1~ \forall \vec{Q}$. Because of the triangle inequality, it suffices to prove separate estimates for

\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \left|\left(  \sum_{k \geq 0} \left| \sum_{|\vec{P}| = 2^{-k}} a_{\vec{P}} f_1  * \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_1} \right]  f_2 * \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_2}\right]  \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} \\ \text{and}&&\left| \left|\left(  \sum_{k \geq 0} \left| \sum_{|\vec{P}| = 2^{-k}} b_{\vec{P}} f_1  * \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_1}\right]  f_2 *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{ \eta}_{P_2} \right]\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
So, consider the $b_{\vec{P}}$ part of the sum. Fix $\bar{1}^\prime \in C^{\infty}_{[-1/2, 3/2]}$ satisfying $1_{[0,1]} \leq \bar{1}^\prime \leq 1_{[-1/2, 3/2]}$ and set $\bar{1}^\prime_{I_m} (x):= \bar{1}^\prime(x-m)$.  Compute for $c_{P_1} = m +(\gamma+1/2)2^{-k}$ and $0 \leq \gamma <2^{k}$ using Fourier series on the interval $[m-1/2, m+3/2]$

\begin{eqnarray*}
 \mathcal{F} \left( \left(\bar{1}_{I_0}(\cdot-n) e^{2 \pi i \frac{2}{3} \mu (\cdot -n)}\right) * \eta_{P_1} \right) (\xi)&=& \hat{\bar{1}} _{I_0} \left(\xi- \frac{2}{3} \mu\right)e ^{-2 \pi i n \xi} \cdot\hat{\eta}_{P_1}(\xi) \\ &=&  \hat{\bar{1}} _{I_0} \left(\xi- \frac{2}{3} \mu\right) \bar{1}^\prime_{I_{m}}(\xi) e ^{-2 \pi i n \xi} \cdot\hat{\eta}_{P_1}(\xi)  \\ &=& \sum_{\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}} d^\lambda_{m, \mu} e^{2 \pi i \frac{1}{2} \lambda \xi} \bar{1}^\prime_{I_{m}}(\xi) e ^{-2 \pi i n \xi} \cdot\hat{\eta}_{P_1}(\xi) \\ &=& \sum_{\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}} d^\lambda_{m, \mu} e^{2 \pi i (\frac{ \lambda}{2} -n)\xi} \cdot\hat{\eta}_{P_1}(\xi) ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $|d^\lambda_{m , \mu}| \lesssim \frac{1}{(1+|\lambda|^N)(1+ | m - \frac{2}{3} \mu |^N)}$. It follows immediately that

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left[ \tilde{1}_{I_0}(\cdot-n) e^{2 \pi i \frac{2}{3} \mu (\cdot -n)}\right] * \eta_{P_1} &=& \sum_{\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}} d^\lambda_{m, \mu}  \cdot \eta_{P_1}\left(x-n+\frac{\lambda}{2}\right) \\&=& \sum_{\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}} d^\lambda_{m, \mu} 2^{-k}  \eta\left(\left(x-n+\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)2^{-k}\right) e^{2 \pi i (m + ( \gamma+1/2) 2^{-k})(x-n + \frac{\lambda}{2})},
\end{eqnarray*}
Putting it all together yields

\begin{eqnarray*}
f_1 *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_1}\right] (x) &=& \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\mu \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}} c_{1,n } ^\mu d^\lambda_{m, \mu} 2^{-k}  \eta \left(\left(x-n+\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)2^{-k}\right) e^{2 \pi i (m + (\gamma+1/2) 2^{-k})(x-n + \frac{\lambda}{2})} \\
f_2*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \eta_{P_2}\right] (x) &=& \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\mu \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\lambda \in \mathbb{Z}} c_{2,n } ^\mu d^\lambda_{m, \mu} 2^{-k}  \eta\left(\left(x-n+\frac{\lambda}{2}\right)2^{-k}\right) e^{2 \pi i (-m - (\gamma+1/2) 2^{-k}+\Gamma 2^{-k})(x-n + \frac{\lambda}{2})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Furthermore, using $\tilde{1}_{2^k I_{\theta}}(x) := \eta((x-\theta)2^{-k})$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left|  \sum_{|\vec{P}| = 2^{-k}}b_{\vec{P}} f_1 * \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_1}\right] (x) f_2 *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{ \eta}_{P_2}\right] (x)\right|  \\&=&\left| \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{0 \leq \gamma < 2^{k}} \sum_{n_1, n_2, \mu_1, \mu_2, \lambda _1, \lambda _2 \in \mathbb{Z}}2^{-2k}c_{1, n_1}^{\mu_1} c_{2, n_2}^{\mu_2} d^{\lambda_1}_{m, \mu_1} d^{\lambda _2} _{m, \mu_2}   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}}(x) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_2 - \frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}(x)\right. \\&\times&\left.  \tilde{T}(m+\gamma2^{-k}) e^{2 \pi i (m+  (\gamma+1/2) 2^{-k})(n_2-n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda _2)}{2})} e^{ 2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2})}\right|\\ &=&  \left| \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}  \sum_{n_1, n_2, \mu_1, \mu_2, \lambda _1, \lambda _2 \in \mathbb{Z}}2^{-2k}c_{1, n_1}^{\mu_1} c_{2, n_2}^{\mu_2} d^{\lambda_1}_{m, \mu_1} d^{\lambda _2} _{m, \mu_2}   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}}(x) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_2 - \frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}(x)  \right. \\&\times&\left.  \left[ \sum_{0 \leq \gamma < 2^{k}}\tilde{T}(m+\gamma2^{-k}) e^{2 \pi i   \gamma 2^{-k}(n_2-n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda _2)}{2})} \right]e^{2 \pi i (m+2^{-k-1})(n_2-n_1 +\frac{(\lambda _1 - \lambda_2)}{2})}e^{ -2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2})}\right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
The sum over $\gamma$ is

\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{0 \leq \gamma <2^k} \tilde{T}(m+\gamma 2^{-k}) e^{ 2 \pi i \gamma 2^{-k} (n_2 -n_1 + \frac{(\lambda _1 - \lambda_2)}{2})} &=& \sum_{0 \leq \gamma <2^k} \tilde{T}(\gamma 2^{-k}) e^{ 2 \pi i \gamma 2^{-k} (n_2 -n_1 + \frac{(\lambda _1 - \lambda_2)}{2})} \\ &=&  \sum_{-2^{k-1} \leq \gamma <2^{k-1}}
(1-2|\gamma 2^{-k}|) e^{ 2 \pi i \gamma 2^{-k} (n_2 -n_1 + \frac{(\lambda _1 - \lambda_2)}{2})} e^{2 \pi i \frac{1}{2} (n_2-n_1 + \frac{\lambda_1 - \lambda_2}{2})}\\ &=& F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} \left(n_2-n_1 +\frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)}{2}\right)\right)  e^{2 \pi i \frac{1}{2} (n_2-n_1 + \frac{\lambda_1 - \lambda_2}{2})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore,

\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left|  \sum_{|\vec{P}| = 2^{-k}}b_{\vec{P}} f_1 *\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[  \hat{\eta}_{P_1}\right](x) f_2 * \mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_2}\right](x) \right| \\ &=&\left|   \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}  \sum_{n_1, n_2, \mu_1, \mu_2, \lambda _1, \lambda _2 \in \mathbb{Z}}2^{-2k}c_{1, n_1}^{\mu_1} c_{2, n_2}^{\mu_2} d^{\lambda_1}_{m, \mu_1} d^{\lambda _2} _{m, \mu_2}   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}}(x) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_2 - \frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}(x)  \right. \\&\times& \left. F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} (n_2-n_1 +\frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)}{2})\right) e^{2 \pi i (m+\frac{1}{2}+2^{-k-1})(n_2-n_1 +\frac{(\lambda _1 - \lambda_2)}{2})}e^{- 2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2})}\right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
The sum containing coefficients $a_{\vec{P}}$ is handled similarly as the sum containing coefficients $b_{\vec{P}}$, so the details are omitted. The expression one derives in this case is

\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \sum_{|\vec{P}|=2^{-k}} a_{\vec{P}} f_1*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \hat{\eta}_{P_1}\right] (x) f_2*\mathcal{F}^{-1} \left[ \eta_{P_2}\right] (x) \right| \\ &=& \left|  \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}  \sum_{n_1, n_2, \mu_1, \mu_2, \lambda _1, \lambda _2 \in \mathbb{Z}}2^{-2k}c_{1, n_1}^{\mu_1} c_{2, n_2}^{\mu_2} \tilde{d}^{\lambda_1}_{m, \mu_1} \tilde{d}^{\lambda _2} _{m, \mu_2}   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}}(x) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_2 - \frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}(x)  \right. \\&\times& \left. F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} (n_2-n_1 +\frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)}{2})\right) e^{2 \pi i (m+2^{-k-1})(n_2-n_1 +\frac{(\lambda _1 - \lambda_2)}{2})}e^{ -2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2})}\right|,
\end{eqnarray*}
 where $\tilde{d}^\lambda_{m, \mu}$ satisfies the same decay properties as $d^\lambda_{m, \mu}$, i.e. $|\tilde{d}^\lambda_{m, \mu}| \lesssim_N \frac{1}{(1+|\lambda|^N)(1+|m-\frac{2\mu}{3}|^N)}$. Now it suffices to make use of the point-wise bound for the Fej\'er kernel:

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| F_{2^k} \left( 2^{-k} \left(n_2-n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda _2)}{2}\right)\right)\right| \lesssim \frac{2^k}{1 + \left| n_2-n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda _2)}{2}\right|^2}
\end{eqnarray*}
assuming $|n_2-n_1 + \frac{\lambda_1 - \lambda _2}{2}| \lesssim 2^k$. By $2^k$-periodicity, we have the same bound for $|n_2-n_1 + \frac{ \lambda_1 - \lambda _2}{2}| \simeq \kappa 2^k$:

\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| F_{2^k} \left( 2^{-k} \left(n_2-n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda _2)}{2}\right)\right)\right| \lesssim \frac{2^k}{1 + \left| n_2-n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda _2)}{2}-\kappa2^k \right|^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}

\subsection{Dominant Contribution}
The dominant contribution to the sum of  frequency projections over a given scale arises from the terms corresponding to $\frac{2}{3}\mu_1 \simeq \frac{2}{3} \mu_2 \simeq m$, along with $\lambda _1 = \lambda _2 =0$ and $\kappa=0$. Under these assumptions, the sum over $m,n_1, n_2: |n_1-n_2| <2^{k-1}$ is majorized by

\begin{eqnarray*}
 2^{-2k}  d^0_{m,m} d^0_{m,m}c_{1, n_1}^{m}\tilde{1}_{2^kI_{n_1}}(x)  \cdot c_{2, n_2}^{m}  \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_2 }}(x) e^{ 2 \pi i (m+ 2^{-k-1} )\left(n_2 -n_1 \right)} e^{-2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} n_2} F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} (n_1-n_2)\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Furthermore, if $n_1=n_2$, we face

\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \sum_{ m, n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}}  2^{-k}d^0_{m,m} d^0_{m,m} c_{1, n_1}^{m}c_{2, n_1}^{m} \tilde{1}_{2^kI_{n_1}} (x)   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1 }}(x) e^{-2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} n_1}\right| =~~\left| \left[ \sum_{ m,n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left[ d^0_{m,m} \right]^2 c_{1, n_1}^{m}c_{2, n_1}^{m} \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1}}\right] *\tilde{\psi}_k(x) \right|,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I}(x):= \tilde{\tilde{1}}(x-c_I)$,  $\tilde{\tilde{1}} \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ satisfies $1_{[0,1]} \leq  \mathcal{F} \left( \tilde{\tilde{1}}\right) \leq 1_{[-1, 2]}$, and $\tilde{\psi}_k(x):= 2^{-k} \tilde{\psi}(2^{-k} x)$ where $\tilde{\psi}(x):=\tilde{1}^2(x) e ^{2 \pi i \Gamma x}$.
Therefore, we are able to compute the $L^p$ norm of this dominant expression as

\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left|\left| \left(\sum_{k \geq 0} \left| \left[ \sum_{ m,n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left[ d^0_{m,m} \right]^2  c_{1, n_1}^{m}c_{2, n_1}^{m}\tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1}}\right] *\tilde{\psi}_k \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}\\& \lesssim& \left|\left|\sum_{ m,n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left[ d^0_{m,m} \right]^2 c_{1, n_1}^{m}c_{2, n_1}^{m}\tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1}} \right|\right|_\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2} \\ &\leq& \left|\left| \sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}| c_{1, n_1}^{m}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left( \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}} |c_{2, n_1}^{m}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left| \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1}} \right|\right|\right|_\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2} \\ &\leq&  \left|\left|\left(  \sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}| c_{1, n_1}^{m}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left|  \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1}} \right|\right)\left( \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left( \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}} |c_{2, n_1}^{m}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left| \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2}}\right| \right|\right|\right|_\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2} \\ &\leq& \left|\left|  \sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}}| c_{1, n_1}^{m}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left|  \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1}}\right|  \right| \right|_{p_1} \left|  \left| \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left( \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}} |c_{2, n_1}^{m}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left| \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2}} \right| \right|\right|_{p_2} \\  &\simeq& \left( \sum_{n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left( \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}} |c^m_{1, n_1}|^2 \right)^{p_1/2} \right)^{1/p_1} \left( \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left( \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}} |c^m_{2, n_2}|^2 \right)^{p_2/2} \right)^{1/p_2} \\ &\leq& \left( \sum_{n_1 \in \mathbb{Z}}  || f_1 \bar{1}_{I_n}||_{p_1}^{p_1} \right)^{1/p_1} \left( \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} ||f_2\bar{1}_{I_{n_2}}||_{p_2}^{p_2} \right)^{1/p_2} \\  &\lesssim& || f_1||_{p_1} ||f_2||_{p_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The assumption $2 \leq p_1, p_2 <\infty$ is necessary to observe $\left( \sum_{m_1 \in \mathbb{Z}} |c_{1, n_1}^{m_1}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \simeq || f_1 \bar{1}_{I_{n_1}} ||_2 \lesssim ||f_1 \bar{1}_{I_{n_1}}||_{p_1}$.

Before removing restrictions on the parameters $\mu_1, \mu_2, \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \kappa, n_1, n_2$, it is useful to observe
\begin{lemma}\label{ML}
Let $\tilde{1}\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ have compact Fourier support inside $[-1,1]$. Then, there exists $\tilde{\tilde{1}}\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ such that for all $L \in \mathbb{R}$

\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{1}_{2^kI_{\theta}} (x) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{\theta +L}} (x) e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (x-\theta-L)} = \frac{2^k}{1+(2^{-k}L)^2} \left(Tr_{\theta +L} \tilde{\tilde{1}} \right)* \psi_k^{L}(x)
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\psi_k ^{L}$ is lacunary at scale $2^k$ and uniformly Mikhlin in the parameter $L$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The result follows from a direct application of the Fourier transform:
\begin{eqnarray*}
2^{-k} \mathcal{F} (LHS) (\xi)&=& 2^{-k} \mathcal{F} \left[ \tilde{1}_{2^kI_{\theta}} (\cdot) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{\theta +L}}(\cdot) e^{-2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (\cdot-L-\theta)}  \right] (\xi)\\ &=& 2^{-k} \mathcal{F} \left[ \tilde{1}_{2^k I_0} (\cdot +L) \tilde{1}_{2^k I_0}(\cdot ) e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} \cdot }\right] (\xi) e^{-2 \pi i \xi (L+\theta)} \\ &=& 2^{-k} \mathcal{F} \left[ \tilde{1}_{ I_0} (2^{-k} \cdot +2^{-k} L) \tilde{1}_{I_0}(2^{-k} \cdot) e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} \cdot}\right](\xi)  e^{-2 \pi i \xi (L+\theta)} \\ &=& \mathcal{F} \left[ \tilde{1}_{ I_0} (\cdot +2^{-k}L) \tilde{1}_{I_0}( \cdot) e^{2 \pi i \Gamma \cdot}\right] (2^k \xi) e^{-2 \pi i \xi (L+\theta)}\\ &=& \left[ \left( \hat{\tilde{1}}_{ I_0} (\cdot )e^{2 \pi i 2^{-k} L \cdot}\right) * \hat{ \tilde{1}}_{I_0}( \cdot)\right] (2^k\xi-\Gamma) e^{-2 \pi i \xi (L+\theta)} .
\end{eqnarray*}
The support of $\left[ \hat{\tilde{1}}_{ I_0} (\cdot )e^{2 \pi i 2^{-k} L \cdot} * \hat{ \tilde{1}}_{I_0}( \cdot)\right] (2^k\xi-\Gamma)$ is contained inside $[0, K]$ for $K \simeq 1$. Therefore, one may insert another function  $\Phi \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ (which is identically equal to one on $[0,K]$) into the last expression:

\begin{eqnarray*}
2^{-k}\mathcal{F}(LHS)(\xi)&=&\left[  \Phi (\xi) e^{-2 \pi i \xi (L+\theta)}\right]\left[ \hat{\tilde{1}}_{ I_0} (\cdot )e^{2 \pi i 2^{-k}L \cdot} * \hat{ \tilde{1}}_{I_0}( \cdot))\right] (2^k\xi-\Gamma) \\ &:=& \frac{1}{1+\kappa^2}\left[  \Phi (\xi) e^{-2 \pi i \xi (L+\theta)}\right] \hat{\psi}^{L}_k(\xi).
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
LHS = \frac{2^k}{1+(L2^{-k})^2}\left( Tr_{\theta+L} \check{\Phi}\right) * \psi^{L}_k=RHS,
\end{eqnarray*}
provided we set $\tilde{\tilde{1}}(x) = \check{\Phi}(x)$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Removing Restrictions}
Throwing in those pairs $(n_1, n_2)$ for which  $n_1 \not = n_2$, we may bound using Lemma \ref{ML}

\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\kappa \in \mathbb{Z}} ~\sum_{l: |l- \kappa 2^k| \lesssim 2^k} 2^{-2k}c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_1+l}^{m}\tilde{1}_{2^kI_{n_1}} (x)  \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1+l }}(x) e^{2 \pi i 2^{-k-1}l} e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_1+l)} F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} l\right) \\ &=& \sum_{\kappa \in \mathbb{Z}} ~\sum_{ l:|l-\kappa 2^k| \lesssim 2^k}2^{-k}F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} l\right) e^{2 \pi i 2^{-k-1}l} \left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}  2^{-k} c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_1+l}^{m}\tilde{1}_{2^kI_{n_1}}   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1+l }} e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_1+l)} \right] \\ &=&\sum_{\kappa \in \mathbb{Z}}~ \sum_{l: |l-\kappa 2^k| \leq 2^{k-1}} \frac{1}{\langle \kappa \rangle^2 \langle l \rangle^2}\left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}   c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_1+l}^{m} \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1+l}}\right]*\psi^l_k.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \left| \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{\kappa \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{l : | l - \kappa 2^k| \leq 2^{k-1}} 2^{-2k} c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_2}^{m}\tilde{1}_{2^kI_{n_1}}   \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1+l }}e^{2 \pi i 2^{-k-1}l}e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_1 +l)} F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} l\right) \right|^2 \right)^{1/2}\right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} \\ &\lesssim&  \sum_{\kappa, l \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{\langle \kappa \rangle^2 \langle l \rangle ^2} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}   c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_1+l}^{m} \tilde{1}_{I_{n_1+l}} \right] *\psi^l_k\right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} \\ &\lesssim&  \sup_{l \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left|  \left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}   c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_1+l}^{m} \tilde{1}_{I_{n_1+l}}*\psi^l_k\right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
It therefore suffices to prove estimates for $\left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left|  \left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}   c_{1, n_1}^{m} c_{2, n_1+l}^{m}\tilde{1}_{I_{n_1}}*\psi^l_k\right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2}$ that are independent of $l \in \mathbb{Z}$. However, this is immediate once we use the boundedness of the square function $S:L^p \rightarrow L^p$ for every $1 <p <\infty$ and each $l \in \mathbb{Z}$ together the fact that $\{\psi_k^l\}$ are uniformly Mikhlin.

Because of the rapid decay in the remaining parameters $\mu_1, \mu_2, \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \kappa$, one expects to use triangle inequality to sum over these parameters outside the $L^p$ norm and reducing matters to proving uniform estimates inside the $L^p$ norm.  This is indeed the case, as we now show.  Changing variables in $\mu_1, \mu_2$, and using the triangle inequality, it suffices to estimate the sum over $k, m, n_1, \Delta_1, \Delta_2, \kappa$ and $l:|l-\kappa2^k|\leq  2^{k-1}$ of

\begin{eqnarray*}
 2^{-2k} d^{\lambda_1} _{m, m+\Delta_1} d^{\lambda_2}_{m, m+\Delta_2} c_{1, n_1}^{m+\Delta_1}c_{2, n_1+\tilde{l} + \frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2} }^{m+\Delta_2}\tilde{1}_{2^kI_{n_1-\frac{\lambda_1}{2}}}(x)    \tilde{1}_{2^k I_{n_1+\tilde{l} - \frac{\lambda_1}{2} } }(x) e^{2 \pi i \Gamma 2^{-k} (n_1 +\tilde{l} +\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2})} F_{2^k} \left(2^{-k} \tilde{l}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Define $\tilde{l} := n_2 -n_1 + \frac{(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2)}{2} $. Cheaply bringing the summations over $\Delta_1, \Delta_2, \lambda_1, \lambda_2$ outside the $L^p$ norm, using Lemma \ref{ML}, note that the sum in question is majorized by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{\Delta_1, \Delta_2, \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \kappa, \tilde{l}}  \frac{\left| \left|  \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left|  \left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}  \tilde{d}^{\lambda_1}_{m, m+\Delta_1} \tilde{d}^{\lambda_2}_{m,m+\Delta_2}  c_{1, n_1}^{m+\Delta_1} c_{2, n_1+\tilde{l} +\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2}}^{m+\Delta_2} \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}*\psi^{\tilde{l}, \kappa, \lambda_1, \lambda_2}_k\right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}}{\langle l \rangle ^2 \langle \kappa \rangle^2 \langle \Delta_1 \rangle ^N \langle \Delta_2 \rangle ^N \langle \lambda_1 \rangle ^N \langle \lambda_2 \rangle^N}  ,
\end{eqnarray*}
 where $\{ \psi_k^{\tilde{l}, \kappa, \lambda_1, \lambda_2} \}$ forms a Littlewood-Paley decomposition and is uniformly Mikhlin  in the sense that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left| \frac{d^N}{d\xi^N} \mathcal{F}\left(\psi_k^{\tilde{l}, \kappa, \lambda_1, \lambda_2} \right) \right| \right|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})} \lesssim 2^{kN}
\end{eqnarray*}
for all $k  \geq 0$ and sufficiently many derivatives.
It therefore suffices to estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \left|  \left( \sum_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} \left|  \left[\sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}  \tilde{d}^{\lambda_1}_{m, m+\Delta_1} \tilde{d}^{\lambda_2}_{m,m+\Delta_2}  c_{1, n_1}^{m+\Delta_1} c_{2, n_1+\tilde{l} +\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2}}^{m+\Delta_2} \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}*\psi^{\tilde{l}, \kappa, \lambda_1, \lambda_2}_k\right] \right|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}
\end{eqnarray*}
with a bound independent of the parameters $\Delta_1, \Delta_2, \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \kappa$, and $\tilde{l}$.

Since $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} <1$, observe
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \left|   \sum_{ m \in \mathbb{Z}}~~\sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}  \tilde{d}^{\lambda_1}_{m, m+\Delta_1} \tilde{d}^{\lambda_2}_{m, m+\Delta_2} c_{1, n_1}^{m+\Delta_1} c_{2, n_1+\tilde{l} +\frac{\lambda_2-\lambda_1}{2}}^{m+\Delta_2} \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}} \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}  \\ &\lesssim& \left| \left|   \left( \sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{ m_1 \in \mathbb{Z}}   |c_{1, n_1}^{m_1}|^2\left| \tilde{ \tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}\right| \right)^{1/2} \left( \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{m_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left|c_{2, n_2+\tilde{l} + \frac{\lambda_2 - \lambda_1}{2}}^{m_2}\right|^2 \left| \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}\right|  \right)^{1/2}\right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}   \\ &\lesssim& \left| \left|  \left[ \sum_{n_1\in \mathbb{Z}}\left( \sum_{ m_1 \in \mathbb{Z}}   |c_{1, n_1}^{m_1}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \left| \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_1-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}}  \right|\right] \left[ \sum_{n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}}  \left( \sum_{m_2 \in \mathbb{Z}} \left|c_{2, n_2+\tilde{l} + \frac{ \lambda_2 - \lambda_2}{2}}^{m_2}\right|^2  \right)^{1/2} \left| \tilde{\tilde{1}}_{I_{n_2-\frac{\lambda_2}{2}}} \right|\right] \right| \right|_{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1 + p_2}}  \\ &\lesssim& || f_1||_{p_1} || f_2||_{p_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Like before, the assumption $2 \leq p_1, p_2 <\infty$ is necessary to achieve the last inequality.
\end{proof}

\small
\nocite{*}


\section{Introduction}

\begin{figure*}[!tp
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig1.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Normalized multi-epoch spectra of Na\,\textsc{i} D2 lines at $\lambda\;5890$ toward HD~47240 taken at \emph{R} $\sim$230,000 ($\Delta v \sim$1.3\,km\,s$^{-1}$). The multiple absorption components between $-30$ km s$^{-1}$ and $+30$ km s$^{-1}$ do not exhibit any variation across our range of observations, and thus are considered constant and not included in our analysis of temporal variation, which is clearly seen in the HV components near \mbox{$+70$ km\,s$^{-1}$}.}
\label{fig:full}
\end{figure*}

The diffuse interstellar medium (ISM) contains within it a rich variety of structure, ranging from long, slender filaments \citep{clark14}, to sheet-like structures \citep{heiles03}, to the well-known shells and supershells surrounding stellar associations. Still unknown, however, is the extent of small-scale structure within these common, larger entities. Recently, the high pressures found within the Local Leo Cold Cloud \citep{peek11,meyer12} has shown that structure on the scale of $\sim$200\,au exists in the cold, diffuse H\,\textsc{i} within our own Local Bubble. The mechanism by which these small-scale features form is still unknown, but may be similar to the formation of filamentary structures via turbulent gas flows within molecular clouds \citep{andre14}. Based on temporal variation of absorption in H\,\textsc{i} 21\,\,cm emission from background quasars, \citet{heiles97} found these small-scale structures to be significantly over-pressured with respect to their surroundings if a spherical geometry was assumed, a result in stark contrast with the long-standing view of an ISM in pressure equilibrium \citep{mckee77}. Heiles rectified this problem by invoking nonspherical geometries (such as cylinders and disks, or more complicated filaments and sheets) for these small-scale structures. Alternatively, \citet{deshpande00} argued that observations of small-scale structure in H\,\textsc{i} are a natural consequence of hierarchical structure in the ISM.

Further observations in the optical have found a variety of sightlines exhibiting spatial or temporal variations \citep{meyer96,crawford00,price00,lauroesch03,points04}, primarily in the Na\,\textsc{i} D lines. However, \citet{lauroesch03} highlight a particular issue with using Na\,\textsc{i} D lines to detect variation in the ISM. Since Na\,\textsc{i} is not the dominant ion of Na in the ISM, the observed variations in \emph{N}(Na\,\textsc{i}) may not be reflective of changes in the total H\,\textsc{i} column, but rather the result of changes in the physical conditions of the absorbing gas, which leads to an enhancement or dehancement in the Na\,\textsc{i} trace neutral. Thus, it remains unclear if the many variations seen in the optical are indicative of corresponding variations in the H\,\textsc{i} gas structure, or, rather, of changes in the physical properties of the gas.

Supernova remnants (SNRs) have long been an interesting laboratory for studying the ISM. Recently, \citet{kameswara15} reported on the variability of a number of ISM absorption components toward several stars in the Vela SNR, suggesting a connection between ISM variability and SNRs. Here we focus on the Monoceros Loop SNR, a well-evolved SNR ($\sim$100,000 years old) with an expansion velocity of $\sim$50\,km\,s$^{-1}$, derived from absorption seen in the approaching and receding edges of the shell at \mbox{$-31$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} and \mbox{$+69$\,km\,s$^{-1}$}, from the stars HD~47359 and HD~47240, respectively \citep{wallerstein76}. Furthermore, \citet{odegard86} determined that the SNR is within the Mon OB2 association, and also interacting with the Rosette Nebula, placing it at a distance of 1.6 kpc. At this distance, the SNR would have a linear diameter of roughly 110\,pc.

Analysis of the HD~47240 sightline at 12\,km\,s$^{-1}$ spectral resolution by \citet{wallerstein76} found atypically low N(Na\,\textsc{i})/N(Ca\,\textsc{ii}) ratios for the high-velocity (HV) gas. This abnormal ratio was taken as evidence of dust grains being shocked and returning Ca\,\textsc{ii} (typically heavily depleted into grains) to the gas phase \citep{routly52}. More recent work by \citet{welsh01} utilized \emph{FUSE} spectra at a similar resolution, and detected absorption from many species of various ionization levels within the HV gas. Absorption was seen at $V_{LSR} \sim +65$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ for several low-ionization atomic states (O\,\textsc{i}, Ar\,\textsc{i}, N\,\textsc{i}, C\,\textsc{i}, Fe\,\textsc{ii}, and P\,\textsc{ii} in \emph{FUSE} spectra, and O\,\textsc{i}, Al\,\textsc{ii}, Si\,\textsc{ii}, S\,\textsc{ii}, Fe\,\textsc{ii}, C\,\textsc{ii}$^{*}$, Mg\,\textsc{i}, and Mg\,\textsc{ii} in \emph{IUE} spectra). They also noted the absence of a corresponding HV component in high-ionization states (O\,\textsc{vi} in their \emph{FUSE} spectrum, Si\,\textsc{iv}, C\,\textsc{iv} and Al\,\textsc{iii} in \emph{IUE} spectra).
They argued that the observed combination of ionized and neutral species could not physically coexist in the same cloud, and thus conjectured that the observed HV component is actually ``several ionized and neutral gas shells expanding at slightly different velocities away from the center of the SNR."
These same \emph{FUSE} spectra also reveal rotationally excited (\emph{J}=3) H$_2$ at a similar high velocity \citep{welsh02}, which can be produced via interstellar shocks.

In this paper, we present new multi-epoch high-resolution (\emph{R} $\sim$ 230,000) observations of HD~47240 taken with the Kitt Peak National Observatory  coud\'{e} feed telescope over an eight-year period. These data provide strong evidence that the high-velocity component associated with the Monoceros Loop is actually two distinct components, and that both components undergo dramatic variation in column density and central velocity over periods of a few years. The scale of these variations is determined by the combination of the proper motion of both the background star as well as the intervening gas. Based on these factors, we estimate the characteristic scale of variation to be a few tens of au.

\section{Observations and Data Reductions}
Observations of the interstellar Na\,\textsc{i} D2 $\lambda$5889.951 and D1 $\lambda$5895.924 absorption lines were obtained toward HD~47240 (a B1Ib star located at a distance of 1.8\,kpc) on five separate occasions over an approximately eight-year period (2006 January, 2008 March, 2009 January, 2011 February, 2014 January) . These data were gathered using the 0.9m coud\'{e} feed telescope and spectrograph at Kitt Peak National Observatory. The spectrograph was configured using the long focal length camera (camera 6), the echelle grating, a cross-dispersing grism (770), and the T2KB Tek2048 CCD detector. Using a 150\,$\mu$m slit, we achieved a 2.1 pixel spectral resolution of 0.026\,\mbox{\normalfont\AA}, or 1.3\,km\,s$^{-1}$ at the Na\,\textsc{i} wavelengths, as measured with a Th--Ar calibration lamp. We then utilized the NOAO IRAF echelle data reduction package to correct our CCD exposures for scattered light and bias, and to flat-field our exposures. From these exposures, we then used the appropriate packages to extract spectral orders and wavelength calibrate our spectra.
We also applied these techniques to a nearby early-type star (\mbox{$\alpha$ Leo}) whose sightline is essentially devoid of any interstellar Na\,\textsc{i} absorption, allowing us to create a nightly template of telluric lines, which was used to divide out the telluric absorption in all HD~47240 spectra taken on the same night as the template.
Finally, we used the continuum fitting routines in the IRAF package to identify the stellar continuum in the vicinity of the Na\,\textsc{i} D lines, and normalized relative to this stellar continuum, leaving residual intensities due to interstellar absorption. All final spectra have S/N $>$ 100.

\capstartfalse
\begin{deluxetable}{crcr}[]
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Fit Parameters for Static Low-velocity N$\mathrm{a}$\,\textsc{i} Components toward HD~47240}
\tablehead{\colhead{Component} & \colhead{\emph{N} ($\times 10^{11}$\,cm$^{-2}$)}& \colhead{\emph{b} (km\,s$^{-1}$)}& \colhead{\emph{v} (km\,s$^{-1}$)}}
\startdata
1 & 0.52 $\pm$ 0.03 & 3.53 $\pm$ 0.24 & $-$22.00 $\pm$ 0.25\\
2 & 2.11 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.41 $\pm$ 0.05 & $-$16.78 $\pm$ 0.05\\
3 & 6.15 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.82 $\pm$ 0.01 & $-$12.96 $\pm$ 0.01\\
4 & 1.41 $\pm$ 0.02 & 2.67 $\pm$ 0.07 &  $-$7.39 $\pm$ 0.05\\
5&160.76 $\pm$ 25.11& 3.56 $\pm$ 0.01 &    +7.05 $\pm$ 0.01\\
6 & 1.14 $\pm$ 0.31 & 8.38 $\pm$ 0.58 &   +15.71 $\pm$ 1.31\\
7 & 4.61 $\pm$ 0.08 & 1.09 $\pm$ 0.02 &   +18.64 $\pm$ 0.01
\enddata
\tablecomments{Errors were obtained by fixing two of the three parameters and allowing the third to vary. Due to the large number ($\sim 40$) of simultaneous lines being fit, allowing all three parameters to vary simultaneously caused instabilities in the fitting routines.}
\end{deluxetable}
\capstarttrue

\begin{figure*}[!tp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig2.pdf}
\vspace{-20pt}
\caption{Isolated high-velocity Na\,\textsc{i} components toward HD~47240 for each of the five epochs in our sample, with the top row representing the D2 lines ($\lambda\;5889.951$) and the bottom row representing D1 ($\lambda\;5985.924$). Central velocities of the weak, broad component near \mbox{$+63$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} and the two components near \mbox{$+73$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} are marked by dashes above the spectra. Of particular note is the substantial increase in line depth between 2006 and 2008, and the substantial decrease in depth between 2009 and 2011. This decrease in absorption is further accompanied by the splitting of the line into two distinct velocity components, with this velocity separation continuing to increase in the 2014 spectrum.}
\label{fig:hv}
\end{figure*}

\capstartfalse
\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccrrrrr}[]
\centering
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Fit Parameters for High-velocity N$\mathrm{a}$\,\textsc{i} Components toward HD~47240}
\tablehead{\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Unit} & \colhead{Component} & \colhead{2006}& \colhead{2008}& \colhead{2009}& \colhead{2011}& \colhead{2014}}
\startdata

\emph{N} &$\times 10^{11}$\,cm$^{-2}$
  & Comp. 1 & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.08 & 0.30 $\pm$ 0.09 & 0.41 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.45 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.50 $\pm$ 0.07\\
& & Comp. 2 & 2.74 $\pm$ 0.10 & 4.99 $\pm$ 0.29 & 5.56 $\pm$ 0.15 & 2.64 $\pm$ 0.05 & 4.38 $\pm$ 0.03\\
& & Comp. 3 & 3.01 $\pm$ 0.10 & 4.91 $\pm$ 0.29 & 5.23 $\pm$ 0.17 & 2.03 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.98 $\pm$ 0.03\\
& & & & & & \\

\emph{b} &km\,s$^{-1}$
  & Comp. 1 & 4.14 $\pm$ 0.16 & 4.17 $\pm$ 0.37 & 4.72 $\pm$ 0.17 & 4.78 $\pm$ 0.16 & 4.95 $\pm$ 0.14\\
& & Comp. 2 & 2.60 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.24 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.30 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.39 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.36 $\pm$ 0.01\\
& & Comp. 3 & 1.02 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.07 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.00 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.45 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.21 $\pm$ 0.02\\
& & & & & & \\

\emph{v} &km\,s$^{-1}$
  & Comp. 1 & 62.84 $\pm$ 0.11 & 62.79 $\pm$ 0.25 & 63.50 $\pm$ 0.11 & 63.48 $\pm$ 0.10 & 63.37 $\pm$ 0.09\\
& & Comp. 2 & 72.99 $\pm$ 0.03 & 73.03 $\pm$ 0.04 & 73.17 $\pm$ 0.02 & 71.32 $\pm$ 0.03 & 71.33 $\pm$ 0.01\\
& & Comp. 3 & 73.68 $\pm$ 0.01 & 73.67 $\pm$ 0.02 & 73.88 $\pm$ 0.01 & 74.37 $\pm$ 0.03 & 74.63 $\pm$ 0.01\\

\enddata
\tablecomments{Component column refers to the individual velocity components used to fit each profile. In all cases, Component 1 refers to the weak, broad component near $+63$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, while Components 2 and 3, respectively, refer to the lower and higher velocity components of the strong variable absorption around $+73$ km s$^{-1}$.}

\end{deluxetable*}
\capstarttrue

The normalized spectra were used in the line profile fitting program FITS6P \citep{welty94} to find the column density \emph{N},  line width parameter \emph{b}, and central velocity \emph{v} of each absorption component. Fits were made to both the static components between roughly \mbox{$-30$ km s$^{-1}$} and \mbox{$+30$ km s$^{-1}$} (Table 1), as well as the variable HV components at $v > 60$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ associated with the Monoceros Loop. Due to the high resolution (\mbox{$\Delta v \sim 1.3$\,km\,s$^{-1}$}) of this data, we account for the hyperfine splitting of the Na\,\textsc{i} D lines (\mbox{$\Delta v \sim 1.05$\,km\,s$^{-1}$}) when performing fits to these profiles. Fig. \ref{fig:full} shows the typical profile across the entire velocity range where absorption is observed. It is unclear if the myriad lower velocity components are also associated with the Monoceros Loop or some other intervening parcels of gas; however, no variation is seen in any of these components across our eight-year baseline, and thus they are excluded from our analysis.

For the high-velocity region, we fit each spectrum with three components - a weak, broad component at \mbox{$v \sim +63$\,km\,s$^{-1}$}, and the two variable components of interest at $v > +70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$. While the spectra of the first three epochs may appear by eye to be single components, we find that a fit composed of two components with slightly different central velocities yields a more accurate fit and smaller errors in all fit parameters, and is justified based on the clear two-component nature of the later epochs.

\section{Results}
At high resolution, it becomes clear that the strong absorption near +70\,km\,s$^{-1}$ is actually two overlapping components. The values derived above provide clear evidence of dramatic variations in the Na\,\textsc{i} column density associated with this gas. These variations appear to occur in several stages (Fig. \ref{fig:hv}), beginning with an increase in \emph{N}(Na\,\textsc{i}) of $\sim$70\% (63\% and 80\% for the individual variable components at $+73$ and $+74$\,km\,s$^{-1}$, respectively) over a two-year period between 2006 and 2008, later followed by a $\sim$55\% decrease in \emph{N}(Na\,\textsc{i}) over a similar two-year period between 2009 and 2011. This decrease in column density is also accompanied by a velocity shift, with the velocity separation between the HV components increasing from $\sim$0.6 to $\sim$3.0\,km\,s$^{-1}$ over the same period. Finally, in the three-year period between 2011 and 2014, the column density again increased by $\sim$50\%, with the velocity separation further increasing to \mbox{$\sim$3.3\,km\,s$^{-1}$}.

\citet{welsh01} derive line parameters for the Na\,\textsc{i} components near \mbox{$+70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$} in their data, though their observations were taken at a velocity resolution that is larger that the velocity separation between the two components observed in our data (\mbox{\emph{R} $\sim$ 65,000}, corresponding to \mbox{$\Delta$v $\sim$ 4.5\,km\,s$^{-1}$}), and thus they treat this absorption as a single component. Nonetheless, by comparing their total column density of \mbox{$N=10.9\;(\pm1.1)\times 10^{11}$\,cm$^{-2}$} to the sum of the two components in our data (i.e. Components 2 and 3 in Table 2), we see that their data is most consistent with the largest value of column density in our sample, in 2009. Overall, our column densities tend to be less than the value reported in 2001, indicating that variation has been present in the $+73$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ component(s) since at least 2001.

The weak, broad component near $+63$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ also appears to exhibit weak variation across our observations. However, the exact size and shape of this component is susceptible to the placement of the continuum fit used during our data reductions. Therefore, differences in this continuum fit between spectra may manifest as apparent temporal variation across several spectra. Due to this effect, we are hesitant to assign much significance to the variations in this component. \citet{welsh01} derive values of \mbox{$N=0.5\;(\pm 6.6)\times 10^{11}$\,cm$^{-2}$} and \mbox{$b=1.1\;(\pm 3.9)$\,km\,s$^{-1}$}, which are consistent with the values presented in Table 2.

Despite the high-resolution data discussed here, the exact nature of this temporal variation remains unclear.
An analysis of LAB data \citep{kalberla05} and GALFA data \citep{galfa11} in the vicinity of HD~47240 reveals no apparent H\,\textsc{i} 21 cm emission at similar velocities to the varying HV gas, implying that the clouds responsible for this HV Na\,\textsc{i} absorption are likely much smaller than the GALFA beam size of $\sim$4\arcmin.
Additionally, of the 25 sightlines studied in this region by \citet{wallerstein76}, HD~47240 was the only one showing a component near \mbox{$+70$\,km\,s$^{-1}$}, indicating that this is not a pervasive component in the region.
\citet{lauroesch03} argued that Na\,\textsc{i}, as a trace neutral, would be biased to form on density peaks within the ISM since recombination rates exhibit a strong density dependence. Hence, it is possible that we are observing au-scale fluctuations in the physical conditions of the gas that cause \emph{N}(Na\,\textsc{i}) variations not necessarily representative of similar changes in \emph{N}(H\,\textsc{i}). Accounting for the \mbox{$\sim$1.3\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$} proper motion of HD~47240 and the \mbox{$\sim$50\,km\,s$^{-1}$} expansion velocity of the intervening gas, this sightline is sampling the gas within the Monoceros Loop on a spatial scale of $\sim$10\,au\,yr$^{-1}$.

Furthermore, the increasing velocity separation between the two components is indicative of gas dynamics beyond density fluctuations. These data support the conjecture by \citet{welsh01} that the high-velocity gas may be several shells with slightly different expansion velocities. Based on central velocities derived from our line fitting, the higher velocity component appears to accelerate by \mbox{$\sim$1\,km\,s$^{-1}$} over the course of our observations, while the lower velocity component decelerates by \mbox{$\sim$2\,km\,s$^{-1}$}. Of particular note is that this change did not occur gradually over the eight-year period of observation. The velocity of these components stayed essentially constant over three observations from 2006 to 2009, then changed very rapidly sometime during the approximately two-year period between our 2009 and 2011 observations, with a somewhat less dramatic change between 2011 and 2014.

\section{Discussion}
The temporal variation of optical absorption has previously been reported toward the $\sim$10,000-year-old Vela SNR, initially by both \citet{hobbs91} toward HD~72127A and \citet{danks95} toward HD~72089 and HD~72997. This was later followed up more broadly by \citet{cha00}, who found evidence of Na\,\textsc{i} or Ca\,\textsc{ii} variability in 7 of 13 sightlines toward this region. \citet{kameswara15} then performed repeat observations toward 64 stars observed by \cite{cha00}, and found variation in the HV components for 4 of 11 sightlines in which high-velocity gas was observed. Due to the $>$100\,km\,s$^{-1}$ velocities of these components, they suggest a causal connection with the expanding SNR gas.
While most of the reported variations are in the equivalent widths of the absorption, several of these sightlines also exhibited variation in central velocity. Of particular note is the HD~72997 sightline, where \citet{danks95} found that the central velocity of the Na\,\textsc{i} $+190$ \mbox{km\,s$^{-1}$} component increased by \mbox{2.7\,km\,s$^{-1}$} over a 14-month period between 1991 and 1993, and \citet{cha00} noted a further \mbox{0.9\,km\,s$^{-1}$} between 1993 and 1996. These velocity changes are similar in size to those observed toward HD~47240, and occur over similar timescales.

These previous studies of the Vela SNR show that absorption lines that vary in their central velocity are not unheard of. However, HD~47240 is still curious due to its two overlapping high-velocity components, both of which begin at a similar velocity, but appear to change their central velocity in opposite directions over the same approximately two-year time frame. Two possible interpretations of this phenomenon are as follows. Either we are detecting a chance alignment between two unrelated parcels of gas that both undergo sudden velocity variations in the same time frame, or there is a single physical cause for this simultaneous variation, implying that these gas parcels are linked in some way.

One possible explanation for the nature of these variations is that we are detecting cold gas forming as a result of interaction between colliding gas flows, similar to the results of \citet{vazquez06}. In their simulations of molecular cloud formation, they observed thin sheets of cold neutral material forming at the interface between warm diffuse flows. These cold thin sheets eventually became dynamically unstable and turbulent. Thus a sightline piercing such a region would simultaneously probe a cold, thin, turbulent sheet, as well as the warm, diffuse gas enveloping it. In all of our spectra of HD~47240, we detect a broad (i.e. warm) absorption component in addition to the narrow (i.e. cold) variable components. This broad component is much weaker than the variable components, as one would expect if this absorption was arising from diffuse, warm gas. If Na\,\textsc{i} is biased to form on density peaks within the ISM \citep{lauroesch03}, then we may be probing the interaction regions between the expanding SNR and the ambient ISM.
Shocked gas in this interaction region could also explain the anomalous Na\,\textsc{i}/Ca\,\textsc{ii} ratios reported by \citet{wallerstein76}.

While this explanation, which suggests that the observed variations arise from a turbulent, cold sheet is feasible, we acknowledge that there are limitations to this interpretation. Simulations that try to capture the dynamics of a multiphase ISM \citep{vazquez06,vazquez11,gatto15} generally simulate large (10--100s of pc) regions with a limited resolution, typically no better than $\sim$0.03\,pc (corresponding to $\sim$6000\,au). \citet{vazquez06} specifically note that this resolution is "generally insufficient for correctly resolving the structure inside the cold layer during the initial stages of the evolution." Therefore, without a prediction for the typical size of gas structure in simulations, it is hard to say concretely if the observed fluctuations with a typical scale of 30\,au are consistent with the cold structures seen in simulations.

The rapid, dramatic Na\,\textsc{i} temporal variations observed toward the Monoceros Loop SNR make this region ideal for further optical and ultraviolet absorption line studies. Continued observations toward HD~47240, as well as additional observations of other sightlines in the direction of the SNR, will allow us to grasp the extent of the small-scale Na\,\textsc{i} structure in the high-velocity remnant gas. If these observations reveal that temporal variations such as those reported in this work are common in the Monoceros Loop, as in the Vela SNR, then this may suggest a connection between SNRs and small-scale Na\,\textsc{i} structures. Such a connection has previously been suggested by \citet{crawford03}, and observations by \citet{meyer15} found Na\,\textsc{i} variations in 12 of 20 sightlines, with almost all of these variable sightlines being associated with known H\,\textsc{i} shells, SNRs, or stellar bow shocks. A broad survey by \citet{mcevoy15} of 104 sightlines with existing spectra from VLT-UVES and the McDonald Observatory found only $\sim$6\% of sightlines to exhibit temporal variation, primarily in the Na\,\textsc{i} D lines. These results suggest that this effect may not be pervasive, but rather localized to shell-like ISM structures. However, more investigation is currently needed to understand the prevalence of au-scale Na\,\textsc{i} fluctuations in the diffuse ISM, as well as to understand the underlying mechanisms that give rise to these structures.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
We wish to thank Daryl Willmarth for his assistance with the Kitt Peak National Observatory observations. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. We thank the referee for helpful comments that improved this paper.

\emph{Facilities:} \facility{KPNO:CFT}