\section{Background and overview}
We begin with a brief informal discussion on the general theory of cross-connections which will help us to place our results in a proper context. In the study of the structure theory of regular semigroups, Hall \cite{hall} used the ideals of a given regular semigroup to analyse its structure. In 1974, Grillet \cite{gril,gril1,gril2} refined Hall's theory to abstractly characterize the sets of the principal ideals of a given regular semigroup as \emph{regular} partially ordered sets, and constructed the fundamental image of the given semigroup as a {cross-connection} semigroup.

Grillet explicitly described the relationship between the principal ideals of a given fundamental regular semigroup and showed that they are {cross-connected} with each other via two order preserving mappings $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$, which he rightly called {cross-connections}. He also showed that given two {appropriate} regular partially ordered sets and a pair of cross-connections, the cross-connection semigroup obtained is a fundamental regular semigroup. It can be seen that given a regular semigroup and its {full} regular subsemigroup, both induces the same cross-connection (upto isomorphisms), and hence we get the same fundamental semigroup. In other words, isomorphic {biordered sets} give rise to isomorphic cross-connections \cite{bicxn}. Thus by Grillet's construction using partially ordered sets, we are only able to capture the {skeleton} of the semigroup, not the complete semigroup.

Nambooripad recognized this deficiency and remarked that the data provided by partially ordered sets are insufficient to completely characterize arbitrary regular semigroups. He observed that any partially ordered set can be viewed as a {preorder category}, and using the richer structure provided by {small} categories (treating them as algebraic objects), one can in fact generalize Grillet's theory. In 1994, Nambooripad \cite{cross}\nocite{mem} constructed arbitrary regular semigroups as cross-connection semigroups by characterizing the principal ideals of a regular semigroup as \emph{normal categories} and replacing the cross-connection maps by a pair of functors. Although philosophically the construction was very much same as that of Grillet's, Nambooripad's work was a big leap in terms of technique, that Meakin and Rajan \cite{jmar} in their tribute to Nambooripad described the theory of cross-connections as a \emph{technical tour de force}.

A {normal category} is a categorical abstraction of the partially ordered set of principal left (right) ideals of a regular semigroup $S$. To replace partially ordered sets of Grillet with categories, morphisms were to be introduced and the natural choice for morphisms were mappings induced by partial translations. Hence a normal category is a small category whose object set is a regular partially ordered set with morphisms as mappings between them.

The morphisms of a normal category has an important factorization property called \emph{normal factorization} by which each translation could be factored into three components---a {retraction}, an {isomorphism} and an {inclusion}. This factorization results from the ideal structure of the regular semigroup. Given a translation $f$ between the principal ideals $I$ and $J$, by the {retraction} $q$, one can \emph{go down} to an appropriate ideal $I'\subseteq I$; so that the {isomorphism} $u$, will translate it to an ideal $J'\subseteq J$ where $J'= \text{Im} f$. Then the {inclusion} $j = j(J',J)$, is the inclusion map from $J'$ to $J$ so that $f=quj$. Whenever $I'\subseteq I$, we can see that there is a retraction $q: I\to I'$ such that $j(I',I)q =1_{I'}$. This property of the inclusion morphisms is called \emph{splitting}.

Observe that the inclusion morphisms are the inclusions of the regular partially ordered set, and hence the partially ordered set $P$ may be identified as a strict-preorder subcategory $\mathcal{P}$ (whose morphisms are precisely the inclusions) of the normal category. Thus we have a category $\mathcal{C}$ with a \emph{choice of subobjects} where the regular partially ordered set is sitting inside as the subcategory $\mathcal{P}$, and hence denoted as $(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{P})$.

A 'nice' cluster of morphisms with a common codomain is referred to as a {normal cone}. This is a generalization of the {normal mapping} of Grillet and they act as the basic building blocks of our construction. Given a partially ordered set $P$, a normal mapping with {apex} $a \in P$, was defined by Grillet as an order preserving mapping from $P$ to the principal order ideal $P(a)$. Given a category $(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{P})$ with subobjects (or simply denoted as $\mathcal{C}$), a normal cone with {vertex} $a \in v\mathcal{C}$ is an 'order preserving' mapping from the set $v\mathcal{C}$ (which coincides with the object set $v\mathcal{P}$ of the preorder) to the set $\mathcal{C}(c,a)$ of all morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$ from an object $c$ to codomain $a$. Normal cones can be composed via a special binary operation and all the {normal cones} in a normal category $\mathcal{C}$ form a regular semigroup $T\mathcal{C}$ known as the semigroup of normal cones in $\mathcal{C}$ . The fact that every principal ideal in a regular semigroup has an idempotent generator is captured by stipulating that every object in a normal category should have an associated idempotent normal cone.

Hence we get two normal categories, one each from the principal left and right ideals. To describe the relationship between them, a notion of {duality} is needed. Grillet defined the dual $P^*$ of a regular partially ordered set $P$ as the set of all {normal equivalence relations} on $P$. An equivalence relation was called normal, if it was induced by a normal mapping.

On the same lines, Nambooripad called a set-valued functor $H(\gamma;-)\colon\mathcal{C}\to \mathbf{Set}$ on a normal category $\mathcal{C}$ as an {$H$-functor} if it was 'induced' by a normal cone $\gamma$. He defined the \emph{normal dual} $N^*\mathcal{C}$ of a normal category $\mathcal{C}$ as the category whose object set was the set of all $H$-functors in $\mathcal{C}$. The category $N^\ast\mathcal{C}$ is a full subcategory of the category $\mathcal{C}^\ast$ where $\mathcal{C}^\ast$ is the category of all functors from $\mathcal{C}$ to $\mathbf{Set}$ \cite{mac}. Hence the morphisms in $N^*\mathcal{C}$ are natural transformations and it can be shown that the category $N^*\mathcal{C}$ forms a normal category.
Further, the Green relations in the semigroup $T\mathcal{C}$ can be completely characterized in terms of the $H$-functors and the vertices of the normal cones in $\mathcal{C}$.

Further, in a regular semigroup, the category of principal right (left) ideals is {locally isomorphic} with the normal dual of the category of principal left (right) ideals. The notion of local isomorphisms in cross-connections was initially used by Rajan \cite{loc} to study the order-isomorphisms of principal ideals of regular semigroups. He showed that local isomorphisms arise from the $\omega$-isomorphisms of the biordered set of the semigroup. This relationship between the principal ideals is abstracted as a {cross-connection} functor.

A local isomorphism between two normal categories $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is said to be {total} if its image is a {total ideal} in $\mathcal{D}$. This is a property of a local isomorphism in regular semigroups which defines a unique local isomorphism in the opposite direction between $\mathcal{D}$ and $\mathcal{C}$.
\begin{dfn}
A {cross-connection} between two normal categories $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is a {total local isomorphism} $\Gamma \colon \mathcal{D} \to N^\ast\mathcal{C}$ where $N^\ast\mathcal{C}$ is the {normal dual} of the category $\mathcal{C}$.
\end{dfn}
Given a cross-connection $\Gamma\colon\mathcal{D} \to N^\ast\mathcal{C}$, as discussed above, we have a unique {dual cross-connection} $\Delta \colon\mathcal{C} \to N^\ast\mathcal{D}$ such that there is a {natural isomorphism} $\chi_\Gamma$ between the bifunctors $\Gamma(-,-)$ and $\Delta(-,-)$ associated with the functors $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$. Using the natural isomorphism $\chi_\Gamma$, we can get a \emph{linking} of some normal cones $\gamma \in T\mathcal{C}$ with some normal cones $\delta \in T\mathcal{D}$.

These linked cone pairs $(\gamma,\delta)$ with respect to induced binary compositions will form a regular semigroup which is called the {cross-connection semigroup} $\tilde{S}\Gamma$ determined by $\Gamma$. If we do the construction starting with the categories of principal left and right ideals of a regular semigroup, then the cross-connection semigroup $\tilde{S}\Gamma$ is isomorphic to the regular semigroup we started with. Hence this gives a faithful representation of the semigroup as a subdirect product of $T\mathcal{C} \times (T\mathcal{D})^\text{op}$. An interested reader may refer \cite{tx,var,azeefcross,kvn,cross} for a detailed discussion on cross-connection theory.

Let $V$ be an arbitrary vectorspace over a field $K$. The singular linear transformation semigroup $Sing(V)$ is the multiplicative semigroup of all singular linear transformations on $V$. It is one of the most important regular subsemigroups of the regular monoid $\mathscr{T}_V$ of all (including non-singular) linear transformations on $V$. The full linear transformation semigroup $\mathscr{T}_V$ is one of the most important semigroups as it is a generalization of the semigroup of matrices, semigroup of operator algebras etc, and consequently has been studied extensively.

The theory of cross-connections degenerates to a major extend in the case of regular monoids and hence yields very little information about the structure of the monoids. So we focus our attention on the subsemigroup $Sing(V)$, and using our approach, the analysis can be easily extended to $\mathscr{T}_V$ and even to its variants (see Section \ref{variant}). The cross-connections of $\mathscr{T}_V$ were studied in detail by Rajendran and Nambooripad \cite{raj} using a different approach where they described cross-connection semigroups arising from the structure of bilinear forms. They had restricted the discussion to finite dimensional vector spaces, but here we extend the study to arbitrary vector spaces also.

The structure of the article is as follows. In Section \ref{secsub}, we describe the normal categories arising from the semigroup $Sing(V)$. The category of principal left ideals of $Sing(V)$ is characterized as the Subspace category $\mathscr{S}(V)$ of proper subspaces of $V$ with linear transformations as morphisms. We show that the semigroup of all normal cones in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ is isomorphic to $Sing(V)$. We characterize the normal dual of the Subspace category in terms of the algebraic dualspace of $V$ as the Annihilator category $\mathscr{A}(V)$. When $V$ is finite dimensional, it is shown that the Annihilator category $\mathscr{A}(V)$ is isomorphic to the category $\mathscr{S}(V^*)$ of proper subspaces of $V^*$ where $V^*$ is the algebraic dual space of $V$. In Section \ref{seccxn}, we describe various cross-connections between these categories. We show how each automorphism $\theta$ on $V$ gives rise to a cross-connection between $\mathscr{A}(V)$ and $\mathscr{S}(V)$. We also prove that \emph{every} cross-connection semigroup that arises from the cross-connections is isomorphic to $Sing(V)$. In the last section, we construct some interesting semigroups arising from the cross-connections by restricting the categories. This discussion naturally leads to a useful description of the regular part of the variant of full linear transformation semigroup $\mathscr{T}_V$.

\section{Subspaces and annihilators}\label{secsub}
In this section, we discuss the normal categories arising from the semigroup $Sing(V)$. In this article, all the functions are written in the order of their composition, i.e., from left to right. A functor $F$ is said to be $v$-injective ($v$-surjective) if $F$ is injective (surjective) on the set of objects. Recall that normal categories are abstractions of principal left (right) ideals and so we will require the following well-known results regarding the Green relations in $Sing(V)$. In the sequel, we shall denote by $N_\alpha$, the null space of $\alpha$ consisting of all $y \in V$ such that $y\alpha = 0$. We denote the image of the linear transformation $\alpha$, interchangeably by $V\alpha$ and Im $\alpha$, to suit context.
\begin{lem} \label{tlx} \cite[Section 2.2]{clif}
Let $\alpha , \beta $ be arbitrary linear transformations on $V$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists $ \: \varepsilon \in Sing(V) $ such that $\alpha\varepsilon = \beta $ if and only if $ V\alpha \supseteq V\beta $. Hence $\alpha \mathscr{L} \beta \iff V\alpha = V\beta$, i.e., Im $\alpha = $ Im $\beta$.
\item There exists $ \: \varepsilon \in Sing(V) $ such that $\varepsilon\alpha = \beta $ if and only if $ N_\alpha \subseteq N_\beta $. Hence $\alpha \mathscr{R} \beta \iff N_\alpha = N_\beta$.
\item If $\alpha \in Sing(V)$ is an idempotent, then $ V = N_\alpha \oplus V\alpha $.
\item If $V= N \oplus W$ such that $N,W \subsetneq V$, then there exists $\epsilon \in Sing(V)$ such that $N= N_\epsilon$ and $W=V\epsilon$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
It follows from the previous lemma that a description of principal left ideals of $Sing(V)$ would involve subspaces $V\alpha$ of $V$. The proper subspaces of a vectorspace $V$ with linear transformations as morphisms, in fact form a category $\mathscr{S}(V)$ which shall be called the \emph{Subspace category}. The category $\mathscr{S}(V)$ has a natural {choice of subobjects}---the one provided by subspace inclusions.

Given any linear transformation $f$ between subspaces $A$ and $B$, it has a factorisation of the form $f = quj$ where $q\colon A\to A'$ is a projection, $u=f_{|A'}$ is an isomorphism and $j=j(B',B)$ is an inclusion. Here $A'$ is a complement of the null space $N_f$ of $f$ in $A$; $q\colon A\to A'$ is the projection associated with the direct sum decomposition $N_f \oplus A' =A$, and $B' =$ Im $f = Af$. This gives the normal factorization of $f$ and the linear transformation $qu\colon A \to \text{Im } f$ is called the \emph{epimorphic component} $f^\circ$ of $f$.

Let $v\mathscr{S}(V)$ and $\mathscr{S}(V)$ denote the object set and the morphism set of the category $\mathscr{S}(V)$ respectively. Given any subspace $D \subseteq V$, we associate a mapping $\sigma\colon v\mathscr{S}(V) \to \mathscr{S}(V)$ with the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}
\item  For each subspace $A$ of $V$, $\sigma(A)$ is a linear transformation from $  A$ to $ D$ and whenever $A \subseteq B$, $j(A,B)\sigma(B) =\sigma(A)$.
\item For some subspace $C$ of $V$, $\sigma(C)\colon C \to D$ is an isomorphism.
\end{enumerate}
This collection of morphisms $\{\sigma(A) \: : \: A\in v\mathscr{S}(V)\}$ is called a \emph{normal cone} $\sigma$ with vertex $D$ in the category $\mathscr{S}(V)$. We stress that a normal cone is \emph{not} defined by its vertex; there may exist many normal cones sharing the same vertex.

Let $\gamma$ be a normal cone with vertex $C$ and $f\colon  C\to D$ an onto linear transformation in $\mathscr{S}(V)$. Then we can see that $\gamma*f\colon  A\mapsto \gamma(A) f$ gives a normal cone in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ with vertex $D$. Let $\gamma$, $\delta$ are two normal cones in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ with vertices $C$ and $D$ respectively, then $(\delta(C))^\circ$, the epimorphic component of the morphism $\delta(C)$ is an onto linear transformation from $C$ to Im $\delta(C)$. So, we may compose the normal cones $\gamma$ and $\delta$ as follows.
\begin{equation} \label{eqnsg}
\gamma \cdot \delta := \gamma \ast (\delta(C))^\circ
\end{equation}
Then it can be seen that $\gamma \cdot \delta$ is a normal cone with vertex  Im $\delta(C) \: \subseteq D$. Further, the normal cone $\sigma$ will be called an {idempotent} normal cone, if $\sigma(D) =1_D$.

Let $u\colon  V \to D $ be a linear transformation such that $(x)u = x \quad \forall x \in D$. For any subspace $A \subseteq V$, define
$$\sigma(A) := u_{|A} \colon  A \to D.$$
Then $\sigma$ is an idempotent normal cone with $\sigma(D) = 1_D$ and hence $\mathscr{S}(V)$ is a normal category. The set of all normal cones in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ under the binary operation defined in (\ref{eqnsg}) forms a regular semigroup $T\mathscr{S}(V)$, and this is the {semigroup of normal cones} in $\mathscr{S}(V)$.

Given an element $\alpha$ in $Sing(V)$, we have a normal cone $\rho^\alpha$ in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ called a {principal cone} determined by $\alpha$. Observe that by Lemma \ref{tlx}, for each idempotent $e \in Sing(V)$, the principal left ideal $ (Sing(V))e$ is identified with the subspace Im $e$. So the principal cone $\rho^\alpha$ is defined, for each subspace Im $e$, as follows.
$$ \rho^\alpha(\text{Im } e) := e\alpha_{|\text{Im e}}.$$
The morphism $e\alpha_{|\text{Im e}}$ maps an arbitrary element $\theta$ in the principal left ideal $ (Sing(V))e$ to $\theta e\alpha$ in the principal left ideal $ (Sing(V))\alpha$. This collection of morphisms clearly forms a normal cone in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ with vertex Im $\alpha$. It is known that the map $\alpha \mapsto\rho^\alpha$ is a homomorphism from a given regular semigroup to its semigroup of normal cones. Although it is an isomorphism in the case of regular monoids (which in fact leads to a degeneration of the analysis), this map need not be injective or onto, in general. For instance, the map fails to be injective in the case of rectangular bands and it is not onto in arbitrary completely simple semigroups \cite{amth,css}. Section \ref{variant} gives another instance where the map is not onto. But in the case of $Sing(V)$, every normal cone $\sigma$ with vertex $D$ in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ defines a linear transformation $\alpha\colon  X \to D$ such that $\sigma =\rho^\alpha$ as follows. If $B$ is a basis of $V$, let
\begin{equation}\label{cone}
(b) \alpha := (b)\sigma(\langle b \rangle) \text{ for all } b \in B
\end{equation}
where $\sigma(\langle b \rangle)$ is the component of $\sigma$ at the subspace $\langle b \rangle \in v \mathscr{S}(V)$. Since a linear transformation on $V$ is completely determined by the values on its basis elements, $\alpha$ is a linear transformation on $V$ such that $\sigma =\rho^\alpha$.

Thus every normal cone in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ is a principal cone and hence the map is onto. Further suppose $\rho^\alpha = \rho^\beta$. Then for any $b \in B$, since $\rho^\alpha (\langle b \rangle) = \rho^\beta (\langle b \rangle) $, we see that $ b\alpha = b \beta$ for all $b \in B$, and hence $\alpha = \beta$. Summarising, we have the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm1}
$\mathscr{S}(V)$ is a normal category and $T\mathscr{S}(V)$ is isomorphic to $Sing(V)$.
\end{thm}
Now we proceed to characterize the {normal dual} $N^*\mathscr{S}(V)$ of the Subspace category $\mathscr{S}(V)$. The objects of the {normal dual} $N^*\mathscr{S}(V)$ are $H$-functors $H(\gamma;-)\colon \mathscr{S}(V) \to \mathbf{Set}$ where $\gamma$ is an idempotent normal cone in $\mathscr{S}(V)$. By Theorem \ref{thm1}, we have an identification of the normal cones in $T\mathscr{S}(V)$ with linear transformations in $Sing(V)$. Hence, we define an $H$-functor in $Sing(V)$ as follows. Let $e$ be an idempotent transformation in $Sing(V)$. For each $A \in v\mathscr{S}(V)$ and for each morphism $g\colon A\to B$ in $\mathscr{S}(V)$, $ H(e;-) \colon  \mathscr{S}(V) \to \mathbf{Set}$ is a functor such that
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
H(e;A)= &\{eh : \: h:\text{Im }e\to A \} \text{ and } \label{eqnH1}\\
H(e;g) \colon H(e;A) &\to H(e;B) \text{ given by }eh \mapsto ehg.\label{eqnH2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The following lemma characterizing $H$-functors is pretty straight forward but is crucial in the sequel.
\begin{lem}\label{leml2}
Let $e \in  Sing(V) $ and $A\subseteq V$. Then
$$ H (e ; {A}) = \{  a \in Sing(V) \: : \: N_a \supseteq N_e \text{ and }Va\subseteq A  \}.$$
If $g \colon  {A}\to{B} $ then $ H (e ; g ) \colon  H(e;{A})  \to  H(e;{B})  $ is given by $ a \mapsto  ag $ for $a \in H(e;A)$.
\end{lem}
The above lemma tells us that the $H$-functors $H(e;-)$ in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ is completely determined by the null space $N_e$ of $e$. This inspires us to describe the normal dual $N^*\mathscr{S}(V)$ using the algebraic duality of $V$. Also recall that the principal right ideals of $Sing(V)$ is characterized by the null spaces of $V$.

Given an arbitrary vectorspace $V$ over the field $K$, a {linear functional}\index{linear functional} on $V$ is a linear transformation from $V$ to $K$. The set of all the linear functionals on the vectorspace $V$ forms a vectorspace $V^*$ and is known as the {algebraic dual space} of $V$. Given a linear transformation $u \colon  A \to B$, there is a unique linear transformation $u^* \colon  B^* \to A^*$ called the {transpose}\index{transpose} of $f$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{eqntrans}
(\alpha)u^* = u\alpha \text{ for all } \alpha \in B^*.
\end{equation}
Now we define a new category $\mathscr{A}(V)$ called the \emph{Annihilator category} whose objects are $A^\circ$ where $A^\circ \:=\: \{ f \in V^* : vf=0 \text{ for all } v \in A \}$ is the annihilator\index{annihilator} of $A$, for a proper subspace $A$ of $V$.

To define morphisms in $\mathscr{A}(V)$, we need to analyse the morphisms in $N^*\mathscr{S}(V)$, which are in fact natural transformations between $H$-functors. It has been shown in \cite[III, Lemma 6]{cross} that an $H$-functor $H(e;-)$ is a \emph{representable functor} with Im $e$, as the representing object.

This means that there is a natural isomorphism $\eta_e\colon H(e;-) \to \mathcal{S}(V)(\text{Im } e,-)$, where $\mathcal{S}(V)(\text{Im } e,-)$ is the covariant hom-functor in the category $\mathcal{S}(V)$ determined by the object Im $e$. For a subspace $A\in v\mathcal{S}(V)$ and for $h\colon\text{Im }e \to A$ in $\mathcal{S}(V)$, the component $\eta_e(A)$ of the natural isomorphism $\eta_e$, is given by $\eta_e(A): eh\mapsto h$. Observe here that $eh \in H(e;A)$ and $h$ is a linear transformation in $\mathcal{S}(V)(\text{Im } e,A)$. Compare with (\ref{eqnH1}) and Lemma \ref{leml2} above.

Further, by \emph{Yoneda lemma}, natural transformations between the hom-functors $\mathcal{S}(V)(\text{Im } e,-)$ and $\mathcal{S}(V)(\text{Im } f,-)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the morphisms (in the reverse direction) between the representing objects, Im $f$ and Im $e$. So, as in the proof of \cite[III, Lemma 21]{cross}, we can characterize the set of morphisms between $ H(e;-) $ and $ H({f} ;-)$ in $N^*\mathscr{S}(V)$ using the set of morphisms between Im $f$ and Im $e$ in the category $\mathscr{S}(V)$. Hence we have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
Let $\sigma$ be a natural transformation between $ H(e;-) $ and $ H({f} ;-)$, then there is a unique $u\in f(Sing(V))e$ such that $u_{|\text{Im }f}\colon  \text{Im }f \to \text{Im }e$ and the component of $\sigma$ at a subspace $A= \text{Im }h$ is given by $\sigma(A)\colon eh\mapsto fuh$.
\end{lem}
The above lemma may also be illustrated elegantly using the following commutative diagram.

\begin{equation*}\label{Homf}
\xymatrixcolsep{2pc}\xymatrixrowsep{3pc}\xymatrix
{
 H(e;-) \ar[rr]^{\eta_e} \ar[d]_{\sigma}
 && \mathscr{S}(V)(\text{Im }e,-) \ar[d]^{\mathcal{L}(u_{|\text{Im }f},-)} & \text{Im }e\\
 H(f;-) \ar[rr]^{\eta_{f}} && \mathscr{S}(V)(\text{Im }f,-) & \text{Im }f \ar[u]_{u_{|\text{Im }f}}
}
\end{equation*}

The isomorphism $\eta_e(A)$ maps an element $eh \in H(e;A)$ to $h$ in $ \mathscr{S}(V)(\text{Im }e,A)$. Then $\mathcal{L}(u_{|\text{Im }f},A)$ maps it to $u_{|\text{Im }f}h$. Observe $u_{|\text{Im }f}h \in \mathscr{S}(V)(\text{Im }f ,A) $. Since $\eta_{f}(A)$ is an isomorphism, it is invertible. So $\eta_{f}(A)^{-1}$ maps $u_{|\text{Im }f}h \mapsto fuh$. Thus by diagram chasing, $\sigma(A)=\eta_e(A)\mathcal{L}(u_{|\text{Im }f},A)\eta_{f}(A)^{-1}:uh \mapsto fuh$ and hence the lemma.

In the context of dual spaces, we can simplify the above lemma further to get a nice description of morphims in $\mathscr{A}(V)$ as follows. First, since $N_e \subseteq V$, $(N_e)^\circ \in \mathscr{A}(V)$. If $\alpha \in (N_e)^\circ$, then $(N_e)\alpha = 0$. As $u \in f(Sing(V))e$ and using Lemma \ref{tlx}, we see that $N_f \subseteq N_u$, and $xu\alpha = 0$ for all $x \in N_f$. That is $(N_f)u\alpha = 0$ and $u\alpha \in (N_f)^\circ$. So $u^* \colon  \alpha \mapsto u\alpha$ is a well-defined linear transformation from $(N_e)^\circ$ to $(N_f)^\circ$. Hence, for $u\in f(Sing(V))e$, a morphism $u^*$ in $\mathscr{A}(V)$ from $(N_e)^\circ$ to $(N_f)^\circ$ is defined as follows.
$$u^*\colon \alpha \mapsto u\alpha\text{ for all }\alpha\in (N_e)^\circ.$$
Since $V^*$ is a vectorspace, $\mathscr{S}(V^*)$ is a normal category. We can see that $\mathscr{A}(V)$ is a subcategory of $\mathscr{S}(V^*)$. Now we can define a functor $P \colon  N^\ast \mathscr{S}(V) \to \mathscr{S}(V^*)$  as follows.
\begin{equation} \label{eqnPl}
P (H(e;-)) = (N_e)^\circ \quad\text{and}  \quad
P(\sigma) = u^*
\end{equation}
where $(N_e)^\circ$ is the annihilator of the null space of $e$ and $\sigma (Vh)\colon eh\mapsto fuh$ where $u \in f(Sing(V))e$. We can see that $P$ is well-defined, inclusion preserving, $v$-injective and faithful. Since Im $P = \mathscr{A}(V)$, we have the following results.
\begin{pro}\label{produal}
The normal dual $N^*\mathscr{S}(V)$ of the Subspace category is isomorphic to $\mathscr{A}(V)$. Dually, $N^*\mathscr{A}(V)$ is isomorphic to $\mathscr{S}(V)$. The semigroup $T\mathscr{A}(V)$ of normal cones in $\mathscr{A}(V)$ is isomorphic to $Sing(V)^\text{op}$.
\end{pro}
Although in general, the functor $P$ need not be $v$-surjective or full, it is both $v$-surjective and full when $V$ is finite dimensional. In that case, we see that the normal dual of the Subspace category of the vectorspace $V$ is isomorphic to the Subspace category of the algebraic dual space $V^*$ of $V$ as described in the following theorem. Here the cross-connection duality coincides with the algebraic duality of vectorspaces.
\begin{thm} \label{thmplx}
Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vectorspace over $K$, then $N^\ast \mathscr{S}(V)$ is isomorphic as a normal category to $\mathscr{S}(V^*)$.
\end{thm}

\section{Cross-connections}\label{seccxn}
Summarising, we have seen that the two categories involved in the construction of $Sing(V)$ are the Subspace category $\mathscr{S}(V)$ and the Annihilator category $\mathscr{A}(V)$, and they are mutual normal duals. Now we proceed to describe \emph{all} the cross-connections between them, and construct the semigroups arising from these categories. We will need the following definitions from the general cross-connection theory in the sequel.
\begin{dfn}\label{ideal}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a normal category. Then an \emph{ideal}\index{ideal!of a category} $\langle c \rangle$ of $\mathcal{C}$ is the full subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ whose objects are subobjects of $c$ in $\mathcal{C}$. It is called the principal ideal generated by $c$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}\label{lociso}
Let $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ be normal categories. Then a functor $F\colon  \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ is said to be a \emph{local isomorphism}\index{local isomorphism} if $F$ is inclusion preserving, fully faithful and for each $c \in v\mathcal{C}$, $F_{|\langle c \rangle}$ is an isomorphism of the ideal $\langle c \rangle$ onto $\langle F(c) \rangle$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}\label{cxn}
A \emph{cross-connection}\index{cross-connection} from $\mathcal{D}$ to $\mathcal{C}$ is a triplet $(\mathcal{D},\mathcal{C};{\Gamma})$ where $\Gamma\colon  \mathcal{D} \to N^\ast\mathcal{C}$ is a local isomorphism such that for every $c \in v\mathcal{C}$, there is some $d \in v\mathcal{D}$ such that $c \in M\Gamma(d)$.
\end{dfn}
The M-set\index{M-set} associated with a cone $\sigma$ in $\mathscr{S}(V)$ (also written $MH(\sigma;-)$) is given by
$$ M\sigma = \{ A \in v\mathscr{S}(V) \: |\: \sigma(A)\text{ is an isomorphism} \}.$$
In the case of the Subspace category, the M-set may be characterized as follows.
\begin{pro}\label{proml}
The M-set\index{M-set} of the cone $\rho^e$ is given by $M{\rho^e} = MH(e;-) = M((N_e)^\circ)= \{ A\subseteq V : A \oplus N_e = V \} $.
\end{pro}
From the previous discussion, $(\mathscr{A}(V),\mathscr{S}(V),\Gamma)$ is a cross-connection if $\Gamma\colon  \mathscr{A}(V) \to \mathscr{A}(V)$ is a local isomorphism such that for every $A \in v\mathscr{S}(V)$, there is some $Y \in v\mathscr{A}(V)$ such that $A \in M(\Gamma(Y))$. Given a cross-connection $\Gamma \colon  \mathscr{A}(V) \to \mathscr{A}(V)$ with a dual $\Delta \colon  \mathscr{S}(V) \to \mathscr{S}(V)$, we have two associated bifunctors\index{functor!bifunctor} $\Gamma \colon  \mathscr{S}(V) \times \mathscr{A}(V) \to \bf{Set}$ and $\Delta \colon  \mathscr{S}(V) \times \mathscr{A}(V) \to \bf{Set}$ such that for all $(A,Y) \in v\mathscr{S}(V) \times v\mathscr{A}(V)$ and $(f,w^*)\colon (A,Y) \to (B,Z)$
\begin{subequations}\label{eqnglx}
\begin{align}
\Gamma (A,Y)\:&=\: \{ \alpha \in Sing(V) : V \alpha \subseteq A \text{ and } (N_\alpha)^\circ \subseteq \Gamma(Y) \}\\
\Gamma (f,w^*)\:& \colon \: \alpha \mapsto (y\alpha) f \:=\: y(\alpha f)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $y$ is given by $y^* = \Gamma(w^*)$, and
\begin{subequations}\label{eqndlx}
\begin{align}
\Delta (A,Y)\:&=\: \{ \alpha \in Sing(V) : V\alpha \subseteq \Delta(A) \text{ and } (N_\alpha)^\circ \subseteq Y \}\\
\Delta (f,w^*)\:&\colon \: \alpha \mapsto (w\alpha) g \:=\: w(\alpha g)
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $g = \Delta(f)$.

From the above discussion, it may be observed that every isomorphism between the categories will indeed be a cross-connection. In order to describe isomorphisms between the subspaces of a vectorspace, naturally our attention shifts to the automorphisms of $V$.

Recall that an {automorphism}\index{automorphism} $\theta$ of a vectorspace $V$ is an isomorphism from $V$ onto itself. In the sequel, since $\theta$ often represents a functor, we write the argument on the right side of the automorphism $\theta$ also, for uniformity, but the order of composition is from left to right as earlier.

First observe that the automorphism $\theta$ will map a proper subspace $A$ of $V$ isomorphically to its image. So define a functor $\Delta_{\theta} \colon  \mathscr{S}(V) \to \mathscr{S}(V)$ as follows. For a proper subspace $A$ of $V$ and for $f: A\to B$ in $\mathscr{S}(V)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqndcrossrpl}
\Delta_{\theta} (A) \:=\: \theta(A) \text{ and } \Delta_{\theta}(f) = \theta(f) = \theta^{-1} f \theta.
\end{equation}
Then the functor $\Delta_\theta$ is a normal category isomorphism on the Subspace category $\mathscr{S}(V)$ and so $(\mathscr{S}(V), \mathscr{A}(V) ; \Delta_{\theta})$ is a cross-connection.

Since $\theta$ is an automorphism on $V$, the transpose $\theta^\ast : V^* \to V^*$ is also an automorphism. Hence define a functor $\Gamma_\theta$ on $\mathscr{A}(V)$ as follows. For a proper subspace $Y$ of $V^*$, and for $w^*\colon Y\to Z$ in $\mathscr{A}(V)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqncrossrpl}
\Gamma_{\theta} (Y) \:=\: \theta^*(Y) \text{ and } \Gamma_{\theta}(w^*) = (\theta^{-1})^* w^* (\theta^*) = (\theta w \theta^{-1})^*.
\end{equation}
Then we can see that the functor $\Gamma_\theta$ is a normal category isomorphism on $\mathscr{A}(V)$ and so $(\mathscr{A}(V),\mathscr{S}(V); \Gamma_{\theta})$ is also a cross-connection.

From the above cross-connections, we obtain two bifunctors $\Gamma_{\theta}(-,-)$ and $\Delta_{\theta } (-,-)$ respectively as in (\ref{eqnglx}) and (\ref{eqndlx}). Now if we define a natural transformation $\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}\colon \Gamma_{\theta }(-,-) \to \Delta_{\theta }(-,-)$ as $\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}(A,Y)\colon  \alpha \mapsto \theta^{-1}\alpha\theta$, then for $(f,w^*) \in \mathscr{S}(V) \times \mathscr{S}(V^*)$ with $f \colon  A \to B$ and $w^* \colon  Y \to Z$, the following diagram commutes.
\begin{equation*}\label{duality}
\xymatrixcolsep{4pc}\xymatrixrowsep{3pc}\xymatrix
{
 \Gamma_{\theta }(A,Y) \ar[r]^{\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}(A,Y)} \ar[d]_{\Gamma_{\theta }(f,w^\ast)}
 & \Delta_{\theta }(A,Y) \ar[d]^{\Delta_{\theta }(f,w^\ast)} \\
 \Gamma_{\theta }(B,Z) \ar[r]^{\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}(B,Z)} & \Delta_{\theta }(B,Z)
}
\end{equation*}
Also since the map $\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}(A,Y)$ is a bijection of the set $\Gamma_{\theta }(A,Y)$ onto the set $\Delta_{\theta }(A,Y)$, $\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}$ is a natural isomorphism. Hence the cross-connection $\Delta_\theta$ is the dual of the cross-connection $\Gamma_\theta$ and $\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}$ is the duality associated with $\Gamma_\theta$.

Consequently we see that $\alpha \in T\mathscr{S}(V)$ is linked to $\beta\in T\mathscr{A}(V)$ via the duality $\chi_{\Gamma_\theta}$ if and only if $ \beta = \theta^{-1}\alpha\theta$. So the cross-connection semigroup is given by
$$ \tilde{S}\Gamma_\theta = \:\{\: (\alpha,\theta^{-1}\alpha\theta) \: \text{ such that } \alpha \in Sing(V)\}.$$
Hence clearly $\tilde{S}\Gamma_\theta$ is isomorphic to $Sing(V)$.

Now given an arbitrary cross-connection $\Gamma$ from $\mathscr{A}(V)$ to $\mathscr{S}(V)$ with the dual cross-connection $\Delta$ from $\mathscr{S}(V)$ to $\mathscr{A}(V)$, define a mapping $\theta:V \to V$ as:
$$\theta (b)= x \text{ such that } \Delta( \langle b \rangle) = \langle x \rangle$$
for all $b \in B$, where $B$ is a basis of $V$. Then $\theta$ will clearly be a linear transformation on $V$. Using the cross-connection properties of $\Delta$, the linear transformation $\theta$ can be shown to be an automorphism on $V$. Arguing on similar lines as in the case of normal cones in $\mathscr{S}(V)$, we see that $\Gamma = \Gamma_\theta$ and $\Delta = \Delta_{\theta}$. Since the cross-connection semigroup $ \tilde{S}\Gamma_\theta$ is isomorphic to $Sing(V)$, we have the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
Every cross-connection semigroup arising from the cross-connections between the categories $\mathscr{A}(V)$ and $\mathscr{S}(V)$ is isomorphic to $Sing(V)$.
\end{thm}

\section{Variants}\label{variant}
So far we have described the normal categories $\mathscr{S}(V)$ and $\mathscr{A}(V)$, and studied how they can be \emph{connected} to construct semigroups. The last theorem shows that they do not give rise to any 'new' semigroup. Observe that by adjoining $V$ to $\mathscr{S}(V)$, and $V^*$ to $\mathscr{A}(V)$, we can characterize the categories in the {full} linear transformation semigroup $\mathscr{T}_V$. And using similar arguments (in fact easier, since the \emph{largest object}---$V$ should map to $V$ under cross-connections), we can show that every semigroup that arises is isomorphic to $\mathscr{T}_V$. In this section, we aim to construct the regular part of the {non-trivial} variants of $\mathscr{T}_V$ by {cross-connecting} certain subcategories of $\mathscr{S}(V)$ and $\mathscr{A}(V)$. In the sequel, we will be denoting the categories arising from $\mathscr{T}_V$ also using $\mathscr{S}(V)$ and $\mathscr{A}(V)$, and whether the largest object is adjoined or not will be clear from the context.

For an arbitary linear transformation $\theta$, let $\mathscr{T}_V^\theta = (\mathscr{T}_V,\ast)$ be the variant of the full linear transformation semigroup with the binary composition $\ast$ defined as follows.
$$ \alpha \ast \beta = \alpha \cdot \theta \cdot \beta \quad \text{ for } \alpha, \beta \in \mathscr{T}_V.$$
Variant of arbitrary semigroups was initially studied by Hickey \cite{hickey}, and later by Khan and Lawson \cite{khan}. Khan and Lawson, among other things, had showed that the regular elements of the variant of a regular semigroup form a regular subsemigroup. The variants of the full transformation semigroup have been of recent interest following the works of Tsyaputa \cite{tsya}, Ganyushkin and Mazorchuk \cite{cfts}, Kemprasit \cite{kempra}, Dolinka and East \cite{igd} etc.

Dolinka and East \cite{igd,igd2} have studied the variants of finite full transformation semigroup and semigroup of rectangular matrices in great detail. They have described the structure of the regular part Reg$(\mathscr{T}_X^\theta)$ using the map $\alpha\mapsto (\alpha\theta,\theta\alpha)$ starting from the right and left translations. We will also give a similar description for Reg$(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$ as $\alpha \mapsto (\theta\alpha,\alpha\theta)$, but using cross-connections. Observe the change in the order of components although in both descriptions, the first coordinates arose from right translations. Also our description comes from a much more general theory, and so we expect that it will shed some light on the problem of extending the structure theorem to a more general class of variants.

First, observe that the cross-connection semigroup $ \tilde{S}\Gamma_\theta$ described in the last section (by extending the discussion to the full linear transformation semigroup $\mathscr{T}_V$) refers to the cross-connection arising from the variant semigroup $\mathscr{T}_V^\theta$ where $\theta$ is an automorphism.
If we define $\phi\colon  \mathscr{T}_V^\theta \to \tilde{S}\Gamma_\theta$ as $\alpha \mapsto (\theta\alpha,\alpha\theta)$, then
$$(\alpha \ast \alpha')\phi = (\alpha\theta\alpha')\phi = (\theta\alpha\theta\alpha',\alpha\theta\alpha'\theta ) = (\theta\alpha, \alpha\theta)\circ(\theta \alpha',\alpha'\theta) = (\alpha)\phi \circ (\alpha')\phi.$$
Further it can be seen that $\phi$ is an isomorphism. But $\phi$ is effectively the map $\alpha \mapsto (\rho^{\theta\alpha},\lambda^{\alpha\theta})$ where $\rho^{\theta\alpha}$ and $\lambda^{\alpha\theta}$ are precisely the principal cones in $T\mathscr{S}(V)$ and $T\mathscr{A}(V)$ respectively, which arise from the semigroup $\mathscr{T}_V^\theta$. Hence the same construction may be extended to the variant semigroup for an arbitrary $\theta$. But when $\theta$ is not an automorphism, the map is injective only in the regular part and so we can only recover Reg$(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$.

Now we define categories $\mathscr{R}(V)$ and $\mathscr{B}(V)$ as normal full-subcategories of $\mathscr{S}(V)$ and $\mathscr{A}(V)$ respectively, as follows:
$$v\mathscr{R}(V) = \{ A : \: A \subseteq (N_\theta)^c \} \text{ and } v\mathscr{B}(V) = \{ A^\circ : \: N_\theta \subseteq A \}.$$
Here $(N_\theta)^c$ is a complementary subspace to the null space of $\theta$. Then the semigroup of normal cones in $\mathscr{R}(V)$ is given by $T\mathscr{R}(V) = \{ f\in \mathscr{T}_V : \text{Im }f \subseteq (N_\theta)^c\} $, and the semigroup of normal cones in $\mathscr{B}(V)$ is $T\mathscr{B}(V) = \{ f\in \mathscr{T}_V : N_\theta \subseteq N_f\} $. Clearly $T\mathscr{R}(V)$ and $T\mathscr{B}(V)$ are regular subsemigroups of $\mathscr{T}_V$ and $\mathscr{T}_V^\text{op}$ respectively.

If $\mathscr{R}(V)$ is \emph{big} enough (and that depends on $\theta$), the normal dual $N^*\mathscr{R}(V)$ will be $\mathscr{A}(V)$, else a proper normal full-subcategory of it. Similarly the normal dual $N^*\mathscr{B}(V)$ will be a normal full-subcategory of $\mathscr{S}(V)$.

Now we describe how these categories may be {connected}. For $A \in v\mathscr{R}(V)$, and for $f\colon A\to B$ in $\mathscr{R}(V)$,
$$\Delta(A) = \theta(A) \text{ and } \Delta(f) = (\theta_{|A})^{-1} f \theta.$$
Since $A \subseteq (N_\theta)^c$, the functor $\Delta$ is a {local isomorphism} from $\mathscr{R}(V)$ to $N^*\mathscr{B}(V)$, and hence a cross-connection. Similarly, for $\alpha \in A^\circ \in v\mathscr{B}(V)$, $N_\theta\alpha = 0$. So $\theta^*\colon \alpha \mapsto \theta . \alpha$ is a local isomorphism from $A^\circ$ to $\theta^*(A^\circ)$. So for $A^\circ \in v\mathscr{B}(V)$ and for $w^{*} \colon  A^\circ \to B^\circ$, define $\Gamma$ as follows:
$$\Gamma (A^\circ) \:=\: \theta^*(A^\circ) \text{ and } \Gamma(w^*) = (\theta^*_{|A^\circ})^{-1} w^* \theta^*.$$
Then the transpose $\theta^*$ induces a dual cross-connection $\Gamma$ from the category $\mathscr{B}(V)$ to $N^*\mathscr{R}(V)$.

Imitating the construction as in the previous section (with necessary changes), we obtain a regular semigroup. We can show that the cross-connection semigroup that arises from the above cross-connection is isomorphic to the semigroup $Reg(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$ of all regular elements in $\mathscr{T}_V^\theta$. Thus we have a representation of $Reg(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$ as a subdirect product of $\mathscr{T}_V \times \mathscr{T}_V^\text{op}$ given by $\alpha \mapsto (\theta\alpha,\alpha\theta)$. Summarising, we have the following.
\begin{thm}
The cross-connection semigroup $(\mathscr{B}(V),\mathscr{R}(V); \Gamma)$ is isomorphic to the semigroup $Reg(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$ of all regular elements of $\mathscr{T}_V^\theta$.
\end{thm}
The above discussion shows that the principal ideals in $Reg(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$ are the categories $\mathscr{B}(V)$ and $\mathscr{R}(V)$, and they are {cross-connected} with each other via the sandwich element $\theta$. Observe here that only $\{ \theta\alpha : \alpha \in\text{ Reg}(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta) \}$ are the principal cones in $T\mathscr{R}(V)$, and so there are non-principal normal cones in $\mathscr{R}(V)$; similarly in the category $\mathscr{B}(V)$. Also observe that the functors $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ are {proper local isomorphisms} which are not category isomorphisms.

In $Reg(\mathscr{T}_V^\theta)$, all the subtleties of cross-connection theory play out nicely; reiterating the necessity of such a sophisticated theory in describing the ideal structure of semigroups. This in turn suggests that whenever a semigroup with a complicated ideal structure arises, it is indeed worth taking the risk of 'crossing' into cross-connections!

How we may extend this approach to the entire variant semigroup is an open problem, and the author believes that a solution to this problem may shed some light into the much more general problem of the cross-connection construction of arbitrary semigroups. It is worth mentioning here that Nambooripad himself has made some advances in this direction using certain categories called \emph{set-based categories} \cite{newcross,newcross1}.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
The author is grateful to A. R. Rajan, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India for several fruitful discussions during the preparation of this article.\\
The author is grateful to the editor M. V. Volkov, Ural Federal University, Russia for his keen interest and suggestions which helped improve the manuscript considerably.

\bibliographystyle{plain}


\section{Introduction}

\subsection{Set up}

For a prime $p$, we use ${\mathbb F}_p$ to denote  the finite field of $p$ elements.

For a $t$-sparse polynomial
$$
\Psi(X) = \sum_{i=1}^t a_i X^{k_i}
$$
with some   pairwise distinct positive integer exponents $k_1, \ldots, k_t$ and
coefficients  $a_1, \ldots, a_t\in {\mathbb F}_p^*$,  and a multiplicative character $\chi$ of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$ we define  the   sums
$$
S_\chi(\Psi) = \sum_{x\in {\mathbb F}_p^*} \chi(x) {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(\Psi(x)),
$$
where ${\mathbf{\,e}}_p(u) = \exp(2 \pi i u/p)$ and $\chi$ is an arbitrary
multiplicative character of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$.
Certainly, the most interesting and well-studied special case is when $\chi=\chi_0$ is a
principal character. However most of our results extend to the general case
without any loss of strength or complication of the argument, so this is how we present them.

The main challenge here is to estimate these sums better than by the Weil bound
$$
|S_\chi(\Psi)| \le \max\{k_1, \ldots, k_t\} p^{1/2},
$$
see~\cite[Appendix~5, Example~12]{Weil}, by taking advantage of sparsity
and also of the arithmetic structure of the exponents $k_1, \ldots, k_t$.

For monomials $\Psi(X) = aX^k$ (where we can always assume that $k\mid p-1$)
the first  bound of this type is due to Shparlinski~\cite{Shp1},  which has then been improved
and extended in various directions
by Bourgain,  Glibichuk and  Konyagin~\cite{BGK}, Bourgain~\cite{Bourg1},
Heath-Brown and Konyagin~\cite{HBK}, Konyagin~\cite{Kon}, Shkredov~\cite{Shkr1},
Shteinikov~\cite{Sht}.

Akulinichev~\cite{Aku} gives several  bounds on binomials, see also~\cite{Yu}.  Cochrane, Coffelt and  Pinner,
see~\cite{CoCoPi1,CoCoPi2,CoPi1, CoPi2, CoPi3, CoPi4} and references therein, have given a series of other bounds
on exponential sums with sparse polynomials, some of which we present below in Section~\ref{sec:old res}.

We also remark that exponential sums with sparse polynomials
and a composite denominator have  been studied in~\cite{Bourg2, Shp2}.

Here we use a slightly different approach to improve some of the previous results.
Our approach is reliant on reducing bounds of exponential sums with sparse polynomials
to bounds of weighted multilinear exponential sums of the type considered in~\cite{PetShp}.
However, instead of applying the results of~\cite{PetShp} directly, we first obtain a
more precise variant for triple weighted sums over multiplicative subgroups of  ${\mathbb F}_p^*$,
which could be of independent interest,
see Lemma~\ref{lem:Bound T3} below.

This result rests  on an extension of the bound on the number of collinear triples in
multiplicative subgroups from~\cite[Proposition~1]{Shkr2} to subgroups of any size,
see Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)}. In turn,  this  gives a new bound on
the multiplicative energy of arbitrary subgroups, see Corollary~\ref{cor:EnergyShiftSubgr},
and has several other applications, see Section~\ref{sec:Appl}.

Although here we concentrate on the case of trinomials
 \begin{equation}
\label{eq:Trinom}
\Psi(X) =aX^{k}+bX^\ell + cX^m,
 \end{equation}
our method works, without any changes, for more general sums with polynomials
of the shape
$$
\Psi(X) = aX^k + F(X^\ell) + G(X^m)
$$
with arbitrary polynomials $F,G \in {\mathbb F}_p[X]$ (uniformly in the degrees of $F$ and $G$, which essentially
means that  they can be any functions defined on ${\mathbb F}_p$).

One can certainly use our approach for sums with quadrinomials reducing it
to quadrilinear sums and  using our Lemma~\ref{Bound Dx}
in an appropriate place of the argument of the proof of~\cite[Theorem~1.4]{PetShp}. Furthermore, using results of~\cite{Bourg2,BouGlib,Gar},
one can consider the case of arbitrary sparse polynomials.

The notation $A \ll B$ is equivalent to $|A| \leq c |B|$ for some constant $c$,
which, throughout the paper may only depend on the number of monomials
in the sparse  polynomials under considerations.

\subsection{Previous  results}
\label{sec:old res}

We compare our results  for trinomials~\eqref{eq:Trinom} with the
 estimates of
 Cochrane, Coffelt and  Pinner~\cite[Equation~(1.6)]{CoCoPi1}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CCP bound1}
S_\chi(\Psi) \ll \(\frac{k\ell m}{ \max\{ k,\ell, m\}}\)^{1/4}  p^{7/8}
\end{equation}
which  is non-trivial for $\min\{k\ell,  k m, \ell m \}<p^{1/2}$,
and of Cochrane  and  Pinner~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{CoPi1}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CP bound}
S_\chi(\Psi) \ll  (k\ell m)^{1/9} p^{5/6}
\end{equation}
which  is non-trivial for $k\ell m<p^{3/2}$.

We also recall the bound of Cochrane, Coffelt and  Pinner~\cite[Corollary~1.1]{CoCoPi2}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CCP bound2}
S_\chi(\Psi) \ll  D^{1/2} p^{7/8} + (k\ell m)^{1/4}p^{5/8}
\end{equation}
where $D = \gcd(k, \ell, m, p-1)$, which  is non-trivial for $k\ell m<p^{3/2}$
and $D < p^{1/4}$.

\subsection{New results}

The following quantity is one of our main objects of study.

\begin{definition}[Collinear triples]
For sets  ${\mathcal U}_1, {\mathcal U}_2 \subseteq{\mathbb F}^*_p$ and elements $\lambda_1,\lambda_2 \in  {\mathbb F}^*_p$ we define ${\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2} ({\mathcal U}_1, {\mathcal U}_2)$ to be the number of solutions to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T_def}
\frac{u_1-\lambda_1 v_1}{u_1-\lambda_1 w_1} = \frac{u_2- \lambda_2 v_2}{u_2- \lambda_2 w_2}, \qquad u_i,v_i,w_i \in {\mathcal U}_i,  \ i=1,2.
  \end{equation}
\end{definition}
We also set
$$
 {\mathrm{T}}({\mathcal U}) = {\mathrm{T}}_{1,1} ({\mathcal U}, {\mathcal U}).
 $$

As the relation~\eqref{eq:Colin} shows,  the triples $(u_i,v_i,w_i)$, $ i=1,2$
satisfying~\eqref{eq:T_def} define their collinear points.
Recent results on the quantity ${\mathrm{T}}({\mathcal U})$ for an arbitrary set ${\mathcal U}$ can be
found in~\cite{MPR-NRS}, where, in particular, the bound
$$
 {\mathrm{T}}({\mathcal U}) = \frac{|{\mathcal U}|^6}{p}  + O\(p^{1/2} |{\mathcal U}|^{7/2}\)
$$
is given.  This bound has been generalised in~\cite{Mac} as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:T-Gen U}
 {\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}({\mathcal U}_1, {\mathcal U}_2) = \frac{|{\mathcal U}_1|^3|{\mathcal U}_2|^3}{p}
 + O\(p^{1/2}|{\mathcal U}_1|^{3/2}|{\mathcal U}_2|^2+|{\mathcal U}_1|^{3}|{\mathcal U}_2|\),
 \end{equation}
 provided that $|{\mathcal U}_1| \ge |{\mathcal U}_2|$.

Note that in~\eqref{eq:T_def}, as well as in all similar expressions of this type, we
consider only the values of the variables for which these expressions are defined
(that is, $u_i \ne \lambda_i w_i$,  $i=1,2$ in~\eqref{eq:T_def}).

We begin by providing a new result on the number of collinear triples in subgroups.
More generally, for  a multiplicative subgroup ${\mathcal G}$ of ${\mathbb F}^*_p$  we define
${\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda} ({\mathcal G}) =  {\mathrm{T}}_{1,\lambda} ({\mathcal G})$ which is our main object of study.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:T(G)}
Let ${\mathcal G}$   be a multiplicative subgroup of ${\mathbb F}^*_p$.
Then for any  $\lambda  \in  {\mathbb F}^*_p$, we have
$$
 {\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda} ({\mathcal G}) - \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^6}{p}  \ll  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{1/2} |{\mathcal G}|^{7/2},& \text{if $ |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^5 p^{-1/2} , & \text{if $p^{2/3} > |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2}\log p$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^4 \log |{\mathcal H}|, & \text{if $|{\mathcal G}|< p^{1/2}\log p$}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:new vs old}
Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)} is new only for subgroups of intermediate size $p^{2/3} > |{\mathcal G}|>p^{1/2}$, otherwise it is
contained in~\cite[Proposition~1]{Shkr2},  see also Lemma~\ref{lem:sigma}  below,
or in the bound~\eqref{eq:T-Gen U} from~\cite{Mac}.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:G and H}
The method of proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)} also works without any changes
for ${\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda, \mu} ({\mathcal G}, {\mathcal H}) $ with two multiplicative subgroups, similarly to Lemma~\ref{lem:sigma}.
However, for subgroups of significantly different sizes the optimisation part becomes rather
tedious.
\end{remark}

We use  Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)} to obtain the following new bound on trinomial sums.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Bound3}
Let $\Psi(X)$ be a trinomial of the form~\eqref{eq:Trinom}
with $a,b,c  \in {\mathbb F}_p^*$.
Define
$$d= \gcd(k,p-1), \qquad e = \gcd(\ell,p-1), \qquad  f =  \gcd(m,p-1)
$$
and
$$
g =\frac{d}{\gcd(d,f)},\qquad h =\frac{e}{\gcd(e,f)}.
$$
Suppose
$f \ge g\ge h$, then
$$
S_\chi(\Psi) \ll  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{7/8}f^{1/8}, & \text{if $h\ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},\\
p^{15/16}(f/h)^{1/8} \(\log p\)^{1/16}, & \text{if $ g \ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}>h$},\\
p(f/gh)^{1/8}\(\log p\)^{1/8}, & \text{if $g< \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{theorem}

Note that the assumption $f\ge g\ge h$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:Bound3}  does not present any
additional restriction on the class of polynomials to which it applies as
the roles of $k$, $\ell$ and $m$

are fully symmetric: if $h > g$,  say, one can simply interchange $g$ and $h$ in the bound.

We observe that the  bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:Bound3}  does not directly depend on the size of the exponents  $k$, $\ell$ and $m$  but rather  on various  greatest common divisors. In particular, it is strongest for large
 $d$ and $e$ and small  greatest common divisors $f$, $\gcd(d,f)$ and $\gcd(e,f)$.
Furthermore,  it may remain nontrivial even for polynomials of very large degrees,  while
 the bounds~\eqref{eq:CCP bound1},  \eqref{eq:CP bound} and~\eqref{eq:CCP bound2}
 all become trivial for trinomials of large degree.
 Thus it is easy to give various families   of parameters where  Theorem~\ref{thm:Bound3}
 improves the bounds~\eqref{eq:CCP bound1}, \eqref{eq:CP bound} and~\eqref{eq:CCP bound2}
 simultaneously.

 For example, we assume that $f > d > e$ are relatively prime positive integers with, say,
 $$
 p^\delta < f < (de)^{1-\delta}
 $$
  for some fixed real $\delta > 0$.
 Then $g = d$ and $h = e$ and we also have $d< p^{1/2}$, $e < p^{1/3}$. Hence, the bound of
 Theorem~\ref{thm:Bound3} becomes
 $$
 S_\chi(\Psi) \ll p(f/gh)^{1/8+o(1)}  = p(f/de)^{1/8+o(1)},
 $$
 which always gives a power saving against the trivial bound. On the other hand,
 choosing $k$, $\ell$ and $m$ as large multiples of $d$, $e$ and $f$, respectively,
 say, with $k,m,\ell \ge p^{1/2+\delta}$,
 we see that all bounds from Section~\ref{sec:old res}, and of course the Weil bound,
 are trivial.

 We also give further applications of Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)} to some additive problems
 with multiplicative subgroups of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$ in Section~\ref{sec:Appl}.
 In particular, in  Corollary~\ref{cor:Rom} we consider a modular version of the {\it Romanoff
theorem\/} and show that  for  almost all primes $p$, any residue  class
modulo $p$ can be represented as a sum of  a prime $\ell   < p$ and three powers of
any fixed integer $g \ge 2$.
We recall that the classical result of Romanoff~\cite{Rom} asserts  that for any fixed integer $g \ge 2$ a positive proportion of integers can be written
in the form $\ell+g^k$, with some prime $\ell$ and non-negative integer $k$. By a result of Crocker~\cite{Croc}, there are infinitely
many positive integers not of the form  $\ell+2^k+2^m$. The case of three powers of $2$ or any other base $g>2$
is widely open.

\section{Collinear Triples}
\label{sec:col trip}

\subsection{Prelimaries}

We require some previous results.
We note that we use  Lemma~\ref{lem:Mit} only for ${\mathcal G} = {\mathcal H}$, however we present it and also some other results in full generality as we  believe they may find several other applications and this deserves to be known better.

The first one is a result of Mit'kin~\cite[Theorem~2]{Mit}
extending  that of
Heath-Brown and
Konyagin~\cite[Lemma~5]{HBK},   see also~\cite{Kon,

	ShkVyu}
for further generalisations.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Mit}
Let ${\mathcal G}$ and ${\mathcal H}$ be  subgroups of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$ and let
 ${\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}$ and ${\mathcal M}_{\mathcal H} $
be two complete sets  of distinct coset representatives
of ${\mathcal G}$ and ${\mathcal H}$  in ${\mathbb F}_p^*$.
For an arbitrary set $\varTheta \subseteq{\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G} \times {\mathcal M}_{\mathcal H}$ such that
$$
|\varTheta| \le \min\left\{ |{\mathcal G}||{\mathcal H}|, \frac{p^3}{|{\mathcal G}|^2|{\mathcal H}|^2}\right\}
$$
we have
$$
\sum_{(u,v) \in \varTheta}\left |\{(x,y) \in {\mathcal G}\times {\mathcal H}~:~ux+vy=1\}\right| \ll (|{\mathcal G}||{\mathcal H}||\varTheta|^2)^{1/3}.
$$
\end{lemma}

Note that there is a natural bijection between ${\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}$, ${\mathcal M}_{\mathcal H}$ and some subsets  of the factor groups ${\mathbb F}_p^*/{\mathcal G}$ and ${\mathbb F}_p^*/{\mathcal H}$.
So, one can think of $\Theta$ as a subset of ${\mathbb F}_p^*/{\mathcal G} \times {\mathbb F}_p^*/{\mathcal H}$.

Clearly, the trivial bound on the sum of Lemma~\ref{lem:Mit} is
$$
\sum_{(u,v) \in \varTheta}\left |\{(x,y) \in {\mathcal G}\times {\mathcal H}~:~ux+vy=1\}\right| \ll
\min\{ |{\mathcal G}|, |{\mathcal H}|\}|\varTheta|.
$$
Hence if, for example,  ${\mathcal G} = {\mathcal H}$, then  Lemma~\ref{lem:Mit} always significantly improves this bound.

Given a line
$$
\ell_{a,b}=\{(x,y) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2~:~ y = ax+b\}
$$
for some
pair $(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2$ and  sets  ${\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B}\subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$,  we
denote
$$
 \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\) = \left |\ell_{a,b} \cap \({\mathcal A}\times {\mathcal B}\)\right|.
$$

The following elementary identities are well-known and no doubt have appeared,
implicitly and explicitly, in a number of works.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Mom12}
Let ${\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B}\subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$ and $\lambda,\mu \in {\mathbb F}_p^*$. Then
$$
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}    \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\) = \sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}    \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu b}\) =   p |{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}|
$$
and
$$
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}     \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\) \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu b}\)  = |{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2 - |{\mathcal A}| |{\mathcal B}|^2  + p|{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}|.
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}  The first relation is   obvious
as for every $(x,y,a) \in {\mathcal A}\times {\mathcal B} \times {\mathbb F}_p$ there is a unique $b = y -ax$ counted in that sum.

For the second sum, we write
\begin{align*}
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}  &    \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu b}\) \\
& =
\sum_{(u,v,x,y) \in {\mathcal A}\times {\mathcal B} \times {\mathcal A} \times {\mathcal B}}
\left|\{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2~:~ v =   au + b, \ y = \lambda ax+\mu b\}\right|.
\end{align*}
We now note that the $|{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}|$ quadruples $(u,v,x,y)\in {\mathcal A}\times {\mathcal B} \times {\mathcal A} \times {\mathcal B}$ with
$$
(u,v) = (\lambda\mu^{-1} x, \mu^{-1} y)
$$
define exactly $p$ pairs $(a,b) = (a, v-au) \in  {\mathbb F}_p^2$ as above.
Furthermore, the $|{\mathcal A}| |{\mathcal B}|\(|{\mathcal B}|-1\)$ quadruples $(u,v,x,y) \in {\mathcal A}\times {\mathcal B} \times {\mathcal A} \times {\mathcal B}$ with
$u =\lambda\mu^{-1} x$ but $v \ne \mu^{-1} y$ do not define any pairs $(a,b)$ as above.
The remaining
$$
|{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2 -|{\mathcal A}| |{\mathcal B}|\(|{\mathcal B}|-1\) -|{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}| =|{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2 - |{\mathcal A}| |{\mathcal B}|^2
$$
pairs (including the one with  $u \ne \lambda\mu^{-1} x$ but $v = \mu^{-1} y$)
define  one pair $(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2$ as above each, which concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

Using Lemma~\ref{lem:Mom12} with $\lambda = \mu =1$,
we now immediately derive the following result:

\begin{cor}
\label{cor:BKT-Deviate}
Let ${\mathcal A}\subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$. Then
$$
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2} \(  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}|}{p} \right)^2 \le p|{\mathcal A}| |{\mathcal B}| \,.
$$
\end{cor}

We now link the number of collinear triples $  {\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda,\mu} ({\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B}) $ with the
quantities $  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: T-Mom3}
Let ${\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B}\subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$ and $\lambda,\mu \in {\mathbb F}_p^*$. Then
$$
{\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda, \mu} ({\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B}) =
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}     \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)   \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)^2+ O(|{\mathcal A}|^2 |{\mathcal B}|^2)\,.
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Transforming the equation~\eqref{eq:T_def} into
$$
\frac{u_1-\lambda v_1}{u_2-\mu v_2} = \frac{u_1-\lambda w_1}{u_2-\mu w_2}, \qquad u_1,v_1,w_1\in {\mathcal A},  \ u_2,v_2,w_2\in {\mathcal B},
$$
we introduce an error  of magnitude $ O(|{\mathcal A}|^2 |{\mathcal B}|^2)$
(coming from different pairs of variables which must be distinct).
Then collecting, for every $a \in {\mathbb F}_p$, the solutions with
$$
\frac{u_1-\lambda v_1}{u_2-\mu v_2} = \frac{u_1-\lambda w_1}{u_2-\mu w_2} = a
$$
we derive:
$$
u_1-au_2 = \lambda v_1-a\mu v_2 = \lambda w_1-a\mu w_2.
$$
We now denote this common value by $b$ and observe that for any $(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2$ there are
$  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)   \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)^2$ solutions to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Colin}
u_1-au_2 = \lambda v_1-a\mu v_2 = \lambda w_1-a\mu w_2= b.
  \end{equation}
Summing over all pairs $(a,b)  \in {\mathbb F}_p^2$, we obtain the result.
 \end{proof}

\begin{cor}
\label{cor:T Asymp}
Let ${\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B}\subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$ and $\lambda,\mu \in {\mathbb F}_p^*$. Then
\begin{align*}
{\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda, \mu} ({\mathcal A}, {\mathcal B})  &  -  \frac{|{\mathcal A}|^3|{\mathcal B}|^3}{p} \\
&  =
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}   \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \(  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}|}{p} \right)^2
+O(|{\mathcal A}|^2 |{\mathcal B}|^2)\,.
\end{align*}
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Using the identity $X^2 = (X-Y)^2 +2XY-Y^2$ with $X =    \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)$ and $Y =  |{\mathcal A}| |{\mathcal B}|/p$
we see that
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:TR1R2}
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}  &   \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)^2\\
 & = \sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}   \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \(  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal A}|^2}{p} \right)^2 +   R_1 -  R_2,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
R_1 & = 2  \frac{|{\mathcal A}||{\mathcal B}|}{p}  \sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}     \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)
  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\), \\
R_2 &=
  \frac{|{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2}{p^2}   \sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}     \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\).
\end{align*}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Mom12}, after simple calculations,  we have
$$
R_1 -  R_2 =  2  \( |{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2- |{\mathcal A}|^2 |{\mathcal B}|^3/p\)
 \ll  |{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2.
 $$
Combining this with~\eqref{eq:TR1R2} yields
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}     \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{\lambda a,\mu  b}\)^2 \\
 &  \quad =   \frac{|{\mathcal A}|^3|{\mathcal B}|^3}{p} +
\sum_{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2}   \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \(  \iota_{{\mathcal A},{\mathcal B}}\(\ell_{a,b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal A}|^2}{p} \right)^2+ O\( |{\mathcal A}|^2|{\mathcal B}|^2\).
\end{align*}
Hence, using  Lemma~\ref{lem: T-Mom3}, we  obtain the result.
\end{proof}

Given two sets ${\mathcal U}, {\mathcal V} \subseteq  {\mathbb F}_p$, we define ${\mathrm{E}}^\times({\mathcal U}, {\mathcal V})$ to be the {\it multiplicative energy\/}
of ${\mathcal U}$ and ${\mathcal V}$, that is,    the number of solutions to
$$
u_1v_1=u_2v_2, \qquad u_1,u_2 \in {\mathcal U}, \ v_1, v_2 \in {\mathcal V}.
$$
For ${\mathcal U} = {\mathcal V}$ we also write
$$
{\mathrm{E}}^\times({\mathcal U}) = {\mathrm{E}}^\times({\mathcal U}, {\mathcal U}).
$$
It is easy to see that for any subgroup of ${\mathcal G},{\mathcal H} \subseteq{\mathbb F}_p^*$ and $\lambda,\mu \in {\mathbb F}_p^*$
we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:T and E}
{\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda,\mu} ({\mathcal G}, {\mathcal H})& = \sum_{(g,h)\in {\mathcal G}\times {\mathcal H}}
 {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}-\lambda g,{\mathcal H}-\mu h) +  O(|{\mathcal G}|^3|{\mathcal H}|).\\
 &= |{\mathcal G}| |{\mathcal H}| {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}-\lambda ,{\mathcal H}-\mu) +  O(|{\mathcal G}|^3|{\mathcal H}|),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where the error term $O(|{\mathcal G}|^3|{\mathcal H}|)$ (which is obviously negative) accounts for zero values  of the linear forms in the definition of ${\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda,\mu} ({\mathcal G}, {\mathcal H})$.

Finally, we need the following bound for small subgroups, which is a slightly simplified form of~\cite[Proposition~1]{Shkr2} combined with~\eqref{eq:T and E}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:sigma}
Let ${\mathcal G}$ be a subgroup of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$
with  $|{\mathcal G}|\ge |{\mathcal H}|$ and $|{\mathcal G}||{\mathcal H}| < p$.
Then
$$
{\mathrm{T}}_{\lambda,\mu} ({\mathcal G}, {\mathcal H}) \ll   |{\mathcal G}|^3  |{\mathcal H}| \log |{\mathcal G}|  \,.
$$
\end{lemma}

\subsection{Initial reductions}

The argument below follows~\cite{Shkr2, Shkr4}.

First of all, note that  Lemma~\ref{lem:sigma} implies the required result provided
$|{\mathcal G}||{\mathcal H}| < p$ while the bound~\eqref{eq:T-Gen U}  implies it for $|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$.

So it remains to consider the case
$$
p^{2/3} > |{\mathcal G}| > p^{1/2}.
$$

Let $\Delta\ge 3$ be a parameter to be chosen  later.
Using Corollaries~\ref{cor:BKT-Deviate} and~\ref{cor:T Asymp}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:T Sigma}
{\mathrm{T}}_\lambda({\mathcal G}) - \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^6}{p}  \ll
 |{\mathcal G}|^4 + \Delta |{\mathcal G}|^2 p  + W \,,
\end{equation}
where
$$
W =  \sum_{\substack{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2\\ \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\)> \Delta}} \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\)
 \( \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a, \lambda b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^2}{p} \right)^2.
$$

Clearly, the contribution  to $W$ from lines  with $ab= 0$, is at most $|{\mathcal G}|^4$
as in this case  $\iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\) = 0$ unless $a\in {\mathcal G}$ or $b\in {\mathcal G}$, in which case
$\iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\) = |{\mathcal G}|$.
Therefore,
$$
  \sum_{\substack{(a,b) \in {\mathbb F}_p^2\\ ab = 0}}\iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\)
  \( \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a, \lambda b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^2}{p} \right)^2  =  O\(|{\mathcal G}|^4\).
$$
 Thus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Sigmas}
W = W^* + O\(|{\mathcal G}|^4\)
\end{equation}
where
$$
W^* =  \sum_{\substack{(a,b) \in ({\mathbb F}_p^*)^2\\ \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\)> \Delta}} \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\)  \( \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a, \lambda b}\)- \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^2}{p} \right)^2,
$$
which is the sum we now consider.

Returning  to~\eqref{eq:T_def}, we see that the quantity ${\mathrm{T}}_\lambda({\mathcal G})$ is equal, up to the error
$O(|{\mathcal G}|^4)$,  which can be absorbed in the same error term that  is already present
in~\eqref{eq:T Sigma},
to the number of  solutions of the equation
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:Tmod}
(u_1- v_1)(u_2-\lambda w_2)& = (u_1-w_1)(u_2-\lambda v_2)\ne 0,  \\
u_i,v_i,w_i & \in {\mathcal G},  \ i=1,2.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\subsection{Sets $ \varTheta_\tau$ and ${\mathcal Q}_\tau$}
Let, as before, ${\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}$  be a set of distinct coset representatives
of ${\mathcal G}$   in ${\mathbb F}_p^*$.
Take another  parameter $\tau  \ge \Delta$ and put
$$
    \varTheta_\tau= \{ (\alpha, \beta) \in {\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}^2  ~:~ | \{ (x,y) \in {\mathcal G}^2~:~\alpha x+ \beta y=1 \} | \ge \tau \} \,.
$$
In other words, $\varTheta_\tau$  is the set of $(\alpha, \beta) \in {\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}^2$ for which
the lines
\begin{equation}\label{eq:L and l}
{\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \beta} = \{ (x,y)\in {\mathbb F}_p^2~:~\alpha x+ \beta y=1 \} =  \ell_{-\alpha \beta^{-1}, \beta^{-1}}
\end{equation}
have the intersection with ${\mathcal G}^2$  of size at least
$$
\iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{-\alpha \beta^{-1}, \beta^{-1}}\) \ge \tau.
$$
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Theta-tau}
 \varTheta_\tau =
  \{  (\alpha, \beta)  \in  {\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}^2 ~:~  \iota_{\mathcal G}\({\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \beta}\)  \ge \tau \}.

\end{equation}

By Lemma~\ref{lem:Mit}, we have $|\varTheta_\tau| \tau \ll (|{\mathcal G}||\varTheta_\tau|)^{2/3}$
provided
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond1}
|{\mathcal G}|^4 |\varTheta_\tau| < p^3
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cond2}
|\varTheta_\tau| \le   |{\mathcal G}|^2.
\end{equation}

We also define the set
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Q-tau}
{\mathcal Q}_\tau =
  \{  (\alpha, \beta)  \in \({\mathbb F}_p^*\)^2 ~:~  \iota_{\mathcal G}\({\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \beta}\)  \ge \tau \}.

\end{equation}
Comparing~\eqref{eq: Theta-tau} and~\eqref{eq: Q-tau}, we see that we can think of
$\varTheta_\tau$ as of an union of cosets ${\mathcal Q}_\tau/{\mathcal G}$.
Clearly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q_tau}
|{\mathcal Q}_\tau| = |{\mathcal G}|^2 |\varTheta_\tau|   \ll |{\mathcal G}|^4 \tau^{-3}
\end{equation}
provided the conditions~\eqref{eq:cond1} and~\eqref{eq:cond2} are satisfied.

The condition~\eqref{eq:cond2}  is trivial to verify. Indeed, since
$ |{\mathcal G}|^2 > p$, we have
$$
|\varTheta_\tau| \le   |{\mathcal M}_{\mathcal G}|^2 = (p-1)^2/  |{\mathcal G}|^{2}  \le  |{\mathcal G}|^{2}
$$
and thus~\eqref{eq:cond2}  holds.

We now show that  the condition~\eqref{eq:cond1}  also holds
for the following choice
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Delta}
\Delta = c |{\mathcal G}|^3 p^{-3/2},
\end{equation}
with a sufficiently large constant $c$  (recalling that  $|{\mathcal G}|> p^{1/2}$ we see that the
condition $\Delta \ge 3$ is satisfied).

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Q_tau} For $\Delta$ given by~\eqref{eq: Delta} the bound~\eqref{eq:cond1}  holds.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Suppose, to the contrary,  that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Contr}
|\varTheta_\tau| > p^3 / |{\mathcal G}|^4\, .
\end{equation}
Whence,
the number of incidences between points of ${\mathcal P} = {\mathcal G}^2$
and the lines ${\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \beta}$ as above  with $ (\alpha, \beta) \in {\mathcal Q}_\tau$ is at least
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:L-Bound}
|{\mathcal Q}_\tau| \tau =  |{\mathcal G}|^2 |\varTheta_\tau|  \tau  > p^3 |{\mathcal G}|^{-2} \Delta\,.
\end{equation}
On the other hand,  by a classical result which holds over any field
(see, for example~\cite[Corollary 5.2]{BKT}
or~\cite[Exercise~8.2.1]{TaoVu}) the number of incidences for
any set of points ${\mathcal P}$
and a set of  lines ${\mathcal Q}_\tau$ is at most $|{\mathcal Q}_\tau|^{1/2} |{\mathcal P}| + |{\mathcal Q}_\tau|$.
Hence
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Incid}
|{\mathcal Q}_\tau| \tau \le |{\mathcal Q}_\tau|^{1/2} |{\mathcal P}| + |{\mathcal Q}_\tau|
\end{equation}
 and we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:U-Bound}
|{\mathcal Q}_\tau| \tau^2 \ll  |{\mathcal P}|^2  =  |{\mathcal G}|^4.
\end{equation}
Combining~\eqref{eq:L-Bound} and~\eqref{eq:U-Bound}, we derive
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Bounds}
p^3 |{\mathcal G}|^{-2} \Delta < |{\mathcal Q}_\tau| \tau   \ll  |{\mathcal G}|^4 \tau^{-1} \le   |{\mathcal G}|^4 \Delta^{-1} .
\end{equation}
Recalling that  $|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2} $,  we see that for $\Delta$ given by~\eqref{eq: Delta}
with a sufficiently large constant $c$
the inequalities~\eqref{eq: Bounds} are impossible, which also shows that our assumption~\eqref{eq:Contr} is false and this concludes the proof.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Concluding the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)}}

We now define
$$
{\mathcal R}_\tau =
 \left \{  (\alpha, \beta)  \in \({\mathbb F}_p^*\)^2 ~:~
  \max \left\{\iota_{\mathcal G}\({\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \beta}\), \iota_{\mathcal G}\({\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \lambda \beta}\) \right\} \ge \tau \right\}.
 $$

By Lemma~\ref{lem:Q_tau}, for the  choice~\eqref{eq: Delta} of $\Delta$ we have the desired condition~\eqref{eq:cond1}
for any $\tau \ge \Delta$. Hence, the bound~\eqref{eq:q_tau} also implies
that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:r_tau}
|{\mathcal R}_\tau| = |{\mathcal G}|^2 |\varTheta_\tau|   \ll |{\mathcal G}|^4 \tau^{-3}.
\end{equation}

We see from~\eqref{eq:L and l} that there is a one-to-one correspondence
between the lines $\ell_{a,b}$, $(a,b)\in \({\mathbb F}_p^*\)^2$ and the lines
${\mathcal L}_{\alpha, \beta}$, $(\alpha, \beta)\in \({\mathbb F}_p^*\)^2$.
We now define
$$
\tau_j = e^{j}\Delta,  \qquad j =0,1, \ldots, J,
$$
where
$$
J = \rf{\log (|{\mathcal G}|/\Delta)}.
$$
Note that due to the choice of $\Delta$ and the condition  $|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2}$ we have
$$
\tau_j \ge \tau_0 =\Delta \gg  |{\mathcal G}|^3 p^{-3/2} \ge   |{\mathcal G}|^2/p ,  \qquad j =0,1, \ldots, J.
$$
Then, recalling also the bound~\eqref{eq:r_tau}, we conclude that the contribution to $W^*$ from the lines with
$\tau_{j+1}\ge \iota_{\mathcal G}\(\ell_{a,b}\)> \tau_j$ is bounded
by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Qj}
\left|{\mathcal Q}_{\tau_j}\right| \tau_{j+1} \(\tau_{j+1} + |{\mathcal G}|^2/p\)^2 \ll \left|{\mathcal Q}_{\tau_j}\right| \tau_{j+1}^3
 \ll  |{\mathcal G}|^4 .
\end{equation}
Summing up~\eqref{eq:Qj} we obtain
$$
W^* \ll  J  |{\mathcal G}|^4  \ll \ |{\mathcal G}|^4 \log |{\mathcal G}|.
$$
Substituting this bound in~\eqref{eq:Sigmas} and
combining it with~\eqref{eq:T Sigma}, we
obtain
$$
 {\mathrm{T}}_\lambda({\mathcal G}) = \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^6}{p}  + O\( |{\mathcal G}|^5 p^{-1/2}+  |{\mathcal G}|^4 \log |{\mathcal G}|\) \,
 $$
 in the range $p^{2/3} \ge |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2}$, which concludes the proof.

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:Incid}
In principle, a stronger version of the classical incidence bound which is used~\eqref{eq:Incid}
may lead to improvements of Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)}. However, the range where such improvements
are known is far away from the range which appears in our applications, see~\cite{StdeZe}.
\end{remark}

\section{Trinomial  sums}
\subsection{Preliminaries}

We recall the following classical  bound of  bilinear sums,
see, for example,~\cite[Lemma~4.1]{Gar}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:bilin}
For any sets ${\mathcal X}, {\mathcal Y} \subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$ and any  $\alpha= (\alpha_{x})_{x\in {\mathcal X}}$, $\beta = \( \beta_{y}\)_{y \in {\mathcal Y}}$,
with
$$
\max_{x\in {\mathcal X}}|\alpha_{x}| \le 1 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad  \max_{y \in {\mathcal Y}}|\beta_{y}| \le 1
$$
we have
$$
\left |\sum_{x \in {\mathcal X}}\sum_{y \in {\mathcal Y}} \alpha_{x} \beta_{y}  {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(xy) \right| \le \sqrt{p|X||Y|}.
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{definition}[Ratios of differences]
For a set  ${\mathcal U} \subseteq{\mathbb F}^*_p$, we define $D_\times({\mathcal U})$ to be the number of solutions of
$$
(u_1-v_1)(u_2-v_2) = (u_3-v_3)(u_4-v_4), \qquad u_i,v_i \in {\mathcal U},\  i=1,2,3,4,
$$
\end{definition}

As before we define ${\mathrm{T}}({\mathcal U})$  as the number of solutions to~\eqref{eq:T_def}.

We now recall the following bound from~\cite[Lemma~2.7]{PetShp}.

\begin{lemma} \label{Bound Dx}
For any set ${\mathcal U} \subseteq{\mathbb F}_p^*$ with $|{\mathcal U}|=U$, we have
$$
D_\times({\mathcal U}) \ll U^2{\mathrm{T}}({\mathcal U}) + U^6.
$$
\end{lemma}

Combining Lemma~\ref{Bound Dx} with Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)} we obtain
$$
D_\times({\mathcal G}) \ll \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^8}{p} +  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{1/2} |{\mathcal G}|^{11/2},& \text{if $ |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^7 p^{-1/2} , & \text{if $p^{2/3} > |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2}\log p$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^6 \log |{\mathcal G}|, & \text{if $|{\mathcal G}|< p^{1/2}\log p$}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$

Since for $|{\mathcal G}| \ge  \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$ the first term dominates, this simplifies as
\begin{cor} \label{Bound Dx2}
For a multiplicative subgroup ${\mathcal G} \subseteq {\mathbb F}_p^*$, we have
$$
D_\times({\mathcal G}) \ll   \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
|{\mathcal G}|^8 p^{-1} , & \text{if $|{\mathcal G}| \ge  \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^6 \log |{\mathcal G}|, & \text{if $|{\mathcal G}|<  \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{cor}

Substituting in Corollary~\ref{Bound Dx2} into the proof of~\cite[Theorem~1.3]{PetShp}, we obtain the following result for trilinear sums over subgroups, which improves its general bound.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Bound T3}
For any multiplicative subgroups ${\mathcal F}, {\mathcal G}, {\mathcal H} \subseteq {\mathbb F}_p^*$ of cardinalities $F, G, H$, respectively, with
$F \ge G \ge  H$
and weights
$\rho= (\rho_{u,v})$,  $\sigma = (\sigma_{u,w})$ and $\tau=(\tau_{v,w})$
with
$$
\max_{(u,v) \in {\mathcal F} \times {\mathcal G}} |\rho_{u,v}| \le 1, \quad
\max_{(u,w) \in {\mathcal F} \times {\mathcal H}} |\sigma_{u,w}| \le 1, \quad
\max_{(v,w) \in {\mathcal G} \times {\mathcal H}} |\tau_{v,w}| \le 1,
$$
for the sum
$$
T = \sum_{u \in{\mathcal F}} \sum_{v \in {\mathcal G}}
 \sum_{w\in {\mathcal H}} \rho_{u,v} \sigma_{u,w} \tau_{v,w} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(auvw)
$$
we have
$$
T\ll  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
F^{7/8}GH , & \text{if $ H \ge  \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},\\
p^{1/16}F^{7/8}GH^{7/8 } \(\log p\)^{1/16}, & \text{if $ G \ge  \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}>H$},\\
p^{1/8}F^{7/8}G^{7/8}H^{7/8}\(\log p\)^{1/8}, & \text{if $G<  \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},
\end{array}
\right.
$$
uniformly over $a\in {\mathbb F}_p^*$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We see from~\cite[Equation~(3.8)]{PetShp} that
\begin{equation*}
T^8 \ll  p F^7 G^4 H^4 K + F^8 G^8 H^6,
\end{equation*}
where $K$ is the number of solutions to the equation
\begin{align*}
(u_1-u_2)(w_1-w_2) &= (u_3-u_4)(w_3-w_4) \ne 0, \\ \
 (u_i,w_i) \in {\mathcal G}&\times {\mathcal H}, \quad i =1,2,3,4.
\end{align*}
As in the proof of~\cite[Theorem~1.3]{PetShp}, expressing $K$ via multiplicative
character sums and using the Cauchy inequality, we obtain
 $K^2 \le D_\times({\mathcal G})D_\times({\mathcal H})$. Applying Corollary~\ref{Bound Dx2},
 instead of~\cite[Equation~3.9]{PetShp}, we now obtain
\begin{align*}
K \ll  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
G^4H^4/p , & \text{if $ H \ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},\\
G^4 H^{3}p^{-1/2} (\log p)^{1/2} , & \text{if $ G \ge\(p  \log p\)^{1/2}>H$},\\
(GH)^3\log p, & \text{if $G< \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
We now
deal with the three cases separately.

For $H\ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$ we have
$$
T^8 \ll F^7G^8H^8 + F^8G^8H^6 .
$$
Since
$F < p < H^2$,
the first term dominates, and we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq T1}
T \ll F^{7/8}GH.
\end{equation}

For $G\ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2} > H$, we have
$$
T^8 \ll p^{1/2}F^7G^8 H^7 (\log p)^{1/2}+ F^8G^8H^6
$$
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eq T2 prelim}
T \ll p^{1/16}F^{7/8}GH^{7/8}\(\log p\)^{1/16}+FGH^{3/4}.
\end{equation}
The first term of \eqref{eq T2 prelim} dominates for $p^{1/2}\ge F/H$.

We now  note that
 by Lemma~\ref{lem:bilin} and the trivial bound for the sum over ${\mathcal H}$, we also have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq T trivial}
T\ll p^{1/2}F^{1/2}G^{1/2}H.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, since  for  $F > p^{1/2}H$ and $G > p^{1/2}$ we have
\begin{align*}
p^{1/2}F^{1/2}G^{1/2}H & =   p^{1/16}F^{7/8}GH^{7/8} \left(\frac{p^{7/2} H}{F^3G^4}\right)^{1/8} \\
&< p^{1/16}F^{7/8}GH^{7/8} \left(\frac{p^3}{F^2G^4}\right)^{1/8}  < p^{1/16}F^{7/8}GH^{7/8},
\end{align*}
we see that for $G\ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2} > H$ the bound~\eqref{eq T2 prelim}
simplifies as
\begin{equation}\label{eq T2}
T \le p^{1/16}F^{7/8}GH^{7/8}\(\log p\)^{1/16}.
\end{equation}

For $G<\(p\log p\)^{1/2}$, we have
$$
T^8 \ll pF^7G^{7}H^{7}\log p + F^8G^8H^6
$$
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eq T3 prelim}
T \ll p^{1/8}F^{7/8}G^{7/8}H^{7/8} \(\log p\)^{1/8}+FGH^{3/4}.
\end{equation}
The first term of~\eqref{eq T3 prelim} dominates  for $pH\ge FG$.
Otherwise,  that is, for $pH< FG$, we have
\begin{align*}
p^{1/2}F^{1/2}G^{1/2}H &= p^{1/8}F^{7/8}G^{7/8}H^{7/8} \left(\frac{p^3H}{F^3G^3}\right)^{1/8} \\
&<   p^{1/8}F^{7/8}G^{7/8}H^{7/8} \left(\frac{1}{H^2}\right)^{1/8}  \le p^{1/8}F^{7/8}G^{7/8}H^{7/8}.
\end{align*}
Thus, using~\eqref{eq T trivial} we see that  the bound~\eqref{eq T3 prelim}
simplifies as
\begin{equation}\label{eq T3}
T \le p^{1/8}F^{7/8}G^{7/8}H^{7/8} \(\log p\)^{1/8}.
\end{equation}

Combining~\eqref{eq T1}, \eqref{eq T2} and~\eqref{eq T3},
we complete the proof.
\end{proof}

Clearly, the bound of Lemma~\ref{lem:Bound T3} is nontrivial when $F$, $G$ and $H$
are all a little larger than $p^{1/3}$. More formally, for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists some
$\delta>0$ such that if
$F \ge G \ge H \ge p^{1/3+\varepsilon}$ then  the exponential sums
of Lemma~\ref{lem:Bound T3} are bounded by $O\(FGH p^{-\delta}\)$.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Bound3}}

Let ${\mathcal G}_d$ and ${\mathcal G}_e$ be the
subgroups of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$ formed by the elements of orders dividing $d$ and $e$, respectively.

We have,
\begin{align*}
S_\chi(&\Psi)  = \frac{1}{de} \sum_{y \in {\mathcal G}_d} \sum_{z \in {\mathcal G}_e} \sum_{x\in {\mathbb F}_p^*}  \chi(xyz){\mathbf{\,e}}_p(\Psi(xyz))\\
& =  \frac{1}{de}  \sum_{x\in {\mathbb F}_p^*}  \sum_{y \in {\mathcal G}_d}  \sum_{z \in {\mathcal G}_e}
 \chi(x) \chi(y) \chi(z)  {\mathbf{\,e}}_p\(ax^kz^k + bx^\ell y^\ell + cx^my^mz^m\) \\
& =  \frac{1}{de}  \sum_{x\in {\mathbb F}_p^*} \sum_{z \in {\mathcal G}_e}
 \sum_{y \in {\mathcal G}_d} \rho_{x,y}\sigma_{x,z}   {\mathbf{\,e}}_p\(cx^my^mz^m\),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
 \rho_{x,y} & = \chi(x) \chi(y) {\mathbf{\,e}}_p\(bx^\ell y^\ell\) \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \sigma_{x,z}=  \chi(z) {\mathbf{\,e}}_p\(ax^kz^k\).
 \end{align*}

Clearly,   the set ${\mathcal X} = \{x^m~:~x \in {\mathbb F}_p^*\}$ of non-zero $m$th powers  contains $(p-1)/f$ elements, each appearing
 with multiplicity $f$. Furthermore, direct examination shows that  the sets
 ${\mathcal Y}= \{y^m~:~y \in {\mathcal G}_d\}$ and   ${\mathcal Z}=\{z^m~:~z \in~{\mathcal G}_e\}$ contain $g$ and $h$
elements  with multiplicities  $\gcd(d,f)$ and $\gcd(e,f)$, respectively.
We recall that by our assumption we have $f \ge g \ge h$ and invoke
Lemma~\ref{lem:Bound T3}, which gives us,
\begin{align*}
S_\chi(\Psi)&\ll \frac{f\gcd(d,f)   \gcd(e,f)}{de} \times \\ &\qquad \quad  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(p/f)^{7/8}gh, & \text{if $h\ge p^{1/2}\log p$},\\
p^{1/16}(p/f)^{7/8}gh^{7/8} \(\log p\)^{1/16}, & \text{if $ g \ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}>h$},\\
p^{1/8}(p/f)^{7/8}g^{7/8}h^{7/8}\(\log p\)^{1/8}, & \text{if $g< \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},
\end{array}
\right. \\
&=  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{7/8}f^{1/8}, & \text{if $h\ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$},\\
p^{15/16}f^{1/8}h^{-1/8} \(\log p\)^{1/16}, & \text{if $ g \ge \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}>g$},\\
pf^{1/8}g^{-1/8}h^{-1/8} \(\log p\)^{1/8}, & \text{if $g< \(p  \log p\)^{1/2}$}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align*}
This concludes the proof.

\section{Further Applications}
\label{sec:Appl}

\subsection{Additive properties of subgroups}
\label{sec:add prop subgr}

As usual, given a rational function
$$R(X_1, \ldots, X_m) \in
{\mathbb F}_p(X_1, \ldots, X_m),
$$
and $m$ sets ${\mathcal A}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal A}_m
\subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$, we define the set
 \begin{align*}
R({\mathcal A}_1,& \ldots, {\mathcal A}_m) \\
& =\{R(a_1, \ldots, a_m) \ : \ (a_1, \ldots,  a_m)
\in \({\mathcal A}_1 \times \ldots \times {\mathcal A}_m\)\setminus {\mathcal P}_R\},
\end{align*}
where ${\mathcal P}_R$ is the set of poles of $R$.

We note that we have used ${\mathcal A}^m$ for the
$m$-fold Cartesian product   rather than for the  $m$-fold  product-set of a set ${\mathcal A}$
as  the previous definition suggests.
However neither of these notations is used in this section.

For a scalar $\lambda \in {\mathbb F}_p$ we use the notation
$$
\lambda {\mathcal A} = \{\lambda\} \cdot {\mathcal A}  = \{\lambda a~:~a \in {\mathcal A}\},
$$
for sets of multiples  of ${\mathcal A} \subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$.

Applying the bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:T(G)} to  cosets of ${\mathcal G}$, that is, to $T({\mathcal G}, \lambda {\mathcal G})$,
and using~\eqref{eq:T and E}
we obtain:

\begin{cor}
\label{cor:EnergyShiftSubgr}
Let ${\mathcal G}$ be a multiplicative subgroup of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$.
Then for any   $\lambda \in {\mathbb F}_p^* $, we have
$$
{\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G} + \lambda) -\frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p} \ll  \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
p^{1/2} |{\mathcal G}|^{3/2},& \text{if $ |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^3 p^{-1/2} , & \text{if $p^{2/3} > |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2}\log p$},\\
|{\mathcal G}|^2 \log |{\mathcal G}|, & \text{if $|{\mathcal G}|< p^{1/2}\log p$}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{cor}

Note that for $|{\mathcal G}|/\sqrt{ p \log p}\to \infty$,  Corollary~\ref{cor:EnergyShiftSubgr}
gives an asymptotic formula for ${\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G} + \lambda)$; otherwise we only have an
upper bound.

\begin{cor}
\label{cor:AddRepr}For  a multiplicative subgroup ${\mathcal G}$ of ${\mathbb F}_p^*$ and   $\lambda, \mu \in  {\mathbb F}_p^*$
we define the sets
$$
{\mathcal S}_1 = {\mathcal G} +\lambda {\mathcal G} + \mu {\mathcal G}
\qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
{\mathcal S}_2 =
\left\{ \frac{u-   \lambda  }{v -\mu} ~:~  u,v \in
{\mathcal G} \right\}.
$$
We have:
\begin{itemize}
\item if  $|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$ then ${\mathbb F}_p^* \subseteq {\mathcal S}_1$ and ${\mathbb F}_p^* \subseteq {\mathcal G} {\mathcal S}_2$;
\item if  $|{\mathcal G}| \le (p \log p)^{1/2}$ then,  for $i=1,2$,
$$
|{\mathcal S}_i| \gg \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^2}{\log |{\mathcal G}|}\,;
$$
\item otherwise, for $i=1,2$,
$$
p - |{\mathcal S}_i| \ll  \left \{
\begin{array}{ll} p^{5/2}|{\mathcal G}|^{-5/2},& \text{if $ |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$},\\
 p^{3/2} |{\mathcal G}|^{-1} , & \text{if $p^{2/3} >|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{1/2}\log p$},\\
p^{2} |{\mathcal G}|^{-2}\log p, & \text{if $p^{1/2}\log p \ge |{\mathcal G}|>  (p \log p)^{1/2}$}.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
\end{itemize}
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
We consider the set ${\mathcal S}_1$ first.

First we show that ${\mathcal S}_1 \supseteq {\mathbb F}^*_p$, provided $|{\mathcal S}_1| \ge p^{2/3}$.
Clearly, the set ${\mathcal S}_1$ satsifies the property ${\mathcal S}_1 {\mathcal G} = {\mathcal S}_1$ and hence if ${\mathcal S}_1 \supseteq {\mathbb F}^*_p$, then there is a nonzero $\xi$ such that ${\mathcal S}_1 \cap \xi {\mathcal G} = \emptyset$.
In other words, the equation
$$
	x+\lambda y+z\mu =\xi w \,,\quad \quad x,y,z,w\in {\mathcal G}
$$
has no solutions. By the orthogonality property of exponential functions,
this means that  for the sum
$$
\sigma = 	\sum_{a \in {\mathbb F}_p} \sum_{x \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p (ax) \sum_{y \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p (a\lambda y)
\sum_{z \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p (a\mu z)  \sum_{w \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p (-a\xi w)
$$
we have
$$
\sigma  = 0.
$$
Clearly, the contribution of $\sigma$ corresponding to $a = 0$ equals $|{\mathcal G}|^4$.
Using the  well-known  bound
$$
\left|\sum_{x\in {\mathbb F}_p} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(bx^{k}) \right | \le (k-1) p^{1/2}, \qquad b \in  {\mathbb F}_p^*,
$$
see, for example~\cite[Equation~(1)]{HBK},  combined with the identity
$$
\sum_{z\in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(bz) = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{x\in {\mathbb F}_p^*} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(bx^{k}),
$$
where $k = (p-1)/|{\mathcal G}|$,
we obtain
$$
	0 = \sigma \ge |{\mathcal G}|^4 - p \sum_{a \in {\mathbb F}^*_p} \left|\sum_{x \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p (ax) \right| \left|\sum_{y \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p (a\lambda y) \right| \,.
$$
By the Cauchy inequality, we get
$$
	0 > |{\mathcal G}|^4 - p^2 |{\mathcal G}| \ge 0
$$
and this is a contradiction which gives the result for  $|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$.

We now consider  subgroups with $|{\mathcal G}| < p^{2/3}$.
Clearly
$$
|{\mathcal S}_1 |  = | {\mathcal G} +\lambda {\mathcal G} + \mu {\mathcal G}+\lambda\mu | \ge |({\mathcal G}+\lambda)({\mathcal G}+\mu)| .
$$
For $a \in {\mathbb F}_p^*$, we let $N(a)$ be the number of solutions to $(g+\lambda)(h+\mu) = a$ with $g,h\in {\mathcal G}$.
Clearly
$$
\sum_{a \in {\mathbb F}_p} N(a)= |{\mathcal G}|^2.
$$
Hence, by the Cauchy inequality, we have
$$
|{\mathcal G}|^4 =  \(\sum_{a \in {\mathbb F}_p} N(a)\)^2 \le  |({\mathcal G}+\lambda)({\mathcal G}+\mu)| \sum_{a \in {\mathbb F}_p} N(a)^2
= |({\mathcal G}+\lambda)({\mathcal G}+\mu)| F,
$$
where $F$ is the number of solutions to
$$
(g_1+\lambda)(h_1+\mu) = (g_2+\lambda)(h_2+\mu), \qquad g_1,g_2,h_1,h_2\in {\mathcal G}.
$$
There are obviously $O(|{\mathcal G}|^2)$ solutions when
$$
(g_1+\lambda)(h_1+\mu) = (g_2+\lambda)(h_2+\mu)=0.
$$
For the other solutions we  repeat  the same argument as in the above.
That is, for every  $a \in {\mathbb F}_p$, we first collect together solutions with the same value
$$
\frac{g_1+\lambda}{g_2+\lambda}=\frac{h_1+\mu}{h_2+\mu}=a.
$$
After this, using  the Cauchy inequality again, we obtain
$$
F \le \sqrt{ {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\lambda)  {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\mu)} + O(|{\mathcal G}|^2).
$$
Hence, putting the above inequalities together, we derive,
$$
|{\mathcal S}_1 | \gg  \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{\sqrt{ {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\lambda)  {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\mu)}+ O(|{\mathcal G}|^2)} .
$$
Hence, using Corollary~\ref{cor:EnergyShiftSubgr},  we derive the result for ${\mathcal S}_1$.
Indeed, let $\mathfrak{R}$ be the bound on $\left|{\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G} + \lambda) -|{\mathcal G}|^4/p\right|$ given by Corollary~\ref{cor:EnergyShiftSubgr}.
It is easy to see that for  ${\mathcal G}$ to which  the upper bound on $p - |{\mathcal S}_i|$ applies
we have
$$
\frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p} \gg \mathfrak{R} .
$$
Hence
\begin{align*}
 {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\lambda)  {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\mu) &
=\frac{|{\mathcal G}|^8}{p^2} + O\(\frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p}\mathfrak{R} + \mathfrak{R}^2\) \\
&  = \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^8}{p^2} + O\(\frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p}\mathfrak{R}\) \\
& = \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^8}{p^2} \(1 + O\(\frac{p}{|{\mathcal G}|^4}\mathfrak{R}\)\)
\end{align*}
which, together with $\mathfrak{R} \gg |{\mathcal G}|^2$,  implies
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{ {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\lambda)  {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\mu)}
+ O(|{\mathcal G}|^2) &\\
  =  \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p} \(1 + O\(\frac{p}{|{\mathcal G}|^4}\mathfrak{R}\)\) & + O(|{\mathcal G}|^2)
  =  \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p} \(1 + \mathfrak{Q}\),
\end{align*}
where
$$
\mathfrak{Q} \ll \frac{p}{|{\mathcal G}|^4}\mathfrak{R}.
$$
 We note that by adjusting the implied constant in the upper bound on $p - |{\mathcal S}_1|$ we see that one can actually assume that $|{\mathcal G}| \ge C_0 (p \log p)^{1/2}$ for some sufficiently large absolute constant $C_0$, so that $|\mathfrak{Q}| \le 1/2$.
 In this case
 $$
  \(1 + \mathfrak{Q}\)^{-1} = 1 + O(\mathfrak{Q}) =  1+ O\(\frac{p}{|{\mathcal G}|^4}\mathfrak{R}\)
 $$
 and the bound on $p - |{\mathcal S}_1|$ follows. For the lower bound on $|S_1|$ we simply remark that the error term $\mathfrak{R}$ dominates the main term $|{\mathcal G}|^4/p$ in
 Corollary~\ref{cor:EnergyShiftSubgr}, so in this case we simply write
 $$
\sqrt{ {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\lambda)  {\mathrm{E}}^\times ({\mathcal G}+\mu)}
+ O(|{\mathcal G}|^2)  \ll \mathfrak{R}
$$
and the bound follows.

Similar arguments also lead to the same bounds on $|{\mathcal S}_2 |$.
For example, consider the case  $|{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$ (where the statement about ${\mathcal S}_2$ is
slightly different than that about ${\mathcal S}_1$).  We denote
\begin{equation}
\label{eq: Set Q}
{\mathcal Q} = {\mathcal G} {\mathcal S}_2=  \frac{\lambda {\mathcal G}-{\mathcal G}}{\mu {\mathcal G}-{\mathcal G}} .
\end{equation}
Using the orthogonality of exponential functions, for any $\xi  \in  {\mathbb F}_p^*$,
we can write
\begin{align*}
\left|\left \{\lambda u_1-u_2 = \xi (\mu v_1-v_2)~:~u_i, v_i \in {\mathcal G}, \ i =1,2\right\}\right | & \\
=
\frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p}  + \frac{1}{p}\sum_{a\in {\mathbb F}_p^*} \sum_{u \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p( a \lambda   u)
  \sum_{v \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(v)
\sum_{w\in {\mathcal G}}  {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(a&\xi  \mu w)
\sum_{z\in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(-a\xi z).
 \end{align*}
As before,
we obtain
\begin{align*}
\left|\left|\left \{\lambda u_1-u_2 = \xi(v_1-v_2)~:~u_i, v_i \in {\mathcal G}, \ i =1,2\right\}\right | -  \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p} \right |  &\\
< \sum_{a \in {\mathbb F}_p^*} \left| \sum_{w \in {\mathcal G}} {\mathbf{\,e}}_p(a \xi w)\right |^2 = p&|{\mathcal G}| - |{\mathcal G}|^2.
\end{align*}
Hence, for $|{\mathcal G}| > p^{2/3}$ we have
\begin{align*}
\left|\left \{\lambda u_1-u_2 = \xi(v_1-v_2)~:~u_i, v_i \in {\mathcal G}, \ i =1,2\right\}\right | &\\
>  \frac{|{\mathcal G}|^4}{p} &-  p|{\mathcal G}| + |{\mathcal G}|^2 >  |{\mathcal G}|^2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, there is a solution with $v_1\ne v_2$ which leads to a representation $\xi = (\lambda u_1-u_2)/(v_1-v_2)$
for every  $\xi\in  {\mathbb F}_p^*$.

Proofs of the other statements about    ${\mathcal S}_2$ are the same as those about ${\mathcal S}_1$.
 \end{proof}

In particular, Corollary~\ref{cor:AddRepr} applies to ${\mathcal S}_1 = {\mathcal G}+{\mathcal G} + {\mathcal G}$ and
${\mathcal S}_1 = {\mathcal G} + {\mathcal G}-{\mathcal G}$.

We note that for the set ${\mathcal Q}$ given by~\eqref{eq: Set Q} we have
$0\in \frac{\lambda {\mathcal G}-{\mathcal G}}{\mu {\mathcal G}-{\mathcal G}}$ if and only if $\lambda \in {\mathcal G}$.

\begin{remark}
	Let
	$$
	{\mathcal Q}=\frac{ \lambda  {\mathcal G}- {\mathcal G}}{{\mathcal G}-{\mathcal G}} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
	{\mathcal R}=\frac{\lambda {\mathcal G}-1}{{\mathcal G}-1}.
	$$
	Clearly,
	$$
	{\mathcal R}{\mathcal G} = {\mathcal Q} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad {\mathcal R} = 1-{\mathcal R}.
	$$
	Hence the set ${\mathcal Q}$ contains both ${\mathcal R} {\mathcal G}$ and $(1-{\mathcal R}){\mathcal G}$ and hence
	$|{\mathcal Q}| \ge \max\{ |{\mathcal R} {\mathcal G}|, |(1-{\mathcal R}){\mathcal G}| \}$. Using~\cite[Theorem~18]{Shkr5}
	 and $|{\mathcal R}| \gg |{\mathcal G}|^2/ \log |{\mathcal G}|$ one can show that there is an absolute constant $c > 0$ such that  $|{\mathcal Q}| \gg |{\mathcal G}|^{2+c}$ for sufficiently small ${\mathcal G}$ (the condition $|{\mathcal Q}|^2 |{\mathcal G}| \le p^2$ is enough).
	Thus the lower bound for size of ${\mathcal Q}$ which follows from bounds on $|{\mathcal S}_2|$ in  Corollary~\ref{cor:AddRepr} can be improved for small subgroups.
\end{remark}

We note that Corollary~\ref{cor:AddRepr}  also allows us to obtain the following version of the {\it Romanoff
theorem\/} modulo almost all primes $p$.

\begin{cor}
\label{cor:Rom} For a fixed integer $g$ with $|g|\ge 2$, and sufficiently
large $Q$, for all but $o(Q/\log Q)$ primes $p \le Q$ every residue class
modulo $p$ can be represented as $\ell + g^k + g^m + g^n$
for a prime $\ell < p$ and positive integers $k,m,n\le p-1$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof} We recall that by a special case of a  result of  Indlekofer and Timofeev~\cite[Corollary~6]{IndlTim},
given any positive $\alpha < 1$, for all but $o(Q/\log Q)$ primes $p \le Q$, the multiplicative
order of $g$ modulo $p$ is at least $p^{1/2} \exp\((\log p)^{\alpha}\)$.
For each of these primes,  we apply  Corollary~\ref{cor:AddRepr} to the set ${\mathcal S}_1 =  {\mathcal G}+{\mathcal G} + {\mathcal G}$
with the group  ${\mathcal G} \equiv \langle g \pmod p \rangle$
(only the first two inequalities are relevant)  and use that
for $ |{\mathcal G}| \ge p^{2/3}$ we have
$p^{5/2}|{\mathcal G}|^{-5/2} \le  p^{3/2} |{\mathcal G}|^{-1}$.
Hence
we obtain
$$
p-|{\mathcal S}_1| \ll p^{3/2} |{\mathcal G}|^{-1} \ll p \exp\(-(\log p)^{\alpha}\)  = o(p/\log p),
$$
and by the prime number theorem we conclude the proof.
\end{proof}

We remark that a classical result of  Erd\H{o}s and Murty~\cite{ErdMur} can also be used
in the proof of Corollary~\ref{cor:Rom}, however the bound of~\cite[Corollary~6]{IndlTim}
used in full strength allows to
get better estimates on the size of the exceptional set.
Perhaps more recent results of Ford~\cite{Ford}  can also be used to
estimate the size of the exceptional set, however we do not pursue this here.

\subsection{Possible application to arbitrary sets}

Note that some auxiliary  results established in the proofs of~\cite[Theorems~1 and~2]{Glib} can be
reformulated as bounds on the size of the set
$({\mathcal A}-{\mathcal A})({\mathcal A}-{\mathcal A})$ for an arbitrary set ${\mathcal A} \subseteq {\mathbb F}_p$. We also refer to~\cite{Bal} for more recent results and
references.  Combined with the ideas of Balog~\cite{Bal}  this may lead to further
results on additive properties of the product sets of difference sets.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

The authors would like to thank Giorgis Petridis  for his
comments and suggestions and  the referee for the very careful reading
of the manuscript and numerous corrections.

During the preparation of this work,
the third author
was supported
by the Australian Research Council Grant DP170100786.