1. Introduction
Let H be a complex Hilbert space with inner product  and corresponding norm . We represent the -algebra of all bounded linear operators on H by . For any operator , we denote its adjoint by , and let  indicate the positive square root of . The real and imaginary parts of A are defined as  and , respectively. The numerical range of A, written as , is the set . For simplicity, we use “operator” to refer to an operator in .
Let 
 and 
 represent the operator norm and numerical radius of the operator 
A, respectively. The operator norm of 
A is defined as
      
      and the numerical radius of 
A is given by
      
      It is established that the numerical radius 
 defines a norm on 
 and is comparable to the operator norm 
. Specifically, the following double inequality holds:
      These inequalities are sharp. The first inequality attains equality if 
, while the second inequality attains equality if 
A is a normal operator, i.e., 
. Kittaneh [
1] presented a refinement of these inequalities by establishing that
      
      For further developments on (
1) and (
2), readers may refer to [
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8] and the references therein.
The Davis–Wielandt radius of an operator 
, denoted by 
, is defined in [
9,
10] as
      
      It follows that 
 and 
 if, and only if, 
. For any scalar 
, the Davis–Wielandt radius satisfies 
 if 
, 
 if 
, and 
 when 
.
Note that the triangle inequality 
 does not hold for arbitrary 
. However, this inequality is valid when 
 (see ([
11], Corollary 2.2)). Additionally, it is straightforward to show that
      
      and these inequalities are sharp (see ([
11], Corollary 2.2)).
Zamani and Shebrawi ([
12], Theorem 2.1) established that
      
      Additionally, in ([
12], Theorems 2.13, 2.14, and 2.17), the authors showed that
      
      and
      
      for any operator 
.
In recent work, Bhunia et al. ([
11], Theorem 2.4) provided the following upper bound:
      for any 
.
Additionally, in [
13], the authors derived inequalities for the sum of operators, as follows:
      for 
.
Let 
 be a pair of bounded linear operators on 
H. The Euclidean operator radius is defined as:
      As noted in [
14], 
 defines a norm, and the following inequality is satisfied:
      for 
, where the constants 
 and 1 are optimal in (
4). For more details on the Euclidean operator radius, related results, and their generalizations, see [
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20] and the references cited therein.
We observe that for 
 and 
, we have
      
      By setting 
 and 
 in (
4), we obtain
      
      which provides the upper bound from (
3) and a similar lower bound.
Motivated by the above results, in this paper, we present some new weighted lower and upper bounds for the Euclidean numerical radius of a pair of operators and show that some of them are sharper than certain recent results obtained by other authors. As a natural consequence, we also derive new inequalities for the numerical radius and the Davis–Wielandt radius.
Among other results, we obtain the following lower bounds for the Euclidean numerical radius:
      and
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
Let 
f, 
g, 
h, and 
k be nonnegative continuous functions on 
 satisfying the condition 
 for all 
. If 
 and 
, then we also obtain the following upper bounds:
      and
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
Applications for the numerical radius and the Davis–Wielandt radius are also provided.
  2. Main Results
In this section, we present our main results, beginning with the following initial result.
Theorem 1. For  and  with  we haveand  Proof.  By using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for 
 we have
        
        for all 
If we take the supremum over 
, we obtain
        
        Also, if 
 we have
        
        Therefore,
        
        Now, observe that
        
        and
        
        and by (
7), we derive (
5).
Now, if we replace 
A with 
 and 
B with 
 then we obtain
        
        Observe that
        
        Then,
        
        and
        
        Also,
        
        and
        
        Moreover,
        
        and by (
8), we obtain
        
        and, by replacing 
C with 
A and 
D with 
 the inequality (
6) is obtained. □
 Remark 1. We observe that for  and   we obtain from (5) thatwhile from (6), thatIt should be noted that the inequality (10) was obtained earlier in ([21], Theorem 2.2). Moreover, both inequalities (9) and (10) are refinements of the inequalityobtained in 2006 by the second author, see [22].  Remark 2. If we take  in (5), then we obtainfor  and  with  For , we obtainwhich is a known result, see [22]. If we take  in (5), then we obtainfor  and  with  For , we obtain again (12). If we take  in (5), then we obtainfor  and  with  For , we obtain If we take  in (5), then we obtainfor  and  with  For  and  we obtain By choosing , we can also state the trigonometric inequalitiesandfor  and .  Now, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 1 and since 
 then we obtain
      
      and
      
      for 
 with 
If we take 
 and 
 and 
  in (
5), then we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
, we obtain
      
If we take 
 and 
 and 
  in (
5), then we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
For 
 and 
, we obtain
      
      for 
Further, from (
14), for 
 and 
, we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
, we obtain
      
      for 
This inequality is better than the first inequality of Kittaneh, (
2).
Moreover, if we take 
 and 
 in (
15), then we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
 and 
 we obtain
      
      since 
 and 
 are normal operators.
Also, if we take 
 and 
 in (
16), then we obtain
      
      since 
 is normal. This inequality was obtained before in ([
22], Remark 2).
If we consider the real and imaginary part of  then the following Cartesian decomposition holds:  and 
If we write the inequality (
11) for 
 and 
 then we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
, we obtain
      
      By letting 
 and 
 in (
13), we also have
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
If we take 
 and 
 in this inequality, then we obtain
      
      for 
Since 
 hence
      
      which is better than the first inequality of Kittaneh, (
2).
Further, if we take 
 and 
 in (
14), then we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
, we obtain
      
      for 
We can also provide some lower bounds for the Davis–Wielandt radius.
Let 
 If we take 
 and 
 in (
11), then we obtain
      
      for 
 with 
 For 
, we obtain
      
From (
13) for 
 and 
, we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
Also, from (
14), we obtain for the same choice of 
 that
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
, we obtain
      
Finally, by (
15), we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
 with 
 For 
 and 
 we obtain
      
      for 
From a different view point, we can also state the following result:
      
Theorem 2. For  and  with  we haveand  Proof.  For 
 we have
        
        and for 
 we have
        
        If 
 and 
 with 
, then by replacing 
A with 
 and 
B with 
, we obtain from the first inequality above that
        
        while by replacing 
A with 
 and 
B with 
 in the second inequality above,
        
        If we add these two inequalities, we obtain
        
        for 
By using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we have
        
        for 
By (
19) and (
20), we obtain
        
        for 
By taking the supremum in this inequality, we deduce the desired result (
17).
If we write (
17) for 
 instead of 
A and 
 instead of 
 then we obtain
        
        and since
        
        we obtain the desired result (
18). □
 Remark 3. For  in (17), we obtainfor  and  with  Also, by taking  and  in (17), we obtainfor  By taking  and , we also havefor   To derive a significant consequence from Theorem 2, we first recall the following lemma, as found in [
23]:
      
Now, we can state the following result:
      
Corollary 1. For  and  with  thenand  Proof.  If we write the inequality (
17) for 
 instead of 
A and 
 instead of 
 then we obtain for 
        for 
 and 
 with 
If we take the supremum over 
, we obtain by Lemma 1 that
        
        which proves (
21).
The inequality (
22) follows in the same way from (
18). □
 Remark 4. For  in (21), we obtainfor  and  with  For  with , we obtain from (23) thatfor  with  Sincethen from (24), we derivefor  with  In the case of  with , the inequality (25) was obtained in Corollary 2.3 of [24]. Now, if we take  in (25), then we obtain If we take  and  in Theorem 2, then we obtainandfor  and  with  Further, if we take  and  in Theorem 2, then we obtainandfor  and  with  Finally, if we take  and  in Theorem 2, then we obtainandfor  and  with   In order to derive our next main theorem, we need to recall the following generalization of Kato’s Schwarz inequality for operators obtained by F. Kittaneh in 1988 (see [
25]).
Lemma 2. If f and g are nonnegative continuous functions on  satisfying the condition  for all  thenfor all  and   We observe that (
26) is equivalent to
      
      for all 
 and 
 Kato’s inequality is obtained for 
 i.e.,
      
      for all 
 and 
We can state the following result providing upper bounds for the Euclidean numerical radius:
      
Theorem 3. Let f, g, h and k be nonnegative continuous functions on  satisfying the condition  for all  If  and  thenand  Proof.  Observe that for 
, we have
        
        and
        
        for 
By utilizing (
29), we then obtain
        
        for 
Therefore,
        
        which proves (
27).
We also have
        
        for 
 which implies in the same way (
28). □
 Corollary 2. If  and  then for , we haveand  The proof follows from Theorem 3 by selecting  and  with 
Remark 5. If we take  in Corollary 2, then we obtainfor  and   If we choose 
 in Theorem 3, then we obtain
      
      and
      
      where 
f, 
g, 
h and 
k are nonnegative continuous functions on 
 satisfying the condition 
 for all 
  and 
In particular, we have
      
      and
      
      for 
 Also, we have
      
Further, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 3, then we obtain
      
      where 
f, 
g, 
h and 
k are nonnegative continuous functions on 
 satisfying the condition 
 for all 
  and 
For 
, we have
      
      and, in particular,
      
      where 
Moreover, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 3, then we obtain
      
      for 
 and 
For 
, we have
      
      and, in particular,
      
      for 
 and 
We have the following Hölder’s type upper bounds as well:
      
Theorem 4. Let f,  h and k be nonnegative continuous functions on  satisfying the condition  for all  If  and  with  thenand In particular, we haveand  Proof.  By Hölder’s inequality for 
 with 
, we have
        
        for 
By using McCharthy’s inequality for a positive operator 
P and power 
        we have
        
        and
        
        for 
By making use of (
29) and (
32), we derive
        
        for 
By taking the supremum over 
, we obtain the desired result (
30).
We also have
        
        for 
 which implies, as above, the inequality (
31). □
 Corollary 3. If  and  with  then for , we haveand In particular, we haveand  The proof follows from Theorem 4 by selecting  and  with 
Remark 6. If we take  in Corollary 3, then we obtainfor  with  and, in particular,for   If we take 
 in Theorem 4, then we obtain for 
 with 
 that
      
      and
      
In particular, we have
      
      and
      
For 
, we have
      
      and
      
      Also, for 
, we have
      
In particular, we have
      
      and
      
      For 
, we obtain the known result; see the second part of inequality (
2)
      
Further, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 4, then we obtain for 
 with 
 then
      
      and
      
      In particular, we have
      
      and
      
For 
, we have
      
      and
      
      for 
 with 
For 
, we obtain
      
In particular, we have
      
      and
      
      For 
, we obtain
      
      which is the second part of inequality (
2).
Moreover, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 4, then we obtain for 
 with 
 that
      
      and
      
      In particular, we have
      
      and
      
For 
 with 
 then for 
, we have
      
      and
      
In particular, we have
      
      and
      
      For 
, we obtain
      
We observe that, if 
 namely, 
 is a hyponormal operator, then
      
      and by (
33), we obtain
      
      which provides a refinement of (
3) for hyponormal operators.
Theorem 5. Let f, g, h and k be nonnegative continuous functions on  satisfying the condition  for all  and  thenand  Proof.  Observe that
        
        and by (
29) and (
32), we derive
        
        for 
By taking the supremum over 
, we deduce the desired result (
34).
Also, we have
        
        from which we obtain (
35). □
 If we take  and  with  then we obtain
Corollary 4. If  and , thenand  Remark 7. If we take  in Corollary 4, then we obtainfor   If we take 
 in Theorem 5, then we obtain
      
      and
      
      for 
 where 
f, 
g, 
h and 
k are nonnegative continuous functions on 
 satisfying the condition 
 for all 
If in Corollary 4 we choose 
 then we obtain
      
      and
      
      for 
Further, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 5, then we obtain
      
      and
      
      for 
 where 
f, 
g, 
h and 
k are nonnegative continuous functions on 
 satisfying the condition 
 for all 
If in Corollary 4 we choose 
 and 
 then we obtain
      
      and
      
      for 
In particular, we have
      
      for 
Finally, if we take 
 and 
 in Theorem 5, then we obtain
      
      and
      
      for 
 where 
f, 
h and 
k are nonnegative continuous functions on 
 satisfying the condition 
 for all 
For 
, then by Corollary 4 for 
 and 
, we obtain
      
      and
      
      In particular,
      
      for 
  3. Conclusions
In conclusion, the work presented in this paper marks a significant advancement in the study of the Euclidean numerical radius of pairs of operators in Hilbert spaces. By introducing novel weighted lower and upper bounds, we have not only expanded on existing results in the literature but also demonstrated the asymmetrical nature of these bounds, highlighting the complexity of the relationships explored.
Moreover, the discovery of new inequalities for the numerical radius and the Davis–Wielandt radius adds depth to our understanding of operator properties in this setting. These results pave the way for future research endeavors and open up exciting possibilities for further exploration in the field.
One promising direction for future research is the parametric extension of the Euclidean numerical radius, as defined by
      
      This extension could lead to intriguing results, such as the inequality
      
      for 
 and complex numbers 
 satisfying
      
      Indeed, the application of the Hölder inequality further enriches the analysis, as it states
      
      So, by using Hölder inequality and carefully calculating expressions for all 
, one can establish that
      
      Taking the supremum over 
 with 
 demonstrates that
      
      Similarly, 
. Thus, we arrive at (
36) as desired.
Therefore, the present work not only contributes significant findings to the study of operator inequalities but also serves as a promising starting point for future advancements and explorations in this field.