 f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})=p_\mu({\bf f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^{**}=p_{\mu^{-1}}({\bf f^*},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^*$ is uniformly smooth.

A remark regarding the sharpness of our results is now in order. Under the generality of the hypotheses of Theorem \[uniform monotonicity with 1-coercive modulus is recessive\], even when given that for each $i\in I$, ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_i$ is the largest possible modulus of monotonicity of $A_i$, it does not hold that ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}=p_{\frac{\mu}{2}}(\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}},\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is necessarily the largest possible modulus of monotonicity of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$. In fact, the largest modulus of monotonicity of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$ cannot, in general, be expressed only in terms of $\mu,\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ but depends also on $\bold{A}$. To this end, we consider the following example which illustrates a similar situation for functions and, consequently, for their subdifferential operators. We will illustrate this issue outside the class of subdifferential operators in Example \[strong sharpness counter outside subdeifferentials\] of the following subsection.

\[uniform counter example\] Let $f:{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}\to{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a proper, lower semicontinuous and convex function such that ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0$ and $\psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Among a rich variety of choices, one can choose $f=\iota_C$ where $C$ is a closed half-space. For such a choice of $f$, one easily verifies that, indeed, by their definitions, ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0$ and $\psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Then it follows that $f$ is neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth. Consequently, Fact \[gage conjugation\] implies that also $f^*$ is neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth. However, employing formula , we see that $p(f,f^*)=q$ which is both, uniformly convex and uniformly smooth (in fact, as we recall in the following subsection, $q$ is strongly convex and strongly smooth). Thus, we
f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})=p_\mu({\bf f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^{**}=p_{\mu^{-1}}({\bf f^*},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^*$ is uniformly smooth. 

 A remark regarding the sharpness of our results is nowadays in decree. Under the generality of the hypotheses of Theorem   \[uniform monotonicity with 1 - coercive modulus is recessive\ ], even when given that for each $ i\in I$, $ { \ensuremath{\varphi}}_i$ is the large possible modulus of monotonicity of $ A_i$, it does not hold that $ { \ensuremath{\varphi}}=p_{\frac{\mu}{2}}(\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}},\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is inevitably the largest possible modulus of monotonicity of $ { \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$. In fact, the largest modulus of monotonicity of $ { \ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$ cannot, in cosmopolitan, be carry only in term of $ \mu,\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ and $ \boldsymbol{\lambda}$ but depends also on $ \bold{A}$. To this end, we consider the following example which illustrates a alike situation for functions and, consequently, for their subdifferential operators. We will exemplify this issue outside the class of subdifferential operator in Example   \[strong sharpness counter outside subdeifferentials\ ] of the come subsection. 

 \[uniform counter example\ ] Let $ f:{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}\to{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ be a proper, lower semicontinuous and convex function such that $ { \ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0 $ and $ \psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Among a rich variety of option, one can choose $ f=\iota_C$ where $ C$ is a closed half - space. For such a choice of $ f$, one easily verifies that, indeed, by their definitions, $ { \ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0 $ and $ \psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Then it follows that $ f$ is neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth. Consequently, Fact   \[gage conjugation\ ] implies that also $ f^*$ is neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth. However, employing formula  , we see that $ p(f, f^*)=q$ which is both, uniformly convex and uniformly smooth (in fact, as we recall in the following subsection, $ q$ is powerfully convex and powerfully smooth). Thus, we
 f},{\blldsymbol \lambda})=p_\mu({\bf f},{\buldsymbol \lambdc})^{**}=p_{\mu^{-1}}({\bf h^*},{\boldsyjbol \lamcda})^*$ is uniformly smooth.

A remerk eegareing the sharpness of uur resulns is now in ieder. Under the gencxalitg of chx hypotheses of Theorem \[unhform monotoniwigy with 1-coercive modulus is recessive\], even wnej given that fjr essh $i\jn I$, ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_i$ is the largsst posvible modulus of monotonicity of $A_i$, it foes not hold that ${\enskremath{\varpyi}}=p_{\fwqc{\mu}{2}}(\boldsymbul{{\ensuremauh{\rarphi}}},\boldsimbol{\lambda})$ is necessarily the lxrgesc possible noeulkv of monotoiicity of ${\ensuremabn{\mathcdl{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lsmbva})}}$. Ib fact, the largest movulus of monotoniciti of ${\ensuramcth{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldwynbol \nambga})}}$ cxbnog, ih jensral, bf eepressed onmy in terms of $\mu,\boldsymbol{{\ensirqnath{\varphi}}}$ ans $\boldfyibol{\lambda}$ but depends also on $\bold{A}$. To thjs end, we consider the dollowing example whifh illustwates a similar situation for functions and, consexuentmh, fir gyelr subdifferential operators. We will illustraes uhix issue outsidc the class of subcivfrtential operaturs in Exzmple \[strong sharpnfss cougter iutside stbdeofferentials\] of the followibg subsectiou.

\[unuform counter exam'le\] Let $f:{\ensbrematn{\mathval H}}\to{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\inyty,+\inffy\right]}}$ be w proper, muwer semicontinuuus atd convex function such thwt ${\ensurenath{\rarphi}}_f=0$ xnd $\ksi_f=\iotw_{\{0\}}$. Among a gich ydriety of choices, lne ccn chmose $f=\iota_F$ where $C$ is a closed half-space. For such a chpiwe mf $f$, one easiky verifies trat, indeed, by jheir defnnitiovs, ${\ensuremzth{\varpii}}_f=0$ and $\psi_f=\yota_{\{0\}}$. Then it xlllows that $h$ is neitrer ynifirmly cuvvex nor unifotmly smoonh. Conwequently, Fact \[gage covnugation\] impliew tyat also $f^*$ is nritfer ujihormlr convex nor gnifurmuu smouth. Howtrer, dmplpying formula , we see thaf $p(f,f^*)=q$ which is boyh, uniformoy convev and uniformky smooth (in fact, ws we rerall im tre following subsection, $q$ is sfrongly clnvcx and strongjy snooth). Thus, wz
f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})=p_\mu({\bf f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^{**}=p_{\mu^{-1}}({\bf f^*},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^*$ is A regarding the of our results the of the hypotheses Theorem \[uniform monotonicity 1-coercive modulus is recessive\], even when that for each $i\in I$, ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_i$ is the largest possible modulus of monotonicity $A_i$, it does not hold that ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}=p_{\frac{\mu}{2}}(\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}},\boldsymbol{\lambda})$ is necessarily the largest possible modulus monotonicity ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf \lambda})}}$. fact, the largest modulus of monotonicity of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$ cannot, in general, be expressed only terms of $\mu,\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ but depends also $\bold{A}$. To this end, consider the following example which a situation for and, for subdifferential operators. We illustrate this issue outside the class of subdifferential operators in Example \[strong sharpness counter outside subdeifferentials\] of following subsection. example\] Let H}}\to{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$ a lower semicontinuous and such that ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0$ and $\psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Among of choices, one can choose $f=\iota_C$ where $C$ a closed For such a choice of $f$, easily verifies that, indeed, by their definitions, ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0$ $\psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Then it follows that $f$ is neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth. Consequently, Fact implies that also $f^*$ neither uniformly convex uniformly However, formula we see $p(f,f^*)=q$ which is both, uniformly convex and uniformly smooth (in fact, we recall in the following subsection, $q$ is strongly convex smooth). we
 f},{\boldsymbol \lambda})=p_\mu({\bf f},{\boLdsymbol \laMbda})^{**}=p_{\Mu^{-1}}({\bF f^*},{\bOlDsymBol \lAmbda})^*$ is uniformLY smoOth.

A remark regarding the SharpNeSS of oUR rEsultS is now iN OrDER. UnDeR tHe gEnERaLity oF thE hypothEses of TheoRem \[UnIform monotonICiTy with 1-coerCivE modulus is reCesSive\], evEn WheN Given ThaT for eAch $i\in i$, ${\EnsureMath{\varphI}}_i$ IS the laRGest posSIBlE modUlus of monotonicitY Of $a_I$, it does not hold That ${\enSuREmATH{\vaRphI}}=p_{\frac{\mu}{2}}(\boLdSymboL{{\EnsuremATh{\VARPhi}}},\BOldsymbol{\lambDa})$ is necessaRIly The larGeSt pOSsible ModulUs OF moNotonicity oF ${\ensUremath{\maThcal{R}_{\MU}({\bf A},{\bolDSymbol \lAmbda})}}$. IN faCt, tHe laRGeSt ModUlUS of MOnOtoNIciTy of ${\ensuReMaTh{\matHcal{r}_{\MU}({\BF A},{\boLdsYmboL \lambDa})}}$ cannot, in genEraL, be eXPreSsed oNly in TermS oF $\mu,\boLdsymbOl{{\ensUrEmath{\varphi}}}$ and $\bOldsYmbol{\lambDa}$ bUt DepEnDs alsO On $\bold{a}$. To ThiS end, we cOnsider THe fOlLOWInG example which illusTrATEs A similar SituatIOn FoR FunctionS aNd, cOnseQUEntly, For tHEiR subdiffErentiAL oPeRators. WE wIll illUsTraTe tHis isSUe ouTside tHe class oF subdIFferential operATors in Example \[STrONG sHArpnEss Counter outsIde sUBdeiFferENtIalS\] Of the FolloWiNG sUBsection.

\[uniform counTeR exampLe\] Let $F:{\ensuremath{\maThcal H}}\to{\enSUREmath{\,\lefT]-\infTY,+\iNFty\right]}}$ be a proPer, loWer semiconTInuous anD convEx functiOn such thaT ${\ENsurematH{\vaRphI}}_f=0$ aNd $\pSI_F=\iOta_{\{0\}}$. Among a rich VARietY oF choiceS, onE can choOse $F=\ioTa_C$ WheRe $c$ is a closeD half-spaCe. foR sUcH a cHoice OF $f$, one easIlY veRiFieS that, INdeed, bY theiR defInItIOns, ${\EnsuremATh{\VARphi}}_F=0$ aNd $\Psi_f=\IotA_{\{0\}}$. THen it FollOWs tHat $f$ is nEither uniForMLy coNvEx Nor unifOrmly smooth. CoNsEquently, FaCt \[GagE conjuGATion\] implIes that also $f^*$ is neither unIFormly cOnvEx nor UnifOrmly smooTh. HOwever, EmpLOying fOrmula , We see ThAt $p(F,F^*)=Q$ whicH IS bOth, UnIformly conVEX anD unifOrMly sMooth (in Fact, as we recall in thE FolLowing subsectIon, $Q$ is sTROnGly COnVEx aNd STroNGLy smooth). Thus, we
 f},{\boldsymbol \lambda}) =p_\mu({\b f f}, {\b old sy mbol  \la mbda})^{**}=p_ { \mu^ {-1}}({\bf f^*},{\bold symbo l\ lamb d a} )^*$is unif o rm l y  sm oo th .
Ar em ark r ega rding t he sharpne ssof  our results is  now in or der . Under thegen eralit yoft he hy pot heses  of Th e orem \ [uniformmo n otonic i ty with 1 -c oerc ive modulus is re c es s ive\], even wh en giv en th a t  fo r e ach $i\inI$ , ${\ e nsurema t h{ \ v a rph i }}_i$ is thelargest pos s ibl e modu lu s o f  monot onici ty of$A_i$, it d oesnot holdthat $ { \ensure m ath{\va rphi}} =p_ {\f rac{ \ mu }{ 2}} (\ b old s ym bol { {\e nsuremat h{ \v arphi }}}, \ b o l dsym bol {\la mbda} )$ is necessa ril y th e  la rgest  poss ible  m odulu s of m onoto ni city of ${\ensu rema th{\mathc al{ R} _{\ mu }({\b f  A},{\ bol dsy mbol \l ambda}) } }$.  I n f ac t, the largest mod ul u s  o f monoto nicity of  $ { \ensurem at h{\ math c a l{R}_ {\mu } ({ \bf A},{ \bolds y mb ol  \lambd a} )}}$ c an not , i n gen e ral,  be ex pressedonlyi n terms of $\m u ,\boldsymbol{ { \e n s ur e math {\v arphi}}}$ a nd $ \ bold symb o l{ \la m bda}$  butde p en d s also on $\bold{A} $.  To th is en d, we conside r the foll o w i ng examp le w h ic h  illustrates a  simi lar situat i on for f uncti ons and,  conseque n t ly, forthe irsub dif f e re ntial operato r s . We  w ill ill ust rate th isiss ueout si de the cl ass of s ub di ff er ent ial o p eratorsin  Ex am ple  \[st r ong sh arpne ss c ou nt e r o utsides ub d e iffe re nt ials \]of  thefoll o win g subse ction.

\ [un i form  c ou nter ex ample\] Let $ f: {\ensurema th {\m athcal H }}\to{\e nsuremath{\,\left]-\inf t y,+\inf ty\ right ]}}$  be a pro per , lowe r s e micont inuous  andco nve x funct i o nsuc hthat ${\en s u rem ath{\ va rphi }}_f=0$  and $\psi_f=\iota _ {\{ 0\}}$. Amonga r ichv a ri ety of cho ic e s,o n e can choose $f =\iota_C$wh e re  $C$ is ac los ed  half-s pace. F or su c h a cho ice of $f $, one ea si ly v e r ifi es that, i ndeed, b y their d e finit i on s, ${ \en surema th {\v arphi }}_f=0 $  an d $\p si_f=\ io ta_{\{ 0\}}$ .Then itfollows that $f$ is nei ther u nifor mly  convex n oru nif ormly smo oth.  Consequen tly , F act \ [ga g e con juga t io n\] impli es t h at also $ f ^* $ i s ne ither unifo r m l y c onvex  no r  unifo rmly  smooth. However, employing form ula, wesee that  $ p(f,f^*)=q$ wh ich  i s both, un if ormly conve x and un if o rmlysmooth  (in f act, as w er ecallin t hefollowing  su bs e ction,$q $i s stro ngly  c onvexand st r ongl y smooth). Thus, w e
 f},{\boldsymbol_\lambda})=p_\mu({\bf f},{\boldsymbol_\lambda})^{**}=p_{\mu^{-1}}({\bf f^*},{\boldsymbol \lambda})^*$ is_uniformly smooth.

A_remark_regarding the_sharpness_of our results_is now in_order. Under the generality_of the hypotheses_of_Theorem \[uniform monotonicity with 1-coercive modulus is recessive\], even when given that for each $i\in_I$,_${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_i$ is_the_largest_possible modulus of monotonicity of_$A_i$, it does not hold_that ${\ensuremath{\varphi}}=p_{\frac{\mu}{2}}(\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}},\boldsymbol{\lambda})$_is necessarily the largest possible modulus of monotonicity_of_${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$._In fact, the largest modulus of monotonicity of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{R}_{\mu}({\bf_A},{\boldsymbol \lambda})}}$ cannot, in general, be_expressed only in_terms_of_$\mu,\boldsymbol{{\ensuremath{\varphi}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ but_depends also on $\bold{A}$. To this_end, we consider the following example_which illustrates a similar situation for functions_and, consequently, for their subdifferential operators._We will illustrate this issue_outside the_class of subdifferential operators in_Example \[strong sharpness counter_outside subdeifferentials\]_of the following_subsection.

\[uniform counter example\] Let $f:{\ensuremath{\mathcal H}}\to{\ensuremath{\,\left]-\infty,+\infty\right]}}$_be a proper,_lower semicontinuous and convex function such_that_${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0$ and $\psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$._Among_a_rich variety_of choices, one_can_choose $f=\iota_C$_where_$C$ is a closed half-space. For_such_a choice of $f$, one easily verifies_that, indeed, by their_definitions,_${\ensuremath{\varphi}}_f=0$ and $\psi_f=\iota_{\{0\}}$. Then_it follows that $f$ is_neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth._Consequently, Fact \[gage_conjugation\] implies_that also $f^*$ is neither uniformly convex nor uniformly smooth. However,_employing formula , we see that $p(f,f^*)=q$_which is both, uniformly_convex and_uniformly_smooth (in fact,_as_we recall_in the following subsection, $q$ is strongly_convex and_strongly smooth). Thus, we