arxiv: v2 [math.sp] 1 Jul 2014

Transcription

1 INTERSECTION BOUNDS FOR NODAL SETS OF PLANAR NEUMANN EIGENFUNCTIONS WITH INTERIOR ANALYTIC CURVES Layan El-Hajj & Jon A. Tot arxiv: v2 [mat.sp] 1 Jul 2014 Abstract Let Ω R 2 be a bounded piecewise smoot domain and ϕ λ be a Neumann (or Diriclet) eigenfunction wit eigenvalue λ 2 and nodal set N ϕλ = {x Ω; ϕ λ (x) = 0}. Let H Ω be an interior C ω curve. Consider te intersection number n(λ, H) := #(H N ϕλ ). We first prove tat for general piecewise-analytic domains, and under an appropriate goodness condition on H (see Teorem 1.1), (1) n(λ, H) = O H (λ) as λ. Ten, using Teorem 1.1, we prove in Teorem 1.2 tat te bound in (1) is satisfied in te case of quantum ergodic (QE) sequences of interior eigenfunctions, provided Ω is convex and H as strictly positive geodesic curvature. 1. Introduction Let Ω R 2 be a real analytic, bounded planar domain wit boundary Ω and H Ω a realanalytic interior curve. We consider ere te Neumann (or Diriclet) eigenfunctions ϕ λ on real analytic plane domains Ω R 2 wit { ϕ λ = λ 2 ϕ λ in Ω ν ϕ λ = 0 (Neumann), ϕ λ = 0 (Diriclet) on Ω. Te nodal set of ϕ λ is by definition N ϕλ = {x Ω : ϕ λ (x) = 0}. Our main interest ere involves estimating from above te number of intersection points of te nodal lines of Neumann eigenfunctions (te connected components of te nodal set) wit a fixed analytic curve H contained in te interior of te domain Ω. We define te intersection number for Diriclet data along H by (2) n(λ, H) = #{N ϕλ H}. We recall from [TZ] tat an interior curve H is said to be good provided for some λ 0 > 0 tere is a constant C = C(λ 0 ) > 0 suc tat for all λ λ 0, (3) ϕ λ 2 dσ e Cλ. Assuming te goodness condition (3), it is proved in [TZ] tat (4) n(λ, H) = O H (λ). H Te second autor s researc was partially supported by NSERC grant # OGP Tis manuscript was partly written during May, 2012 wen te second autor was visiting Beijing. He wises to acknowledge te financial support and ospitality of te Matematical Sciences Center of Tsingua University. 1

2 2 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH It follows from unique continuation for te interior eigenfunctions and te potential layer formula ϕ λ (x) = Ω N(x, r(s); λ)ϕ λ(s)dσ(s); x int(ω), tat (3) is satisfied in te special case were H = Ω. Te goodness property (3) seems very likely generic (see [BR]). However, it is difficult to prove in concrete examples tat te same upper bound is satisfied for all eigenfunctions wit λ λ 0. Indeed, in [TZ], only te special curve Ω is sown to be good. Recently, Jung [Ju] as sown tat in te boundaryless case, closed orocycles of yperbolic surfaces of finite volume are good in te sense of (3) and ence satisfy te O(λ) upper bounds. In te case of flat 2-torus, Bourgain and Rudnick [BR] ave recently proved λ upper bounds wen H is real-analytic wit nowere vanising curvature (tey also prove λ 1 ε lower bounds in te case were H is real-analytic and non-geodesic). Despite tese results, it is clear tat not all curves are good in te sense of (3). As a counterexample, consider te Neumann problem in te unit disc. Te eigenfunctions in polar variables (r, θ) (0, 1] [0, 2π] are ϕ even m,n (r, θ) = C m,n cos mθj m (j m,nr) and ϕ odd m,n(r, θ) = C m,n sin mθj m (j m,nr). Here, J m is te m-t integral Bessel function and j m,n is te m-t critical point of J m. Te eigenvalues are λ 2 m,n = (j m,n) 2. Fix m Z + and consider H m = {(r, θ); θ = 2πk ; k = 0,..., m 1}. m Ten, clearly for any n = 0, 1, 2,... ϕ odd m,n Hm = 0 and so in particular H m is not good in te sense of (3). Te point of tis paper is treefold: (i) To give an alternative proof of te nodal intersection bound of Tot and Zelditc for interior curves H under an a revised goodness condition on H (see Teorem 1.1). (ii) To establis exponential lower and upper bounds (see Teorem 1.3) for te Grauert tube maxima of analytic continuations of restrictions of quantum ergodic (QE) eigenfunctions to positively-curved H in annular subdomains of te complexification of H. (iii) To use te lower bounds in (ii) combined wit (i) to explicitly identify a large class of interior analytic curves in planar billiards tat satisfy te n(λ, H) = O H (λ) intersection bounds for interior QE sequences of eigenfunctions. Tat is te content of Teorem 1.2. Moreover, for bot Teorems 1.1 and 1.2, te n(λ, H) upper bound is proved using te frequency function metod of F.H. Lin combined wit some semiclassical microlocal analysis, rater tan te Jensen argument in [TZ]. Indeed, te revised goodness condition (see Teorem 1.1) tat is needed for all our results follows ere readily from te main frequency function bound for te number of complex zeros in a complex tickening of H. Our first main teorem is: Teorem 1.1. Let Ω be a bounded, piecewise-analytic domain and H Ω an interior, C ω curve wit restriction map γ H : C 0 (Ω) C 0 (H). Let H C ε denote te complex radius ε > 0 Grauert tube containing H as its totally real submanifold and (γ H ϕ λ ) C be te olomorpic continuation of γ H ϕ λ to H C ε. Suppose te curve H satisfies te revised goodness condition (5) sup z Hε C (γ H ϕ λ ) C (z) e Cλ. for some C > 0. Ten, tere is a constant C Ω,H > 0 suc tat for all λ λ 0, n(λ, H) C Ω,H λ. Our results ere are inerently semiclassical and so we introduce te parameter wic takes values in te sequence λ 1 j ; j = 1, 2, 3,... By a sligt abuse of notation, we denote te Neumann (or Diriclet) eigenfunctions ϕ λ by ϕ, and write n(, H) := n(λ, H). Te restrictions to H are denoted

3 NODAL INTERSECTION 3 by ϕ H := γ Hϕ were γ H : C 0 (Ω) C 0 (H) is te restriction operator γ H f = f H. In te special case were H = Ω we denote te Neumann (resp. Diriclet) boundary traces by ϕ Ω := γ Ω ϕ (resp. ϕ Ω := γ Ω ν ϕ ). Our second result deals wit te case of quantum ergodic sequences of eigenfunctions. We recall tat given a piecewise smoot manifold Ω wit boundary, a sequence of L 2 -normalized eigenfunctions (ϕ jk ) k=1 is quantum ergodic (QE) if for any a S0 (T Ω) wit π(supp(a)) Int(Ω), Op jk (a)ϕ jk, ϕ jk jk 0 + a(x, ξ)dµ, were dµ is Liouville measure. By a teorem of Zelditc and Zworski [ZZ], for a domain wit ergodic billiards, a density-one subset of eigenfunctions are quantum ergodic. Te domain Ω is quantum uniquely ergodic (QUE) if all subsequences are QE. We also recall from [TZ2] te quantum ergodic restriction (QER) problem, wic is to determine conditions on a ypersurface Γ so tat te restrictions γ Γ ϕ j to Γ on a Riemannian manifold (M, g) wit ergodic geodesic flow are quantum ergodic along Γ. An important consequence of Teorem 1.1 concerns convex billiards. Teorem 1.2. Let Ω be a bounded, piecewise-analytic convex domain and H be a C ω interior curve wit strictly positive geodesic curvature. Let (ϕ jk ) k=1 be a QE sequence of Neumann or Diriclet eigenfunctions in Ω. Ten, n( jk, H) = O H,Ω ( 1 j k ). Te proof of Teorem 1.2 follows by sowing tat positively curved H are good in te sense of (5) and ten applying Teorem 1.1. Wen Ω is a convex ergodic billiard, it follows from te QE result of Zelditc and Zworski [ZZ] tat Teorem 1.2 applies to at least a density-one subsequence of eigenfunctions. To our knowledge, it is an open question as to weter or not tere are ergodic billiards tat are QUE. In te course of proving goodness for curved H, we actually prove a muc stronger result (see Proposition 6.1 and Teorem 1.3 below). We sow tat te Grauert tube maximum of complexified eigenfunction restrictions max z H C ε (γ H ϕ C (z) is in fact exponentially increasing in provided te Grauert tube radius ε > 0 is sufficiently small. We summarize tis in te following teorem wic seems of independent interest. To state our next result, we consider weigt function S(t) := S Ω max Re s [ π,π] (iρc (t, s)) were ρ C is te complexified distance function between H and Ω (see (57) and (79)). In Lemma 7.7 we compute te asymptotics of S(t) for Im t [ε δ, ε ], wit ε > 0 small and 0 < δ < ε. We sow tat in suc tin strips in te upper alf-plane, (6) S(t) = Im t + κ2 H (Re t) (Im t) 3 + O( Im t 5 ). 6 Teorem 1.3. Let Ω be a convex bounded planar domain, H Ω an interior C ω strictly convex closed curve wit curvature κ H > 0 and (ϕ jk ) k=1 a QE sequence of interior eigenfunctions. Ten, for ε > 0 sufficiently small and any 0 < δ < ε tere tere exist constants C 1 = C 1 (ε, δ) > 0 and C 2 = C 2 (ε ) > 0, suc tat for (0, 0 (ε )], C 1 e m H(ε δ)/ max (γ H ϕ ) C (z) C e M H (ε )/. z Hε C Here, m H (ε δ) := min t [ π,π] [ε δ,ε ] S(t) and M H (ε ) = max t [ π,π] [0,ε ] S(t). Moreover, it follows from (6) tat M H (ε ) = ε + O(ε 3 ) and m H (ε δ) = ε δ + O( ε δ 3 ).

4 4 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH Te lower bounds in Teorem 1.3 are one of te main results of tis paper and use Proposition 6.1 in a crucial way. To our knowledge, even te (muc simpler) upper bounds for u H,C are new for domains wit boundary. General results for growt of ϕ C for Cω manifolds witout boundary are proved in [Z2]. Our nodal intersection bounds are consistent wit S.T. Yau s famous conjecture on te Hausdorff measure of nodal sets [BG, Do, DF, DF2, H, HL, HHL, HS, L, Y1, Y2] wic asserts tat for all smoot (M, g) tere are constants c 1, C 1 > 0 suc tat c 1 λ N ϕλ C 1 λ, were denotes Hausdorff measure. Tere as been important recent progress on polynomial lower bounds in Yau s conjecture using several metods (see [CM], [He], [Man], [SZ]). Contrary to te lower bounds on nodal lengt, tere are no general nontrivial lower bounds for te intersection count studied ere wic is easily seen by considering te disc (see also [JN, NJT, NS] and related results on sparsity of nodal domains [Lew]). In analogy wit te case of nodal domains, it is of interest to determine weter non-trivial (ie. polynomial in λ) lower bounds exist for nodal intersections under appropriate dynamical assumptions (suc as ergodicity) on te billiard dynamics. Recently, in [GRS], Gos, Reznikov and Sarnak ave establised suc polynomial lower bounds in te case of aritmetic surfaces. We ope to return to tis question elsewere. Trougtout te paper C > 0 will denote a positive constant tat can vary from line to line Outline of te proof of Teorem 1.1. We now describe te main ideas in te proof of Teorem 1.1 suppressing for te moment some of te tecnicalities. Let q : [ π, π] H be a C ω -parametrization of te curve H wit q (t) = 0 for all t [ π, π] and let r : [ π, π] Ω be te arclengt parametrization of te boundary. We denote te respective eigenfunction restrictions (on te parameter domain) by u H (t) = ϕh (q(t)) and u Ω (s) = ϕ Ω (r(s)). As in [TZ], given te eigenfunction restriction, u H (t) = ϕh (q(t)), t [ π, π] te first step is to complexify uh to a olomorpic function u H,C (t) wit t C ε were C ε is a simply-connected domain wit C ω boundary C ε containing te rectangle S ε,π in te parameter space. Te image of S ε,π under te complexified parametrization of H is te complex Grauert tube H C ε ; tat is, H C ε := q C (S ε,π). Te reason for introducing te intermediate domain of olomorpy C ε, is somewat tecnical and as to do wit te frequency function approac to nodal estimates, wic is adapted to counting complex zeros in discs (see Lemma 3.3). Let n(, C ε ) denotes te number of complex zeros of u H,C in te simply connected domain C ε. Te key frequency function estimate (see Proposition 3.4) gives te upper bound ( T u H,C ) L 2 (7) n(, H) n(, C ε ) C ε 1 u H,C. Here, we write L 2 ε for L 2 ( C ε, dσ(t)) and T is te unit tangential derivative along C ε. A key step in te proof of Teorem 1.1 is to -microlocally decompose te rigt and side in (7). Let χ R C 0 (T C ε ) wit χ R (σ) = 1 for σ R + 1 and χ R (σ) = 0 for σ R + 2 wit R > 0 arbitrary. Clearly, (8) T u H,C T Op (χ R )u H,C + T (1 Op (χ R ))u H,C. For te first term on te rigt and side of (8), since T Op (χ R ) Op (S 0,0 (T C ε )), we ave by L 2 -boundedness tat (9) T Op (χ R )u H,C u H,C = 1 T Op (χ R )u H,C u H,C C 2 1.

5 NODAL INTERSECTION 5 As for te second term on te rigt and side of (8), by using potential layer formulas and te Caucy-Scwarz inequality combined wit a complex contour deformation argument (see Proposition 4.2), we sow tat (10) T (1 Op (χ R ))u H,C = O(e C R/ ) u Ω L 2. Here, C R R as R and L 2 0 = L2 ([ π, π], dt), so te term on te rigt and side of (10) involves te L 2 -integral of te restriction of ϕ to te domain boundary Ω. Since u Ω L 2 = O( α ) for some α > 0, it follows tat (11) T (1 Op (χ R ))u H,C = O(e C R/ ). From te Caucy integral formula, Caucy-Scwarz and te goodness condition (5) we get (12) u H,C C sup t S ε,π u H,C (t) e C 0/. From (12) and (11), (13) T (1 Op (χ R )u H,C u H,C = O(e ( CR+C0)/ ). By coosing R sufficiently large in te radial frequency cutoff χ R, we get tat C R C 0 R > 0 and so, substitution of te estimates (8), (9) and (13) in (7) completes te proof of Teorem 1.1. q.e.d Outline of te proof of Teorem 1.3. Let Hε C be te complex Grauert tube of radius ε > 0 wit totally-real part H and let δ > 0 be an arbitrarily small constant. Coose ζ ε C0 (HC ε ; [0, 1]) to be a cutoff in te Grauert tube equal to 1 on Hε C 2δ HC ε 3δ and vanising outside Hε C δ HC ε. Let χ 4δ ε,δ(t) := ζ ε,δ(q C (t)) be te corresponding cutoff in te parameter domain. Ignoring tecnicalities arising from corner points on te boundary, te main tecnical part of te proof of Teorem 1.3 (see Proposition 6.1 and Corollary 6.2) consists of sowing tat under te non-vanising curvature condition on H and for ε > 0 small, tere is an order-zero semiclassical pseudodifferential operator P () Op (C0 (B Ω)) suc tat (14) 1/2 e 2S(t)/ u H,C (t) 2 χ ε,δ(t) dtdt 0 + P ()ϕ Ω, ϕ Ω. C/2πZ Moreover, te principal symbol σ(p ()) satisfies (15) σ(p ())γ 1 dydη C H,Ω,ε,δ > 0 B Ω were γ(y, η) = 1 η 2. Given a quantum ergodic sequence (ϕ jk ) k=1, it follows tat te boundary restrictions (ϕ Ω jk ) k=1 are temselves quantum ergodic [Bu, HZ] in te sense tat (16) P ()ϕ Ω, ϕ Ω 0 + σ(p ())γ 1 dydη. B Ω It ten follows from (14), (15) and (16) tat (17) 1/2 e 2S(t)/ u H,C (t) 2 χ ε,δ(t) dtdt 0 + σ(p ())γ 1 dydη = C Ω,H,ε,δ > 0. B Ω C/2πZ

6 6 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH To get te lower bounds for te Grauert tube maxima, we use te elementary inequality 1/2 max u H,C t S (t) 2 e 2S(t)/ χ ε,δ(t)dtdt ε,π C/2πZ (18) 1/2 e 2S(t)/ u H,C (t) 2 χ ε,δ(t) dtdt. C/2πZ In view of (17) and te formula S(t) = Im t + κ2 H (Re t) 6 (Im t) 3 + O( Im t 5 ) in Lemma 7.7, te exponential lower bound for te Grauert tube maximum of u H,C follows from (18). Te upper bound follows by using te complexified potential layer formula u H,C (t) = Ω N C (q C (t), r(s); )u Ω (r(s))dr(s) combined wit Caucy-Scwarz and te a priori bound u Ω L 2 ( Ω) = O(1), wic is a direct consequence of te QER property of te eigenfunction boundary traces. Furter details are given in section q.e.d Outline of proof of Teorem 1.2. Teorem 1.2 follows from Teorems 1.3 and 1.1 since te goodness condition (5) for H follows trivially from te lower bound in Teorem 1.3. q.e.d. Remark: We note tat te lower bound in Teorem 1.3 gives exponential growt for te Grauert tube maximum max t Sε,π u H,C (t) consistent wit te upper bound. Terefore, it is muc stronger tan te goodness condition (5) wic only requires tat Grauert tube maximum not decay faster tan e C/ for some C > microlocal caracterization of P (). Altoug we give a self-contained proof of Proposition 6.1 in section 8, it is useful to understand te -microlocal rationale beind te caracterization of P () in te proposition. To simplify te argument somewat, we continue to assume ere tat Ω is smoot. Let H C ε /2,ε = H C ε H C ε /2 be te complex strip corresponding to ε /2 < Im t < ε in te complexification of H and χ C 0 (HC ε /2,ε ), a cutoff to te complex strip H C ε /2,ε. Given te composite operator F χ () : C ( Ω) C 0 (HC ε ), wit F χ () := 1/4 e S/ χγ C HN C (), te argument in Proposition 6.1 caracterizes te operators (19) P () = F χ () F χ () : C ( Ω) C ( Ω) as -pseudodifferential of order 0. Te reason for tis can be seen as follows. Under te positive curvature assumption on H we sow in section 8.1 tat for ε > 0 small, tere exists s C ω (Hε C /2,ε ) suc tat s Re [iρc (t,s)] Im t as a non-degenerate maximum at s = s (t). Since te subarmonic weigt function S(t) = Re iρ C (t, s (t)), it follows tat te pase of te operator F χ () is of of te form ( (20) ϕ(t, s) = Re ρ C (t, s) + iβ 1 (t, s) (s s (t)) 2 + O(s s (t)) 3), were coefficient β 1 (t, s) κ H (Y (s)) 2 Im t. Here, s (Re t, 0) = Y 1 (Re t) were Y : Ω H is te glancing map relative to H (see Definition 7.4). Wen H is strictly convex, up to coice of orientation, te map Y is te C ω -diffeomorpism of Ω wit H tat assigns to eac point r Ω te corresponding point q H wit te property tat te geodesic ray joining tese points is tangent to H at te terminal point, q.

7 NODAL INTERSECTION 7 As for te real part of te pase Re ϕ(t, s) = Re ρ C (t, s), we note tat in view of (20), W F (F χ()) Λ wit Λ : = {(s, d s ρ C (t, s); t, d t ρ C (t, s) id t S(t)), s = s ε (t), 2 < Im t < ε } (21) T Ω T Hε C. One can decompose Λ into real and imaginary parts Λ = Re Λ iim Λ wit Re Λ = {(s, d s Re ρ C (t, s); Re t, d Re t Re ρ C (t, s)), s = s ε (t), 2 < Im t < ε } (22) T Ω T H. Under te positive curvature condition on H, one can sow tat (s, Im t) are parametrizing coordinates for Re Λ. For (x, ξ, y, η) Re Λ, te projections κ 1 (x, ξ, y, η) = (x, ξ) and κ 2 (x, ξ, y, η) = (y, η) are diffeomorpisms onto teir images and te open real Lagrangian Re Λ is a canonical grap wit respect to te symplectic form κ 1 (ds dim t) κ 2 ( ds dim t) (see subsection 7.5.3). In particular, d s d Im t Re ρ C (t, s) 0 wen s = s (t). As a consequence of tis and te analysis of te imaginary part of te pase in (20), a key step in te proof of Proposition 6.1 is te operator decomposition (see Lemma 8.2) (23) F χ () F χ () = U Y () T () χ 2 T ()U Y (). Here, U Y () : C ( Ω) C (H) is an -Fourier integral operator quantizing te glancing diffeomorpism Y : Ω H. After an appropriate coice of complex variables τ 1 + iτ 2 Hε C /2,ε and identifying Hε C /2,ε wit a subset of T H via map τ 1 + iτ 2 (τ 1, τ 2 ), te operators T () : C (H) C (T H) can be written in te form T ()g(τ 1, τ 2 ) = (2π) 3/4 e [i(τ 1 u)τ 2 β(u,τ 1,τ 2 ) τ 1 u (24) 2 ]/ c(u, τ 1, τ 2 ; ) g(u) dσ(u) H were c k=0 c k k and β(u, τ 1, τ 2 ) > 0 wen (u, τ 1, τ 2 ) supp c. Here, supp c(u,, ; ) {(τ 1, τ 2 ); ε 2 < τ 2 < ε }. Consequently, T () is, -microlocally on te image of Hε C /2,ε, an FBItransform in te sense of [WZ] of order zero. Indeed, te extra multiplicative factor of 1/4 is included in te definition of F χ () to ensure tat T () is of order zero. Te identity (23) follows from te analysis in section 8 (see, in particular, Lemma 8.2). Given (23), it follows by te -Egorov teorem for FBI-transforms ([Zw] Teorem 13.12) tat T () χ 2 T () = Q() were Q() : C (H) C (H) is an -pseudodifferential operator on H of order 0. Finally, conjugation wit te -Fourier integral operator U Y () quantizing te glancing map and anoter application of te usual -Egorov teorem for -pseudodifferential operators gives P () in (19) as an -pseudodifferntial operator of order 0 acting on te boundary Ω. Tis is essentially te content of Proposition 6.1 along wit te explicit computation of te principal symbol of P () QER for Caucy data along H and growt of u H,C. In (16) we ave used tat for Diriclet, interior QUE for domains implies QE for te boundary traces ϕ Ω. Tis follows from Burq s proof of boundary quantum ergodicity [Bu] using te Rellic commutator argument (see also [HZ] for a different proof). In te Neumann case, te same is true as long as one uses test operators wit symbols supported away from te tangential set to te boundary; in particular, our test operator P () in (14) as tis property. Neiter statement is necessarily correct for te eigenfunction restrictions to a general interior curve H [TZ2]. An important point in tis paper is tat te nodal intersection count for an interior H is linked to QER for te boundary values of eigenfunctions ϕ Ω, not te QER problem for H (owever, see below). Indeed, te identity

8 8 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH (14) directly links a weigted L 2 -integral of te olomorpic eigenfunction continuations over H to boundary QER. Tat part of te argument is somewat tecnical and uses te curvature assumption on H (see sections 7 and 8). Despite te fact tat te growt of te olomorpic continuations u H,C and consequently, te nodal intersection count, need not be directly linked to te QER problem for Diriclet data consisting of eigenfunction restrictions to H, it is wortwile to point out tat it is directly related to te QER problem for Caucy data along H. Let CD H () := (ϕ H, ϕh,ν ) wit ϕ H = ϕ H and ϕ H,ν = νh ϕ H, were we continue to assume tat (ϕ ) is QE sequence for te domain Ω. Ten, te interior curve H and Ω bound a subdomain Ω H Ω and one can write te boundary restriction ϕ Ω directly in terms of te Caucy data along H. Indeed, Greens formula gives (25) ϕ Ω (r(s)) = νh (q(t)g 0 (r(s), q(t), )ϕ H (q(t))dq(t) 1 G 0 (r(s), q(t), )ϕ H,ν (q(t))dq(t). H H It follows tat (26) P ()ϕ Ω, ϕ Ω = Q H() CD H (), CD H () were Q H () is a 2 2-matrix of -pseudodifferential operators acting on H and we write CD H () as a column vector. Consider te operators T () : C (H) C ( Ω) and G() : C (H) C ( Ω) wit Scwartz kernels T (r(s), q(t); ) = νh G 0 (r(s), q(t); ) and G(r(s), q(t); ) = 1 G 0 (r(s), q(t); ) respectively. Here G 0 (x, y, ) is te free Greens kernel in (29) and bot T () and S() are -Fourier integral operators wit standard WKB-expansions. Te latter follows from (29) since H is interior to Ω and so dist(h, Ω) > 0. Te entries of Q H () are te operators Q 11 () = T () P ()T (), Q 22 () = G() P ()G(), Q 12 () = T () P ()G() and Q 21 () = Q 12 (). By te -Egorov teorem, Q ij () : C (H) C (H) are -pseudodifferential on H of order 0 and te respective symbols can be computed in terms of te symbol σ(p ()) in Proposition 6.1 and te transfer map between Ω and H (see [TZ2] section 3). One can ten restate Proposition 6.1 in te form (27) 1/2 e 2S(t)/ u H,C (t) 2 χ ε,δ(t)dtdt 0 + Q H () CD H (), CD H (). C/2πZ Te formula (27) relates te growt of te olomorpic continuations u H,C to QER for te eigenfunction Caucy data along H. Remark: Recently, Zelditc [Z] as obtained detailed results on te asymptotic distribution of complex zeros of ϕ H,C in te ergodic case wen H is a geodesic. Altoug we do not pursue tis ere, te identity in (17) can be used to derive asymptotic distribution results for complex zeros of ϕ H,C in te case were H as strictly positive geodesic curvature, but only in an annular subdomain of Hε C away from te real curve H (ie. on te support of te cutoff χ ε ). At te moment, we do not know wat te asymptotic distribution of te zeros of ϕ H,C looks like in te entire Grauert tube Hε C wen H is geodesically curved. We ope to return to tis problem elsewere. Remark: Te convexity assumption on Ω in Teorems 1.2 and 1.3 can be relaxed somewat. Altoug we do not pursue it ere, it is not ard to sow using te metods of tis paper tat our results extend to te case were te glancing map Y : Ω H is a diffeomorpism, H is C ω strictly convex and (ϕ ) is a QE sequence.

9 NODAL INTERSECTION 9 We tank Peter Sarnak and Steve Zelditc for elpful comments regarding an earlier version of te manuscript. 2. Analytic continuation of eigenfunctions and domains 2.1. Complexification of domains Ω and teir boundaries Ω. We adopt notation tat is similar to tat of Garabedian [G] and Millar [M1, M2] (see also [TZ]) and denote points in R 2 by (x, y) and complex coordinates in C 2 by (z, w). It is also important to single out te independent complex coordinates ζ = z + iw, ζ = z iw. Wen H Ω and Ω are real analytic curves, teir complexifications are te images of analytic continuations of real analytic parameterizations. Tere are two natural parameter spaces and, as in [TZ], we freely work wit bot trougout. We define te parameter strip of widt 2ε 0 to be S ε = {t C : t = Re t + iim t, Re t R, Im t [ ε, ε ]}. Te corresponding fundamental rectangular domain is S ε,π = {t C : t = Re t + iim t, Re t [ π, π], Im t [ ε, ε ]}. For ε > 0 small, te associated conformal map of S ε,π onto H C ε is q C : S ε,π H C ε q C (t) = (q C 1 (t), q C 2 (t)). Witout loss of generality, we assume tat H is a closed curve wit q (t) 0 for all t [ π, π]. In addition, we assume trougout tat te real-analytic parametrization q : [ π, π] H wit q(t + 2π) = q(t) extends to a conformal map q C : S 2ε,2π H C 2ε wit q C (t + 2π) = q C (t). One can also naturally parameterize H C ε using functions on annular domains in C of te form In terms of te conformal map A ε := {z C; e ε z e ε }. z : S ε,π A ε, z(t) = e it, given any 2π-periodic olomorpic function f O(S ε,π) tere is a unique olomorpic F O(A ε ) wit f(t) = F (z(t)) = F (e it ). Te conformal parametrizing map q C : S ε,π Hε C induces a conformal parametrizing map Q C : A ε Hε C wit q C (t) = Q C (e it ). We use te two maps intercangeably trougout. Generally, upper case letters denote parametrization maps from te annulus A ε and lower case ones denote maps from te rectangle S ε,π. In view of te potential layer formulas and te boundary conditions, te boundary curve Ω as special significance. Witout loss of generality, we let r : [ π, π] Ω be te real analytic arclengt parametrization of te boundary wit r(t + 2π) = r(t) and r (t) = 1 for all t [ π, π]. Te corresponding olomorpic continuation is r C : S ε,π Ω C ε wit r C (t) = R C (z(t)). In addition, we let C ε be a simply-connected domain bounded by a closed real-analytic curve wit C ε (28) [ π, π] S ε,π C ε S 2ε,2π, and min z C ε R z [ π, π] π 2 and max z C ε Im z 7ε 4.

10 10 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH Te interval [ π, π] is just te totally real slice of te complex parameter rectangle S ε,π wic is contained in C ε. By possibly srinking ε > 0 we assume from now on tat te eigenfunction restrictions extend to 2π-real periodic olomorpic functions u H,C on te larger rectangles S 2ε,2π Holomorpic continuation of te restricted eigenfunctions. Let G : H 2 (R 2 ) L 2 (R 2 ) be te fundamental solution of te Helmoltz equation in R 2 wit Scwartz kernel were (29) Ha (1) e iz ν (z) = c ν z G(x, y, x, y, ) = i 4 Ha(1) 0 ( 1 (x, y) (x, y ) ), 0 e s s (1 s 2iz )ν 1 2 ds, Re z > 0. An application of Green s teorem yields te following potential layer formula for te Neumann eigenfunctions (30) ϕ (x, y) = νs G(x, y; r(s), ) ϕ (r(s))dσ(s), Ω were (x, y) Ω and ν s S Ω (Ω) is te unit external normal to te boundary at r(s) Ω. We denote te kernel of te potential layer operator in (30) by (31) N(x, y; r(s), ) := νs G(x, y; r(s), ) = 1 Ha (1) 1 ( 1 (x, y) r(s) ) cos θ((x, y), r(s)) were (x, y) r(s) cos θ((x, y), r(s)) = (x, y) r(s), ν s and te corresponding operator by N() : C ( Ω) C ( Ω). To understand olomorpic continuation of eigenfunctions, one starts wit te singularity decomposition of te kernel G(x, y; r(s), ). It is well-known tat ( (32) G(x, y; r(s), ) = A( 1 (x, y) r(s) ) log 1 (x, y) r(s) ) + B( 1 (x, y) r(s) ) were A(z) and B(z) are entire functions of z 2 C and eac of tem ave elementary expressions in terms of Bessel functions (see [TZ] appendix A). A(z) is te Riemann function [G]. We identify (x, y) R 2 wit x + iy C, and introduce te notation ρ(x + iy, r(t)) = (x + iy r(t)) (x iy r(t)) were z z is te positive square-root function wit Re z > 0 wen Re z > 0. Substitution of (32) in (30) implies tat for (x, y) Ω and wit ν := νs, ϕ (x, y) = 1 ϕ (r(s)) ν A( 1 ρ) log(ρ 2 ) dr(s) 2 Ω 1 (33) ϕ (r(s))a( 1 ρ) ν log(ρ 2 ) dr(s) + ν B( 1 ρ)ϕ (r(s)) dr(s). 2 Ω Ω Te olomorpic continuation of te tird integral is te easiest to describe since tere is a real analytic F C ω (R, R) wit entire extension F C O(C) satisfying (34) ν B( 1 ρ) = ν F ( 2 ρ 2 ) and te same is true for te normal derivative ν A( 1 ρ) of te Riemann function. In view of (34), te last integral in (33) as a biolomorpic extension to Ω C := {(z, w) C 2 ; Re z + ire w Ω}. In contrast, te first two integrals bot turn out to ave fairly subtle analytic continuations over Ω in C 2 tat rely eavily on analytic continuation of te eigenfunction boundary traces ([TZ]

11 NODAL INTERSECTION 11 Appendix 9). However, we need only consider olomorpic continuation over a strictly interior curve H Ω ere. Tus, to describe te olomorpic continuation of te first integral on te rigt and side of (33) it suffices to assume tat x+iy Ω is far from te boundary wit x+iy r 2 > 4ε 2 > 0, were ε < dist(h, Ω). Wen max( Im w, Im z ) < ε, it follows by Taylor expansion tat ρ 2 (z + iw, r) Re z + ire w r 2 max( Im w, Im z ) Re z + ire w r. Tus, Re ρ 2 (z + iw, r) > ε 2 and (s, Re z, Re w) log(ρ 2 (Re z, Re w, s)) as a biolomorpic continuation in te (Re z, Re w) variables to (35) [Ω Ω 2ε ] C (ε ) = {(z, w) Ω C ; min r Ω Re z + ire w r 2ε, Im z ε, Im w ε }. Te same is true for ν A(ρ) and consequently, for te integral. By te same argument, te funcrtion (s, Re z, Re w) νs ρ 2 (Re z, Re w, s) also biolomorpically continues in te (Re z, Re w)-variables to [Ω Ω 2ε ] C (ε ). Consequently, so does te second integral on te RHS of (33). Restriction of te outgoing variables, (x, y) to (q 1 (s), q 2 (s)) H in (33) yields te integral equation (36) N()ϕ Ω = ϕh. From now on, we will refer to ε > 0 as te modulus of analyticity. In ligt of te potential layer formula (36) for te Neumann eigenfunctions, it is useful to compare eigenfunction restrictions to Ω wit restrictions to H Ω and similarly, for te olomorpic continuations. For te restrictions of te Neumann eigenfunctions pulled-back to te parameter domain, we continue to write (37) u Ω (t) = ϕ Ω (r 1(t), r 2 (t)), u H (t) = ϕh (q 1(t), q 2 (t)); t [ π, π] wit r(t) = r 1 (t) + ir 2 (t) Ω and q(t) = q 1 (t) + iq 2 (t) H. Proposition 2.1. Suppose tat H Ω is real analytic and let dist(h, Ω) = min (s,t) [ π,π] 2 q(t) r(s). Assume tat q(t) as a olomorpic continuation to I(δ) = [ π, π] ± [ δ, δ]. Ten te restriction u H of te Neumann eigenfunctions as a olomorpic continuation (t) to te strip S 2ε,2π wit u H,C 2ε < dist(h, Ω) sup t IH (δ) t q C (t). Moreover, in te strip S 2ε,2π, te continuation is given by complexified potential layer equation (38) N C ()ϕ Ω = ϕh,c, were N C () is te operator wit Scwartz kernel N C (q C (t), r(s), ) olomorpically continued in te outgoing t-variables, and ϕ H,C te olomorpic continuation of ϕ H to HC ε. Proof. Te proposition follows from te above analytic continuation argument for (33) and (36) since by (35) te u H olomorpically continue to te set {t C; min r Ω q(re t) r 2ε, Im q C (t) < ε }. Te formula in (38) follows from uniqueness of analytic continuation and te fact tat, by te above analysis of (33), for ζ = q C (t) H 2ε,2π, ϕ H,C (ζ) = [N()ϕ Ω ]C (ζ) = N C ()ϕ Ω (ζ). q.e.d.

12 12 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH 3. Te frequency function and measure of te nodal set We first recall te definition of te frequency function wit an important application due to F.H. Lin [L] for estimating measures of nodal sets. We are interested ere in te planar case of olomorpic functions. In general, te frequency function for armonic functions in arbitrary dimensions is defined as follows Definition 3.1. Let u = 0 wit = n j=1 2 x j te standard Laplacian in R n. Te frequency function of te armonic function u in te unit ball B 1 R n is defined to be F (u) = B 1 u 2 B 1 u 2. Wen te context is clear, we suppress te dependence of F on u and just write F for te frequency function. In te planar case, any non-zero olomorpic function f(z) in te disc B 1 = {z C; z 1}, as a decomposition of te form f = u + iv were u, v are armonic conjugates and so, since z f = x u + i x v, in analogy wit te armonic case in Definition 3.1, one defines te frequency function to be (39) F = B 1 z f(z) 2 dzd z B 1 f(z) 2 dσ(z). An elementary but useful example to keep in mind is te monomial f(z) = z k = r k e kiθ ; k Z +. In tis case, one easily computes te frequency function to be k r2k 1 dr = k/2, were k is te degree of te polynomial z k. By Green s formula, te analogous result is easily verified for arbitrary omogeneous armonic polynomials in any dimension. Te following result, proved by Lin [L] using Taylor expansion, and by Han [H] using Rouce s teorem is an important generalization of te polynomial case to arbitrary non-zero olomorpic functions. We recall te result ere and refer te reader to [H] for a proof (see also te upcoming book of Han and Lin [HL]). Te key result tat estimates te number of complex zeros of f(z) in te disc B 1 is given by Teorem 3.2. [H, L, HL] Let f(z) be a non-zero analytic function in B 1 = {z C : z 1}. Ten, for some universal δ (0, 1), were F is defined to be te ratio in (39). #{f 1 (0) B δ } 2F, It is useful ere to rewrite te frequency function F in (39) exclusively in terms of integrals over te circular disc boundary B 1. Lemma 3.3. Let f : B 1 C be non-zero olomorpic. Ten, F θf L 2 ( B 1 ), f L 2 ( B 1 ) were θ = x y y x is te unit tangential derivative along te circular boundary B 1 of te disc. Proof. Te proof follows from Green s formula and an application of Caucy-Scwarz. For z = x + iy = (x, y) B 1 we write f(z) = Re f(x, y) + iim f(x, y), were Re f(x, y), Im f(x, y) are real-valued armonic functions. Since f is analytic, z f = x Re f i y Re f, and so, z f 2 = ( x Re f) 2 + ( y Re f) 2 = (Re f) 2.

13 NODAL INTERSECTION 13 An application of Green s teorem implies tat z f(z) 2 dzdz = (Re f) 2 dxdy B 1 (40) B 1 = Re f ν (Re f) dθ Re f (Re f)dxdy B 1 = B 1 Re f ν (Re f) dθ, were, ν is te outward pointing unit normal to B 1 and te last line follows since (Re f) = 0 in B 1. Next, we use te Caucy-Riemann equations written in polar coordinates (r, θ) R + [0, 2π) to rewrite te normal derivative term on te rigt and side of te last line in (40) in terms of a tangential one. (41) ν Re f B1 = r Re f r=1 = θ Im f r=1. (42) (43) Hence, it follows from (41) and (40) tat B 1 z f(z) 2 dzdz = B 1 Finally, an application of Caucy-Scwarz in (42) gives B 1 Re f θ (Im f) dθ. B 1 z f(z) 2 dzdz Re f L 2 ( B 1 ) θ (Im f) L 2 ( B 1 ) f L 2 ( B 1 ) θ f L 2 ( B 1 ). q.e.d Frequency functions for te olomorpic continuations of restricted eigenfunctions. We wis to estimate ere te intersection number n(, H) in terms of Lemma 3.3. Proposition 3.4. Let H Ω be a C ω interior curve and C ε be a simply-connected, bounded domain in C containing te rectangle S ε,π wit real-analytic boundary C ε and arclengt parametrization t κ(t) C ε. Ten, for ε > 0 sufficiently small T u H,C L 2 n(, H) C ε H,ε u H,C. Here, L 2 ε := L 2 ( C ε, dt ) and T denotes te unit tangential derivative along C ε wit T f(t) := d dt f(κ(t)). Proof. Since C ε is a simply-connected bounded domain, by te Riemann mapping teorem tere exists a conformal map κ : B 1 C ε, were B 1 = {z; z < 1}. By Carateodory, tere is κ C 0 (B 1 ) wit κ B1 = κ B1 univalent up to te boundary. Moreover, since C ε is real-analytic, it follows from te Scwarz reflection principle tat (44) κ C ω (B 1 ).

14 14 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH Analogous results also old for te inverse conformal map κ 1 : C ε and satisfies (44), it follows tat te boundary restriction B 1. Since κ is conformal κ B1 : B 1 C ε is a C ω -diffeomorpism. We define te composite function on B 1 g H,C (z) := u H,C ( κ(z)); z B 1. We apply teorem 3.2 to te olomorpic function g H,C in B 1. We coose δ (0, 1) so tat C δ := κ(b δ ) [ π, π]. We ave tat (45) n(, H) = N u [ π, π] n C (, C δ ) = #{t C δ ; u H,C (t) = 0} = #{t B δ ; g H,C (t) = 0}. It follows by Teorem 3.2, Lemma 3.3 and(45) tat (46) n(, H) 2 θg H,C L 2 ( B 1 ) g H,C L 2 ( B 1 ) An application of te cange of variables formula in (46) wit t = κ(z) for z B 1 proves te proposition. q.e.d. (47) 4. Estimating te frequency function: -microlocal decomposition In view of Proposition 3.4, we are left wit sowing tat T u H,C u H,C = O Ω,H ( 1 ). To prove (7), we will need to -microlocally decompose γ Cε u H,C were γ Cε : C 0 (S 2ε,2π) C 0 ( C ε ) is te restriction map. We briefly digress ere to introduce te relevant - pseudodifferential cutoff operators noting tat C ε is C ω -diffeomorpic to te unit circle B Semiclassical pseudodifferential operators on tori. Let M n be compact manifold. Te following semiclassical symbol spaces are standard [EZ] and will suffice for our purposes. Definition 4.1. We say tat a S k,m cl (T M [0, 0 )) if a C (T M; [0, 0 )) as an asymptotic expansion of te form a 0 + k j=0 a j(x, ξ) j were α x β ξ a j(x, ξ) C α,β (1 + ξ ) m β ; (x, ξ) T M. Te corresponding class of -pseudodifferential operators A : C (M) C (M) ave Scwartz kernels locally of te form A (x, y) = (2π) n R n e i x y,ξ / a(x, ξ; )dξ wit a S k,m cl (T M; [0, 0 )). We write A = Op (a) for te operator wit symbol a(x, ξ; ). Since C ε is C ω -diffeomorpic to a circle S 1 = R/2πZ, it suffices ere to consider - pseudodifferential operators on tori and te latter operators can be conveniently described globally in terms of teir action on Fourier coefficients. Given A Op (S 0,m (T T n )) one can write te Scwartz kernel in te form A (x, y) = (2π) n ξ (Z) n e i x y,ξ / a T n(x, ξ; ); (x, y) [ π, π] n [ π, π] n.

15 NODAL INTERSECTION 15 were a T n(, ξ) C (T n ) and α x β,ξ a T n(x, ξ) C α,β(1 + ξ ) m β were β,ξ a T n(x; ξ 1,..., ξ n ) = a T n(x; ξ 1 + β 1,..., ξ n + β n ) a T n(x; ξ 1,..., ξ n ) is te semiclassical iterated difference operator in te frequency coordinates. Te converse also olds, so tat te two realizations of -pseudodifferential operators are equivalent (see [Ag, Mc] for te omogeneous case were = 1. Te extension to te semiclassical setting is straigtforward). We are interested ere specifically in te -pseudodifferential cutoffs χ = Op (χ) Op (S 0, (T C ε )) were χ C0 (T C ε ). We naturally identify C ε wit R/2πZ by using te periodic C ω arclengt parametrization κ : [ π, π] C ε ; t κ(t) Semiclassical wave front sets of eigenfunction restrictions. Let H n 1 M n be any interior smoot ypersurface in a compact manifold wit or witout boundary. In tis subsection, we do not make any analyticity assumptions on eiter H or te ambient manifold, M. Let u H := γ H ϕ be te eigenfunction restriction were γ H : f f H, f C 0 (H). Ten, making a Fermicoordinate decomposition in a collar neigbourood of H, it is not ard to sow tat (48) W F (u H ) B H = {(s, σ) T H; σ g 1}. For Euclidean domains M = Ω, (48) follows directly from potential layer formulas. For completeness and because of te importance of te localization of W F (u H ) in our argument, we sketc te proof of (48) for planar domains, wic is te case we are interested in ere. Te proof of (48) uses te potential layer representations of eigenfunctions discussed in Subsection in te planar case n = 2 restricted to te curve H. It is immediate from (30) tat (49) u H (t) = π Since H Ω is interior, π N(q(t), r(s); ) u Ω (s)dσ(s). inf q(t) r(s) C > 0 and so, from (29) it follows tat t,s [ π,π] (50) Ñ(t, s; ) := N(q(t), r(s), ) = (2π) 1 2 e i 1 q(t) r(s) a(t, s; ) were, a(t, s; ) = k a j (t, s) j + O( k+1 ) j=0 uniformly for all (q(t), r(s)) H Ω wit a j C ([ π, π] [ π, π]). Similar uniform asymptotics old for derivatives as well. Let χ(ξ) C0 (R) be a cut-off function equal to zero wen ξ 2 and equal to 1 for ξ < 3/2 and let Op (χ) Op (S 0, (T H; (0, 0 ])) be te microlocal cut-off wit kernel Op (χ)(t, t ) = (2π) 2 e i t t,ξ / χ(ξ); (t, t ) [ π, π] [ π, π]. ξ Z Ten, from (49) and (50), it follows tat Op (1 χ)u H (t) = Op (1 χ)nu Ω (t) = (2π) π π 2 e i[(t t )ξ+ q(t ) r(s) ]/ (1 χ)(ξ) a(q(t ), r(s); ) u Ω (s) ds dt. ξ Z π π

16 16 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH Since d t q(t ) = 1, differentiation of te pase Ψ(t, t, s; ξ) := (t t )ξ + q(t ) r(s) in t gives t Ψ(t, t, s; ξ) = ξ + d t q(t ), q(t ) r(s) 1 ξ 1 q(t ) r(s) 2 ; wen ξ 3 2. Since ξ 3 2 wen ξ suppχ, repeated integration by parts in t, an application of Caucy- Scwarz and using tat u Ω L 2 = O( 1/4 ) [BGT] implies tat sup t [0,2π] Op (1 χ(ξ))u H (t) = O( ξ ) were ξ := 1 + ξ 2. Te same argument for t-derivatives combined wit te Sobolev lemma implies tat for all k Z +, (51) Op (1 χ(ξ))u H C k ([ π,π]) = O k ( ξ ). Te wavefront bound in (48) is an immediate consequence of (51) since te cutoff function χ(ξ) can be cosen wit support arbitrarily close to ξ = 1 and te same argument gives (51) for any suc cutoff. In te next section we improve te compactness result (48) under te real-analyticity assumption on ( Ω, H) to sow tat in te -microlocal decomposition (8) te residual term T (1 Op (χ R ))u H,C 2 ε = O(e C0 R / ) wit appropriate C 0 > 0 and were χ R C0 (R) wit supp χ R {ξ; ξ R}. Hence, to get an asymptotic estimate for te frequency function of u H,C, it suffices to bound T Op (χ R )u H,C ε and te latter is O( 1 u H,C ε ) by standard L 2 -boundedness of te -pseudodifferential operator T χ Op (S 0, (T C ε )) Te real analytic case. We now assume tat H is real-analytic. As outlined in te previous section, our goal ere is to improve te O( )-bound in (51) to obtain exponential decay estimates for te residual mass term of te form Op (1 χ)u H,C = O(e C0/ ). In te following, using te parametrization [ π, π] t κ(t), we identify C ε wit R/(2πZ) and so, Op (1 χ) : C (R/2πZ) C (R/2πZ) Holomorpic continuation of te Ñ(t, s; )-kernel. Given (z, w) C2, consider te map z + iw (z + iw) = z iw wic is te olomorpic continuation to C 2 of te usual complex conjugation x + iy x iy wen (x, y) R 2. In te following, z z 1/2 denotes te square root wit positive real part wit π < arg(z) π. In view of Proposition 2.1 it follows tat for ε > 0 sufficiently small, te potential layer equation u H (t) = Nu Ω (t) analytically continues to te equation (52) u H,C (ζ) = [Nu Ω ]C (ζ); ζ S 2ε,2π. In particular, we consider ere te case were ζ = κ(t) C ε. For ζ U ε, were U ε := {ζ S 2ε,2π; max z ζ < ε z C 2 }, equation (52) remains valid and ε moreover, since (53) Re [q C (ζ) r(s)][q C (ζ) r(s)] ε 2 > 0 wen (ζ, s) U ε [ π, π], te kernel (54) N C (q C (ζ), r(s), ) = Ha (1) 1 is olomorpic for ζ U ε. By Proposition 2.1, we ave ) ( 1 [q C (ζ) r(s))][q C (ζ) r(s))] π (55) u H,C (ζ) = N C (q C (ζ), r(s), ) u Ω (s)dσ(s), ζ U ε. π

17 NODAL INTERSECTION 17 It follows from (53), (54) and te integral formula (29) tat te real WKB asymptotics for te N(t, s, )-kernel [HZ, TZ] olomorpically continues in t to give te complex asymptotic formula (56) N C (q C (ζ), r(s), ) = (2π) 1 2 e iρ C (q C (ζ),r(s))/ a C (ζ, s; ); (ζ, s) U ε [ π, π], were, a C (ζ, s; ) 0 k=0 ac k (ζ, s)k wit a k (, s) O(U ε ) and (57) ρ C (q C (ζ), r(s)) = [q C (ζ) r(s)][q C (ζ) r(s)]; (ζ, s) U ε [ π, π]. In particular, for ζ = κ(t) C ε, we ave (58) u H,C (κ(t)) = π π N C (q C (κ(t)), r(s), ) u Ω (s)dσ(s), t [ π, π], were N C (q C (κ(t)), r(s), ) satisfies te asymptotics in (56). Since we compute in te parametrization variables (t, s) [ π, π], to simplify notation we define (59) Ñ C (t, s, ) := N C (q C (κ(t)), r(s), ); (t, s) [ π, π] [ π, π] Estimating te residual kernel [Op (1 χ)ñ C ](t, s; ). Let χ C0 χ(ξ) = 0 wen (R) be a cutoff wit and χ(ξ) = 1 wen In tis section we prove ξ 20ε 1 sup ρ C (q C (ζ), r(s)) (ζ,s) U ε [ π,π] ξ 10ε 1 sup ρ C (q C (ζ), r(s)). (ζ,s) U ε [ π,π] Proposition 4.2. Let H Ω be C ω interior curve wit dist(h, Ω) < δ(ε ) and C ε be a curve satisfying (28). Ten, assuming δ(ε 0 ) > 0 is sufficiently small and k Z +, tere is a constant C k (ε ) > 0 suc tat for (0, (ε )], [Op (1 χ)ñ C ](, ; ) C k ([ π,π] [ π,π]) = O(e C k(ε )/ ). Proof. In ligt of te complexified potential layer formula in (55), we substitute te complex WKB asymptotics for N C (q C (ζ), r(s), ) in (56) and use te Caucy integral formula to deform contours of integration. From (55) and (56), one gets tat (60) [Op (1 χ)ñ C ](t, s, ) = (2π) 2 ξ Z Consider te complex pase π π ei[(t t )ξ+ρ C (q C (κ(t )),r(s))]/ (1 χ)(ξ) a C (κ(t ), r(s); ) dt. Ψ C (t, t, s) := (t t )ξ + ρ C (q C (κ(t )), r(s)). For simplicity, write ρ C (t, s) for ρ C (q C (κ(t )), r(s)). Consider for ξ Z te deformed contour (61) ω ξ (t ) = t i ε 2 sgn(ξ). were (t, t, s) [ π, π] 3. Te deformed pase function ( (62) Ψ(t, ω ξ (t ), s) = Ψ t, t i ε ) 2 sgn(ξ), s = (t t )ξ + i ε 2 ξ + ρc (ω ξ (t ), s).

18 18 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH Since ξ 10ε 1 sup ρ C (q C (ζ), r(s)) wen ξ supp(1 χ), it follows from (62) tat (ζ,s) U ε [ π,π] (63) Im Ψ(t, ω ξ (t ), s) 4 sup ρ C (q C (ζ), r(s)) ε (ζ,s) U ε [ π,π] uniformly for (t, t, s) [ π, π] 3. Moreover, for ξ 1 it also follows from (62) tat (64) Im Ψ(t, ω ξ (t ), s) = ε 2 ξ + O(1) ε 3 ξ. Using Caucy s teorem, we deform te t -contour of integration in (60) to get (65) [Op (1 χ)ñ C ](t, s, ) = (2π) 2 ξ Z π π eiψ(t,ω ξ(t ),s;ξ)/ (1 χ)(ξ) a C (κ C (ω ξ (t )), r(s); ) dt were te imaginary part of te deformed pase function Ψ(t, ω ξ (t ), s) satisfies (63). It follows from (63) and (64) tat for appropriate C(ε ) ε, (66) [Op (1 χ)ñ C (t, s, ) e C(ε ) e ε 4 ξ = O(e C(ε ) ). Te argument for te iger C k -norms is basically te same since te complex pase function Ψ C (t, t, s) is uncanged. Te derivatives α s and β t just create additional polynomial powers in 1 in te amplitude a C (, ; ). q.e.d. Remark: For future reference (see proof of Teorem 1.1 below), we note tat wen χ R C0 (R) wit χ R (ξ) = 1 for ξ < R and supp χ R {ξ; ξ < 2R}, it is clear from (64) tat ξ 1 (67) Op (1 χ R )Ñ C (,, ) C k = O k (e C R (ε ) ), were C R (ε ) R as R. 5. Proof of Teorem 1.1 Proof. Let χ R C 0 (R; [0, 1]) be a frequency cutoff as in Proposition 4.2 wit χ R(ξ) = 1 for ξ R and χ R (ξ) = 0 for ξ 2R. To simplify notation, in te following we continue to write L 2 ε = L 2 ( C ε ) (resp. L 2 = L 2 ([ π, π])) and te corresponding unit speed parameterizations are t κ(t) (resp. t q(t)). We recall tat te basic frequency function estimate gives n(, H) 1 T u H,C u H,C 1( Op (χ R )( T )u H,C u H,C + From Proposition 4.2 and Caucy-Scwarz, it follows tat (1 Op (χ R )) T u H,C ( L 2 (68) ε u H,C = O (1 Op (χ R ))( T )u H,C u C,H e C R (ε ) u H,C ). ).

19 NODAL INTERSECTION 19 In te last line of (68) we ave used tat u Ω L 2 = O( α ) for α > 0 (for example, Tataru s sarp bound [Ta] gives α = 1/3). Since u H,C (t) is olomorpic for all t S 2ε,2π, it follows from te Caucy integral formula (see figure 1) and te Caucy-Scwarz inequality tat (69) sup u H,C 1 (t) C 2 t S ε,π 4π 2 ( π π = O(1) u H,C. π π κ(s) t 2 dsdt ) 1 2 u H,C In (69) we use tat C ε and S ε,π are disjoint so tat f(s, t) = κ(s) t 1 L 2 ([ π, π] [ π, π]). Substitution of (69) in (68) ten implies tat (70) (1 Op (χ R )) T u H,C u H,C = O (e C R (ε ) ) u H,C 1 L (S ε,π) = O(e C R (ε )+C 0 ), since by assumption u H,C L (S ε,π) e C 0 for some C 0 > 0. Since Op (χ R )( T ) Op (S 0, (T H)), it follows by L 2 -boundedness tat (71) Op (χ R ) T u H,C u H,C = O R,ε (1). Te constant C R (ε ) R as R, and so, te proof of Teorem 1.1 follows from (70) and (71), by coosing R sufficiently large so tat C R (ε ) C 0 > 0 in (70). q.e.d. Figure Proofs of Teorems 1.2 and 1.3 Proof. Te key ingredient in te proofs of Teorems 1.2 and 1.3 is te following operator bound: Proposition 6.1. Let H Ω be a closed, strictly convex, interior real analytic curve. Let N C (q C, r; ) be te olomorpic extension of N(q, r; ) in te q variables to Hε C wit te corresponding operator N C () : L 2 ( Ω; ds) L 2 (Hε C ; e S(t) dtdt), were H C ε = {q C (t); Im t ε }. Let a C 0 (HC ε ) wit (72) supp a {q C (t) H C ε ; ε 6 Im t 5ε 6 }.

20 20 LAYAN EL-HAJJ & JOHN A. TOTH Ten for (0, 0 (ε )], and ε > 0 sufficiently small, tere exists an associated symbol a G C 0 (B Ω) S 0, (T Ω (0, 0 ]) suc tat 1/2 N C () e 2S/ an C () = Op (a G ) + R(). For (s, σ) B Ω, te symbol (73) a G (s, σ) = 1 2 a(re t(s, σ), Im t(s, σ)) κ 2 H (Y (s)) Im t(s, σ) 1 γ 2 (s, σ), were, γ(s, σ) = 1 σ 2 and (74) Y (s) = Re t(s, σ)(1 + O( Im t(s, σ) )), σ = ω(s, Y (s)), T Ω (s) + κ2 H Moreover, te remainder satisfies (Y (s)) d s Y (s) Im t(s, σ) 2 (1 + O( Im t(s, σ) )). 2 R() L 2 ( Ω) L 2 ( Ω) = O(). Remark: We note tat te support properties of a(t) in Proposition 6.1 are stated for concreteness and can be replaced wit any amplitude supported in a strip not containing a real interval. In particular, for a(t) = χ ε (Im t) were χ ε C0 is supported in any strip {ε δ < Im t < ε } wit 0 < δ < ε arbitrarily small, te operator P () = [ 1/4 e S/ χ ε N C ()] [ 1/4 e S/ χ ε N C ()] in (19) satisfies P () = Op (a G ) + R(), were a G is as in (73) wit a(t) = χ ε (Im t). Remark: Since ω(s, Y (s)), T Ω (s) < 1, it follows from (74) and te support assumptions on a(re t, Im t) in (72) tat for ε > 0 small, a G C0 (B Ω) (ie. as support disjoint from te tangential set S Ω). Te proof of proposition 6.1 is rater tecnical and to avoid breaking te exposition at tis point we defer te proof to section 8. As an immediate consequence proposition 6.1 we ave te following corollary : Corollary 6.2. Assume Ω is a smoot convex bounded domain and te interior curve H is strictly convex. Let χ ε C0 (S ε,π) supported in te strip {ε δ < Im t < ε } wit 0 < δ < ε. Ten, for ε > 0 sufficiently small, tere exists an order zero pseudodifferential operator P () suc tat 1/2 (t) 2 χ ε (t) dtdt = P ()ϕ Ω e 2 S(t) S ε,π u H,C suc tat te principal symbol σ(p ()) satisfies σ(p ())γ 1 dydη C 0 (Ω, H, ε ) > 0, were γ(y, η) = 1 η 2. B Ω, ϕ Ω L 2, Proof. Given P () = 1/2 [e S/ χ ε N C ()] [e S/ χ ε N C ()], te result follows by an application of te complexified potential layer formula (55) and proposition 6.1. q.e.d. Assuming Proposition 6.1 for te moment, as discussed in subsection 1.2, we claim te proofs of Teorems 1.2 and 1.3 follow easily from Teorem 1.1 and Corollary 6.2.

21 NODAL INTERSECTION Proof of Teorem 1.3. Te lower bound in Teorem 1.3 follows from Corollary 6.2 by taking supremum inside te integral. First, it is clear from te proof of Proposition 1.2 tat te interval [ε /6, 5ε /6] can be replaced by any interval of te form I(ε, δ) := [ε δ, ε δ/2] wit 0 < δ < ε. Witout loss of generality, we can furter assume tat χ ε C0 ([ε 3δ, ε δ/3]; [0, 1]) wit χ ε (Im t) = 1 for Im t I(ε, δ). Tus, 1/2 (75) max q C (t) H C ε u H,C (t) 2 ( π π ε δ/3 ε 3δ ) e 2S(t)/ dtdt 1/2 e 2S(t)/ χ ε (t) u H,C S ε,π 0 + P ()u Ω, u Ω L 2 ( Ω) 0 + c H,ε. (t) 2 dtdt In te last line we ave used te QER property of te boundary traces u Ω of te QE sequence of interior eigenfunctions to obtain P ()ϕ Ω, ϕ Ω 0 + σ(p ())γ 1 dydη c H,ε > 0. B Ω Since for Im t I(ε, δ), S(t) = Im t + O((Im t) 3 ), d Im t S(t) = 1 + O( Im t 2 ), by making te cange of variables (Re t, Im t) (Re t, S(t)), it follows tat π ε δ/3 π Tus, it follows from (75) tat ε 3δ e 2S(t)/ dtdt C ε,δe 2S(ε 3δ)/. (76) max u H,C q C (t) Hε C (t) C H,ε,δ 1/4 e [S(ε 3δ)]/. Since one can coose δ (0, ε ) arbitrarily, te lower bound in Teorem 1.3 follows from (76) and te polynomial factor 1/4 is irrelevant since it gets absorbed into te exponential. As for te upper bound, we simply use te complexified potential layer formula (55) and apply Caucy-Scwarz to get (77) u H,C (t) (2π) 1/2 Ω In te last step, max (q C,r) Hε C Ω e Im ρc (q C,r)/ e i/ρc (t,s) a(t, s; )u Ω (s)dσ(s) C H 1/2 e S(ε )/ u Ω L 2 C H,ε 1/2 e S(ε )/. we used te a priori bound u Ω L 2 = O(1) combined te fact tat 2 follows from te fact e S(ε )/. Te upper bound for u Ω L = ϕ Ω are temselves QE in te sense of (16). In te Diric- tat te boundary restrictions u Ω let case, te Rellic formula gives ν ϕ L 2 ( Ω) = O(1) and so, te upper bound in (77) is also O( 1/2 e S(ε )/ ). q.e.d Proof of Teorem 1.2. From te lower bound in Teorem 1.3, for a real-analytic positively curved H, sufficiently small ε > 0 and any δ > 0, it follows tat (78) max u H,C q C (t) Hε C (t) 2 C H,ε,δe [2S(ε δ)]/, it is obvious tat any suc curve is good in te sense of (5) and consequently, Teorem 1.2 follows from Teorem 1.1. q.e.d. We note tat te lower bound (78) is muc stronger tan wat is required for Teorem 1.2 since it sows tat te tube maxima of olomorpic continuations of eigenfunction restrictions actually grow exponentially in te tube radius.