Abstract
We study the holomorphic extendibility of \(\text {Op}(p)u\), when p is an analytic symbol, and explicit information is available on the domains of holomorphic extendibility of both p and u. By a contour deformation argument, we obtain a precise local estimate of the domain of holomorphy of \(\text {Op}(p)u\) in terms of the information on p and u.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In [3] Karamehmedović defines a class of analytic symbols. This class forms a subspace of the analytic-type symbols in the sense of Trèves [6]. The aim was to obtain holomorphic mapping properties for the associated operators, and apply them to Calderón projectors in a (local) Helmholtz-type Dirichlet problem, where the boundary is a piece of a hyperplane.
In this way, Karamehmedović then constructs the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, and obtains a result on how well it preserves domains of holomorphic extendibility. That is, how far Neumann data extends given this information about Dirichlet data, and in fact vice-versa, by the same system of equations for the Calderón projectors. It was done by showing that the symbols of the Calderón projectors are of that class. The class of the "analytic symbols" was first introduced by Boutet de Monvel [1], and Karamehmedović [3] essentially reuses these, but introduces constraints [3, pp. 3–4, Definition 2.1]. The domains obtained in [3, p. 10, Theorem 2.9] are larger than those we get here, and Karamehmedović [3] has the advantage of being adapted to poly-rectangular shapes.
The aim of this paper is to remove the strong constraints on the symbols in [3], and reduce them to analytic symbols in the sense of Trèves [6, p. 262, Definition 2.2]. In the process, we will also obtain a general domain-of-extension mapping theorem. It appears in Winterrose [7]. Let \(n\in {\mathbb {N}}\) be the dimension throughout.
2 Notation
Denote by \(S^d({\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^n)\) order \(d\in {\mathbb {R}}\) (1, 0) Hörmander symbols. These are the \(p\in C^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^n)\) satisfying, for any \(\alpha ,\beta \in {\mathbb {N}}^n_0\), the estimates
where we use the notation \(\langle \xi \rangle = (1+ |\xi |^2)^\frac{1}{2}\) for \(\xi \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\), and put \(S^{-\infty }= \cap _{d\in {\mathbb {R}}}S^d\). Associated to p is \(\text {Op}(p)\), defined via the Fourier transform \({\mathcal {F}}\) on \(u\in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) by
which we will later write as an oscillatory integral, regularized by using Gaussians. We use the notation \(d\bar{}\xi = (2\pi )^{-n} d\xi \) for the scaled standard Lebesgue measure \(d\xi \). Finally, B(x, r) denotes the open ball in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) with center at \(x\in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) and radius \(r>0\), and \({\mathcal {E}}'({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) is the space of compactly supported distributions.
3 Contour deformation
Theorem 3.1
Fix \(R>0\), \(\epsilon >0\), and \(p\in S^d({\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^n)\) a symbol with \(d\in {\mathbb {R}}\). Assume \(p|_{B(0,r_0)\times {\mathbb {R}}^n}\) extends holomorphically into \((B(0,r_0)+iB(0,\delta _0))\times W_\epsilon \), where
and satisfies
Let \(u\in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). Suppose \(u|_{B(0,r)}\) extends holomorphically into \(B(0,r)+iB(0,\delta )\). Choose \(r>r'>0\) and \(\delta \ge \delta ' >0\) so that
Then \(\text {Op}(p)u|_{B(0,\min \{r',r_0\})} \) likewise extends to \(B(0,\min \{r',r_0\})+iB(0,\min \{\delta ',\delta _0\})\).
This result is similar to Karamehmedović [3, Theorem 2.9], but without extra constraints on u and p. In particular, \(\text {Op}(p)u \) is real-analytic on \(B(0,\min \{r',r_0\})\), as is well-known [6].
A deformation of \({\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^n\) into \({\mathbb {C}}^n \times {\mathbb {C}}^n\) allows us to continue \(\text {Op}(p)u\) explicitly. The main idea is to split the oscillatory integral, and apply Stokes’ theorem.
Proof
Take \(\chi _2\in C^\infty _0({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) to be 1 on \( \overline{B(0,2R)}\) but \(\chi _2(\xi )\in [0,1)\) for \(\xi \not \in \overline{B(0,2R)}\). Let \(\chi _1\in C^\infty _0(B(0,r))\) be a cutoff with \(\chi _1(y)=1\) when \(y\in B(0,r'')\), else in [0, 1), where \(r>r''>r'\) are chosen so that
Now let \(\sigma : [0,1] \times {\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}^n \times {\mathbb {C}}^n\) be defined by
and let w and \(\zeta \) denote the first and second \({\mathbb {C}}^n\) components of this \(\sigma \), respectively. This type of \(\sigma \) is used by Boutet de Monvel [1, pp. 243–245] with sparse details. Let us put
Under the \(\sigma \) deformation, if \(\chi _2(\xi ) = 0\) and \(|\text {Re}\,(x)|<r'\), we get
It will ensure that deformations by \(\sigma (t,\cdot ,\cdot )\) give convergent integrals for \(|\text {Im}\,(x)|<t\delta \). Take \(x\in B(0,r')+itB(0,\delta ')\), and fix \(\rho > 2R\) and \(1\ge t_2>t_1\ge 0\). Put
Then \(\sigma \) is injective on \(Q(\rho )\), because \(\text {Re}\,w = y\) and \(\text {Re}\,\zeta = \xi \) force uniqueness of \((y,\xi )\), which, by definition of \(\sigma \), shows that t must also be unique as long as \(\xi \not \in \overline{B(0,2R)}\). Similarly, \(\text {Re}\,\zeta = \xi \) and \(|\text {Im}\,\zeta | \le t \epsilon |\xi |\) shows that
In the following, we will put \(dw = dw_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dw_n\) and \(d\bar{}\zeta = (2\pi )^{-n} d\zeta _1 \wedge \cdots \wedge d\zeta _n\). Define for \((w,\zeta )\in {\mathbb {C}}^n \times W_\epsilon \) the 2n-form
where \(\sigma ^*\mu _x\) is smooth and compactly supported in \(\overline{Q(\rho )}\), and
Then \(\sigma ^* d \mu _x|_{Q(\rho )}=0\), by holomorphy in \(y\in B(0,r)\), and since \(w \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) if \(y\not \in B(0,r)\).
Next, we show \(\sigma \) is an injective immersion, and calculate its pullbacks at fixed t. In order to shorten expressions, we write
Then we can calculate
It follows then that the real Jacobian of \(\sigma \) has rank 2n, so \(\sigma \) is an injective immersion. But with t kept fixed, \(\det d_{(y,\xi )}\sigma (t,y,\xi )\) equals the determinant of
which is bounded in \((y,\xi )\), unlike the determinant in [3, pp. 6, Proof of Theorem 2.6]. This term appears when pulling back
Using the above, we can now, without convergence issues, apply Stoke’s theorem. Stokes’ theorem for manifolds with corners [5, Theorem 16.25] applied to \(\overline{Q(\rho )}\) gives
Also, by the above estimate, there is some \(C>0\) such that
which ensures existence of \(\int _{{\mathcal {C}}(t)} \mu _x\) when \(t>0\). If \(t=0\), it is meaningful if \(p\in S^{-\infty }\), but x must then have zero imaginary part. The aim is to show equivalence with \(t=1\). Let \(\sigma _\rho : [t_1,t_2] \times {\mathbb {R}}^n \times {\mathbb {S}}^{n-1} \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}^n \times {\mathbb {C}}^n\) be defined by
Similarly, if \(x\in B(0,r')\), we get \(C'>0\) such that
and as \(\sigma (t,y,\xi )=(y,\xi )\) for \(\xi \in \overline{B(0,2R)}\), \(\sigma ^*\mu _x\) vanishes on \((t_1,t_2) \times {\mathbb {R}}^n \times \partial B(0,2R)\). Combining integrals of opposite orientation, by dominated convergence, we get
where the integrand is compactly supported in y, bounded as above for every \(\rho >R\). It follows that the limit is zero, and we obtain that
Pick \(t_0 \in (0,1)\) so that \({\mathcal {C}}(t_0)\subset {\mathbb {C}}^n \times W_{\frac{1}{2}}\). By dominated convergence, we get
which makes sense, because if \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}\), we have
But now the last integral extends holomorphically in x to the right open set. \(\square \)
Note that for \(y\not \in B(0,r)\) the function u in \(\mu _x\) may fail to extend holomorphically. But this is not an issue, as deformation then only happens in the \(\zeta \)-variable.
Corollary 3.2
The conclusions of Theorem 3.1 hold if \(u\in {\mathcal {E}}'({\mathbb {R}}^n)\).
Proof
First pick a \(\chi \in C^\infty _0(B(0,r))\) such that \(\chi (y)=1\) for every \(y\in \text {supp}(\chi _1)\). Define \(\sigma _y : [0,1] \times {\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}^n\) by
and put
As before, if \(\chi _2(\xi )=0\) and \(|\text {Re}\,(x)| < r'\), we get
Taking \(\varphi \in C^\infty _0(B(0,r'))\), we have
where \(K: B(0,r')\times {\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) is the smooth kernel of \(\text {Op}(p)(1-\chi )\) on \(B(0,r')\) only, and we use brackets \(\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle \) to denote the pairing of a distribution and a test function. The action of \(\text {Op}(p)\) is understood in the distributional sense via the formal adjoint. By Theorem 3.1, \(\text {Op}(p)(\chi u)\) extends holomorphically to the tube
provided that
It follows then (see e.g. [2, pp. 53–54, Exercise 3.14]) that \(x \mapsto \langle u, K(x,\cdot ) \rangle \) is smooth, and all derivatives go through the brackets, because K is smooth and \(u \in {\mathcal {E}}'({\mathbb {R}}^n)\). The same is true if K extends holomorphically in x to a smooth \(K: T \times {\mathbb {R}}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\). We can then simply take complex derivatives through the brackets
and \(\text {Op}(p)u\) then extends (strongly) to the holomorphic function
It remains only to show the holomorphic extension as outlined above for K(x, y). Pick \(t_0 \in (0,1)\) so that \({\mathcal {C}}_y (t_0)\subset W_{\frac{1}{2}}\). We deform from 0 to \(t_0\) with \({\mathcal {C}}_y (t_0)\subset W_{\frac{1}{2}}\), where p is multiplied by a Gaussian symbol, and finally from \(t=t_0\) to \(t=1\) directly. This is facilitated by an argument via Stokes’ theorem very similar to the above one. By dominated convergence, K has the form
and K vanishes unless \(y\not \in \text {supp}(\chi _1)\), in which case
This means that the last deformed integral is absolutely convergent if \(|\text {Im}\,(x)|<\delta '\), and thus K extends holomorphically in x to a smooth function on \(T\times {\mathbb {R}}^n\). \(\square \)
Theorem 3.3
Let \(U\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) be open, and \(U_{\mathbb {C}}\) be a tube-domain about U in \({\mathbb {C}}^n\). (This means \(z \in U_{\mathbb {C}}\) implies \(\text {Re}\,z \in U\) and \(\text {Re}\,(z)+iy \in U_{\mathbb {C}}\) for all \(|y|\le |\text {Im}\,(z)|\).) Assume \(p|_{U \times {\mathbb {R}}^n}\) extends holomorphically into \(U_{\mathbb {C}} \times W_\epsilon \), with \(W_\epsilon \) as in Theorem 3.1, and
Let \(u\in {\mathcal {E}}'({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) be real-analytic on U, with \(u|_U\) extending holomorphically into \(U_{\mathbb {C}}\). Then \(\text {Op}(p)u|_U\) extends holomorphically into
and is independent of \(R>0\) in \(W_\epsilon \).
Proof
Corollary 3.2 is valid over any \(x\in U\) by translation of x to the origin. This gives a holomorphic extension of \(\text {Op}(p)u|_{B(x,r')}\) into \(B(x,r')+iB(0,\delta ')\) with
and by making \(r'\) small, we can make \(\delta '\) arbitrarily close to \(\epsilon \, \text {dist}(x, \partial U)\). \(\square \)
4 Remarks
This removes the topology needed in [3, pp. 3–4, Definition 2.1]. It reduces the situation to symbols defined by Boutet de Monvel [1] and Trèves [6]. However, the approach to the original question raised in [3] has since changed a lot, and in [4], we will approach it via precise local convergence radius estimates instead. It should be noted that those estimates do not subsume the result in this paper.
The reason is that it is hard to get parametrix symbols in the same analytic class. It works in [3] because the geometry is simple - the boundary is a piece of a hyperplane. To overcome this, the analytic symbols are replaced with pseudo-analytic amplitudes, which have weaker conditions imposed on them - analyticity is replaced by an estimate, and gives a way to build pseudo-analytic parametrices from formal asymptotic sums. This can be exploited to obtain controlled convergence radius estimates.
References
Boutet de Monvel, L.: Opérateurs pseudo-différentiels analytiques et opérateurs d’ordre infini. Ann. l’inst. Four. 22, 229–268 (1972)
Grubb, G.: Distributions and Operators, vol. 252. Springer (2009)
Karamehmedović, M.: On analytic continuability of the missing Cauchy Datum for Helmholtz boundary problems. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 143, 1515–1530 (2015)
Karamehmedović, M., Winterrose, D.S.: Convergence radius estimates for a calculus of analytic pseudodifferential operators (to appear)
Lee, J.M.: Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, vol. 218 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 2nd edn. Springer (2012)
Trèves, J.F.: Introduction to Pseudodifferential and Fourier Integral Operators: Pseudodifferential Operators. Springer (1980)
Winterrose, D.S.: Complexifications, pseudodifferential operators, and the Poisson transform. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Denmark (2021)
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewer whose critique and suggestions have greatly improved the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Winterrose, D.S. A holomorphic mapping property of analytic pseudo-differential operators. J. Pseudo-Differ. Oper. Appl. 13, 59 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11868-022-00488-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11868-022-00488-1