The Number of Independent Sets in a Regular Graph

Abstract: We show that the number of independent sets in an N-vertex, d-regular graph is at most (2^{d+1} - 1)^{N/2d}, where the bound is sharp for a disjoint union of complete d-regular bipartite graphs. This settles a conjecture of Alon in 1991 and Kahn in 2001. Kahn proved the bound when the graph is assumed to be bipartite. We give a short proof that reduces the general case to the bipartite case. Our method also works for a weighted generalization, i.e., an upper bound for the independence polynomial of a regular graph.

\section{Introduction}

Let $G$ be a (simple, finite, undirected) graph. An \emph{independent set} is a subset of the vertices with no two adjacent. Let $\mathcal I(G)$ denote the collection of independent sets of $G$ and let $i(G)$ be its cardinality. We would like to determine an upper bound for $i(G)$ when $G$ is an $N$-vertex, $d$-regular graph. This problem has received some attention due to its applications in combinatorial group theory \cite{Alon91} and statistical mechanics \cite{Kahn}. We begin by giving a brief overview of the history of the problem (also see \cite{Galvin}).

In the 1988 Number Theory Conference at Banff, in an effort to resolve the Cameron-Erd\H{o}s conjecture \cite{CE, CE-Green, CE-Sap} on the number of sum-free sets, A.~Granville conjectured that $i(G) \leq 2^{(1/2 + o(1))N}$ for $N$-vertex, $d$-regular graphs $G$, where $o(1) \to 0$ as $d \to \infty$. In 1991, Alon \cite{Alon91} resolved Granville's conjecture by proving that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Alon}
	i(G) \leq 2^{(1/2 + O(d^{-0.1}))N}
\end{equation}
and applied the result to counting sum-free sets in groups. Alon speculated that perhaps $i(G)$ is maximized (for $N$ divisible by $2d$) when $G$ is a disjoint union of $N/2d$ complete $d$-regular bipartite graphs $K_{d,d}$. This conjecture was later formally stated by Kahn \cite{Kahn} in 2001:

\begin{conjecture}[Alon and Kahn] \label{conj:Kahn}
For any $N$-vertex, $d$-regular graph $G$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Kahn-conj}
	i(G) \leq i\(K_{d,d}\)^{N/2d} = \(2^{d+1} - 1 \)^{N/2d}
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}

Here we prove this conjecture as a special case of our main result, Theorem \ref{thm:main} below. Kahn used entropy methods to prove Conjecture \ref{conj:Kahn} when $G$ is bipartite and applied it to prove some results about the hard-core lattice gas model in statistical mechanics. Several improvements to \eqref{eq:Alon} for general $G$ were later given by Sapozhenko \cite{Sapo}, Kahn (see \cite{MT}), and Galvin \cite{Galvin}. The best previous bound, given recently by Galvin \cite{Galvin}, is
\[
	i(G) \leq \exp_2 \(\frac{N}{2} \( 1 + \frac{1}{d} +  \frac{O(1)}{d} \sqrt{\frac{\log d}{d}}\) \).
\]
For comparison, the bound in \eqref{eq:Kahn-conj}, which is tight whenever $N$ is divisible by $2d$, has the asymptotic expansion
\[
	\(2^{d+1} - 1 \)^{N/2d} = \exp_2 \(\frac{N}{2} \( 1 + \frac 1 d - \frac{1+o(1)}{(2\ln 2) d 2^d} \) \),
\]
where $o(1) \to 0$ as $d \to \infty$. The bounds of \cite{Galvin} and \cite{Sapo} only work well for large $d$. On the other hand, recent work by Galvin and the author \cite{GZ} showed through computational verification that Conjecture \ref{conj:Kahn} is true for $d \leq 5$.

We also consider a weighted generalization of Conjecture \ref{conj:Kahn}. The \emph{independence polynomial} of $G$, introduced by Gutman and Harary \cite{GutHar}, is defined as
\[
	P(\lambda, G) = \sum_{I \in \mathcal I(G)} \lambda^{\abs{I}}.
\]
This is also the partition function for the \emph{hard-core model} on $G$ with \emph{activity} (or \emph{fugacity}) $\lambda$ (see \cite{BergSteif, Haggstrom} for background). Galvin and Tetali \cite{GT} applied Kahn's techniques to weighted graph homomorphisms. In particular, a generalization of Conjecture \ref{conj:Kahn} was obtained for $N$-vertex, $d$-regular bipartite $G$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hardcore}
	P(\lambda, G) \leq \(2 (1+\lambda)^d - 1 \)^{N/2d}
\end{equation}
for all $\lambda \geq 0$, where equality is once again attained when $G$ is a disjoint union of $K_{d,d}$'s. It has been conjectured in \cite{Galvin} and \cite{GT} that \eqref{eq:hardcore} holds also for non-bipartite graphs. In \cite{CGT} and \cite{Galvin}, upper bounds were given for $P(\lambda, G)$ for general $G$. In this paper, we settle the conjecture by proving \eqref{eq:hardcore} for all graphs $G$.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main}
For any $N$-vertex, $d$-regular graph $G$, and any $\lambda \geq 0$,
\[
	P(\lambda, G) \leq P\(\lambda, K_{d,d} \)^{N/2d} = \(2 (1+\lambda)^d - 1 \)^{N/2d}.
\]
\end{theorem}

When $\lambda = 1$, we obtain Conjecture \ref{conj:Kahn} as a corollary.

\begin{corollary} \label{cor:main}
For any $N$-vertex, $d$-regular graph $G$,
\[
	i(G) \leq i\(K_{d,d}\)^{N/2d} = \(2^{d+1} - 1 \)^{N/2d}.
\]
\end{corollary}

In Section \ref{sec:proof} we derive Theorem \ref{thm:main} from its specialization to bipartite graphs (which was known earlier). Section \ref{sec:discussion} discusses some further questions.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}} \label{sec:proof}

In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:main} by reducing to the bipartite case, which was proven in \cite{GT} (see \cite{Kahn} for the non-weighted case).

Let $V(G)$ denote the set of vertices of $G$. For $A, B \subset V(G)$, say that $A$ is \emph{independent from} $B$ if $G$ contains no edge of the form $ab$, where $a \in A$ and $b \in B$. Also let $G[A]$ denote the subgraph of $G$ induced by $A$.

Let $\mathcal J(G)$ denote the set of pairs $(A,B)$ of subsets of vertices of $G$ such that $A$ is independent from $B$ and $G[A \cup B]$ is bipartite. For a pair $(A, B)$ of subsets of $V(G)$, define its \emph{size} to be $\abs{A} + \abs{B}$.

Here is the key lemma of our proof.

\begin{lemma*}
For any graph $G$ (not necessarily regular), there exists a size-preserving bijection between $\mathcal I(G) \times \mathcal I(G)$ and $\mathcal J(G)$.
\end{lemma*}

\begin{proof}
For every $W \subset V(G)$ such that $G[W]$ is bipartite, fix a bipartition $W = W_1 \cup W_2$ so that $W_1$ and $W_2$ are both independent in $G$. Let $\mathcal K(G)$ be the set of pairs $(A, B)$ of subsets of $V(G)$ such that $G[A\cup B]$ is bipartite. Note that $\mathcal I(G) \times \mathcal I(G) \subset K(G)$ and $\mathcal J(G) \subset \mathcal K(G)$. The former is true because if $A, B \in \mathcal I(G)$ then $A \cup (B \setminus A)$ is already a bipartition.

We construct a size-preserving involution of $\mathcal K(G)$ as follows. For any $(A, B) \in \mathcal K$, let $W_1 \cup W_2$ be the chosen bipartition of $W = A \cup B$. Then let the involution send $(A, B)$ to
\[
	((A \cap W_1) \cup (B \cap W_2),  (A \cap W_2) \cup (B \cap W_1)).
\]
It is easy to check that this is a size-preserving involution of $\mathcal K(G)$ that maps $\mathcal I(G) \times \mathcal I(G)$ to $\mathcal J(G)$ and vice-versa. The lemma follows immediately.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}]
Let $G \times K_2$ denote the bipartite double cover of $G$. This is the bipartite graph with vertices $(v, i)$, where $v \in V(G)$ and $i \in \{0, 1\}$, and an edge between $(v, 0)$ and $(w, 1)$ whenever $vw$ is an edge in $G$.
Then, independent sets in $G \times K_2$ correspond to pairs $(A,B)$ of subsets of $V(G)$ such that $A$ is independent from $B$. Hence for any $\lambda \geq 0$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
	P(\lambda, G \times K_2)
	= \hspace{-1em} \sum_{I \in \mathcal I(G \times K_2)}  \hspace{-1em} \lambda^{\abs{I}}
	= \hspace{-1.5em} \sum_{\substack{A, B \subset V(G) \\ A \text{ indep.~from } B}} \hspace{-1.5em}  \lambda^{\abs{A} + \abs{B}}
	\geq \hspace{-1em} \sum_{(A,B) \in \mathcal J(G)} \hspace{-1em} \lambda^{\abs{A} + \abs{B}}
	= \hspace{-1em} \sum_{A, B \in \mathcal I(G)} \hspace{-1em} \lambda^{\abs{A} + \abs{B}}
	= P(\lambda, G)^2,
\end{equation}
where we used the lemma at the second to last equality. When $G$ is a $d$-regular graph, so is $G \times K_2$. Note that $G \times K_2$ is bipartite, and we know that the theorem is true for bipartite graphs, so
\begin{equation} \label{eq:2}
	P(\lambda, G \times K_2) \leq P(\lambda, K_{d,d} )^{N/d}.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{eq:1} and \eqref{eq:2} gives us
\[
	P(\lambda, G) \leq P(\lambda, K_{d,d} )^{N/2d},
\]
as desired.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Kahn \cite{Kahn} also conjectured that, for any graph $G$ without isolated vertices
\begin{equation} \label{eq:edge-weighted}
	i(G) \leq \prod_{uv \in E(G)} \(2^{d(u)} + 2^{d(v)} - 1\)^{1/d(u)d(v)},
\end{equation}
where $E(G)$ denotes the set of edges of $G$ and $d(v)$ the degree of vertex $v$. Galvin \cite{GalvinPC} noted that the proof presented here can also be used to reduce \eqref{eq:edge-weighted} to the bipartite case. Recently Galvin and the author \cite{GZ} showed that \eqref{eq:edge-weighted} is true if the maximum degree of $G$ is at most 5.
\end{remark}

\section{Discussion and Further questions} \label{sec:discussion}

\subsection*{Non-entropy proof of the bipartite case?}
So far the only known proofs of Theorem \ref{thm:main} and Corollary \ref{cor:main} in the bipartite case use entropy methods. The entropy approach was first applied to this problem by Kahn \cite{Kahn}, and was subsequently applied to several variations of the problem. For instance, Kahn \cite{Kahn2} later showed that for an $N$-vertex, $d$-regular bipartite graph $G$ with vertex bipartition $\mathcal O \cup \mathcal E$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:biweighted}
	\sum_{I \in \mathcal I(G)} \mu^{\abs{I \cap \mathcal O}} \lambda^{\abs{I \cap \mathcal E}} \leq \( (1 + \mu)^d + (1 + \lambda)^d - 1\)^{N/2d}
\end{equation}
for all $\lambda, \mu \geq 1$. This was later relaxed to $\lambda, \mu \geq 0$ by Galvin and Tetali \cite{GT}, who studied the general problem of counting weighted graph homomorphisms, again using entropy methods. We will say more about this in a moment. See \cite{MT} for more applications of entropy to counting independent sets and graph homomorphisms.

Although the entropy method is powerful, it would be nice to have a more elementary and combinatorial proof of the bipartite case. As Kahn \cite{Kahn} writes, ``one would think that this simple and natural conjecture \dots would have a simple and natural proof.''

Here we offer some ideas for a combinatorial proof of the bipartite case that is in the same spirit as the proof presented in this paper. For a nonnegative integer $t$, let $t \cdot G$ denote a disjoint union of $t$ copies of $G$. Then $P(\lambda, t \cdot G) = P(\lambda, G)^t$. So it would suffice to prove that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:expand}
	P(\lambda, d \cdot G) \leq P\( \lambda, \frac{N}{2} \cdot K_{d,d} \).
\end{equation}
We conjecture that \eqref{eq:expand} is true term-by-term, that is, for every $k$, the number of the independent sets of size $k$ in $d \cdot G$ is at most that of $\frac{N}{2} \cdot K_{d,d}$. A slightly stronger form of this conjecture has been stated by Kahn \cite{Kahn}. Asymptotic evidence for Kahn's conjecture was later provided by Carroll, Galvin, and Tetali \cite{CGT}.

We note that the term-by-term conjecture is false for the bi-weighted version in the sense of \eqref{eq:biweighted}. Indeed, for the 2-regular bipartite graph $G = K_3 \times K_2$, there exists two independent sets in $2 \cdot G$ with 3 vertices on each side of the bipartition, but there do not exist such independent sets in $3 \cdot K_{2,2}$.

\subsection*{Graph homomorphisms from non-bipartite graphs.}

Galvin and Tetali \cite{GT} generalized Kahn's result and showed that for any $d$-regular, $N$-vertex bipartite graph $G$, and any graph $H$ (possibly with self-loops),
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hom}
	\abs{\Hom(G, H)} \leq \abs{\Hom(K_{d,d}, H)}^{N/2d},
\end{equation}
where $\Hom(G, H)$ denotes the set of graph homomorphism from $G$ to $H$, i.e., maps $f : V(G) \to V(H)$ where $f(u)f(v)$ is an edge of $H$ whenever $uv$ is an edge of $G$. Graph homomorphisms generalize the notion of independent sets, since we can take $H$ to be the graph $K_2$ with a self-loop adjoined to one vertex.
In fact \cite{GT} gives a more general weighted version of \eqref{eq:hom}. Here each $i \in V(H)$ is assigned some ``activity'' $\lambda_i$. Write $\Lambda$ for the vector of activities. For each $f \in \Hom(G, H)$, let
\[
	w^\Lambda(f) = \prod_{v \in V(G)} \lambda_{f(v)},
\]
the \emph{weight} of $f$, and set
\[
	Z^\Lambda(G, H) = \sum_{f \in \Hom(G, H)} w^\Lambda(f).
\]
(The motivation for this setup comes from statistical mechanics.) It was shown in \cite{GT} that for any $d$-regular, $N$-vertex bipartite $G$, any graph $H$, and any system $\Lambda$ of positive activities on $V(H)$, we have, generalizing \eqref{eq:hom}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:hom-weighted}
	Z^\Lambda(G, H) \leq \(Z^\Lambda(K_{d,d}, H)\)^{N/2d}.
\end{equation}
A biweighted version generalizing \eqref{eq:biweighted} was also given in \cite{GT}. It was conjectured that \eqref{eq:hom-weighted} holds also when $G$ is non-bipartite.
It is natural to try to generalize our approach in Section \ref{sec:proof} to prove this, but one runs into the problem that, unlike in the case of independent sets, there is no weight-preserving injection from $\Hom(2 \cdot G, H)$ to $\Hom(G \times K_2, H)$. For example, take $G = H = K_3$. Then there are $36$ elements in $\Hom(2 \cdot K_3, K_3)$ with weight $\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2$ whereas there are only $24$ elements in $\Hom(K_3 \times K_2, H)$ with that weight. However, the silver lining is that there does exist a weight-preserving injection from $\Hom(2\ell \cdot K_3, K_3)$ to $\Hom(\ell \cdot K_3 \times K_2, K_3)$ for all $\ell \geq 5$. So there is hope that our method could still work.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was carried out at the University of Minnesota Duluth under the supervision of Joseph Gallian with the financial support
of the National Science Foundation (grant number DMS 0754106), the National Security Agency (grant number H98230-06-1-0013), and the MIT Department of Mathematics. The author would like to thank Joseph Gallian for his encouragement and support. The author would also like to thank David Galvin for helpful email discussions, and Reid Barton, Jeff Kahn, and the anonymous referee for valuable suggestions on the exposition.

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}


Geometric approach to graph magnitude homology

Abstract: In this paper, we introduce a new method to compute magnitude homology of general graphs. To each direct sum component of magnitude chain complexes, we assign a pair of simplicial complexes whose simplicial chain complex is isomorphic to it. First we states our main theorem specialized to trees, which gives another proof for the known fact that trees are diagonal. After that, we consider general graphs, which may have cycles. We also demonstrate some computation as an application.

\section{Introduction}
Leinster (\cite{Lein}) introduced magnitude of finite metric spaces which measures `` the number of efficient points". Magnitude homology has been invented as a categoryfication of magnitude of a graph which is equipped with a graph metric, by Hepworth-Willerton (\cite{Hep}).
Magnitude homology $MH_{k,\ell}(G)$ of a graph $G$ is defined by the $k$-th homology group of a chain complex $MC_{\ast,\ell}(G)$, whose chain groups are generated by tuples of vertices of length $\ell$.

Several tools for computing magnitude homology of a graph have been studied so far.
For examples, Hepworth-Willerton (\cite{Hep}) proves a Mayer-Vietoris type exact sequence and a K\"{u}nneth type formula, and Gu (\cite{Gu}) uses algebraic Morse theory for computation for some graphs.
Although, in general, computation of magnitude homology remains a difficult problem.

In this paper, we introduce another method to compute magnitude homology of general graphs.
Our strategy is to replace the computation of magnitude chain complex $MH_{k,\ell}(G)$ by that of simpicial homology.
A similar method using order complex is studied by Kaneta-Yoshinaga (\cite{Yos}),
whereas we assign simplicial complexes in another way.
A subtle difference from Kaneta-Yoshinaga's method which restricts us to work within a range with no 4-cuts, is that our method can be applied to general graphs.

For a magnitude chain complex $MC_{\ast, \ell}(G)$, we denote by $MC_{\ast,\ell}(a, b)$ a direct sum component of it, which consists of tuples with ends $a$ and $b$. Our main result is the following which appears as Theorem \ref{thm4.2} in this paper. We assume that graphs are connected and contain no loops.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1.1}
Let $a, b$ be vertices of a graph $G$, and fix an integer  $\ell\ge 3$.
Then we can construct a pair of simplicial complexes $(K_\ell(a, b),K'_\ell(a, b))$ which satisfies
\[
C_\ast(K_\ell(a, b), K'_{\ell}(a, b)) \cong MC_{\ast+2,\ell}(a, b).
\]
In particular, we have
\[
MH_{k, \ell}(a, b)\cong H_{k-2}(K_\ell(a, b), K'_\ell(a, b))
\]
for $k,\ell\ge3$. Moreover, for $k = 2$, we also have
\[
MH_{2, \ell}(a, b) \cong \begin{cases}H_{0}(K_\ell(a, b), K'_\ell(a, b)) & {\rm if}\ d(a, b) < \ell, \\ \tilde{H}_{0}(K_\ell(a, b))& {\rm if}\ d(a, b) = \ell,\end{cases}
\]
where $\tilde{H}_{\ast}$ denotes the reduced homology group.
\end{theorem}

Our theorem yields an interpretation of magnitude homology groups as a homology group of a simplicial complex.
Therefore, our method allows us to apply sophisticated tools of homotopy theory.
In the special cases of $2 \leq \ell \leq 4$ we obtain a visualization of the magnitude chain complex
since the dimensions of the corresponding simplical complexes are 0, 1,  and 2, respectively.

The organization of this paper is the following:  After giving some basic definitions and notations in section 2, we first give a new method for computing magnitude homology of trees based on our simplicial strategy. Obtained computational results coincide with \cite[Corollary 31]{Hep}. The computation for a tree is simpler than that for general graphs studied in the following section,  because of the fact that the magnitude chain complex of a tree can be decomposed into simple ones. In section 4, we give a proof of our main theorem, and compute the magnitude homology of the graph $Sq_{2}$ introduced in \cite{Lein2} as an application.

\section{Preliminaries}
In this section, we recall some basic definitions for graphs and their magnitude homology together with related notation. Main definitions are taken from \cite{Hep}.
\subsection{Simplicial complexes}
\begin{definition}
Let $V$ be a set, and let $P(V)$ be its power set. A subset $S \subset P(V)\setminus \{\emptyset\}$ is called a \textit{simplicial \ complex} if it satisfies that
\[
B \in S {\rm \ for \ every\ }\emptyset \neq B \subset A \in S .
\]
A subset $S'$ of a simplicial complex $S$ is called {\it a subcomplex of } $S$ if $S'$ itself is a simplicial complex.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For a simplicial complex $S\subset P(X)\setminus \{\emptyset\}$, we associate a chain complex $(C_{\ast}(S), \partial_{\ast})$ defined as follows:
\[
\begin{cases}
C_{n}(S) = \mathbb{Z}\langle \sigma \in S \mid  \# \sigma = n+1\rangle, \\
\partial_{n}\{s_{0}, \dots s_{n}\} := \sum_{i = 0}^{n} (-1)^{i}\{s_{0}, \dots, \hat{s}_{i}, \dots, s_{n}\},
\end{cases}
\]
where the index $s_{i}$ is a fixed total order on $X$, the notation $\hat{s}_{i}$ means the removal of the vertex $s_{i}$, and $\#$ denotes the cardinality of a set. For a subcomlex $S'$ of $S$, the associated chain complex $C_{\ast}(S')$ is obviously a subcomplex of $C_{\ast}(S)$. We define
\[
C_{\ast}(S, S') := C_{\ast}(S)/C_{\ast}(S').
\]
\end{definition}
We suppose that any chain complex $C_{\ast}$ has no negative component, that is, $C_{i} = 0$ for $i < 0$. For a chain complex $(C_{\ast}, \partial_{\ast})$, we denote by $C_{\ast+N}$ a chain complex $(D_{\ast}, \partial'_{\ast})$ defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
D_{i} = \begin{cases} C_{i+N} & (i\geq 0), \\ 0 & (i < 0), \end{cases} \\
\partial'_{i} = \begin{cases} \partial_{i+N} & (i\geq 0), \\ 0 & (i < 0). \end{cases}
\end{align*}
\subsection{Graphs}
\begin{definition}
For a simplicial complex $S$, an element $A \in S$ with $\# A = 1$ is called \textit{a vertex} of $S$, and an element $A \in S$ with $\# A = 2$ is called \textit{an edge} of $S$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def2.0}
A \textit{graph} $G$ is a simplicial complex with $\# A \leq 2$ for every $A \in S$. We denote by $V(G)$ the set of vertices of $G$, and denote by $E(G)$ the set of edges of $G$, which are called \textit{a vertex set} and \textit{an edge set} respectively.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def2.03}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A graph $G$ is \textit{finite} if its vertex set $V(G)$ is a finite set.
\item A graph $G$ is \textit{connected} if any two vertices $a, b\in V(G)$ are connected, that is, there exists a finite sequence of edges
\[
e_1, \dots, e_n \in E(G),
\]
with
\[
\begin{cases}a \in e_1, b \in e_n , \\ e_i \cap e_j \ne \emptyset.\end{cases}
\]
\item A \textit{cycle} in a graph $G$ is a finite sequence of edges
\[
e_{1}, \dots, e_{n}\in E(G),
\]
with
\[
\begin{cases} e_1 \cap e_n \ne \emptyset, \\ e_i \ne e_j & (i \ne j).\end{cases}
\]
\item A graph is a \textit{tree} if it is finite, connected, and contains no cycles.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Throughout the paper, we assume that graphs are connected.
\begin{definition}
\label{def2.06}
For a graph $G$, we define a distance function $d : V(G)\times V(G)\longrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_{\ge 0}$ as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item In case $a\ne b$, we define $d(a, b)=n$ where $n$ is the smallest integer such that there exist a sequence of edges
\[
e_1, \dots, e_n \in E(G),
\]
with
\[
\begin{cases}a \in e_1, b \in e_n , \\ e_i \cap e_j \ne \emptyset.\end{cases}
\]
\item In case $a = b$, we define $d(a, b)=0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Magnitude homology of graphs}
\begin{definition}
For a graph $G$, we call a tuple $(x_{0}, \dots, x_{k})\in V(G)^{k+1}$ a $(k+1)$-{\it sequence} if it satisfies $x_j\ne x_{j+1}$ for every $0\leq  j \leq  k-1$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def2.1}
Let $G$ be a graph and fix an integer $\ell\ge 0$. \textit{Magnitude chain complex of length} $\ell$ of $G$ is defined as follows. We denote it by $MC_{\ast,\ell}(G)$.
The graded module $MC_{\ast,\ell}(G)$ is defined as the family of free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules $\{MC_{k, \ell}(G)\}_{k\ge 0}$ generated by all $(k+1)$-sequences
\[ \mathbf{x}=(x_0, \dots, x_k) \in V(G)^{k+1} \]
satisfying
\[
\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}d(x_i, x_{i+1}) = \ell.
\]
The boundary map is defined by $\partial = \textstyle\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} (-1)^i \partial_i$ with
\[
\partial_i(\mathbf{x}) := \begin{cases}
(x_0, \dots, \hat{x}_{i}, \dots, x_k) & \textrm{if }d(x_{i-1}, x_{i+1}) = d(x_{i-1}, x_i) + d(x_i, x_{i+1}),\\
0 & \textrm{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\]
where the notation $\hat{x}_{i}$ means the removal of the vertex $x_i$.
\end{definition}
It has been proved that $\partial^2 = 0$ in \cite[Lemma 11]{Hep}.
\textit{Magnitude homology} $MH_{k, \ell}(G)$ of a graph $G$ is defined as the homology group $H_k(MC_{\ast, \ell})$.
For convenience, we define the \textit{length function} $\mathrm{L}$ by
\[ \mathrm{L}(\mathbf{x})
:=\textstyle\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}d(x_i, x_{i+1})
\]
for $\mathbf{x}\in V(G)^{k+1}$, and we call it the {\it length} of $\mathbf{x}$.
The condition $d(x_{i-1}, x_{i+1}) = d(x_{i-1}, x_i) + d(x_i, x_{i+1})$ in Definition \ref{def2.1} is equivalent to the condition
\[
\mathrm{L}(x_0, \dots ,\hat{x_i}, \dots, x_k)=\mathrm{L}(x_0, \dots, x_k).
\]

By definition, we have the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop2.2}
For $\ell\ge 0$, we have the direct sum decomposition of a magnitude chain complex
\[ MC_{\ast, \ell}(G)
=\bigoplus_{a, b\in V(G)}
MC_{\ast, \ell}(a, b),
\]
where $MC_{\ast, \ell}(a, b)$ is the subcomplex of $MC_{\ast, \ell}(G)$ generated by sequences which start at $a$ and end at $b$.
\end{prop}

Hence the computation of magnitude homology of a graph $G$ reduces to the computation of each $(a, b)$-component. We define a subsequence of a sequence as follows.

\begin{definition}\label{def2.3}

Let $\mathbf{x}=(x_0,  \dots , x_k)$ be a sequence, and $\mathbf{y}=(y_0, \dots , y_{k'})$ be a tuple. We call the tuple $\mathbf{y}$ a \textit{subsequence} of $\mathbf{x}$ if there exists integers $0 = i_0 < \dots < i_{k'} = k$ such that $x_{i_j} = y_j$ for each $0 \leq j \leq k'$.
When $\mathbf{y}$ is a subsequence of $\mathbf{x}$, we denote it by $\mathbf{y}\prec\mathbf{x}$.

\end{definition}
Note that a subsequence need not to be a sequence.
\begin{definition}\label{ind}

For a subsequence $\mathbf{y} = (x_0, x_{j_1}, \dots , x_{j_{k'}}, x_k)\prec\mathbf{x}$, we call a  set $\{j_1, \dots, j_{k'}\}$ \textit{the indices} of $\mathbf{y}\prec\mathbf{x}$.

\end{definition}

\section{Computation for trees}

In this section, we compute magnitude homology of a tree which is known in \cite[Corollary 31]{Hep} by using simplicial homology.
\begin{definition}\label{def3.1}

Let $k\ge1$. We call a sequence $(x_0, x_1, \dots , x_k) \in V(G)^{k+1}$  \textit{a path} in a graph $G$ if it satisfies
\[
d(x_i, x_{i+1}) = 1,
\]
for every $0 \leq i \leq k-1$. For vertices $a, b\in V(G)$, we denote by $P_{\le \ell}(a, b)$ the set of  all paths $(x_0, \dots, x_k)$ in $G$ satisfying
\[
\begin{cases}
 x_0 = a, x_k=b \\
 \mathrm{L}(x_0, \dots, x_k)=k\le \ell.
 \end{cases}
 \]
\end{definition}

Note that, for each sequence $\mathbf{x} = (x_0,  \dots, x_k)$, there exists a shortest path which passes through vertices $x_0, \dots, x_k$ in this order.  We call such a shortest path \textit{a path of} $\mathbf{x}$. If $G$ is a tree, a path of $\mathbf{x}$ is unique for each sequence $\mathbf{x}$. Let $G$ be a tree. For a path $\mathbf{x} = (a, x_1, \dots, x_{k-1}, b) \in V(G)^{k+1}$, we denote by $MC_{k, \ell}(\mathbf{x})$ the submodule of $MC_{k, \ell}(a, b)$ generated by sequences whose paths coincide with $\mathbf{x}$. Clearly, $MC_{\ast,\ell}(\mathbf{x})$ is a subcomplex of $MC_{\ast, \ell}(a, b)$ since each $\partial_i(\mathbf{x})$ is 0 or  has $\mathbf{x}$ as its path.

\begin{prop}\label{prop3.2}

Let $G$ be a tree. We have the following direct sum decomposition
\[ MC_{\ast, \ell}(a, b)
=\bigoplus_{\mathbf{x} \in P_{\le \ell}(a, b)}
MC_{\ast, \ell}(\mathbf{x}),
\]
for each $a, b\in V(G)$ and $\ell \ge 1$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}

Since we have seen that each sequence belongs to the unique component of the decomposition, it is sufficient to see that $\partial\mathbf{y}\in MC_{k-1, \ell}(\mathbf{x})$ for $\mathbf{y}\in MC_{k, \ell}(\mathbf{x})$.
Let $\mathbf{y} =(y_0, \dots, y_k)\in MC_{k, \ell}(\mathbf{x})$.
Then we have
\[ \partial\mathbf{y}
=\sum_{\substack{\mathrm{L}(y_0, \dots,\hat{y_{i}},  \dots, y_k)
=\ell\\1 \le i \le k-1}}(-1)^i(y_0,  \dots,\hat{y_{i}},  \dots, y_k).
 \]
Since the path of each sequence $(y_0, \dots,\hat{y_{i}},  \dots, y_k)$ is unique, it must coincide with $\mathbf{x}$ if the length $\mathrm{L}(y_0,  \dots,\hat{y_{i}},  \dots, y_k)$ is preserved. Therefore we obtain that $\partial\mathbf{y}\in MC_{k-1, \ell}(\mathbf{x})$.
\end{proof}

In the following, we will construct a pair of simplicial complexes whose associated chain complex is isomorphic to  the magnitude chain complex $MC_{\ast, \ell}(\mathbf{x})$ for each $\ell\ge 3$ and for each path $\mathbf{x}$ in $G$. For a path $\mathbf{x} = (x_{0}, \dots x_{\ell})$, we consider a subsequence
$\varphi(\mathbf{x})=(x_0, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_m}, x_\ell) \prec \mathbf{x}$ satisfying

\[
\begin{cases}
0<i_s<\ell,  \\
d(x_{i_s-1}, x_{i_s+1}) < d(x_{i_s-1}, x_{i_s}) + d(x_{i_s}, x_{i_s+1}),
\end{cases}
\]
for every $1 \leq s \leq m$. If $G$ is a tree, it turns out that $\varphi(\mathbf{x})$ consists of all  ``turning points" of $\mathbf{x}$ and end points by the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem3.3}
Let $G$ be a tree,  and let $\mathbf{x} = (x_{0}, \dots x_{\ell})$ be a path in $G$. For every $1\leq i \leq \ell -1$, we have $(x_{0}, x_i, x_{\ell})\prec\varphi(\mathbf{x})$ if and only if $x_{i-1}=x_{i+1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Every consecutive three points of a path in a tree must have either of the configuration of Figure 1.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{lemma33.png}
\caption{Consecutive three points in a tree.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
Thus we have $x_{i-1}=x_{i+1}$ if and only if the triangle inequality is not an equality.
\end{proof}

Let $\Delta^{\ell-2}$ be the standard $(\ell - 2)$- simplex $P(\{ 1, \dots,\ell-1 \}) \setminus {\emptyset}$. For a path $\mathbf{x} = (x_{0}, \dots x_{\ell})$ and its subsequence $\varphi(\mathbf{x})=(x_0, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_m}, x_\ell)$, we define a subset $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}} \subset \Delta^{\ell - 2}$ by
\[
\Delta_{\mathbf{x}} = \{ \sigma \mid \{i_{1}, \dots, i_{m} \} \not \subset \sigma \in \Delta^{\ell - 2} \}.
 \]
For every $\sigma \in \Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$, any subset $\sigma' \subset \sigma$ is a simplex of  $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$, which implies that $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$ is a subcomplex of $\Delta^{\ell - 2}$.

\begin{prop}
\label{prop3.4}
There exists a chain isomorphism
\[
(MC_{\ast + 2,\ell}(\mathbf{x}),\partial)\cong (C_{\ast}(\Delta^{\ell-2}, \Delta_{\mathbf{x}}),-\partial) .
\]

\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that every sequence $\mathbf{y}$ belonging to $MC_{\ast + 2,\ell}(\mathbf{x})$ is a subsequence of $\mathbf{x}$, that is
\[
\mathbf{y} = (x_0,x_{j_1}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}, x_\ell) \prec \mathbf{x}.
\]
We define a homomorphism
\[
t : MC_{\ast + 2,\ell}(\mathbf{x})\longrightarrow C_{\ast}(\Delta^{\ell-2}, \Delta_{\mathbf{x}})
 \]
by sending each sequence to its indices (Definition \ref{ind})
\[
(x_0,x_{j_1}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}, x_\ell)\longmapsto \{j_1, \dots, j_{k}\}
 \]
and extending it linearly. We can easily see that this is well-defined by the definitions. We show that homomorphism $t$ is bijective and is a chain map. First we show the injectivity.
Suppose that we have
\[
t\left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^N c_\alpha(x_0,x_{j_1^\alpha}, \dots,x_{j_{k}^\alpha}, x_{\ell})\right)=0.
\]
In the case that
\[
\{j_1^\alpha, \dots, j_{k}^\alpha\} = \{j_1^{\alpha'}, \dots, j_{k}^{\alpha'}\}
\]
for every $1\leq \alpha, \alpha' \leq N$, it is clear that
\[
\sum_{\alpha=1}^N c_\alpha(x_0, x_{j_1^\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}^\alpha}, x_{\ell})=0.
\]
 In general, the index set $\{1, \dots, N\}$ can be decomposed into pairwise disjoint subsets $A_{0}, \dots, A_{M}$ such that $\alpha, \alpha' \in A_{m}$ implies that
 \[
 \{j_1^\alpha, \dots, j_{k}^\alpha\} = \{j_1^{\alpha'}, \dots, j_{k}^{\alpha'}\},
 \]
 for every $0 \leq m \leq M$. Hence we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\alpha=1}^N c_\alpha(x_0, x_{j_1^\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}^\alpha}, x_{\ell}) = \sum_{m = 0}^{M}\sum_{\alpha \in A_{m}} c_\alpha(x_0, x_{j_1^\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}^\alpha}, x_{\ell}) = 0,
\end{align*}
which implies that $t$ is injective. Next we show the surjectivity. By definition,  $[\{j_1, \dots, j_{k}\}] \ne 0 \in  C_{\ast }(\Delta^{\ell-2}, \Delta_{\mathbf{x}})$ implies that
\[
\varphi(\mathbf{x}) \prec (x_0, x_{j_1}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}, x_\ell).
\]
By the definition of $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$, the paths of $\varphi(\mathbf{x})$ and $(x_0, x_{j_1}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}, x_\ell)$ coincide, which implies that
\[
(x_0,x_{j_1},\dots, x_{j_{k}}, x_\ell) \in MC_{k,\ell}(\mathbf{x}).
\]
Hence we see that $t$ is surjective. Finally, the following calculation shows that $t$ is a chain map :
\begin{align*}
&\partial t\left(\sum_{\alpha}c^\alpha(x_0, x_{j_1}^{\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}^{\alpha}, x_\ell)\right)\\
&= \partial \left(\sum_{\alpha}c^\alpha \{j_{1}^\alpha,  \dots, j_{k}^\alpha\}\right)\\
&= \sum_{\alpha}c^\alpha \sum_{\substack{0 < i \leq k \\ \{i_1, \dots, i_m\}\subset\{j_1^\alpha,   \dots,\hat{j_{i}}^{\alpha}, \dots, j_{k}^\alpha\}}}
(-1)^{i-1}\{j_1^\alpha, \dots,\hat{j_{i}}^{\alpha}, \dots, j_{k}^\alpha\}\\
&= \sum_{\alpha}c^\alpha \sum_{\substack{0 < i \leq k \\
d(x^{\alpha}_{j_{i}-1}, x^{\alpha}_{j_{i}}) + d(x_{j_{i}}^{\alpha}, x^{\alpha}_{j_{i}+1})=\\
d(x^{\alpha}_{j_{i}-1}, x^{\alpha}_{j_{i}+1})}}
(-1)^{i-1}\{j_{1}^\alpha, \dots, \hat{j_{i}}^{\alpha}, \dots, j_{k}^\alpha\}\\
& = t\left( -\partial \sum_{\alpha}c^\alpha(x_0, x_{j_1}^{\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}^\alpha  ,x_\ell )\right).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
To compute the homology of $C_{\ast}(\Delta^{\ell-2}, \Delta_{\mathbf{x}})$, we use the homology exact sequence
\[
\cdots\longrightarrow H_k(\Delta^{\ell-2}) \longrightarrow H_k(\Delta^{\ell-2}, \Delta_{\mathbf{x}}) \longrightarrow H_{k-1}(\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}) \longrightarrow H_{k-1}(\Delta^{\ell-2})\longrightarrow\cdots.
 \]
Since $\Delta^{\ell-2}$ is contractible, we have $H_k(\Delta^{\ell-2},\Delta_{\mathbf{x}})\cong H_{k-1}(\Delta_{\mathbf{x}})$ while $k>1$.

Now we determine the homotopy type of $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$. When $m=0$, we have $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}=\emptyset$. When $m=\ell-1$, we can see that $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$ is homotopy equivalent to the sphere $S^{(\ell-3)}$.
The following proposition shows that it is contractible in the other cases.
\begin{prop}\label{prop3.5}

For every path $\mathbf{x}$, the complex $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$ is contractible when $0 < m<\ell-1$ where $\varphi(\mathbf{x})=(x_0, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_m}, x_\ell)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The complex $\Delta_{\mathbf{x}}$ can be obtained from maximal faces $\{1, \dots,\hat{i}_{j}, \dots,\ell-1\}$ for $1 \leq j \leq m$ by glueing them at the common face $\{m+1,m+2, \dots,\ell-1\}$ (bold parts in case $m=2,3$ of Figure 2). Since each maximal face is a deformation retract of the  contractible common face, the whole complex is also contractible.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{prop35.jpg}
\caption{Case $l=5$.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\end{proof}
Now we can completely compute magnitude homology of trees, which has been obtained by several authors.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm3.6}
Let $G$ be a tree, and let $k, \ell \geq 3$ be integers.
Then we have
\[
MH_{k,\ell}(G)=\begin{cases}
\mathbb{Z}^{2\# E(G)}, & k=\ell,\\
0, & k\ne\ell,
\end{cases}
 \]
where $\# E(G)$ denotes the cardinality of the edge set $E(G)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{prop2.2} and \ref{prop3.2}, we have
\[
MH_{k,\ell}(G)=\bigoplus_{a,b\in V(G)}\bigoplus_{\mathbf{x}\in P_{\le\ell}(a, b)}MH_{k,\ell}(\mathbf{x}).
 \]
If $\mathbf{x}$ is a path such that $\varphi(\mathbf{x})$ has less than $(\ell+1)$ points,
then the $\mathbf{x}$-component $MH_{k,\ell}(\mathbf{x})$ is trivial by Proposition \ref{prop3.4} and \ref{prop3.5}.
In case $\varphi(\mathbf{x})$ has $(\ell+1)$ points,  we have that
\[
x_0=x_2=x_4= \dots\textrm{ and }x_1=x_3=x_5= \dots
 \]
by Lemma \ref{lem3.3}. We can easily see that the amount of such paths is two times the cardinality of the edge set $E(G)$.  Then by Proposition \ref{prop3.4}, we have
\begin{align*}
MH_{\ell,\ell}(G) &=  \bigoplus_{\{x_0, x_1\}\in E(G)} MH_{\ell,\ell}(x_0, x_1, x_0, \dots)\oplus MH_{\ell,\ell}(x_1, x_0, x_1, \dots) \\
&\cong \bigoplus_{\{x_0, x_1\}\in E(G)} H_{\ell-3}(S^{(\ell-3)}) \oplus H_{\ell-3}(S^{(\ell-3)})\\
&\cong  \mathbb{Z}^{2\# E(G)}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\section{Theory for general graphs}
For general graphs, we cannot decompose magnitude homology indexed by paths as in the case of trees, since sequences may have more than one shortest paths.
Hence we develop a method to compute each $(a, b)$-component in a similar way as in the tree case.
Let $G$ be a connected graph and  let $a, b\in V(G)$. We fix an integer $\ell \ge 3$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def4.0}
Let $K_\ell(a, b)$ be the set whose elements are subsets
\[
\{(x_{i_1},i_1), \dots, (x_{i_k},i_{k})\}\subset V(G)\times\{1,2, \dots,\ell-1\}
\]
such that there exists a path
\[
(a, x_1, \dots, x_{\ell'-1}, b)\in P_{\le \ell}(a, b)
\]
with  $(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}, b)\prec (a, x_1, \dots, x_{\ell'-1}, b)$.
\end{definition}
For simplicity, we abbreviate  $\{(x_{i_1},i_1), \dots, (x_{i_k},i_k)\}$ to $\{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_k}\}$ if there is no confusion. The set $K_\ell(a, b)$ is a simplicial complex since
\[
\{x_{j_1}, \dots, x_{j_{k'}}\} \subset \{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}\}\in K_l(a, b)
\]
implies that there exists  a path $(a, x_1, \dots, x_{\ell'-1}, b)\in P_{\le \ell}(a, b)$ with
\[
(a, x_{j_1}, \dots, x_{j_{k'}}, b) \prec (a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}, b)\prec (a, x_1,  \dots, x_{\ell'-1}, b),
 \]
that is
\[
\{x_{j_1},  \dots, x_{j_{k'}}\} \in K_\ell(a, b).
\]
Clearly, the complex $K_{\ell-1}(a, b)$ is a subcomplex of $K_\ell(a, b)$.  We also define a subcomplex $K'_\ell(a, b)\subset K_\ell(a, b)$ by
\[
K'_\ell(a, b):=
\{\{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_k}\}\in K_\ell(a, b)\mid \mathrm{L}(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_k}, b)\le \ell-1\}.
\]
Our goal is to construct an isomorphism between $MC_{\ast,\ell}(a, b)$ and the quotient chain complex $C_{\ast - 2}(K_\ell(a, b), K'_{\ell}(a, b))$. We assume that $d(a, b)\le \ell$, since we have $K_\ell(a, b)=\emptyset$ for $d(a, b)>\ell$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem4.1}

Let $\{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_k}\}$ and $\{y_{j_1}, \dots, y_{j_k}\}$ be simplices of $K_\ell(a, b)$.
If we have
\[
\mathrm{L}(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_k},b)=\mathrm{L}(a, y_{j_1}, \dots, y_{j_k},b)=\ell
\]
and $x_{i_s}=y_{j_s}$ for $1\leq s \leq   k$, then we have
\[
i_s=j_s,
\]
for $1\leq s \leq k$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition, there is a path
\[
(a, x_1, \dots, x_{\ell-1}, b)\in P_{\le \ell}(a.b)
 \]
with
\[
(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_k}, b) \prec (a, x_1, \dots, x_{\ell-1}, b).
 \]
For $1 \leq s \leq k$, we have
\[
i_s = i_{s-1} + d(x_{i_{s-1}}, x_{i_s})=\sum_{n=0}^{s-1} d(x_{i_n}, x_{i_{n+1}}).
\]
Similarly we also have
\[
j_s= \sum_{n=0}^{s-1}d(y_{j_n}, y_{j_{n+1}}),
\]
for $1 \leq s \leq k$.
Since we have $x_{i_s} = y_{j_s}$ for $1 \leq s \leq k$, we obtain $i_s=j_s$.
\end{proof}
Next we define a homomorphism
\[
t : (C_\ast(K_\ell(a, b), K'_{\ell}(a, b)), -\partial )\longrightarrow (MC_{\ast+2,\ell}(a, b),\partial )
 \]
by
\[
[\{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}\}] \longmapsto (a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}, b).
 \]
It is well-defined since $\partial_i (a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}, b)$ vanishes exactly when $\partial_i$ shortens the length of the sequence $(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}},b)$, which is equivalent to saying that $\partial_i \{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k}}\} \in C_{\ast}(K'_{\ell}(a, b))$.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm4.2}
For $\ell\ge 3$, the above homomorphism
\[
t:(C_\ast(K_\ell(a, b), K'_{\ell}(a, b)),-\partial )\longrightarrow (MC_{\ast+2,\ell}(a, b),\partial )
 \]
  is a chain map. Furthermore, it is an isomorphism for $\ast\ge 0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We can show that the homomorphism $t$ is a chain map by the same computation as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop3.4}. Next we show that $t$ is  injective. Suppose that
\[
t\left(\sum_{\alpha=1}^N c_\alpha [\{x_{j_1}^{\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}^{\alpha}\}] \right)=0.
\]
We can assume that
\[
[(x_0, x_{j_1}^{\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}^{\alpha}, x_l)] = [(x_0, x_{j_1}^{\alpha'} \dots, x_{j_{k}}^{\alpha'},x_l)] \ne 0
\]
for any $1 \leq \alpha, \alpha' \leq N$ as in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop3.4}.  By Lemma \ref{lem4.1}, it turns out that their indices coincide.
Hence we have
\[
\sum_{\alpha=1}^N c_\alpha\{x_{j_1}^{\alpha}, \dots, x_{j_{k}}^{\alpha}\}=0,
\]
which implies that $t$ is injective. To prove surjectivity, let $(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k+1}}, b)$ be a base element of $MC_{k+2, l}(a, b)$.
Since we have
\[
\mathrm{L}(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k+1}}, b)=\ell,
\]
there exist a path
\[
(a, x_1,\dots, x_{\ell-1},b)\in P_{\le \ell}(a, b)
\]
such that
\[
(a, x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k+1}}, b) \prec (a, x_1, \dots, x_{\ell-1}, b).
\]
Hence we obtain
\[
\{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k+1}}\} \in K_\ell(a, b),
\]
and we also have
\[
\{x_{i_1}, \dots, x_{i_{k+1}}\}\not\in K'_{\ell}(a, b).
\]
Therefore $t$ is an isomorphism on the module of each dimension.
\end{proof}
By Theorem \ref{thm4.2}, we can compute most part of magnitude homology for arbitrary graphs as follows.
\begin{cor}
\label{cor4.3}
We have
\[
MH_{k, \ell}(a, b)\cong H_{k-2}(K_\ell(a, b), K'_\ell(a, b))
\]
for $k,\ell\ge3$. Moreover, for $k = 2$, we also have
\[
MH_{2, \ell}(a, b) \cong \begin{cases}H_{0}(K_\ell(a, b), K'_\ell(a, b)) & {\rm if}\ d(a, b) < \ell, \\ \tilde{H}_{0}(K_\ell(a, b))& {\rm if}\ d(a, b) = \ell,\end{cases}
\]
where $\tilde{H}_{\ast}$ denotes the reduced homology group.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\ell, k\ge 3$.
Since the homology of $C_\ast(K_\ell(a, b), K'_{\ell}(a, b))$ does not depend on the sign of the boundary map, we have
\[  MH_{k,\ell}(a, b)\cong H_{k-2}(K_\ell(a, b),K'_{\ell}(a, b)) \]
from Theorem \ref{thm4.2}. Hence the statement follows. In case $k=2$, we consider a sequence of submodules
\[
{\rm Im} \ \partial_{3} \subset {\rm Ker} \ \partial_{2} \subset MC_{2, \ell}(a, b),
\]
where $\partial_{\ast}$ denotes differentials of $MC_{\ast, \ell}(a, b)$. Then we have a short exact sequence
\[
0 \longrightarrow {\rm Ker} \ \partial_{2}/ {\rm Im} \ \partial_{3} \longrightarrow MC_{2, \ell}(a, b)/{\rm Im}\  \partial_{3} \longrightarrow  MC_{2, \ell}(a, b)/ {\rm Ker}\ \partial_{2} \longrightarrow 0,
\]
which is isomorphic to
\[
0 \longrightarrow MH_{2, \ell}(a, b) \longrightarrow H_{0}(K_\ell(a, b),K'_{\ell}(a, b)) \longrightarrow {\rm Im}\ \partial_{2} \longrightarrow 0.
\]
Then, by the definition of $\partial_{2}$, we have
\[
{\rm Im} \ \partial_{2} \cong \begin{cases} 0 & {\rm if}\ d(a, b) < \ell, \\ \mathbb{Z} & {\rm if}\ d(a, b) = \ell .\end{cases}
\]
Hence we obtain
\[
H_{0}(K_\ell(a, b),K'_{\ell}(a, b))  \cong \begin{cases} MH_{2, \ell}(a, b) & {\rm if}\ d(a, b) < \ell, \\   MH_{2, \ell}(a, b) \oplus \mathbb{Z} & {\rm if}\ d(a, b) = \ell. \end{cases}
\]
Then we have
\[
MH_{2,\ell}(a, b)\cong H_0(K_\ell(a, b), K'_\ell(a, b))
\]
for $d(a, b)<\ell$.
If $d(a, b)=\ell$, we see
\[
H_0(K_\ell(a, b), K'_\ell(a, b))=H_0(K_\ell(a, b))
\]
since $K'_\ell(a, b)=\emptyset$. Therefore, it also holds that
\[MH_{2,\ell}(a, b)\cong \tilde{H}_0(K_\ell(a, b)).
\]
\end{proof}
Finally, we give an example of computation using the above method.
\begin{exam}
A graph $Sq_2$ (\cite[pp 14-15]{Lein2}) is described in Figure 3.
We compute the magnitude homology $MH_{\ast,4}(Sq_2)$.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{ex.png}
\caption{Graph $Sq_2$.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
The magnitude chain complex can be decomposed into 36 components which are classified into 8 types
\[(a, a),(a, b),(a, c),(a, d),(b, b),(b, c),(b, f),(b, e).\]

First, consider $(a, a)$-type components.
We have two $(a, a)$-type components, $(a, a)$- and $(d, d)$-component.
These components have the same chain complexes by symmetry.
The paths belonging to $(a,a)$-component whose length are 4 are
\[(a, b, a, b, a),(a, b, a, f, a),(a, b, c, b, a),(a, b, f, b, a),\]
\[(a, f, a, f, a),(a, f, a, b, a),(a, f, e, f, a),(a, f, b, f, a).\]
The paths whose length are less than 4 are not related to the homology since they vanish by the quotient operation.
Assigning $(4-2)=2$-simplices for this 8 paths,
we can construct the simplicial complex $K_4(a, a)$ and the subcomplex $K'_4(a, a)$ as shown in Figure 4.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=10.3cm]{aa2.png}
\caption{The 2-dimensional simplicial complex $K_4(a, a)$ and the subcomplex $K'_4(a, a)$ (bold part).}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
By Corollary \ref{cor4.3}, we have
\[MH_{k, 4}(a, a)\cong \tilde{H}_{k-2}(|K_4(a, a)|/|K'_4(a, a)|)\textrm{ for }k\ge2. \]
Since $|K_4(a, a)|/|K'_4(a, a)|$ is homotopy equivalent to $S^2\vee S^2\vee S^2 \vee S^2\vee S^2\vee S^2$,
we have
\[
MH_{k, 4}(a, a)
\cong
\begin{cases}
\mathbb{Z}^6 & (k=4), \\
0 & (k\ne 4, k\ge 2).
\end{cases}
\]
In addition, we can also identify the generators of the magnitude homology from Figure 4.

$(a, d)$-type is one of types which give non-trivial elements to the 3rd magnitude homology.
There are two $(a, d)$-type components, or $(a, d)$-component and $(d, a)$-component.
The paths belong to $(a, d)$-component are
\[(a, b, c, e, d), (a, b, f, e, d), (a, f, b, c, d), (a, f, e, c, d).\]
The resulting simplicial complexes $K_4(a,d)$ and $K'_4(a,d)$ are shown in Figure 5.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=11cm]{adp.png}
\caption{The simplicial complex $K_4(a, d)$ and the subcomplex $K'_4(a, d)$ (bold part).}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
$|K_4(a, d)|/|K'_4(a, d)|$ is homotopy equivalent to $S^1\vee S^1$, so we have
\[
MH_{k, 4}(a, d)
\cong
\begin{cases}
\mathbb{Z}^2  & (k=3),\\
0 &( k\ne3, k\ge 2 ).
\end{cases}
\]
We can also compute the other components, and the result is following.
\begin{center}
	\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline
		rank&(a, a)&(a, b)&(a, c)&(a, d)&(b, b)&(b, c)&(b, f)&(b, e) \\ \hline
		$k=2$&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0 \\
		$k=3$&0&0&8&4&0&0&0&0 \\
		$k=4$&12&40&0&0&32&0&20&8 \\ \hline
	\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The rank of the 3rd magnitude homology is 12 and that of the 4th magnitude homology is 112, so that these coincide with the result \cite[TABLE 3]{Lein2}.
\end{exam}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to express gratitude to Professor Osamu Saeki for bringing two of us together and supporting our research. Especially, the second author is grateful to Professor Saeki for supervising him as a master course student. The second author is  also grateful to Naoki Kitazawa, Hiroaki Kurihara and Dominik Wrazidlo for  helpful correction and comments. The first author is supported by the Program for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan. He is also supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17J01956.


Superlevel sets and nodal extrema of Laplace-Beltrami eigenfunctions

Abstract: We estimate the volume of superlevel sets of Laplace-Beltrami eigenfunctions on a compact Riemannian manifold. The proof uses the Green's function representation and the Bathtub principle. As an application, we obtain upper bounds on the distribution of the extrema of a Laplace-Beltrami eigenfunction over its nodal domains. Such bounds have been previously proved by L. Polterovich and M. Sodin in the case of compact surfaces. Our techniques allow to generalize these results to arbitrary dimensions. We also discuss a different approach to the problem based on reverse Hölder inequalities due to G. Chiti.

\section{Introduction and main results}
\subsection{Notation}

Let $(M^n,g)$ be a compact, connected $n-$dimensional Riemannian manifold with or without boundary. Let $\Delta_g:C^\infty(M) \to C^\infty(M)$ denote the negative Laplace-Beltrami operator on $M$. In local coordinates $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n$, we write
\begin{equation} \label{local}
\Delta_g = \frac{-1}{\sqrt{det(g)}} \sum \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i} (\sqrt{det(g)} g^{ij} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}),
\end{equation}
where the matrix $(g^{ij})$ is the inverse matrix of $g = (g_{ij})$.

We consider the closed eigenvalue problem,
\begin{equation} \label{closed}
\Delta_g u_\lambda = \lambda u_\lambda,
\end{equation}
and when $M$ has a boundary, we impose Dirichlet eigenvalue problem,
\begin{equation} \label{Dirichlet}
 \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
    \Delta_g u = \lambda u  \mbox{ in } M, \\
     u=0 \mbox{ on } \partial M.\\
   \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

In both settings, $\Delta_g$ has a discrete spectrum,
\begin{equation} \nonumber
0\leq \lambda_1(M,g) \leq \lambda_2(M,g) \leq ... \nearrow +\infty,
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_1(M,g) > 0$ if $\partial M \not= \emptyset$. Let $|| . ||_p$ be the usual $|| . ||_{L^p(M)}$ norm and let $\sigma$ be the Riemannian volume form on $M$ and let $\operatorname{Vol}_g(M)$ denote the Riemannian volume of $M$. We normalize $u$ in such a way that  $||u||_{2}^2 = 1$. If $M$ has no boundary, we require that $\int_M u d\sigma = 0$.

\subsection{Volume of superlevel sets}

We define a nodal domain $A$ of an eigenfunction $u_\lambda$ on $M$ as a maximal connected open subset of $\{u_\lambda \not=0\}$. We denote by $\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)$ the collection of all its nodal domains.

Let us first consider the Euclidean case. It is known that nodal domains can not be too small. For instance, this can be seen by the Faber-Krahn inequality, stating that given $A_i \in \mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)$,
\begin{equation}\label{FK}
\operatorname{Vol}(A_i) \geq \left(\lambda_1(B)^{n/2} |B|\right) \lambda^{-n/2}.
\end{equation}
Denote by $V_{\delta}^i = \{ x \in A_i : |u_\lambda(x)| \geq \delta ||u_\lambda||_{L^\infty(A_i)} \}$ the $\delta$-superlevel sets of the restriction of an eigenfunction to one of its nodal domain. The next result can be seen as a refinement of that observation. Indeed, each $\delta$-superlevel set of an eigenfunction can not be too small:
\begin{lemma}\label{lemme2}
Let $n\geq 3$. For all $\delta \in (0,1)$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{lemme2eq}
\operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})  \geq  (1 - \delta)^{\frac{n}{2}} (2(n-2))^{\frac{n}{2}} \alpha_n \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_n$ stands for the volume of the $n$-dimensional unit ball.
\end{lemma}
\noindent The preceding lemma and its proof were suggested by F. Nazarov and M. Sodin \cite{NS}.

Letting $\delta \to 0$ in \eqref{lemme2eq} yields that $$\operatorname{Vol}(V^i_0) = \operatorname{Vol}(A_i) \geq C_{n} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}},$$ which is an inequality {\it à la Faber-Krahn} comparable to \eqref{FK}. However, the constant is not optimal when compared to Faber-Krahn inequality since $C_{n, \delta}$  tends to $C_{n}=(2(n-2))^{\frac{n}{2}} \alpha_n$ as $\delta \to 0$.

The proof of Lemma \ref{lemme2} is based on the maximum principle, applied to a precise linear combination of the eigenfunction $u_\lambda$ and of a certain function $w$. The function $w$ is the solution of the following Poisson problem:
\begin{equation*}
\Delta w = -\lambda \chi_{V^i_\delta}  u_{\lambda,i} \mbox{ in } \mathbb{R}^n,
\end{equation*}
where $\chi_{V^i_\delta}$ denotes the characteristic function associated to $V^i_\delta$ and $u_{\lambda,i}$ denotes the restriction of $u_\lambda$ to $A_i$. An upper bound on the function $w$ is required while applying the maximum principle. The bound is proved using decreasing rearrangement of functions, as done in \cite[p. 185]{T2}. The next result is a generalization of Lemma \ref{lemme2}, adapted to manifolds of arbitrary dimension:

\begin{theorem}\label{lemme1}
Let $\delta \in (0,1)$ and $n\geq2$. There exist $\lambda_0 >0$ and $k_{g,\delta,\lambda_0}>0$ such that for all $\lambda \geq \lambda_0$, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{lemme1eq}
\operatorname{Vol}_g (V^i_{\delta})\geq k_{g, \delta,\lambda_0}\lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}}, \quad \forall i.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

The proof of Theorem \ref{lemme1} is similar to the proof of its $\mathbb{R}^n$ counterpart. The key idea is to choose a specific linear combination involving $u_{\lambda,i}$ and the solution of the following Poisson problem,
\begin{equation*}
\Delta w = - \lambda \chi_{V^i_\delta}  u_{\lambda,i} \mbox{ in } M.
\end{equation*}
In order to apply the maximum principle, it is required to bound the function $w$ in terms of $\lambda$ and of the volume of $V^i_\delta$. The method used to do so differs from the one used in $\mathbb{R}^n$ since decreasing rearrangement of functions no longer works on arbitrary manifolds. Instead, we use an upper bound for Green functions on $M$ in conjunction with a certain form of the Bathtub principle (see \cite[Theorem 1.14]{LL}), that is an upper bound for the integral of a non-negative decreasing radial function:

\begin{lemma}\label{rearrangement}
Let $x_0\in M$. Let $r(x) = d_g(x_0,x)$ the Riemannian distance between $x$ and $x_0$. Let $f(r)$ denote a non-negative strictly decreasing function. Given fixed positive constant $C>0$, then
$$ \sup_{\Omega \subset X, \ \operatorname{Vol}_g(\Omega) = C} \ \ \int_\Omega f(r) d\sigma = \int_{\Omega^*} f(r) d\sigma,$$
where $\Omega^*$ is the geodesic ball centered at $x_0$ of radius $R$, where $R$ is such that $|\Omega| = |\Omega^*|$.
\end{lemma}

Lemma \ref{rearrangement} can also be seen as a weaker form of decreasing rearrangement that has the advantage of being usable in a more general setting.

\subsection{Nodal extrema on closed manifolds}

The second objective of the paper is to study the distribution of so called nodal extrema,  defined as follows:
$$m_{A_i}:=\displaystyle \max_{x \in A_i} |u_\lambda (x) |,$$
where $A_i\in\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)$. Nodal extrema on compact surfaces were previously studied in \cite{PS}. We consider the more general case of compact Riemannian manifolds of arbitrary dimension. Since the proofs given in \cite{PS} rely on the classification of surfaces and the existence of conformal coordinates, no direct generalization of their results is possible.

Our first main result in that direction is the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{Th2}
Let $(M^n,g)$ be a compact closed manifold with $n\geq 2$. If $\lambda$ is large enough, then there exists $k_g>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th2eq2}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^p \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2} + p \delta(p)},
\end{equation}
holds for any $p \geq 2$. Here, $\delta(p)$ corresponds to
\begin{equation}
\text{$\delta(p) = \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
      \dfrac{n-1}{4} \left( \dfrac{1}{2} - \dfrac{1}{p} \right), & \quad \text{$2 \leq p \leq \dfrac{2(n+1)}{n-1},$}\\
      \dfrac{n}{2}  \left( \dfrac{1}{2} - \dfrac{1}{p} \right) - \dfrac{1}{4}, & \quad \text{$\dfrac{2(n+1)}{n-1} \leq p \leq +\infty$.}\\
   \end{array} \right.$}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

Note that $\delta(p)$ is C. Sogge's classical $L^p$ bounds,  $||u||_p \leq C \lambda^{\delta(p)}||u||_2$ (\cite[Ch. 5]{S}). The proof of Theorem \ref{Th2} is an application of Theorem \ref{lemme1}.

As an immediate corollary of Theorem \ref{Th2}, we have the following:

\begin{corollary}\label{CorPrinc}
Let $(M^n,g)$ be a compact closed manifold. If $\lambda$ is large enough, then there exists $k_g>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th2eq1}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i} \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}

Indeed, a consequence of Weyl's law and Courant's theorem is that the number of nodal domains $|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|$ is bounded by $k_g\lambda^{n/2}$ (see for instance \cite{Co, Cha}). Using the latter fact and then applying Cauchy-Schwartz inequality yield that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i} & \leq & \left( \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^2 \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} 1 \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \\
& \leq & k_g \lambda^{n/4} |\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|^{\frac{1}{2}} \leq k_g \lambda^{n/2},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is the desired result.

\begin{remark}
For $p=1,2$, it is easy to see that the inequalities are sharp on $\mathbb T^n$ ($\prod \sin(nx_i), \lambda = n^2$). For $p>\dfrac{2(n+1)}{n-1}$, extremals are zonal spherical harmonics. Otherwise, the extremals are highest weight spherical harmonics.
\end{remark}

One can visualise inequalities expressed in Theorem \ref{Th2} and in Corollary \ref{CorPrinc} by considering "fine" dust particles on a vibrating membrane. Indeed, where the membrane's velocity is high, Bernoulli’s equation tells us that the air pressure is low. Since the dust particles are most influenced by air pressure, they are swept by the pressure gradient near nodal extrema (see \cite{CHRS} for some figures illustrating nodal extrema and for more information on such experiments).

\begin{remark}
One can easily obtain bounds on $m_{A_i}$ using the classical Hormander-Levitan-Avakumovic $L^\infty$ bound (see for instance \cite{S}). Indeed, it implies that there exists a constant $k_g>0$ such that $||u_\lambda||_{L^\infty(A_i)}\leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{4}}$.  Therefore, we have that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} ||u_\lambda||_{L^\infty(A_i)}  \leq  k_g |\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)| \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{4}} \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{3n-1}{4}},
\end{align*}
which is not optimal when compared to the sharp inequality given in Corollary \ref{CorPrinc}.
\end{remark}

We also obtain a generalization of \cite[Corollary 1.7]{PS}. The result is the following:

\begin{corollary}
Given $a>0$, consider nodal domains such that $m_{A_i} \geq a \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{4}}$. If $\lambda$ is large enough, then there exists $k_g >0$ such that the number of such nodal domains does not exceed $k_g a^{-\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}}$. In particular, for fixed $a$, it remains bounded as $\lambda \to \infty$.
\end{corollary}

Indeed, letting $N_\lambda$ denote the number of such nodal domains, using $\eqref{Th2eq2}$ with $p=\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}$, we have that
$$ N_\lambda (a\lambda^{\frac{n-1}{4}})^{\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}} \leq \sum^{N_\lambda}_{i=1} m_{A_i}^{\frac{2(n+1)}{n-1}} \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n+1}{2}},$$
yielding the conclusion.

\subsection{Elliptic operators on Euclidean domains}
We obtain analogous results to Theorem \ref{Th2}. More precisely, we obtain bounds on the distribution of nodal extrema of eigenfunctions associated to the Dirichlet problem of general second order elliptic operators in the divergence form on an Euclidean bounded domain $\Omega$.

Consider the following Dirichlet eigenvalue problem:
\begin{equation}\label{prob}
 \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
     L(u) = \lambda u \mbox{ in } \Omega, \\
     u=0 \mbox{ on } \partial\Omega,\\
   \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where we consider a general elliptic operator $L$ defined as
$$ L(u) := - \displaystyle \sum_{i,j=1}^n \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x_i} (a_{ij}\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial x_j}) + c u. $$
Here, the coefficients $a_{ij}(x)$ are real measurable functions such that $a_{ij}=a_{ji}, \forall 1 \leq i,j \leq n$. We assume that $c(x)$ is a bounded measurable function such that $c(x)\geq 0$. Note that the non negativity of $c$ can be assumed without loss of generality (see \cite[Remark 1.1.3, p. 3]{H}). For convenience, we normalize the coefficients in such a way that $1$ is the lower ellipticity constant. Thus, the assumption reads
\begin{equation}\label{ellipticity}
\sum_{i,j=1}^n   a_{ij} \xi_i \xi_j \geq |\xi|^2, \forall \ \xi \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{equation}

We are ready to state the result:

\begin{theorem}\label{Th1}
Consider $u_\lambda$ an eigenvalue of \eqref{prob} associated to the eigenvalue $\lambda$, then
\begin{equation}\label{P1}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}  \leq K_{n,1} \operatorname{Vol}(\Omega)^{\frac{1}{2}} \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{P2}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^2  \leq K_{n,2}^2 \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}}.
\end{equation}
The constant $K_{n,p}$ depends on $n$ and on $p$ and is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Const}
K_{n,p}= \frac {2^{1-\frac{n}{2}} (n \alpha_n)^{\frac{-1}{p}}} { \Gamma(\frac{n}{2}) \Big( \int_0^{ j_{\frac{n}{2}-1}}  r^{p- \frac{np}{2}+n-1} J_{\frac{n}{2}-1}^p(r) dr \Big)^{\frac{1}{p}}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

The main tool to prove Theorem \ref{Th1} is Chiti's reverse Hölder inequality satisfied by any elliptic operator in divergence form with Dirichlet boundary conditions.

\begin{remark}
Since Theorem \ref{Th1} can be applied to general elliptic operators such as the Laplace-Beltrami operator in local coordinates as defined in \eqref{local}, it can also be used with a Laplacian eigenfunction on compact Riemannian manifolds provided that all its nodal domains can always be included in a single chart of $M$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
A notable feature of \cite[Theorem 1.3]{PS} is that the bounds on the distribution of the nodal extrema hold for a larger class of functions defined on compact surfaces, including eigenfunctions associated to the bi-laplacian clamped plate problem. Both approaches can not be extended to the bi-laplacian case since they rely on the maximum principle, which is known not to hold for such operators.

\end{remark}

\subsection{Neumann boundary conditions in the planar case}

Let $\Omega$ be a bounded planar domain with piecewise analytic boundary. We consider the Neumann eigenvalue problem on $\Omega$, namely

\begin{equation} \label{Neumann}
 \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
    \Delta u =  \mu u \mbox{ in } \Omega, \\
     \frac{\partial u}{\partial n} =0 \mbox{ on } \partial \Omega.\\
   \end{array} \right.
\end{equation}

Using an argument of \cite{Polt} based on a result of \cite{TZ}, it is possible to bound the number of nodal domains touching the boundary of $\Omega$ by $C_\Omega \sqrt{\mu}$. By doing so, it is an easy matter to obtain the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{Neum}

Let $\Omega$ be a bounded planar domain with piecewise analytic boundary, then there exists $C_\Omega>0$ and $K_\Omega>0$  such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqN1}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\mu)|} m_{A_i} \leq   C_\Omega  \mu,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqN2}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\mu)|} m_{A_i}^2 \leq   K_\Omega \mu.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Manifolds with Dirichlet boundary conditions}

In order to obtain similar results for manifolds with boundary conditions, one has to use Sogge-Smith's adapted bounds for such setting (see \cite{SS}). For the sake of clarity, we recall these results here.

Let $(M^n,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. Let $u_\lambda$ denote a Dirichlet eigenfunction associated to $\lambda$, then there exists $k_g>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
||u_\lambda||_p \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})-\frac{1}{4}} ||u_\lambda||_2,
\end{equation}
for $p\geq 4$ if $n \geq 4$, and $p \geq 5$ if $n=3$. One can easily adapt the proof of Theorem \ref{Th2} using Sogge-Smith results to get :

\begin{theorem}\label{Th3}
Let $(M^n,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary. If $\lambda$ is large enough,  there exists $k_g>0$  such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th3eq1}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i} \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Th3eq2}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^2 \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, we have the following
\begin{equation}\label{Th3eq3}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^p \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2} + \frac{np}{2}(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})-\frac{p}{4} },
\end{equation}
for any $p \geq 4$  if $n \geq 4$, and $p \geq 5$ if $n=3$.
\end{theorem}

In \cite{SS}, it is conjectured that the following bound holds:
$$||u||_p \leq C \lambda^{\alpha(p)}||u||_2,$$ where
\begin{equation}
\text{$\alpha(p) = \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
      \left(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{n-2}{2}\right) \left(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{2p}\right), & \quad \text{$2 \leq p \leq \dfrac{6n+4}{3n-4},$}\\
     \frac{n}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}\right)-\frac{1}{4}, & \quad \text{$\dfrac{6n+4}{3n-4} \leq p \leq +\infty$.}\\
   \end{array} \right.$}
\end{equation}

Hence, a version of Theorem \ref{Th3} without the restrictions could be obtained if one showed these latter bounds :

\begin{conjecture}
Let $(M^n,g)$ be a manifold with boundary. If $\lambda$ is large enough, then there exists $k_g>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Th2eq3}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^p \leq k_g \lambda^{\frac{n}{2} + p \alpha(p)},
\end{equation}
for any $p \geq 2$.
\end{conjecture}

We also obtain a generalization of \cite[Corollary 1.7]{PS} in the case of manifolds with boundary. Using \eqref{Th3eq3} with $p=\frac{6n+4}{3n-4}$, we get the following:

\begin{corollary}
Given $a>0$, consider nodal domains such that $m_{A_i} \geq a \lambda^{\frac{n-1}{4}}$. If $\lambda$ is large enough, then there exists $k_g >0$ such that the number of such nodal domains does not exceed $k_g a^{-\frac{6n+4}{3n-4}}$. In particular, for fixed $a$, it remains bounded as $\lambda \to \infty$.
\end{corollary}

\subsection{Bounds for the $p$-Laplacian}

For $1 < p < \infty$, the $p-$Laplacian of a function $f$ on an open bounded Euclidean domain $\Omega$ is defined by $\Delta_p f = \mbox{div}(|\nabla f|^{p-2} \nabla f).$ We consider the following eigenvalue problem:
\begin{equation}\label{pLaplacian}
  \Delta_p u + \lambda |u|^{p-2}u=0 \mbox{ in } \Omega,
\end{equation}
where we impose the Dirichlet boundary conditions. We say that $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $-\Delta_p$ if \eqref{pLaplacian} has a nontrivial weak solution $u_{\lambda,p} \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. That is, for any $v \in  C^\infty_0(\Omega)$,
\begin{equation}
\int_\Omega |\nabla u_\lambda|^{p-2} \nabla u_\lambda \cdot \nabla v - \lambda \int_\Omega |u_\lambda|^{p-2} u_\lambda v=0.
\end{equation}
 The function $u_\lambda$ is then called an eigenfunction of $-\Delta_p$ associated to the eigenvalue $\lambda$.  The function $u_\lambda$ is then called an eigenfunction of $-\Delta_p$ associated to $\lambda$. Note that if $p=2$, the $p$-Laplacian corresponds to the usual Laplacian and is linear. Otherwise, we say that the $p$-Laplacian is "half-linear" in the sense that it is $(p-1)$ homogeneous but not additive.

It is known that the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem of the $p$-Laplace operator, denoted by $\lambda_{1,p}$, is characterized as,
\begin{equation}\label{var1}
\lambda_{1,p} = \min_{0 \neq u\in C^\infty_0(\Omega)} \left \{ \frac{ \int_\Omega |\nabla u|^p dx}{\int_\Omega |u|^p dx} \right \}.
\end{equation}
The infimum is attained for a function $u_{1,p} \in W^{1,p}_0(\Omega)$. In addition, $\lambda_{1,p}$ is simple and isolated. Moreover, the eigenfunction $u_{1}$  associated to $\lambda_{1,p}$ does not change sign, and it is the only such eigenfunction.

Via, for instance, the Lyusternick-Schnirelmann maximum principle, it is possible to construct $\lambda_{k,p}$ for $k\geq 2$ and hence obtain an increasing sequence of so-called variational eigenvalues of \eqref{pLaplacian} tending to $+\infty$. There exist other variational characterizations of these eigenvalues. However, no matter which variational characterization one chooses, it always remains to show that all the eigenvalues obtained that way exhaust the whole spectrum of $\Delta_p$.

Less is known about nodal geometry of eigenfunctions for the $p$-Laplace operator. For instance, it is not clear if the the interior of the set $\{ x \in \Omega : u_\lambda(x)=0\}$ is empty or not for $p$-Laplacian eigenfunctions. For more details on nodal geometry of the $p$-Laplace operator, see for instance \cite{L, P1, P2}.

Nevertheless, using a $L^\infty$ bound obtained in \cite[Lemma 4.1]{Lind}, one can still obtain an extension of \eqref{P1} for the $p$-Laplace operator.
\begin{theorem}\label{Lindq}
Let $\Omega$ be a smooth bounded open set in $\mathbb R^n$. Consider $u_{p, \lambda}$ an eigenfunction of the Dirichlet $p$-Laplacian eigenvalue problem associated to the eigenvalue $\lambda$. Let $||u_{p, \lambda}||_{p,\Omega}=1$, then we have the following:
\begin{equation}\label{LindqEQ}
 \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i} \leq  4^n  \operatorname{Vol}(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{p}} \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}} .
 \end{equation}
\end{theorem}

Notice that if $p=2$, this result corresponds to what we expect in the case of the usual Laplace operator.

The Courant nodal theorem combined with the Weyl Law yield that the number of nodal domains of a Dirichlet eigenfunction associated to an elliptic operator $L$ does not exceed $C \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}}$. For the $p$-Laplacian case, the number of nodal domains $N_\lambda$ associated to an arbitrary eigenfunction is known to be bounded, see \cite{DR}. It is also shown in \cite{DR} that the number of nodal domains of an eigenfunction $u_{k}$ associated to a variational eigenvalue is bounded by $2k-2$.  Moreover, it is known that there exists two positive constants depending on $\Omega$ such that $c k^{p/n} \leq \lambda_{k,p} \leq C k^{p/n}$ (see \cite{AP}). Combining both results yields that $N_\lambda \leq C \lambda^{n/p}$ if $\lambda$ is a variational eigenvalue. We show that a similar result holds even for non-variational eigenvalue:
\begin{corollary}
For any eigenfunction of \eqref{pLaplacian} and any $a>0$, there exists a positive constant $C>0$ such that the number of nodal domains $A \in \mathcal{A}(f)$ with $m_A \geq a$ does not exceed $C a^{-1} \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}}$.
\end{corollary}

Indeed, letting $N_\lambda$ denote the number of such nodal domains, using $\eqref{LindqEQ}$, we have that
$$ N_\lambda a  \leq \sum^{N_\lambda}_{i=1} m_{A_i} \leq C \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}},$$
yielding the conclusion.

\subsection{Structure of the paper}

In Section \ref{Sproofs}, we prove the main results, namely we start with Lemma \ref{lemme2} in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and then we prove Theorem \ref{lemme1} for arbitrary compact Riemannian manifolds. This leads to the proof of Theorem \ref{Th2} which is an application of Theorem \ref{lemme1}. In Section \ref{S4}, we prove Theorems \ref{Th1}, \ref{Neum} and \ref{Lindq}.

\section{Proofs of main results}\label{Sproofs}

\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemme2}}

Before proving Theorem \ref{lemme1} that holds for compact Riemannian manifolds, we give a proof of such result in the Euclidean case to give the intuition behind the proof more clearly.

In order to prove Lemma \ref{lemme2}, we need a technical result concerning Poisson equation. Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb R^n, n \geq 3$, denote a bounded domain of $\mathbb R^n$ and consider the following problem:
\begin{equation} \label{poisson}
\Delta w = f \chi_\Omega \qquad \mbox{ in } \mathbb R^n,
\end{equation}
where $\chi_\Omega$ is the characteristic function of $\Omega$ and $||f(x)||_{L^\infty(\Omega)} = 1$. It is well known that the solution of such problem is given by $w(x) = (f\chi_\Omega \ast \Phi)(x)$, where $\Phi (x-y) = \frac{1}{n(n-2)\alpha_n} |x-y|^{2-n}$ is the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator.

\begin{proposition}\label{proptech1}
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb R^n, n \geq 3$ and $||f(x)||_{L^\infty(\Omega)} = 1$. Then, we have that
$$ ||w||_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \leq \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \operatorname{Vol}(\Omega)^{2/n}.$$
Moreover, equality holds if $f\equiv 1$ and if $\Omega$ is a ball.
\end{proposition}

Before we give a proof, we give a quick overview of classical rearrangements of functions. Let $u$ be a measurable function defined on an open set $\Omega$. We can form the distribution function of $u$, denoted by $\mu(t)$,  the decreasing rearrangement of $u$, $u^*(s)$ into $[0,+\infty]$ and the spherically symmetric rearrangement of $u$, $u^\star$. The distribution function of u
$$\mu(t) = \operatorname{meas}\{ x \in \Omega : |u(x)| = t \} ,$$
is a right-continuous function of $t$, decreasing from $\mu(0)= |\operatorname{supp}(u)|$ to $\mu(+\infty)=0$ as $t$ increases. The decreasing rearrangement of $u$, a positive, left continuous function into $[0,+\infty]$, is defined as
$$
u^*(s) = \inf \{ t \geq 0 : \mu(t) < s \}.
$$
The spherically symmetric rearrangement of $u$ is a function $u^{\star}$ from $\mathbb{R}^n$ into $[0,+\infty]$ whose level sets $\{ x \in \mathbb{R}^n : u^{\star}(x) > t\}$ are concentric balls with the same measure as the level sets  $\{ x \in \Omega : |u(x)| > t\}$. More precisely,  $u^{\star}$  is defined as
$$
u^{\star}(x) = u^*(\alpha_n |x|^n) = \inf\{ t \geq 0 : \mu(t) < \alpha_n |x|^n \}.
$$
Note that $||u||_{\infty}=u^*(0)=u^{\star}(0)$. We refer to \cite{T} for more details on rearrangements of functions.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{proptech1}]\label{Proof1}

Let us consider first the case where $f\equiv 1$ and if $\Omega$ is a ball centered at $x$ of radius $R$. Straightforward computation shows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left|\int_{\mathbb R^n} \chi_\Omega(y) \Phi (x-y) dy \right| &=& \frac{1}{n(n-2)\alpha_n} \int_\Omega |x-y|^{2-n} dy \\
&=& \frac{1}{(n-2)}\int_0^R r^{2-n} r^{n-1} dr \\
&=& \frac{1}{2(n-2)} R^2 = \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \operatorname{Vol}(B_R)^{2/n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, for the general case, notice that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|w(x)| & = & \left |\int_{\mathbb R^n} f(y) \chi_\Omega(y) \Phi (x-y) dy \right| \\ & \leq & \frac{1}{n(n-2)\alpha_n}  \int_{\mathbb R^n} |f(y)| \chi_\Omega(y) |x-y|^{2-n} dy \\
&\leq & \frac{1}{n(n-2)\alpha_n}  \int_{\mathbb R^n} \chi_\Omega(y) |x-y|^{2-n} dy.
\end{eqnarray*}
The following is a  classical result of Hardy and Littlewood that can be found in \cite{HLP} :
$$\int_{\mathbb R^n} u(x) v(x) dx \leq \int_{\mathbb R^n} u^\star (x) v^\star (x) dx.$$
Therefore, since $\Phi = \Phi^{\star}$, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
|w(x)| & \leq &  \int_{\mathbb R^n} \chi_\Omega(y) \Phi(x-y) dy \\
& \leq &  \int_{\mathbb R^n} \chi_{\Omega^\star}(y)\Phi^{\star}(x-y) dy \\
& = & \frac{1}{n(n-2)\alpha_n}  \int_{\Omega^\star}  |x-y|^{2-n} dy,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\Omega^\star$ denotes a ball centered at $x$ of same volume of $\Omega$. By the previous case, one gets the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
The last step of Proof \ref{Proof1} is to show that
 \begin{equation}\label{bt}
 \int_{\Omega} \Phi(x-y)dy \leq \int_{\Omega^\star} \Phi(x-y)dy.
 \end{equation}
A generalization of \eqref{bt} is given by Lemma \ref{rearrangement}.
\end{remark}

That being done, we can start the main proof of this section.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lemme2}]
Renormalize $u_{\lambda}$ such that $||u_{\lambda}||_\infty=1$. Consider $\delta \in (0,1)$. We want to show that there exists a constant $C_{n,\delta}>0$ such that
$$\operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})\geq C_{n,\delta} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}}.$$
Let $g = u - \delta $. We have that $\Delta g = \Delta u_{\lambda,i}  =  \lambda u_{\lambda,i} $ in $V^i_{\delta}$. By Proposition \ref{proptech1}, there exists $w(x)$ satisfying \eqref{poisson} with $f = -\lambda u_{\lambda,i} $ and $\Omega = V^i_{\delta}$ such that $||w||_\infty \leq \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}}$. Consider the function $g+w$ on $V^i_{\delta}$. On the boundary, we have that $g+w \leq \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}}$. Consider $x_0$ in $V^i_{\delta}$ such that $u_{\lambda,i}(x_0)=1 = ||u_\lambda||_\infty$. Thus, we have that $(g+w)(x_0) \geq (1 - \delta) - \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}}$.

Moreover, since $\Delta (g+w) = \lambda u_{\lambda,i}  - \lambda u_{\lambda,i} = 0$, we can use the maximum principle on $g+w$. This implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}  (1 - \delta) - \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}} & \leq & \frac{1}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}} \\ \iff  \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}} &\geq & \frac{1}{2} (1 - \delta)\left(\frac{\lambda}{2(n-2)\alpha_n^{\frac{2}{n}}}\right)^{-1}, \end{eqnarray*}
yielding that $\operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta}) \geq (1 - \delta)^{\frac{n}{2}} (2(n-2))^{\frac{n}{2}} \alpha_n \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}} $.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{lemme1} }

The proof of Theorem \ref{lemme1} for manifolds keeps the same spirit than the proof for $\mathbb{R}^n$. The main difference with the previous proof is that we can not use the Proposition \ref{proptech1} since it relies on the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator on $\mathbb{R}^n$. We shall instead consider the Green representation of solution to poisson problem on $M$.

Let $\Omega$ be a compact smooth domain of $(M^n,g)$ where $n\geq 3$. It is known that there exists a Green function (see for instance \cite{SY}), namely a smooth function $G$ defined on $\Omega \times \Omega \setminus \{ (x,x) : x \in \Omega \}$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $ G(x,y) = G(y,x), x\neq y$;
\item For fixed $y$, $ \Delta_x G(x,y) = 0, \forall x \neq y $;
\item $ G(x,y) \geq 0 $ and $G$ vanishes on the boundary for $\Omega$;
\item As $x\to y$ for fixed $y$, $ G(x,y) \leq  \rho(x,y)^{2-n} (1 + o(1)), n \geq 3$, where $\rho(x,y)$ is the geodesic distance between $x$ and $y$ (see \cite[p. 81]{SY}).
\end{itemize}
Moreover, if we consider the following problem:
\begin{equation} \label{Poisson}
 \Delta_g w = f \mbox{ in } M;
\end{equation}
then, it is known that $w$ is given by
$$ w(y) = \int_M G(x,y) f(x) d\sigma. $$

\begin{proposition}\label{proptech2}
Let $n\geq 3$, $||u_\lambda||_\infty = 1$ and $\delta \in (0,1)$. Let $A_i$ denote a nodal domain of $u_\lambda$ and $V_{\delta}^i = \{ x \in A_i : |u_\lambda(x)| \geq \delta m_{A_i} \}$. There exist $\lambda_0$ and $k_{g,\lambda_0}>0$ such that $\forall \lambda > \lambda_0$ and for any $x_0 \in V^i_\delta$, we have that
$$ | w(x_0) | \leq k_{g,\lambda_0} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}_g(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}}.$$
\end{proposition}

We want to prove an analogous result to Proposition \ref{proptech1}. To do so, we treat split the argument into two cases depending on if the volume of $V^i_\delta$ is "large" or "small". We define "small $V^i_\delta$" in such a way that we can apply normal coordinates. This becomes handy since Green functions on $M$ behaves roughly like the fundamental solution of the Laplace operator on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Using the Lemma \ref{rearrangement}, it is then possible to bound $w$ like claimed.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{proptech2}]

Let $A_i$ a nodal domain of $u_\lambda$ and let $x_0$ be any point such that $u_\lambda(x_0) = m_{A_i}$.

Let $B_{x_0}(r):= \operatorname{exp}_{x_0} (B_0(r))$ denote the geodesic ball of radius $r$ centered at $x$. It is known that for $r$ small enough, we have that
$$\operatorname{Vol}_g (B_{x_0}(r)) = r^n \operatorname{Vol}(B_0(1)) \left( 1 - \frac{ \operatorname{scal}_g(x_0)) }{ 6 ( n + 2) } r^2 + o(r^2) \right), $$
where $\operatorname{scal}_g(x_0)$ denotes the scalar curvature at $x_0$. Therefore, there exists $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ such that for all $0 < r \leq \epsilon \leq \operatorname{injrad} (M,g) $, there exist $A_{g}>0$ and $B_{g}>0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{boundsvol}
A_{g} r^n \leq \operatorname{Vol}_g (B_{x_0}(r)) \leq B_{g} r^n. \end{equation}

Renormalize $u_{\lambda}$ such that $||u_{\lambda}||_\infty=1$. Fix a nodal domain $A_i$ and $x_0 \in A_i$.

Let $\lambda_0 = B_g^{-2/n} \epsilon^{-2}$. Notice that if $\lambda \geq \lambda_0$ and if $\operatorname{Vol}_g(V^i_\delta) > \operatorname{Vol}_g(B_{x_0}(\epsilon))$, the result holds with $k_g = \frac{A_g}{B_g}$.

On the other hand, if $\lambda \geq \lambda_0$, but  $\operatorname{Vol}_g(V^i_\delta) \leq \operatorname{Vol}_g(B_{x_0}(\epsilon))$, it is always possible to pick $R$ such that $\operatorname{Vol}_g (V_{\delta}^i) = \operatorname{Vol}_g (B_R(x_0))$ and $R \leq \epsilon$ hold.

Let us now consider the auxiliary problem defined by \eqref{Poisson} with $f = -\chi_{V^i_\delta} \lambda u_{\lambda,i}$. By definition of a Green function, we have that
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{estim2}
|w(x_0)| & = & \left| \lambda \int_{V^i_{\delta}} G(x,x_0) u_\lambda(x) d\sigma \right| \\
& \leq & \lambda \int_{V^i_{\delta}}  G(x,x_0)  d\sigma .
\end{eqnarray*}
Using upper bounds on the Green function (see bounds proved in \cite{R}), we have that there exists $C_g > 0$ such that
$$G(x,x_0) \leq C_g \rho(x,x_0)^{2-n}, \ \forall x \neq x_0, $$
implying that
$$ |w(x_0)| \leq C_g \lambda  \int_{V^j_{\delta}} \rho(x,x_0)^{2-n} d\sigma .$$

As it was done in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we need to integrate on a ball to obtain a straightforward computable integral. To do so, we use Lemma \ref{rearrangement} whose proof can be found in Section \ref{Srearrang}. Applying Lemma \ref{rearrangement}, we get the following:
 $$C_g \lambda  \int_{V^j_{\delta}} \rho(x,x_0)^{2-n} d\sigma   \leq  C_g \lambda  \int_{(V^i_\delta)^*} \rho^{2-n} d\sigma ,$$
 where $(V^i_\delta)^* = B_{x_0}(R)=\operatorname{exp}_{x_0} (B_{0}(R))$.

Using Gauss's Lemma, we now have that
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{estim4}
|w(x_0)| & \leq & C_g \lambda \int_{(V^i_\delta)^*} \rho^{2-n} (1 - \frac{1}{6} R_{kl}x^k x^l + O(|x|^3)) dx^1 dx^2 \ldots dx^n  \\
& \leq & C_g \lambda \left(\dfrac{n \omega_n}{2} R^2 - \dfrac{n \omega_n Scal_g(x_0)}{6} \dfrac{R^4}{4} + O(R^5)\right) \\
& \leq & C_g \lambda \dfrac{n \omega_n}{2} R^2 \left( 1 - \dfrac{ Scal_g(x_0)}{6} \dfrac{R^2}{2} + O(R^3)\right) \\
& \leq & C_{g} B_g E_g \lambda \operatorname{Vol}_g(B_{x_0}(R))^{\frac{2}{n}} = k_{g,\lambda_0} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}_g(V_{\delta}^i)^{\frac{2}{n}}.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{proof}

The last step to prove Theorem \ref{lemme1} is very similar to the last step in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemme2}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{lemme1}]
Renormalize $u_{\lambda}$ such that $||u_{\lambda}||_\infty=1$. Let $g = u - \delta + w$. On the boundary of $V^i_{\delta}$, we have that $g= \delta - \delta = 0$. Consider any $x_0$ in $V^i_{\delta}$ such that $u_{\lambda,i}(x_0)=1$. By Proposition \ref{proptech2}, we have that $g(x_0) \geq (1 - \delta) - C_{g,\lambda_0} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}}$.

Moreover, since $\Delta g = \Delta u_{\lambda,i}  + \Delta w =  \lambda u_{\lambda,i} - \lambda u_{\lambda,i} = 0 $ in $V^i_{\delta}$, we can use the maximum principle on $g$. This implies that
$$  (1 - \delta)  - C_{g,\lambda_0} \lambda \operatorname{Vol}_g(V^i_{\delta})^{\frac{2}{n}} \leq 0 \iff  \operatorname{Vol}_g(V^i_{\delta}) \geq  k_{g,\lambda_0}(1 - \delta)^{\frac{n}{2}} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}}. $$
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Note that for compact surfaces, Theorem \ref{lemme1} is implied by a bound on the inner radius of nodal domains, namely \cite[Lemma 10]{M}. Indeed, the latter lemma implies that there exists a ball of radius $\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{\lambda}}$ that is centered at a "nodal extrema", thus implying the result.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Th2} }

Let $\delta \in (0,1)$ and $\lambda$ be large enough. Recall that $\mathcal{A}(u)= \{ A_i \}_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}$ is the collection of the nodal domains of $u_\lambda$. Consider
\begin{equation}
u_\lambda = \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} u_{\lambda,i}  \quad \text{where $u_{\lambda,i} = \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
     u_\lambda & \quad \text{if $x\in\mathcal{A}_i,$}\\
     0 & \quad \text{elsewhere.}\\
   \end{array} \right.$}
\end{equation}
Observe that $\lambda=\lambda_1(A_i)$ since $u_{\lambda,i}$ does not vanish in $A_i$ (see \cite{Cha} or \cite{H}). Apply Theorem \ref{lemme1} in order to get the following:

\begin{align*}
\int_{A_i} |u_{\lambda,i}|^p & d\sigma \geq \int_{V^i_\delta} \dfrac{m_{A_i}}{2}^p d\sigma  \\
& =  \dfrac{m_{A_i}}{2}^p  \operatorname{Vol}_g(V^i_\delta) \\
& \geq k_{g,\delta,\lambda_0} m_{A_i}^p \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}}.
\end{align*}
If we sum over all nodal domains, we get that
\begin{equation}\label{alex}
\int_M |u_\lambda|^p d\sigma = \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} \int_{A_i} |u_{\lambda,i}|^p d\sigma \geq k_{g,\delta,\lambda_0} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i}^p.
\end{equation}

To obtain \eqref{Th2eq2}, simply use Sogge's $L^p$ bounds $||u_\lambda||_p \leq \lambda^{\delta(p)} ||u_\lambda||_2$ in \eqref{alex}.

Notice that one can read off \eqref{Th2eq1} using the latter argument. Indeed, since
\begin{equation}\nonumber
 \int_M |u_\lambda| d\sigma  \leq  \operatorname{Vol}_g(M)^{\frac{1}{2}} \bigg( \int_M |u_\lambda|^2 d\sigma  \bigg)^{\frac{1}{2}} = \operatorname{Vol}_g(M)^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
if we take $p=1$ in \eqref{alex}, we get
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\operatorname{Vol}_g(M)^{\frac{1}{2}} \geq \int_M |u_\lambda| d\sigma  \geq k_{g,\delta,\lambda_0} \lambda^{-\frac{n}{2}} \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i},
\end{equation}
yielding \eqref{Th2eq1}.

\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{rearrangement}}\label{Srearrang}

The following is a more general statement of Lemma \ref{rearrangement}, which we prove thereafter.
\begin{lemma}
Let $(X,d, \Sigma, \mu)$ denote a sigma-finite metric measure space and fix $x_0\in X$. Let $r(x) = d(x_0,x)$. Let $f(r)$ denote a non-negative strictly decreasing function. Let $C$ be a fixed positive constant, then
$$ \sup_{\Omega \subset X, \ \mu(\Omega) = C} \ \ \int_\Omega f(r) d\mu = \int_{\Omega^*} f(r) d\mu,$$
where $\Omega^*$ is the ball centered at $x_0$ of radius $R$, where $R$ is such that $|\Omega| = |\Omega^*|$.
\end{lemma}
This result is an application of the Bathtub principle. The following is a reformulation of \cite[Theorem 1.14]{LL} adapted to our setting:
\begin{theorem}
Let $f$ be a real-valued measurable strictly decreasing function on a sigma finite measure space $(X, \Sigma, \mu)$. Fix $G = \mu(\Omega)$ and consider the class of functions $$\mathcal{C} = \left\{ 0 \leq g \leq 1 : \int_X g d\mu= G\right\}.$$
Let $E\subset X$, then
$$I=\sup_{g\in\mathcal{C}} \int_E fg d\mu$$
is obtained by taking $g = \chi_{\{f \geq s\}},$ where $s$ is such that $\mu(\{x:f(x) \geq s\}) = G$.
\end{theorem}

Notice that the Bathtub principle tells us that the supremum is given by $g = \chi_{\{f \geq s\}},$ which is the characteristic function of a ball since $f$ is a strictly decreasing function of $r$, yielding the desired result.

\section{Proof of Theorems \ref{Th1}, \ref{Neumann}, and \ref{Lindq}}\label{S4}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Th1}}

We present the background required to obtain Theorem \ref{Th1}. For any fixed positive $\lambda$, we consider the $n-$ball,
\begin{equation}\label{ball}
B_\lambda^n = \{ x\in\mathbb{R}^n : |x| \leq j_{\frac{n}{2}-1} \lambda^{-\frac{1}{2}} \},
\end{equation}
where $ j_{\frac{n}{2}-1}$ is the first positive zero of the Bessel function $J_{\frac{n}{2}-1}$.
It is easy to see that the following problem,
\begin{equation*}
 \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
    \Delta z= \mu z \mbox{ in } B_\lambda^n,  \\
     z=0 \mbox{ on } \partial B_\lambda^n, \\
   \end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
has its first eigenvalue equal to $\lambda$, and that the corresponding eigenfunction is given by
\begin{equation}\label{defZ}
z(x) = |x|^{1-\frac{n}{2}} J_{\frac{n}{2}-1}(\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}|x|).
\end{equation}

We use the following result, due to G. Chiti (see \cite{Chi1,Chi2}), in the proof:

\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem 2]{Chi1}}]\label{ThChiti}
Let $u$ be a function satisfying \eqref{prob} and consider $z(x)$, the eigenfunction to the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem on $B^n_\lambda$ defined above. Then, for any $p\geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{Chiti1}
||u||_{\infty}\Bigg(\int_\Omega |u|^p\Bigg)^{-\frac{1}{p}} \leq ||z||_{\infty} \Bigg(\int_\Omega z^p\Bigg)^{-\frac{1}{p}},
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $\Omega$ is a ball, $c=0$, $a_{ij}=\delta_{ij}$, $\lambda$ is equal to the first eigenvalue of the equality in \eqref{prob} and $ |\Omega| = |B^n_\lambda|$, where $|E|$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of the set $E$.
\end{proposition}

Remark that we can compute the right hand side of \eqref{Chiti1} to obtain the following isoperimetric inequality,
\begin{equation}\label{INEQ1}
||u||_{\infty} \leq  K_{n,p}\lambda^{\frac{n}{2p}} ||u||_{p},
\end{equation}
where $K_{n,p}$ is the constant defined in \eqref{Const}. Indeed, start by computing $||z||_{\infty}$. The fact that $r^{\frac{n}{2}-1}J_{\frac{n}{2}-1}(r)$ attains its maximum at $r=0$ follows from Poisson's integral (see \cite[Section 3.3]{W}). Thus, we have that
\begin{align}\label{equa1}
z(0) &= \lim_{|x|\to 0} \frac{ J_{\frac{n}{2}-1}(\lambda^{\frac{1}{2}}|x|)}{|x|^{\frac{n}{2}-1}} = \frac{\lambda^{\frac{n}{4}-\frac{1}{2}}}{2^{\frac{n}{2}-1}\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}.
\end{align}
Since $z(x)$ is a radial function, we get that
\begin{equation} \label{equa2}
\Big(\int_\Omega z^p\Big)^{-\frac{1}{p}}  = (n C_n)^{\frac{-1}{p}} \lambda^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{4}+\frac{n}{2p}}  \Big( \int_0^{ j_{\frac{n}{2}-1}}  r^{p- \frac{np}{2}+n-1} J_{\frac{n}{2}-1}^p(r) dr \Big) ^{\frac{-1}{p}}.
\end{equation}
Combine \eqref{equa1} and \eqref{equa2}, and plug them into \eqref{Chiti1} to get \eqref{INEQ1}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{Th1}]

We start by obtaining \eqref{P2}. Let us decompose $u_\lambda$ the following way,
\begin{equation}
u_\lambda = \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} u_i  \quad \text{where $u_i = \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
     u_\lambda & \quad \text{if $x\in\mathcal{A}_i$}\\
     0 & \quad \text{elsewhere.}\\
   \end{array} \right.$}
\end{equation}

 Since $\operatorname{supp}(u_i)\cap \operatorname{supp}(u_j) = \varnothing $ for $ i \neq j$, we note that
\begin{equation} \label{Cnorm}
1 = ||u_\lambda||^2_{L^2(M)}
			 = \int_\Omega  \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} u_i^2 \\
			 = \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} \int_{A_i} u_i^2
			= \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} ||u_i||^2_{L^2(A_i)}.
\end{equation}

 Recall that each $u_i$ corresponds to an eigenfunction of the Dirichlet problem on these nodal domains. Indeed, since $u_i$ does not vanish in $A_i$, it corresponds to the first eigenfunction on $\mathcal{A}_i$ and $\lambda_1(\mathcal{A}_i) = \lambda$ by a corollary of Courant's theorem (see \cite{H}).

Thus, we can apply \eqref{INEQ1} with $p=2$ to each $u_i$ so that for all $1 \leq i \leq |\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|$, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
||u_i||_{L^\infty(\mathcal{A}_i)} \leq K_{n,2} \lambda^{\frac{n}{4}} ||u_i||_{L^2(\mathcal{A}_i)}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we get that
\begin{equation*}
m_{A_i} =  \sup_{x\in\mathcal{A}_i} |u_i(x)| \leq K_{n,2}\lambda^{\frac{n}{4}}||u_i||_{L^2(\mathcal{A}_i)}.
\end{equation*}
Squaring each side and summing over all nodal domains yield that
\begin{equation*}
\sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} m_{\mathcal{A}_i}^2 \leq K_{n,2}^2 \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}} \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1}||u_i||^2_{L^2(\mathcal{A}_i)},
\end{equation*}
and we obtain \eqref{P2} by applying \eqref{Cnorm} to the latter equation. In order to get \eqref{P1}, we use \eqref{INEQ1} with $p=1$, to get
\begin{equation*}
||u_i||_{L^{ \infty}(\mathcal{A}_i)} \leq K_{n,1} \lambda^{\frac{n}{2}} ||u_i||_{L^1(\mathcal{A}_i)}.
\end{equation*}
If we sum over all nodal domains and keep in mind that $\operatorname{supp}(u_i)\cap \operatorname{supp}(u_j) = \varnothing $ for $ i \neq j$ , we then get
\begin{align*}
\sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} m_{\mathcal{A}_i} & \leq K_{n,1}\lambda^{\frac{n}{2}} \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1}||u_i||_{L^1(\mathcal{A}_i)} \\
&  = K_{n,1}\lambda^{\frac{n}{2}} ||u_{\lambda}||_{L^1(\Omega)} \\
& \leq  K_{n,1}\lambda^{\frac{n}{2}} ||u_{\lambda}||_{L^2(\Omega)}  \operatorname{Vol}(\Omega)^{\frac{1}{2}}.
\end{align*}
The last line follows from Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Since $||u_{\lambda}||_{L^2(\Omega)}=1$, the proof is completed.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Neumann}}

Let $I_1$ denote the family of indexes of nodal domains touching the boundary of $\Omega$ and let $I_2 = |\mathcal{A}(u_\mu)| \setminus I_1$. Let us start by obtaining \eqref{eqN2}

Notice that nodal domains whose index is in $I_2$ are such that the eigenfunction $u$ restricted to them corresponds to the first eigenfunction of the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem on such $A_i$, so that $\mu = \lambda_1(A_i)$. Therefore, it is possible to use \eqref{INEQ1} with $p=2$ as done in the proof of Theorem \ref{Th1} in order to get that
$$ \sum_{i \in I_2} m_{A_i}^2  \leq C \mu.$$
As for nodal domains whose index is in $I_1$, since by the Hormander-Levitan-Avakumovic $L^\infty$ bound, we have that $m_{A_i} \leq C \mu^{1/4}$, we get that
$$ \sum_{i \in I_1} m_{A_i}^2 \leq C \sqrt{\mu} \cdot (\mu^{1/4})^2 = C \mu,$$
yielding \eqref{eqN2}.

The same reasoning can be applied to obtain \eqref{eqN1}, namely
$$  \sum_{i \in I_1} m_{A_i} + \sum_{i \in I_2} m_{A_i} \leq C \sqrt{\mu} \cdot \mu^{1/4} + C \mu \leq C' \mu,$$
yielding \eqref{eqN1}.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Lindq}}

The proof is based on the following result :
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 4.1 in \cite{Lind}]\label{LL41}
Let $u_{p,1}$ denote the first eigenfunction of the Dirichlet $p$-Laplacian eigenvalue problem on a bounded Euclidean domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^n$, then
$$||u_{p,1}||_{L^\infty(\Omega)} \leq 4^n \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}} ||u_{p,1}||_{L^1(\Omega)}. $$
Note that the constant term $4^n$ is not sharp.
\end{lemma}

\begin{remark}
One difference between Chiti-type inequalities and the preceding lemma is  that Chiti-type inequalities apply to any eigenfunction of the Dirichlet eigenvalue problem rather than only to the first one. However, the generalization of Chiti's results to the $p$-Laplace operator (see \cite{AFT}) is of the form
$$ ||u||_r \leq K(r,q,p,n, \lambda) ||u||_q,$$
where $u$ is any eigenfunction associated to eigenvalue $\lambda$, $0 < q < r \leq +\infty$. It is important to notice that the constant $K(r,q,p,n, \lambda)$ is not explicit (since we can not compute the eigenfunctions of the ball explicitly). Thus, we cannot use it as it was done for the Laplace operator.
\end{remark}

We are ready to prove Theorem \ref{Lindq}.
\begin{proof}
Let $||u_{p,\lambda}||_p = 1$. Consider $A_i \subset \Omega$ a nodal domain of $u_{p,\lambda}$. Let us decompose $u_{p, \lambda}$ the following way,
\begin{equation}
u_{p,\lambda}= \sum^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|}_{i=1} u_i  \quad \text{where $u_i = \left\{
  \begin{array}{l l}
     u_{p,\lambda} & \quad \text{if $x\in\mathcal{A}_i$}\\
     0 & \quad \text{elsewhere.}\\
   \end{array} \right.$}
\end{equation}
Since $u_{i}$ corresponds to the first eigenfunction of the Dirichlet $p$-Laplacian eigenvalue problem on $A_i$,   Lemma \ref{LL41} yields that
$$ ||u_i||_{\infty, A_i} \leq 4^n \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}} ||u_i||_{1, A_i}, \qquad \forall \quad 1\leq i \leq |\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|.$$
Therefore, after summing over all nodal domains, we get that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} ||u_i||_{L^\infty(A_i)} = \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} m_{A_i} &\leq& 4^n \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}} \sum_{i=1}^{|\mathcal{A}(u_\lambda)|} ||u_i||_{L^1(A_i)} \\
&\leq& 4^n  \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}} ||u_{p, \lambda}||_{L^1(\Omega)} \\
&\leq& 4^n \operatorname{Vol}(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{p}} \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}} ||u_{p, \lambda}||_{L^p(\Omega)}\\
& =  & 4^n \operatorname{Vol}(\Omega)^{1-\frac{1}{p}} \lambda^{\frac{n}{p}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}

 This research is part of my Ph.D. thesis at the Universit\'e de Montreal under the supervision of Iosif Polterovich. The author is grateful to Fedor Nazarov and Mikhail Sodin for communicating the proof of Lemma \ref{lemme2}. The author is indebted to Almut Burchard, for pointing out that Lemma \ref{rearrangement} is in fact an application of the Bathtub principle. The author would also like to thank Laurence Boulanger, Yaiza Canzani, Marlène Frigon, Benoit Kloeckner, Dan Mangoubi, Frédéric Robert, Leonid Polterovich, and Mikhail Sodin for useful discussions.