text:
# The 𝛼 Dynamo Effects in Laboratory Plasmas

## 1. Introduction

Phenomena involving magnetic field have been observed in astrophysical systems ranging from planets and stars to accretion disks, galaxies and even in clusters of galaxies . Understanding the origins and effects of these cosmic magnetic fields has been one of most active research areas across multiple subdisplines of physics. In particular, generation and sustainment of magnetic fields from dynamics in electrically conducting media, or so-called dynamo actions , has long remained an unsolved problem.

A typical astrophysical system is driven by a combination of thermal, rotational, and gravitational energies. For example, dynamics in the outer core of the earth is dominated by Coriolis force (due to rotation) and thermal convection (due to temperature gradient and gravity). Another example is the accretion disks where the differential rotation is a primary source of free energy originating from the release of gravitational energy. Magnetic field in these systems can grow out of corresponding instabilities. Often, the resultant Lorentz force is ignored in the equation of the motion, i.e., the so-called kinematic dynamo problem. When the Lorentz force is fully taken into account in the flow dynamics, the problem is nonlinear.

In the kinematic dynamo problem, the flow velocity is completely determined by the corresponding free energy source, either thermal, rotational, or gravitational. The growth of magnetic field is only passively determined as a linear problem, and is not a part of dynamics. The kinematic dynamo introduces simplicity, but does not provide a self-consistent solution for either the flow or magnetic field.

The dynamos in astrophysical systems are mostly fully nonlinear in nature. The effects of magnetic field must be fully taken into account i.e., the Lorentz force is an integral part of the dynamics, often resulting in saturation of the magnetic field growth. In most cases, however, the nonlinear dynamos are too complicated to be studied theoretically without invoking statistical treatments. One such example is the so-called mean-field electrodynamics , where the ensemble-averaged electromotive force is calculated along the mean magnetic field (the $`\alpha `$-effect) or the mean electric current (the $`\beta `$-effect).

The mean electromotive force generates and sustains the entire mean magnetic field or current, which, in turn, influences the dynamo effects. This is true in all the astrophysical systems driven non-magnetically. When a system is driven magnetically, i.e. the free energy source is in the magnetic form, the electromotive force or the $`\alpha `$-effects still modify the externally supplied mean magnetic field. Sometimes the modifications are so significant that the resultant mean field is qualitatively different from its initial profile. This article is intended to describe such an example in laboratory pinch plasmas which are driven only magnetically. The observed $`\alpha `$-effects exhibit remarkably similar properties to those in astrophysical systems: they modify the mean magnetic profile in a time-scale much faster than resistive time scale, and they are closely related to the concept of magnetic helicity as shall be described later. The laboratory elucidates key aspects of dynamo physics since detailed measurements are possible, and the MHD nonlinear problem can be formulated and solved.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: qualitative introduction to laboratory pinch plasmas is given in Sec. 2, including demonstration of the need for a dynamo mechanism to explain magnetic field generation. The nonlinear MHD description of the dynamo is summarized in Sec. 3, including the role of the dynamo in the self-organization of the plasma, and the instabilities that underlie the process. Experimental measurements of $`\alpha `$-dynamo effects are presented in detail in Sec. 4. The nature of the observed dynamo effects and their relation to magnetic helicity are discussed in Sec. 5, followed by implications to the astrophysical dynamos and conclusions in Sec. 6.

## 2. Pinch plasmas: magnetically driven systems

The history of pinch plasma experiments goes back to early 1950’s as a part of efforts for development of magnetically confined plasmas for the nuclear fusion application. The basis of these experiments is the pinch effect, in which a current channel in the electrically conducting plasmas contracts through the self-magnetic field of the current. The current can be driven either by a voltage applied between electrodes or electromagnetic induction through a transformer. We shall focus on a subclass of the pinch experiments that are toroidal (Fig. 1), where most of relevant theoretical and experimental dynamo work have been performed. Specifically, the reversed-field pinch (RFP) plasmas  shall be described in detail. A similar configuration known as spheromak  shall also be mentioned but the interested readers should refer to the review papers mentioned above for some experimental details.

### 2.1. Formation of pinch plasmas

The RFP plasmas are produced by an inductive electric field along the toroidal direction through a transformer. The plasma serves as the secondary coil of the transformer. A typical experimental arrangement is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 2, where the plasma is surrounded by a metal shell. The electrical skin time of the shell is much longer than the experimental time thus it can be considered as an ideal conductor to ensure that the magnetic field lines are always parallel to the shell surface. The shell has gaps along toroidal and poloidal directions permitting instantaneous penetration of the applied electric field.

The time evolution of magnetic field and current density profiles as functions of $`r`$ are qualitatively shown in Fig. 3. Initially ($`tt_0`$), a uniform toroidal magnetic field is imposed \[Fig. 3(a)\]. At $`t=t_0`$, the toroidal electric field111Penetration of electric field in the conducting plasma is observed to be much faster than the skin time estimated from the classical resistivity of a plasma. The responsible mechanisms have been a subject of research but no clear answers exist to date. is applied through the transformer to drive the toroidal current, which, in turn, produces the poloidal magnetic field. Therefore, the field lines become helical. Since the electrons freely move along the field lines but not so across the field lines, the current path also becomes helical with a poloidal component. The poloidal current modifies the initially imposed toroidal field. Figure 3(b) illustrates the magnetic and current profiles at a time $`t=t_1>t_0`$, when the modification to the initial field is relative small. (This corresponds to the tokamak configurations, another subclass of toroidal pinch plasmas.) We note that the toroidal field increases at the center but decreases at the edge.

If the applied toroidal electric field is raised further raised, the amplitude of both toroidal and poloidal currents increases to further modify the field profiles. The poloidal field approaches to the magnitude of the toroidal field, while the toroidal field continues to peak at the center and diminish at the edge, as illustrated in Fig. 3(c) for $`t=t_2>t_1`$. Finally, when the electric field is raised to a large enough value, the toroidal field eventually reverses its direction at the edge \[Fig. 3(d) for $`t=t_3>t_2`$,\] the origin of the name of reversed-field pinch (RFP). Figure 2 also illustrates magnetic structures at various radii. Since the center toroidal field increases by a much larger value than the edge value decreases, the total toroidal flux is amplified significantly.

The spheromak plasma configuration is similar to the RFP. It contains helical field lines, with the field at the edge being mainly poloidal. The spheromak is a torus with aspect ratio of unity (no hole in the center). An additional difference from the RFP is that the electric field that drives the initial current is mainly poloidal and localized at the plasma edge. Nonetheless, the observed dynamo effects are strikingly similar to those in the RFP. Therefore, the rest of this paper shall focus on RFP plasmas.

### 2.2. Need for a dynamo effect

The current density and magnetic field profile in the RFP, particularly the reversal of the toroidal magnetic field, cannot arise in a steady-state plasma that is toroidally symmetric (lacking in symmetry-breaking fluctuations). This can be seen easily by comparing terms in the MHD Ohm’s law parallel to the magnetic field,

$$E_{}=\eta j_{}.$$
(1)
The parallel component of electric field, $`E_{}`$, can be calculated by $`𝐄𝐁/B=E_\varphi B_\varphi /B`$, where $`E_\varphi `$ is the fully penetrated electric field and $`B=\sqrt{B_\varphi ^2+B_\theta ^2}`$. Since both $`E_\varphi `$ and $`B`$ are a constant, $`E_{}`$ has the shape of $`B_\varphi `$ which reverses its sign at the edge. On the other hand, $`\eta j_{}`$ never changes its sign across the radius, as shown in Fig. 4. As a result, the edge parallel current, essentially in the poloidal direction, flows against an externally applied electric field. Thus, the parallel component of Ohm’s law cannot be satisfied without additional terms, such as the $`\alpha `$-effect.

The need for a dynamo effect can also be inferred by comparing the measured toroidal flux with that predicted from a simple, symmetric resistive MHD theory. Figure 5 shows an example of the measured time evolution of toroidal flux together with that calculated by resistive MHD theory without dynamo effects. Interestingly, the toroidal flux is sustained as long as the toroidal electric field is provided in the experiment, while the flux decays away in the theory. Clearly, existence of dynamo effects is required to explain both amplification and sustainment of the toroidal flux.

## 3. Self-Organization and the MHD Dynamo

The dynamo effect in laboratory plasmas is part of a self-organization process. Resistive diffusion evolves the plasma away from a preferred state; the dynamo forces the plasma back toward the preferred, self-organized state. The macroscopic features of magnetic self-organization are described in Sec. 3.1. Resistive diffusion is well-understood; the large scale-self-organization driven by the dynamo is a current topic of research and the focus of this paper. Single-fluid MHD equations provide a fully nonlinear description of the dynamo in laboratory plasmas. The fluctuations, in velocity and magnetic field, and the large-scale mean magnetic field, are all determined self-consistently. The MHD calculations include both the effect of the fluctuations on the mean field and the effect of the mean field on the fluctuations. Weakly nonlinear analytic calculations capture some of the key physics, and computational solution of the nonlinear, three-dimensional resistive MHD equations provide a complete description. The fluctuations that underlie the dynamo arise from tearing instabilities. A brief discussion of tearing instabilities in the laboratory context is included in Sec. 3.2. A description of some of the key results of the nonlinear problem is presented in Sec. 3.3.

### 3.1. Magnetic self-organization

The dynamo effect underlies magnetic self-organization in the laboratory . The plasma is driven by an applied electric field as seen in Sec. 2.1. The resulting magnetic configuration has excess free energy leading to instabilities (or turbulence) that relax the plasma toward a state of lower magnetic energy. The plasma relaxes to the lower energy state through the dynamo effect. The self-generation of plasma current reconfigures the large-scale magnetic field to one with lower energy. This process is depicted in Fig. 6.

The structure of the relaxed state is partly captured by minimizing the magnetic energy in the plasma volume ($`W=(B^2/2\mu _0)𝑑V`$) subject to the constraint of constant magnetic helicity ($`K=𝐀𝐁𝑑V`$), where $`𝐀`$ is the magnetic vector potential). Magnetic helicity is a topological measure of the knottedness of the magnetic field lines . The minimization yields a magnetic field given by $`\times 𝐁=\mu 𝐁`$, where $`\mu `$ is a constant. Thus, the ratio of the current density to magnetic field, $`j/B`$, is a spatial constant. This relaxed state is sometimes referred to as the Taylor state. For a one-dimensional cylindrical plasma (where $`𝐁=𝐁(r)`$) the solution yields Bessel functions, $`B_z=B_0J_0(\mu r)`$, $`B_\theta =B_0J_1(\mu r)`$, where $`B_0`$ is a constant. The noteworthy feature of this solution, shown in Fig. 7, is that it approximates the measured profiles of the reversed field pinch shown in Fig. 3d (identifying $`B_z`$ with the toroidal field and $`B_\theta `$ with the poloidal field). In particular, the reversal of the toroidal field is obtained.

The driven/relaxation phenomenon can occur in experiment in either a continuous or cyclic fashion. The drive forces the plasma away from the relaxed state, and the dynamo opposes this tendency. In some experimental plasmas, the net result is that these effects are nearly balanced at all times; thus, the plasma mean field is approximately steady in time. In other experimental plasmas, the two effects are separated in time citeWatt83,Hokin91. During the drive period, the plasma slowly evolves away from the relaxed state, driven by the applied electric field. During the relaxation period, the dynamo rapidly returns to the plasma to a relaxed. This sawtooth cycle is evident experimentally in the toroidal magnetic flux in the plasma, shown in Fig. 8. A slow decay of the flux is followed by rapid magnetic flux generation by the dynamo. The dynamo acts as discrete events in time. During the decay phase the ratio $`j/B`$ is becoming spatially peaked; during the relaxation phase it becomes flatter. Relaxation processes happen also in spheromak plasmas  where the driving electric field can be either in toroidal or poloidal direction with the aspect ratio, $`R_0/a`$, close to unity, but the underlying physics of relaxation is essentially the same.

An experimental test of the Taylor conjecture was achieved by inferring the change in magnetic energy and helicity during a relaxation event . An approximate measurement was obtained by modeling the instantaneous plasma state as a slowly varying MHD equilibrium. Since the fields during relaxation are changing on a time scale longer than an Alfven time, the fields will satisfy the MHD force balance equation, $`𝐣\times 𝐁=p`$, through a discrete dynamo event. Through solution of this equation with experimental constraints it is found that during a relaxation event the magnetic energy reduces by about 8%, while the magnetic helicity reduces by about 3%, as shown in Fig. 9. (Also see Sec. 5.4)

### 3.2. Magnetic (tearing) instabilities

The Taylor conjecture provides a useful framework to depict approximately the final state of the relaxation, or dynamo, process. However, it provides no information on the physical mechanism of the dynamo. Solution of the resistive nonlinear MHD equations reveals the detailed dynamics. The spatial fluctuations that underlie the dynamo are tearing instabilities. Tearing instabilities are driven by spatial gradients in $`j/B`$, and cause the field lines to tear and reconnect . The MHD description of such spontaneous magnetic reconnection has been investigated for several decades. From linear theory, it is known that tearing instabilities grow on a timescale that is intermediate between short Alfven time ($`a/V_A`$, where $`V_A=(B^2/\mu _0\rho )^{1/2}`$ and $`\rho `$ is the mass density) and the long resistive diffusion time ($`\mu _0a^2/\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is the resistivity). For the experimental plasma parameters, the theoretical growth time is approximately 100$`\mu s`$, comparable the observed fast relaxation time.

The tearing instability can be described by a wave function of the form $`f(r)\mathrm{exp}[i(m\theta n\varphi )]`$ where m and n are integers representing the poloidal and toroidal mode numbers. In laboratory plasmas, many tearing modes can be present simultaneously. For tearing to occur, the fluctuating field must be constant along the mean magnetic field. That is, the parallel wave number must vanish (parallel wavelength must become infinite) somewhere in the plasma. This condition ($`k_{}=0`$) becomes

$$𝐤𝐁=k_\theta B_\theta +k_\varphi B_\varphi =\frac{m}{r}B_\theta \frac{n}{R}B_\varphi =0.$$
(2)
The condition can be written as $`q=m/n`$ where $`q=rB_\varphi /RB_\theta `$ is the winding number of the mean magnetic field and varies with minor radius. This condition represents a resonance between the fluctuating and mean magnetic fields. In laboratory plasma discussed here, multiple tearing modes with multiple mode numbers occur. Hence, tearing occurs at many radii within the plasma, leading to large-scale reorganization.

### 3.3. The nonlinear MHD dynamo

An $`\alpha `$-effect dynamo arises from MHD tearing instabilities, as indicated in the mean-field Ohm s law

$$\overline{𝐄}+\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\eta \overline{𝐣}$$
(3)
where the tilde denotes fluctuations and $``$ denotes mean quantities (averages over the poloidal and toroidal directions). Some key features of the dynamo electromotive force that arises from the fluctuations can be discerned from quasilinear theory. In quasilinear theory the alpha effect term (the second term on the left hand side) is evaluated from the solutions for the fluctuations obtained from linear stability theory. In linear theory the mean field is specified; the spatial structure and the growth rate of the exponentially growing modes are calculated. From quasilinear theory the parallel component of the alpha effect in the vicinity of the radius about which reconnection occurs is found to be

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}=\left(D\frac{\overline{j}}{B}\right)$$
(4)
This indicates that the dynamo effect drives current so as to reduce the gradient in $`j/B`$, consistent with a relaxation in the direction of the Taylor state. The dynamo is in the form of a diffusion mechanism. The diffusion coefficient is proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{B}^2`$.

Quasilinear theory is incomplete. It only captures the dynamo effect during the growing phase of the instability. Extensive computational study has produced a fully self-consistent description of the MHD laboratory dynamo. The nonlinear computation predicts a steady state dynamo, and includes the interaction between the fluctuations and mean fields (the quasilinear effect) and the nonlinear energy transfer between different spatial Fourier modes. Computation predicts that the fluctuation energy is spread over a modest number of nonlinearly interacting modes, of order of the aspect ratio, $`R_0/a`$. From an initial state of random noise, the instabilities grow (excited by the gradient in $`j/B`$), reaching an amplitude of about 1% of the mean field. The radial profile of each of the terms in the parallel (to $`\overline{𝐁}`$) component of the mean-field Ohm’s law is displayed in Fig. 10. Note that the alpha effect is large. At the radius where the mean parallel electric field is zero, all the current is driven by the dynamo. Since the alpha effect reverses sign with radius, it can also be viewed as redistributing current from the center the edge.

## 4. Measurements of Dynamo Effects

Despite the long history of research of RFP plasmas and subsequent recognition of existence of dynamo effects, the experimental efforts to directly measure the $`\alpha `$-effect did not start until the late 1980’s . The main reason is the difficulty in measuring local velocity fluctuations of both ions and electrons in a plasma. Below we describe several techniques successfully used to measure the velocity fluctuations, thus the dynamo effects. In addition to the MHD dynamo, discussed in the previous section, measurement have been made to examine dynamo effects arising from pressure effects, the Hall term, and kinetic effects. We discuss each of these four dynamo mechanisms in turn.

### 4.1. MHD dynamo

The key quantity to measure is the component of the fluctuation-induced electromotive force along the mean magnetic field. In the MHD model, where $`𝐯`$ is dominated by the $`𝐄\times 𝐁`$ drift, the electron and ion velocities are about equal. The corresponding term is $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_{}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}_{}`$. Thus, the key is to measure $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_{}`$ with sufficient time and spatial resolutions.

The first technique invokes measurements of fluctuations in the perpendicular electric field. The measuring principle is based on the fluctuating Ohm’s law, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐄}+\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \overline{𝐁}+\overline{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣}`$, which reduces to

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_{}=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}+\overline{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣}_{})\times \overline{𝐁}}{\overline{B}^2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}\times \overline{𝐁}}{\overline{B}^2},$$
(5)
because $`\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}\overline{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$ in typical conditions. Therefore, the $`\alpha `$-effect becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}\times \overline{𝐁})\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}}{\overline{B}^2}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}}{\overline{B}}.$$
(6)
Fluctuations in electric and magnetic fields and their correlations can be measured by Langmuir probes and magnetic pickup coils, respectively, at the plasma edge where the temperature is relatively low . However, the first attempt using this technique in a relatively dense RFP plasma measured  no perceivable $`\alpha `$-effect compared to the mismatch between $`E_{}`$ and $`\eta j_{}`$ shown in Fig. 4. It has been suggested later that another mechanism (see next subsection) for the dynamo action might be operational in these dense plasmas.

The first successful detection  of the MHD dynamo in the RFP plasmas was made in the well-controlled Madison Symmetric Torus (MST) plasmas. As discussed in Sec. 3.1, in addition to the continuous dynamo action to regenerate toroidal flux against resistive diffusion, discrete relaxation events occur in MST in a regular fashion to generate toroidal flux in a short time scale. Figure 11 displays the measured dynamo electric field compared with the mismatch between $`E_{}`$ and $`\eta j_{}`$. The agreement is excellent both during relaxation events ($`t0.1`$ms) and between events. Successful measurements of MHD dynamo effects were made in a spheromak using a similar technique .

The second technique used to measure fluctuating velocities is spectroscopic detection of the Doppler shift from impurity carbon ions embedded within the hydrogen plasmas . If the coupling between impurity ions and plasma ions are strong, or they behave in the same way when exposed to the slow electric field fluctuations, the emission from impurity ions function as a tracer of plasma flow. An optical probe  was utilized to measure local velocity fluctuations of impurity ions. Correlations with local magnetic fluctuations have also yielded remarkable agreement with the mismatch electric field at the edge as shown in Fig. 12. At smaller radii, however, the measured dynamo term diminishes due to the phase changes in $`\stackrel{~}{v}_r`$ . Other mechanisms discussed in Sec. 3 for the dynamo effects might be operational at the smaller radii.

### 4.2. Diamagnetic dynamo

Because of the collisionless nature of high temperature plasmas, MHD approximations are not always a good model to describe dynamics of such plasmas. A better model can be based on the two-fluid model where ion fluid and electron fluid are treated separately. As described in Sec. 3.3, the force balance for electrons is essentially the Ohm’s law, which is generalized to include electron pressure force,

$$𝐄+𝐯_e\times 𝐁+\frac{P_e}{en}=\eta 𝐣,$$
(7)
where the electron inertial effect is ignored. Then Eq.(6) is modified to

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐄}_{}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}}{\overline{B}}+\frac{_{}\stackrel{~}{P}_e\stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}}{e\overline{n}\overline{B}}$$
(8)
where the second term is referred as “diamagnetic” dynamo since the fluctuating electron velocity is due to electron diamagnetism. We note that a small “battery” term is ignored here (see Sec. 5.1.)

The diamagnetic dynamo has been detected at the edge of an RFP plasma when the density is high . Fluctuations in the electron pressure (density and electron temperature) can be measured by Langmuir probes at different locations to deduce their gradient. Figure 13 shows the cross spectra of fluctuating quantities for both MHD dynamo and diamagnetic dynamo for four different densities. In the low density plasmas, the MHD dynamo dominates while at the highest density, the diamagnetic dynamo dominates. Although the underlying mechanisms for the transition are still unclear, this observation is consistent  with the early measurements in a dense plasma where no significant MHD dynamo was detected .

### 4.3. Hall dynamo

Since $`𝐣=en(𝐯_i𝐯_e)`$ and $`𝐯𝐯_i`$, Eq.(7) can be written as

$$𝐄+𝐯\times 𝐁\frac{𝐣\times 𝐁}{en}+\frac{P_e}{en}=\eta 𝐣,$$
(9)
where the second term in the left-hand side is called the Hall term. The fluctuation-induced counterpart, $`\stackrel{~}{𝐣}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}/en`$, therefore called Hall dynamo, has been suggested to be important under certain conditions . Experimentally, current density fluctuations can be measured by magnetic pickup coils, placed at several spatial points, using Ampere’s law. Measurements at the plasma edge indicated small but non-negligible effects in the Ohm’s law .

Physically, the Hall dynamo arises when electron flow does not fluctuate together with ions in the perpendicular direction. For this to happen, electrons need to experience different forces than ions. Electric force cannot be the cause since its fluctuations induce only the same flow fluctuations for both species. However, the electron pressure force can serve this purpose by driving flows only in electrons. Therefore, the diamagnetic dynamo mentioned above is a manifestation of the Hall dynamo effect. Another possibility for a finite difference in perpendicular flows of electrons and ions has been suggested  when the viscous force for ions is large.

### 4.4. Kinetic dynamo

For ions and electrons to be treated as fluids, their distribution functions need to be close to Maxwellians. In the collisionless plasmas, however, this cannot be always true especially in the pinch plasmas driven by a large electric field. In such cases, often a high-energy tail of electrons form along magnetic field line. When the field lines wander from center to edge, these high-energy electrons follow, resulting in transport of electric current outward. The current transport due to these electrons can just make up the mismatch in the electric field illustrated in Fig. 4. The physics process, however, needs to be treated by the full kinetic equations, referred as the kinetic dynamo theory . The main support for this theory is from the observation  of high energy electrons along the field lines carrying most of the current, as exemplified in Fig. 14.

However, the present form of this theory does not include the effects of these energetic electrons on the dynamics of magnetic field lines through Ampere’s law. It has been pointed out  that such dynamical feedback to the magnetic field structure would impose a severe constraint on the efficiency of this mechanism. Alternately, the observation of energetic electrons is possibly just a manifestation of other dynamo processes motioned above, i.e., they are accelerated by local dynamo electric field . Kinetic behaviors of the plasma in such a turbulent environment may be far from a simple physics picture.

## 5. Implications to Dynamo Theories and Astrophysical Dynamos

What we can learn from the observed dynamo effects described in the previous sections? In this section, we discuss their implications to a number of important and often controversial issues in recent developments in dynamo theory: fast dynamo versus slow dynamo; back-reaction of mean field on dynamo action; stationary and homogeneous turbulence versus driven systems; and its relationship with magnetic helicity. Finally, implications to astrophysical systems, especially the solar dynamo problem, are discussed.

### 5.1. Fast dynamo versus slow dynamo

Fast dynamos are dynamo actions which do not diminish in the small resistivity limit, while slow dynamos do. Fast dynamos can change the magnetic field in a much faster time scale than the resistive diffusion time, in which slow dynamos operate. A real solution for the astrophysically observed dynamos must be a fast dynamo. In fact, the dynamo effects described in the previous section are evidently also fast dynamos, which can change the magnetic flux in a time scale (typically $`100\mu `$s during relaxation events) much faster than the resistive diffusion time (typically $`0.1`$s).

For clarity, we re-derive the $`\alpha `$-effect based on the Ohm’s law in the two-fluid framework, Eq. (7), $`𝐄+𝐯_e\times 𝐁+P_e/en=\eta 𝐣`$. After ensemble-averaging over fluctuations it becomes

$$\overline{𝐄}+\overline{𝐯}_e\times \overline{𝐁}+\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}+\frac{\overline{P}_e}{en}=\eta \overline{𝐣},$$
(10)
which can be subtracted from Eq. (7) to yield

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐄}+\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \overline{𝐁}+(\overline{𝐯}_e+\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e)\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_e}{en}=\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣},$$
(11)
where small battery-like effects such as $`\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{P}_e/e\overline{n}^2`$ are neglected (see Sec. 5.4). With the use of Eq. (11), the $`\alpha `$-effect is calculated as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}\overline{𝐁}}{B}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \overline{𝐁})\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{B}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐄}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_e\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{e\overline{n}B}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐣}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{B}}.`$
The first and second terms are MHD dynamo and diamagnetic dynamo, respectively, and the third term is proportional to the resistivity $`\eta `$. We note that the so-called “first-order smoothing” approximation , or $`\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}\stackrel{~}{𝐯}_e\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}=0`$ needs not to be assumed in Eq. (11) to derive the above results.

The third term in Eq. (12) deserves special comment. It is likely a slow dynamo term since it diminishes as the resistivity goes to zero. It may be argued that the current density fluctuations may go to infinity to make this term finite in the vanishing resistivity limit . But this possible singularity is a mathematical question but not a physical one because current density has to be bounded in any case: microinstabilities will be destabilized sooner or later to stop the growth in the current density. Therefore, this term should be always a slow dynamo term in real plasmas. Indeed, this term is small in pinch plasmas where resistivity is small, as mentioned in the previous section. In contrast, the other two terms in Eq. (12) can be the fast dynamo terms since they are not constrained by the small resistivity, and they can change the magnetic field in a fast time scale, as demonstrated in the laboratory plasmas described in this paper. We discuss these terms further in the following subsections.

### 5.2. Back-reaction of mean field on dynamo action

The concept of slow dynamo is closely related, if not identical, to the so-called back-reaction of mean magnetic field on the $`\alpha `$\- effect in the analytic MHD models , confirmed by MHD simulations . A self-consistent constraint due to Lorentz force on the flow  applies on the kinematic dynamo effects,

$$\alpha \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{}}{B}=\alpha _0+\frac{\tau }{3\rho }\stackrel{~}{𝐣}\stackrel{~}{𝐁},$$
(13)
where the kinematic $`\alpha `$-effect $`\alpha _0=(\tau /3\rho )\stackrel{~}{𝐯}\times \stackrel{~}{𝐯}`$ and $`\tau `$ is the correlation time same for the velocity and magnetic field fluctuations. Combining with Eq. (12) in the MHD limit,

$$\alpha =\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐄}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{B^2},$$
(14)
yields

$$\alpha =\frac{\alpha _0+\frac{\tau }{3\rho \eta }\stackrel{~}{𝐄}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{1+\frac{\tau }{3\rho \eta }B^2}.$$
(15)
In the limit of small resistivity, the above equation becomes

$$\alpha =\frac{3\rho \eta }{\tau B^2}\alpha _0+\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐄}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{B^2}$$
(16)
where, without the second term, the $`\alpha `$-effect diminishes either by small resistivity (or slow dynamo) or by large mean field, $`B`$ (back-reaction of mean field) . In either case, however, the second term can survive  to function as a fast, unquenched dynamo. In fact, the dynamo effects described in the previous section operate in the pinch plasmas with small resistivity in a strong magnetic field (although part of it is supplied externally); thus they are not quenched through the backreaction of the strong magnetic field. An important question to be discussed in the following subsection is under what conditions the fast dynamo terms can survive to dominate the dynamo effect in systems with small resistivity and/or large mean magnetic field.

### 5.3. Stationary and homogeneous turbulence versus driven systems

First, let us turn our attention to the classical case of statistically stationary and homogeneous turbulence . In this special case, by definition, all statistical quantities of the turbulence do not vary in time and space. Therefore, the second term of Eq. (12), $`\stackrel{~}{P}_e\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\stackrel{~}{P}_e\stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$, vanishes. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐄}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{𝐀}/t`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential and $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential222Theoretically, gauge-invariant treatments of these potentials are often not so straightforward, but experimentally both parts of the electric field can be measured unambiguously: a double Langmuir probe, consisting of two small electrodes in contact with plasma, can detect $`\varphi `$ along the direction linking two electrodes while a loop wire with a straight part exposed to electromagnetic induction but with the rest shielded can detect $`𝐀/t`$ along the direction of the straight part ., the first term of Eq. (12) becomes $`\stackrel{~}{𝐄}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{𝐁}(\stackrel{~}{𝐀}/t)\stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$. Obviously, the electrostatic part, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$, vanishes. Using vector identities and $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$, the electromagnetic part vanishes as well:

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐀}}{t}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐀}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{t}+\stackrel{~}{𝐀}\times \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐀}}{t}\right)=0.$$
(17)
Therefore, in the case of stationary and homogeneous turbulence, the only surviving dynamo term in Eq. (12) is $`\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$, which is likely slow, and consequently, the dynamo is quenched in Eq. (16). This is exactly what was predicted theoretically . When periodic boundary conditions are imposed, MHD simulations  can produce such turbulence, demonstrating slow and quenched dynamos .

Stationarity and homogeneity of a turbulence implies that there exist no preferential directions in time and space for the system to evolve. This is not the case for the pinch plasmas as we have seen so far. They are driven systems. In fact, almost all astrophysical systems are also driven by various sources, as discussed in Sec. 1. More importantly, there always exist preferences in directions in time and/or in space during the driven processes. Often, when the system evolves very slowly so that quasi-stationarity can be assumed, the homogeneity in space still cannot be assumed. The inhomogeneous nature of the driving processes can be reflected in the boundary conditions . In fact, MHD simulations with open boundary conditions  exhibit fast growth of large scale magnetic field, on a time scale intermediate between the fast Alfven wave transit time (or eddy turnover time) and the slow resistive diffusion time.

Since stationary and homogeneous turbulence produces only slow and quenched dynamos, a logical next question then is under what conditions the turbulence can drive fast and unquenched dynamos? In other words, what effects do the first two terms of Eq. (12) have on the turbulence? Answering this question leads to the relation of dynamo effects with magnetic helicity.

### 5.4. Magnetic helicity and dynamo effects

As discussed in Sec. 3, magnetic helicity is relatively conserved compared to magnetic energy during relaxation where dynamo effects play important roles. The dynamo effects conserve the total magnetic helicity except for resistive effects and a small battery effect . This can be seen easily from its rate of change,

$$\frac{dK}{dt}=2𝐄𝐁𝑑V(2\varphi 𝐁+𝐀\times \frac{𝐀}{t})𝑑𝐒,$$
(18)
where $`V`$ is enclosed by the surface $`𝐒`$. Using Eq. (7), the first term becomes

$$𝐄𝐁𝑑V=\eta 𝐣𝐁𝑑V+\frac{P_e𝐁}{en}𝑑V.$$
(19)
The first term on the RHS is a resistive effect, which vanishes with zero resistivity. The second term requires finite pressure gradient, especially electron temperature, along the field line to change the total helicity. However, we note that such parallel gradients are very small owing to fast electron flow along the field lines. Such effects, often called the battery effect , provide only a seed for magnetic field to grow in a dynamo process and, of course, it can be accompanied by small but finite magnetic helicity. However, the change in $`K`$ observed during a relaxation event , as shown in Fig. 9, is larger than estimated changes by resistive and battery effects.

There are two ways for (the fast) dynamo effects to conserve total magnetic helicity: transport helicity across space  \[also see Eq. (4) which can be written into a surface term\] or convert it to a different (often larger) scale, the so-called inverse cascading . Defining helicity in the mean field $`K_m\overline{𝐀}\overline{𝐁}𝑑V`$ and in the fluctuations $`K_t\stackrel{~}{𝐀}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}𝑑V`$, using Eqs. (10-12) and Eq. (18) in some algebra including cancellations and rearrangements of terms yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_m}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \left(\eta \overline{𝐣}\overline{𝐁}+\eta \stackrel{~}{𝐣}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐀}}{t}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}\right)𝑑V}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \left(2\overline{\varphi }\overline{𝐁}2\frac{\overline{P}_e\overline{𝐁}}{en}+\overline{𝐀}\times \frac{\overline{𝐀}}{t}+2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{𝐁}2\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_e\stackrel{~}{𝐁}}{en}\right)𝑑𝐒}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dK_t}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐀}}{t}\stackrel{~}{𝐁}𝑑V}{\displaystyle \stackrel{~}{𝐀}\times \frac{\stackrel{~}{𝐀}}{t}𝑑𝐒},`$ (21)
where the last equation is identical to Eq. (17). The resistive slow dynamo term, appearing as the second term of Eq. (20), changes the mean helicity also in the resistive time scale. The electrostatic MHD dynamo and diamagnetic dynamo, both appearing in the surface integral, transport the mean helicity across space while the inductive part of the MHD dynamo $`(\stackrel{~}{𝐀}/t)\stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$, appearing in the volume integral in the both equations but with opposite signs, converts helicity from the fluctuations to the mean field . Other terms in the surface integral represent various ways to inject or extract helicity from the volume . For instance, the third term in the surface integral of Eq. (20) indicates the helicity injection by the transformer in RFP plasmas. Since measurements in RFP plasmas indicate that the inductive electric field fluctuations are much smaller than their electrostatic counterpart by at least one order of magnitude, the fast dynamo effects observed in the pinch plasmas are accompanied by a helicity flow, which is disallowed in the stationary and homogeneous turbulence.

The flow of magnetic helicity due to the fast dynamo effects have been directly measured in RFP plasmas. For magnetic helicity to be physically meaningful, a gauge-invariant definition  needs to be used for the double-connected toroidal plasmas bounded by a conducting shell as illustrated in Fig. 2: $`K_{\mathrm{toroidal}}𝐀𝐁𝑑V\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi (a)\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta (a)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi (a)`$ is the total toroidal flux and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta (a)`$ is the poloidal flux threading the central hole of the toroidal plasma. Therefore, the rate of change for $`K_{\mathrm{toroidal}}`$ is given by

$$\frac{dK_{\mathrm{toroidal}}}{dt}=2𝐄𝐁𝑑V+2\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi (a)V_\varphi (a),$$
(22)
where $`V_\varphi (a)`$ is the toroidal loop voltage at the plasma surface $`r=a`$. The plasma can be divided into two parts: a core part at $`0rb`$ and an edge part at $`bra`$. Then the total helicity is the sum of three parts: core helicity, $`K_{\mathrm{core}}`$, edge helicity, $`K_{\mathrm{edge}}`$, and the single linkage between edge poloidal flux and core toroidal flux, $`K_{\mathrm{link}}`$. The balance equation for $`K_{\mathrm{edge}}`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{link}}`$ can be written as

$$\frac{dK_{\mathrm{edge}}}{dt}+\frac{dK_{\mathrm{link}}}{dt}=2_b^a\eta 𝐣𝐁𝑑V+2\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi (a)V_\varphi (a)2\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi (b)V_\varphi (b)+2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{B}_r𝑑S_b,$$
(23)
where $`S_b`$ is the surface area at $`r=b`$ and $`V_\varphi (b)`$ is the toroidal loop voltage at $`r=b`$. The last term represents helicity transport across $`r=b`$ by correlation between fluctuations in electrostatic potential $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and radial field $`\stackrel{~}{B}_r`$ associated with the MHD dynamo effect. (The helicity flux due to diamagnetic dynamo was small in this case.)

The helicity flux has been measured directly for the same plasma shown in Fig. 11 at $`r=ba5`$cm. All other five terms in Eq. (23) were determined independently. As shown in Fig. 15, the measured outward helicity flux due to MHD dynamo can exactly account for helicity change in $`K_{\mathrm{edge}}`$ and $`K_{\mathrm{link}}`$, demonstrating the existence of a helicity flux associated with fast dynamos observed in RFP plasmas. We note that the quasi-steady state of the plasma is maintained by an inward helicity injection by the transformer via the third term of the surface integral of Eq. (20).

The requirement of helicity flow in a driven system for fast and unquenched dynamos has important implications to the physics of astrophysical dynamos . A good example under debate is the solar dynamo, which is driven by a combination of thermal gradient and rotation. It has been found that there is a preference in the sign of the observed twisted field lines (hence the helicity) in each hemisphere  and consequently in the solar wind . This helicity preference may well be a result of helicity flow accompanied with the solar dynamo, which must be fast and unquenched to explain the observed 11 year solar cycle. If the electrostatic MHD dynamo is operational like in laboratory plasmas, there are two possible explanations. The first possibility  is that the fast dynamo actions transport or separate the large-scale helicity of one sign to one hemisphere while leaving the opposite helicity in the other hemisphere. Then they rise to the solar surface via buoyancy. The second possibility  is that the fast dynamo produces a helicity flow from the convection zone to the surface to drive the corona. The sign of the helicity is different at each hemisphere due to opposite signs of the $`\alpha `$ effect. Both mechanisms conserve the total helicity. These large-scale structures and its associated helicity are constantly removed from the solar surface by flaring. Both mechanisms can also replace the lost helicity continuously.

## 6. Conclusions

The physics of the $`\alpha `$ effects measured in the pinch plasmas has been reviewed, largely based on simple, intuitive approaches. It has been demonstrated that the observed dynamo effects are part of magnetic self-organization processes, either continuous or discrete in time. MHD dynamo and diamagnetic dynamo have been successfully measured and there is supporting evidence on Hall dynamo and kinetic dynamo. The close relationship with the concept of magnetic helicity has been studied, and it has been directly measured that the dynamo activity is accompanied by an outward helicity flow.

Implications of these measurements and understanding have been discussed in the context of astrophysical dynamos. Despite important differences in the form of the driving free energy, dynamos in laboratory plasmas exhibit remarkable similarities with the required astrophysical dynamos: they are fast (operational at small resistivity) and unquenched (operational in a large mean field). It has been shown that these desired features cannot exist in the traditionally assumed stationary and homogeneous turbulence. In fact, both the laboratory plasmas and astrophysical dynamos are driven systems which invalidate the stationarity and/or homogeneity assumption on the generated turbulence, thus allowing fast and unquenched dynamos to function. Despite several caveats, the availability of laboratory plasmas provides a unique and useful testbed to enhance understanding of astrophysical problems, such as dynamo.

* Received


format: text

text:
# Another note on focus-focus singularities

## 1. Introduction

The monodromy of an integrable Hamiltonian system has been introduced by Duistermaat in  as an obstruction to the existence of global action-angle variables, with a non-trivial example - the spherical pendulum - provided by Cushman. Since then, this monodromy phenomenon has gained the attention of many people, from different points of view (see e.g.  and references therein). For quite some time, and even in some very recent papers like , the monodromy had been calculated mainly by brute force, involving many pages of complicated computations of action functions. However, most of the integrable systems for which these computations have been done have a simple common feature : they possess so-called focus-focus singularities. And many authors have in fact calculated, case by case, the monodromy of the Liouville torus fibration around these singularities. Recall that, a point $`x`$ on a 4-dimensional symplectic manifold $`(M^4,\omega )`$ with an integrable system given by a moment map $`𝐅=(F_1,F_2):(M^4,\omega )^2`$ is called a nondegenerate focus-focus singular point if $`dF_1(x)=dF_2(x)=0`$, and the quadratic parts of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ at $`x`$ can be written as $`F_1^{(2)}=a(x_1y_1+x_2y_2)+b(x_1y_2x_2y_1),F_2^{(2)}=c(x_1y_1+x_2y_2)+d(x_1y_2x_2y_1)`$ in some symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$, with $`adbc0`$. The level sets of the moment map form a singular Lagrangian fibration. If a singular fiber contains a focus-focus singular point, then one says that it is a focus-focus singular fiber. Similarly, one can define corank-2 focus-focus singularities in integrable Hamiltonian systems with more than two degrees of freedom (see e.g. ). The following simple formula has been obtained in  : the monodromy around a nondegenerate focus-focus singular fiber that contains $`k1`$ focus-focus singular points (and no hyperbolic singular point) in an integrable Hamiltonian system with two degrees of freedom is given by the following matrix :

(1.1)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& k\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

In this note, we will make Formula (1.1) and other results of our first note on focus-focus singularities  easier to use by extending them to the (possibly) degenerate case. We will also show a direct relation between Formula (1.1) and a Duistermaat-Heckman formula.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`N`$ be a compact singular fiber (i.e. singular level set of the moment map $`𝐅=(F_1,F_2):(M^4,\omega )^2`$) of an integrable Hamiltonian system with two degrees of freedom. Then $`N`$ is called a possibly degenerate focus-focus singular fiber, and its singular points are called possibly degenerate focus-focus points, if $`N`$ satisfies the following conditions :
a) There is a relatively compact saturated connected neighborhood $`U(N)`$ of $`N`$ in which $`N`$ is the only singular fiber.
b) $`N`$ contains only a finite number of singular points of the system, and $`N`$ minus these singular points is homeomorphic to a non-empty union of cylinders $`𝕊^1\times ^1`$.

Remark. Of course, if $`N`$ is a compact singular fiber whose singular points are all nondegenerate focus-focus, then $`N`$ will satisfy the conditions of the above definition, see e.g. . Conversely, if $`N`$ is a possibly degenerate focus-focus fiber, and $`xN`$ is a nondegenerate singular point, then it is easy to see that $`x`$ must be of nondegenerate focus-focus type.

Example. Consider a Lagrange top under a potential energy field which is not given by the usual linear function of height, but say by a quadratic function. By varying the coefficients of this function, one will get degenerate focus-focus singularities at some parameters.

###### Theorem 1.2.

If $`N`$ is a possibly degenerate focus-focus fiber in an integrable Hamiltonian system with two degrees of freedom, then there is a neighborhood $`V(N)`$ of $`N`$, such that in $`V(N)`$ there is a Hamiltonian $`𝕊^1`$-action with the following properties :
a) This action preserves the system (i.e. the moment map).
b) This action is free outside the singular points of the singular fiber $`N`$, and fixes these singular points.
c) The action has weights $`(1,1)`$ at singular points. In other words, near each singular point of $`N`$ there is a local symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ in which the action is generated by the Hamiltonian vector field $`(x_1/y_1y_1/x_1)(x_2/y_2y_2/x_2)`$ of Hamiltonian function $`\frac{x_1^2+y_1^2}{2}\frac{x_2^2+y_2^2}{2}`$.

###### Theorem 1.3.

If $`N`$ and $`U(N)`$ satisfy the conditions of Definition 1.1, then $`U(N)\backslash N`$ is fibred by regular tori, and the monodromy of this fibration around $`N`$ is given by the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& k\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, where $`k`$ is the number of singular points in $`N`$.

###### Theorem 1.4.

The only topological invariant of a possibly degenerate focus-focus singularity is its number of singular points. In other words, if $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are two possibly degenerate focus-focus fibers of two integrable Hamiltonian systems with two degrees of freedom, and the number of singular points in $`N`$ is equal to the number of singular points in $`N^{}`$, then there is a homeomorphism from a neighborhood of $`N`$ to a neighborhood of $`N^{}`$ which sends $`N`$ to $`N^{}`$ and which preserves the singular foliation by Liouville tori.

The above theorems generalize the main results of  to the degenerate case. In particular, Theorem 1.4 means that degenerate focus-focus singularities are homeomorphic to nondegenerate ones. And since monodromy is a topological invariant, Theorem 1.3 may be seen as a consequence of Theorem 1.4 and the monodromy formula for nondegenerate focus-focus singularities. However, we will give in this note a proof of Theorem 1.3 which doesn’t make use of Theorem 1.4, but which uses Theorem 1.2 a Duistermaat-Heckman formula with respect to a symplectic $`𝕊^1`$-action instead. In our opinion, this natural relation between the monodromy and a Duistermaat-Heckman formula is as interesting as the monodromy formula (1.1) itself.

The rest of this note is organized as follows : in Section 2 we prove Theorem 1.2, and by the way give a new proof of the local normal form, due to Vey  and Eliasson , of nondegenerate focus-focus points. In Section 3 we prove Theorem 1.3, and in Section 4 we prove Theorem 1.4. Section 5 is devoted to the non-Hamiltonian focus-focus case, first studied by Cushman and Duistermaat . Various final observations and remarks are given in Section 6, the last section of this note.

## 2. The $`𝕊^1`$-action

Proof of Theorem 1.2. Let us recall how to find the $`𝕊^1`$-action using standard arguments . Let $`N`$ be a degenerate focus-focus singular fiber, with a saturated connected neighborhood $`U(N)`$ as in Definition 1.1. Denote by $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ the two components of the moment map, and by $`X_1=X_{F_1}`$ and $`X_2=X_{F_2}`$ their corresponding Hamiltonian vector field. Let $`mN`$ be a non-singular point in $`N`$. By definition $`m`$ lies in a cylinder in $`N`$, implying that there are two real numbers $`k(m),h(m)`$ such that the vector field $`k(m)X_1+h(m)X_2`$ is periodic of exact period $`2\pi `$ at $`m`$. The numbers $`k(m),h(m)`$ do not depend on the position of $`m`$ inside its cylinder in $`N`$, though a-priori they may depend on the cylinder itself (in fact they don’t, as will be shown). Let $`D`$ be a sufficiently small smooth 2-dimensional disk that intersects $`N`$ transversally at $`m`$, and by $`V`$ the union of regular Liouville tori which intersect with $`D`$. Since $`U(N)`$ is saturated by assumptions, we have that $`VU(N)`$. Using the implicit function theorem, for each point $`z`$ in $`D`$ we find a unique pair of numbers $`(k(z),h(z))`$ close to $`(k(m),h(m))`$ such that the orbit starting at $`z`$ of the vector field $`X=k(z)X_1+h(z)X_2`$ is periodic of exact period $`2\pi `$ (i.e. the period is exactly $`2\pi `$ but not a fraction of it). Consider $`k`$ and $`h`$ as functions of $`z`$. In fact, since the moment map $`(F_1,F_2)`$ is regular at $`m`$, we may take $`(F_1,F_2)`$ as a coordinate system on $`D`$, and so we may consider $`k`$ and $`h`$ as functions of two variables $`k(F_1,F_2)`$ and $`h(F_1,F_2)`$ on $`D`$, and then extend them to a neighborhood of $`N`$ (which contains $`V`$) via composition with the moment map. Due to the fact that $`X_1`$ commutes with $`X_2`$ (and together generate a standard flat affine structure on each Liouville torus), the vector field $`X=k(F_1,F_2)X_1+h(F_1,F_2)X_2`$ is periodic of period exactly $`2\pi `$ not only at the points in $`D`$, but in the whole $`V`$. In order to show that $`X=k(F_1,F_2)X_1+h(F_1,F_2)X_2`$ is periodic in a neighborhood of $`N`$, it suffices to show that the closure of $`V`$ contains an open neighborhood of $`N`$.

Let $`y`$ be a point which is sufficiently close to $`N`$ but which does not belong to $`N`$. Since the codimension of $`N`$ in $`U(N)`$ is $`2`$, we have that $`U(N)\backslash N`$ is connected, and therefore there is a path $`\gamma `$ going from $`y`$ to a point $`z`$ inside $`D`$ ($`z`$ close to $`m`$), such that $`\gamma (0)=y,\gamma (1)=z`$, and for any $`t[0,1]`$ we have that $`\gamma (t)`$ is close to $`N`$ but does not belong to $`N`$. Then one checks that the whole path $`\gamma `$ lies in $`V`$, because the intersection of $`\gamma `$ with $`V`$ is an non-empty open closed subset of $`\gamma `$ : Open because if $`\gamma (t)V`$ for some $`t`$, then the regular Liouville torus which contains $`\gamma (t)`$ will intersect $`D`$ at a point inside $`D`$ (because the value of the moment map at $`\gamma (t)`$ is very close to its value at $`N`$, i.e. at $`m`$), and hence nearby Liouville tori (which form an open neighborhood of this particular Liouville torus) also belong to $`V`$. Closed because if $`\gamma (t)`$ lies in the closure of $`V`$, then there are Liouville tori in $`V`$ which lie arbitrarily close to the regular Liouville torus which contains $`\gamma (t)`$ (by regularity, if a point lies near $`\gamma (t)`$ then the Liouville torus which contains this point is everywhere close to the Liouville torus which contains $`\gamma (t)`$). It implies that there are points in $`D`$ which are arbitrarily close to the Liouville torus which contains $`\gamma (t)`$. In particular, there is a point in the closure of $`D`$ which lies in the same Liouville torus as $`\gamma (t)`$. But considering the fact that the value of the moment map at this point, which is the same as its value at $`\gamma (t)`$, is very near its value at $`m`$, this point must in fact lie inside $`D`$, which means that $`\gamma (t)`$ belongs to $`V`$. Thus the whole path $`\gamma `$ belongs to $`V`$, and in particular $`y=\gamma (0)V`$, for any $`y`$ close enough to $`N`$ but not belonging to $`N`$. We have proved that the closure of $`V`$ contains a neighborhood of $`N`$.

The vector field $`X=k(F_1,F_2)X_1+h(F_1,F_2)X_2`$ has been shown to be periodic in a neighborhood of $`N`$, and is of period exactly $`2\pi `$ outside $`N`$. It is clear that this vector field fixes the singular points of $`N`$, where $`X_1=X_2=0`$. Let us show that at regular points in $`N`$, the period of $`X=k(F_1,F_2)X_1+h(F_1,F_2)X_2`$ is also exactly $`2\pi `$. Let $`m^{}`$ be a regular point of $`N`$. Then by construction, the value of functions $`k`$ and $`h`$ at $`m^{}`$ is the same as their value at $`m`$. If the period of $`X`$ at $`m^{}`$ is smaller than $`2\pi `$, then it means that there is a positive integer $`p2`$ such that $`k(m)X_1+h(m)X_2`$ is periodic of period $`2\pi /p`$ at $`m^{}`$. Repeat the above process of finding $`X`$, but starting at point $`m^{}`$ instead of at point $`m`$, and with period $`2\pi /p`$ instead of $`2\pi `$. In the end we will get that $`k(m)X_1+h(m)X_2`$ is periodic of period $`2\pi /p`$ (or smaller) at $`m`$, which is contradictory to the assumptions about $`k(m)`$ and $`h(m)`$. Thus the period of $`X`$ at $`m^{}`$ must be exactly $`2\pi `$ also.

By integrating the above periodic vector field $`X`$, we obtain an $`𝕊^1`$-action in a neighborhood of $`N`$. The fact that this vector field is Hamiltonian follows from (the proof of) Arnold-Liouville theorem on the existence of action-angle variables, see . It is clear that this $`𝕊^1`$-action preserves the system, is smooth (resp., analytic, finitely differentiable) if the system is smooth (resp., analytic, finitely differentiable), and it is free outside the singular points of $`N`$.

Near each singular point $`xN`$, the above $`𝕊^1`$-action can be linearized, i.e. there is a symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ in which the action is generated by the Hamiltonian function $`f=\frac{a(x_1^2+y_1^2)}{2}+\frac{b(x_2^2+y_2^2)}{2}`$, i.e.

$$X=a(x_1/y_1y_1/x_1)+b(x_2/y_2y_2/x_2),$$

where $`a,b`$. If say $`|a|2`$ then the $`𝕊^1`$-action is not free outside $`x`$ (it has points of period $`2\pi /|a|`$), and if $`a=0`$ then $`x`$ is not an isolated fixed point of the action. The remaining cases are $`a,b=\pm 1`$. If $`(a,b)=(1,1)`$ or $`(a,b)=(1,1)`$ (which is the same up to an orientation) then the Hamiltonian $`f`$ generating the $`𝕊^1`$-action has compact level sets near $`x`$ (the $`3`$-spheres), and it’s easy to check that on each of these $`3`$-spheres the must exist singular points of the integrable system, due to the fact a $`3`$-sphere cannot be foliated by regular tori. Thus the only possibility is $`(a,b)=(1,1)`$, up to a permutation. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. In fact, most examples provided in  of systems with focus-focus singularities admit a global $`𝕊^1`$-action, except perhaps the Manakov system on $`so(4)`$ (a free 4-dimensional rigid body).

As a corollary of the existence of an $`𝕊^1`$-action, we propose here to give a new proof of the following local normal form theorem due to Eliasson111See Eliasson’s Ph.D. thesis dated 1984, rather than his paper dated 1990, for his proof. In the analytic case this result is due to Vey . .

###### Theorem 2.1 ().

Let $`m(M^4,\omega )`$ be a focus-focus singular point in a smooth integrable Hamiltonian system with two degree of freedom given by a moment map $`𝐅=(F_1,F_2):(M^4,\omega )^2`$. Then there exists a local smooth symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$ near $`m`$ (the symplectic form is $`\omega =dx_1dy_1+dx_2dy_2`$) in which the local singular Lagrangian fibration of the system is given by the two quadratic functions $`f_1=x_1y_1+x_2y_2`$ and $`f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ (in other words, we have $`dF_1df_1df_2=dF_2df_1df_2=0`$).

Proof. It is a corollary of the following three facts: a) existence of a local Hamiltonian $`𝕊^1`$-action ; b) existence of a formal Birkhoff normalization (the classical result of Birkhoff); and c) the Hamiltonian equivariant Sternberg theorem (for an $`𝕊^1`$-invariant vector field) .

Using the existence of a formal Birkhoff normalization, and Borel’s theorem on the approximation of formal mappings by smooth mappings, we can normalize the system up to a flat term. In other words, we may assume that

$$F_1=G_1(f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{flat},F_2=G_2(f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{flat}$$

($`\mathrm{flat}`$ means a flat term), where $`(G_1,G_2):^2^2`$ is a local smooth map, and

$$f_1=x_1y_1+x_2y_2,f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1$$

is the standard quadratic focus-focus moment map in a smooth symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,y_1,x_2,y_2)`$. The symplectic form is $`\omega _0=dx_1dy_1+dx_2dy_2`$.

By the nondegeneracy assumptions, this map is a local diffeomorphism. Since we are interested in the singular Lagrangian fibration but not the moment map itself, we can compose $`(F_1,F_2)`$ with the inverse of $`(G_1,G_2)`$ to get a new moment map which satisfies

$$F_1=f_1+\mathrm{flat},F_2=f_2+\mathrm{flat}.$$

Notice that the Hamiltonian vector field of $`f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ is periodic. In this normal form, the Hamiltonian $`𝕊^1`$-action around the focus-focus singular point will be also generated by a function of the type $`f_2+\mathrm{flat}`$, so we may assume (by changing the moment map without changing the fibration) that $`F_2`$ is in fact the generator of our $`𝕊^1`$-action. Since $`F_2=f_2+\mathrm{flat}`$, this action is formally equal to the linear action generated by $`f_2`$. Thus, using averaging, we can linearize this action by a symplectomorphism which is formally equal to the identity map. Using this linearization, we can assume that:

$$F_1=f_1+\mathrm{flat},F_2=f_2.$$

The Hamiltonian vector field $`X_1`$ of $`F_1`$ is now formally equal to the linear Hamiltonian vector field $`X_{f_1}`$, it is invariant under the linear $`𝕊^1`$-action degenerated by $`X_2=(x_1/x_2x_2/x_1)+(y_1/y_2y_2/y_1)`$, and it does not have purely imaginary eigenvalues. Hence one can apply the equivariant Hamiltonian Sternberg theorem with respect to an $`𝕊^1`$-action  to find a local smooth symplectomorphism that maps $`X_1`$ to $`X_{f_1}`$ (and $`X_2`$ to itself, of course). Thus under this symplectomorphism, the system becomes linear:

$$\begin{array}{c}X_1=(x_1/x_1+x_2/x_2)(y_1/y_1+y_2/y_2),\hfill \\ X_2=(x_1/x_2x_2/x_1)+(y_1/y_2y_2/y_1),\hfill \end{array}$$

and the singular Lagrangian foliation is given by two quadratic functions $`f_1=x_1y_1+x_2y_2,f_2=x_1y_2x_2y_1.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Monodromy and a Duistermaat-Heckman formula

Proof of Theorem 1.3. We will use the notations introduced in the previous sections : $`N`$, $`U(N)`$, … The proof will use the Duistermaat-Heckman measure  to show the role played by the $`𝕊^1`$-action given by Theorem 1.2. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $`F_2`$ (the second component of the moment map) is the generator of this $`𝕊^1`$-action. For simplicity, we will localize the degenerate focus-focus singularity. Using integrable surgery , we can add elliptic singularities to the boundary of $`U(N)`$ (provided $`U(N)`$ is chosen appropriately) to get an integrable system on a compact symplectic 4-manifold with the following property : on each compact level set $`Q_c=\{F_2=c\}`$ with $`c0`$ and near $`0`$, the $`𝕊^1`$-action generated by the periodic vector field $`X_2=X_{F_2}`$ is free, and the set of singular points of the system on $`Q_c`$ consists of two circles $`S_{1,c},S_{2,c}`$ of nondegenerate corank-1 elliptic singularities. On the singular level set $`Q_0N`$, the $`𝕊^1`$-action is still free outside the set of singular points in $`N`$, and the set of singular points of the system on $`Q_0`$ consists of two circles $`S_{1,0},S_{2,0}`$ of nondegenerate corank-1 elliptic singularities plus the singular set of $`N`$. Additionally, we can assume that, for some small number $`\delta >0`$, $`\delta `$ is the maximum value of $`F_2`$ and $`\delta `$ is the minimum value of $`F_2`$, and the sets $`Q_\delta ,Q_\delta `$ are two-dimensional sphere consisting of elliptic singular points of the system. For the $`𝕊^1`$-action, there are $`k`$ fixed points of weights $`(1,1)`$ (lying in $`N`$), two spheres of fixed points $`Q_\delta `$ and $`Q_\delta `$, and the action is free outside these sets. The orbit space of the localized integrable system is topologically a square with a particular (degenerate focus-focus) singular point inside. The edges of the square correspond to corank-1 nondegenerate elliptic singularities, and the corners of the square correspond to nondegenerate corank-2 elliptic singularities.

Denote by $`V(c)`$ the symplectic volume (area) of the quotient of $`Q_c`$ by the $`𝕊^1`$-action, with the reduced symplectic form. Then a special case of a formula due to Duistermaat and Heckman  measures how the behavior of the function $`V(c)`$ changes when one passes though the fixed points of the $`𝕊^1`$-action (here the point $`0`$ in the variable $`c`$):

$`V(c)`$ is piecewise linear (linear when $`\delta c0`$ and when $`\delta c0`$), and

(3.1)
$$V(c)+V(c)=2V(0)kc.$$

(The minus sign on the right hand side is due to the fact that the weights at the fixed points are $`(1,1)`$). On the other hand, the orbit space of our localized integrable system has a stratified integral affine structure , and $`V(c)`$ can be viewed as the affine length of the interval $`\{F_2=c\}`$ on the orbit space with respect to this integral affine structure. Formula 3.1 then explains the change in the behavior of the integral affine structure in the orbit space when one passes through the focus-focus point: around this point, the integral affine structure can be obtained from the standard flat structure in $`^2=\{(x,y)\}`$ near the origin $`O`$ by cutting out the angle $`\mathrm{}\{(0,1),(k,1)\}`$ and gluing the edges of the rest together by the integral linear transformation $`(x,y)(x+ky,y)`$. And this change corresponds to the monodromy formula (1.1) in action variables, which by duality is the same thing as the monodromy in the torus fibration (see e.g. ). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Topological classification

Proof of Theorem 1.4. Denote by $`P`$ and $`V(P)`$ the quotient of $`N`$ and $`U(N)`$ by the Hamiltonian $`𝕊^1`$-action given by Theorem 1.2. Due to the fact that the action has weights $`(1,1)`$ at each fixed point, $`V(P)`$ is a topological 3-manifold, and $`P`$ is a simple closed curve in it. Since the moment map is preserved by the $`𝕊^1`$-action, it can be projected to a map $`(\widehat{F_1},\widehat{F_2}):V(P)^2`$, which turns $`V(P)`$ into a topologically trivial circle bundle. (The singular points in $`P`$ are singular in the sooth sense, but non-singular in the homeomorphic sense). Thus if $`(N,U(N))`$ and $`(N^{},U^{}(N^{}))`$ denote two possibly degenerate focus focus singularities with the same number of singular points (which we will denote by $`k`$), then at least their reductions by the $`𝕊^1`$-action are topologically equivalent : there is a homeomorphism $`\psi `$ from $`V(P)`$ to $`V^{}(P^{})`$ which preserves the circle fibrations, and which sends the singular points in $`P`$ (i.e. the images of the singular points in $`N`$ under projection) to the singular points in $`P^{}`$.

Now one can lift the map $`\psi :V(P)V^{}(P^{})`$ to an $`𝕊^1`$-equivariant map from $`U(N)`$ to $`U^{}(N^{})`$: first do it for $`N`$, then for small neighborhoods of singular points of $`N`$, then extend to the rest of $`U(N)`$. It can be done by using “local sections”, and is an exercise in elementary topology. There are no obstructions. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. In , I wrongly suggested that the above homeomorphism in the nondegenerate case can always be made smooth, i.e. the number $`k`$ of focus-focus singular points in the focus-focus singular fiber is the only smooth invariant - after a more careful analysis, Bolsinov found out that there are some other smooth invariants in the case $`k>1`$ (see ). A topological classification of more general nondegenerate singularities of integrable Hamiltonian systems is given in .

## 5. The non-Hamiltonian case

In , Cushman and Duistermaat generalized the results of  to the case of integrable non-Hamiltonian systems with focus-focus singularities. They assign to each focus-focus point a sign, either plus or minus, depending on some orientation (in the Hamiltonian case, all focus-focus points have plus sign). They again obtained the existence of an $`𝕊^1`$-action (which is not surprising), and the same monodromy matrix as given by Formula 1.1, but with $`k`$ now being the number of positive focus-focus points minus the number of negative focus-focus points. Naturally, the results in the previous sections of this note can also be extended to the non-Hamiltonian case, so we also get a generalization of Cushman-Duistermaat’s results.

###### Definition 5.1.

If we have two vector fields $`X_1,X_2`$ and two functions $`F_1,F_2`$ on a 4-manifold $`M^4`$ such that $`[X_1,X_2]=0,X_1(F_1)=X_1(F_2)=X_2(F_1)=X_2(F_2)=0`$, then we say that we have an integrable non-Hamiltonian system of bi-index $`(2,2)`$ (i.e. 2 commuting fields and 2 common first integrals). A point $`xM^4`$ is called singular for such an integrable system, if $`X_1X_2(x)=0`$ or $`dF_1dF_2(x)=0`$. A connected common level set $`N`$ of the first integrals $`F_1,F_2`$ is called a possibly degenerate focus-focus singular fiber, and its singular points called possibly degenerate focus-focus singular points, if $`N`$ satisfies the following conditions :
a) There is a relatively compact neighborhood $`U(N)`$ of $`N`$, which is saturated by connected common level sets of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$.
b) $`U(N)`$ contains only a finite number of singular points of the system and they all lie in $`N`$, and $`N`$ minus these singular points is homeomorphic to a non-empty union of cylinders $`𝕊^1\times ^1`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

If $`N`$ is a possibly degenerate focus-focus fiber in an integrable non-Hamiltonian system of bi-index $`(2,2)`$, then in a neighborhood $`U(N)`$ of $`N`$ there is an $`𝕊^1`$-action with the following properties :
a) This action preserves the system (i.e. the two commuting vector fields and the two first integrals)
b) This action is free outside the singular points of the singular fiber $`N`$, and fixes these singular points.
c) The action has weights $`(1,\pm 1)`$ at singular points. In other words, near each singular point of $`N`$ there is a local symplectic system of coordinates $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ in which the action is generated by the vector field $`(x_1/x_2x_2/x_1)\pm (x_3/x_4x_4/x_3)`$.

The proof of Theorem 5.2 is absolutely similar to that of Theorem 1.2. The reason why we write weights $`(1,\pm 1)`$ instead of $`(1,1)`$ in the above theorem is that there is no distinction between $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,1)`$, before an orientation is introduced. Note that $`U(N)`$ is orientable. For example, one can choose an orientation as follows: Choose a Riemannian metric in $`U(N)`$. If $`mU(N)`$ is regular point of the system, then the vectors $`X_1(m),X_2(m),F_1(m),F_2(m)`$ (where $``$ denotes the gradient of a function) are linearly independent at $`m`$, and one can use these vector fields to orientate $`U(N)`$.

###### Definition 5.3.

Suppose that $`N`$ is a possibly degenerate focus-focus singular fiber as in Definition 5.1, and that the ambient 4-manifold $`M^4`$ is oriented. Then a singular point $`xN`$ is called positive if there is a positively oriented local system of coordinates $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$ in which the $`𝕊^1`$-action given by Theorem 5.2 is generated by $`(x_1/x_2x_2/x_1)(x_3/x_4x_4/x_3)`$, and negative otherwise.

Remark. Of course, a singular point in $`N`$ is either positive or negative but never both. The above definition is an extension of a definition of Cushman and Duistermaat  to the case of possibly degenerate focus-focus points. It is also clear that in the Hamiltonian case, all possibly degenerate focus-focus singular points are of plus sign. If we change the orientation of the ambient manifold $`M^4`$, then positive points become negative and vice versa.

###### Theorem 5.4.

If $`N`$ and $`U(N)`$ satisfy the conditions Definition 5.1, then $`U(N)\backslash N`$ is fibred by regular tori, and the monodromy of this fibration around $`N`$ is given by the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& k\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, where $`k`$ is the number of positive singular points in $`N`$ minus the number negative singular points in $`N`$.

Theorem 5.4 may be viewed as a generalization of Theorem 1.3 to the non-Hamiltonian case, or also as a generalization of the results of  to the degenerate case. It can be proved, for example, by combining the results of  and the non-Hamiltonian version of Theorem 1.4 : In the non-Hamiltonian case, the full topological invariant is made up of the cyclic order of the signs of the singular points in $`N`$.

## 6. Some final remarks

### 6.1. Topological torus fibrations

From the topological point of view, the above topological classification and monodromy formulas (both in the Hamiltonian case and the non-Hamiltonian case) may be seen, after some preparatory results, as special cases of the theory of singular torus fibrations in 4-manifolds developed by Matsumoto and other people, see  and references therein. This theory is in turn inspired by Kodaira’s theory of elliptic fibrations in complex surfaces. Unfortunately or fortunately, I didn’t know of Matsumoto’s paper when writing  \- otherwise that note would have been written differently, or would not appear at all. Focus-focus singular points correspond to what are denoted in  as $`I_+`$ (the case of positive sign) and $`I_{}`$ (the case of negative sign, which can only happen in non-Hamiltonian systems). The $`𝕊^1`$-action does not seem to be present in the above-mentioned work of Matsumoto nor in the earlier papers by Kodaira; they didn’t need it. However, I would like to stress here again that this action (and local torus actions in general) is very useful in the study of integrable systems. In , we showed how to use this action to perturb an integrable system with two degrees of freedom into an integrable system whose focus-focus singular fibers contain exactly one singular focus-focus point. Of course, the same result holds in the degenerate focus-focus case.

### 6.2. Monodromy without focus-focus singularities

Locally, among nondegenerate singularities, only focus-focus components create non-trivial monodromy (elliptic and hyperbolic components don’t). But globally, there may be domains in the orbit space of a nondegenerate integrable Hamiltonian system, which does not border any focus-focus singular point, and which still has non-trivial monodromy. A simple example is the following : consider a spherical pendulum of radius 1, centered at the origin of $`^3`$, not with the standard potential energy function $`z`$ (where $`z`$ is the coordinate of the vertical axis), but a potential energy function of the type $`zz^2/2R`$, where $`R`$ is a positive constant sightly smaller than 1. The maximum of the potential is achieved at the level $`z=R`$, slightly below the highest possible level ($`z=1`$) of the pendulum. Such a spherical pendulum doesn’t have a focus-focus point, but still has monodromy similar to the usual spherical pendulum.

### 6.3. Systems with many degrees of freedom

It follows easily from the results of  that, if $`N`$ is a corank-2 focus-focus singular fiber of an integrable Hamiltonian system with $`n`$ degrees of freedom, $`n>2`$, with some additional nondegeneracy condition (called “topological stability” in ) then a tubular neighborhood of $`N`$ together with the singular Lagrangian fibration is homeomorphic to the direct product of a tubular neighborhood of a regular torus in an integrable system with $`n2`$ degrees of freedom with a tubular neighborhood of a focus-focus singular fiber of an integrable system with two degrees of freedom. Thus, corank-2 focus-focus singularities in higher dimensions are the same as focus-focus singularities in dimension $`4`$. for example, in the case with 3 degrees of freedom, the monodromy matrix is

(6.1)
$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& k& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Still, one must be careful about the bases in which these matrices are written. For example, Bates and Zou in a paper published in 1993 made a mistake of using $`2\times 2`$ matrices when studying monodromy around two focus-focus singularities in a 3-degrees-of-freedom system, and arrived at a wrong multiplication formula.

### 6.4. Integral affine structure of the base space

By duality, the monodromy of the torus fibration of an integrable Hamiltonian system is the same as the monodromy of the integral affine structure on the base space. In fact, when we consider the whole base space with its singularities, then it has a stratified integral affine structure, and a affine monodromy sheaf associated with it, see . This sheaf is a free Abelian sheaf which is locally constant on each stratum, and the structure of this sheaf is a topological invariant of the system. One can argue that, by Bohr-Sommerfeld rules, the quantum joint spectrum of a semi-classical integrable system is nothing but a discretization of the integral affine structure of the base space of the corresponding classical integrable system, and that’s the main reason why quantum integrable systems have the same monodromy as its classical counterpart, as observed in many places (see e.g.  and references therein). In fact, the quantum joint spectrum mimics the integral affine structure not only near focus-focus singularities, but near elliptic and hyperbolic singularities as well.

### 6.5. Focus-focus singularities in geometry

The Strominger-Yau-Zaslow conjecture in mirror symmetry  says that on each “dualizable” Calabi-Yau manifold there is a special Lagrangian fibration and the dual Calabi-Yau manifold corresponds to the dual special Lagrangian fibration. From the point of view of integrable Hamiltonian systems, these fibrations are integrable systems with corank-2 focus-focus singularities, and higher-corank singularities which must be similar in some sense to focus-focus ones. Hence, a good understanding of focus-focus singularities and its higher-dimensional degenerate sisters may be helpful in the SYZ construction of mirror symmetry. Though many authors have written many papers about the SYZ construction, at present the situation is still not clear, especially in what concerns singularities, to my very limited knowledge.

Another application of focus-focus singularities is in the geometry of 4-manifolds. For example, using a symplectic (integrable) surgery involving focus-focus singularities, Symington constructed so-called generalized symplectic rational blow-downs, which are useful for creating interesting 4-manifolds and calculating their invariants, see  and references therein.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Richard Cushman and Michèle Audin for inciting me to write this note and for various discussions on integrable systems related to this work, and Pierre Molino for stimulating conversations on smooth normal form problems. I’m also grateful to Hans Duistermaat, Vu Ngoc San, and the anonymous referee for their critical remarks on earlier versions of this note.