text:
# Covering Relations Between Ball-Quotient Orbifolds

## 1. Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a smooth algebraic surface of general type. By the Hirzebruch proportionality theorem \[H1\] if $`M`$ is covered by the complex 2-ball $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ then its Chern numbers satisfies the equality $`c_1^2(M)=3e(M)`$. Conversely if the Chern numbers of $`M`$ satisfy this equality then the universal covering of $`M`$ is $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by Yau’s theorem \[Ya\].

One way to discover surfaces of general type $`M`$ with $`c_1^2(M)=3e(M)`$ is to construct them as finite branched Galois coverings $`\phi :MX`$ where $`X`$ is the blow-up of $`^2`$ at some points. This approach was first used by Hirzebruch \[H2\]\[H3\], developed further in \[Hö\]\[BHH\] and more recently in \[Ho\],\[HV\]. The corresponding lattices acting on $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ turned out to be commensurable with the ones obtained from the study of the hypergeometric differential equations (see \[DeMo\] and \[Yo2\]).

A branched Galois covering $`\phi :MX`$ endows $`X`$ with a map $`\beta _\phi :X`$ sending $`pX`$ to the order of the isotropy group above $`p`$. The pair $`(X,\beta _\phi )`$ is an orbifold, and $`M`$ is a uniformization of $`(X,\beta _\phi )`$. In case the degree of $`\phi `$ is finite, $`M`$ is also called a finite uniformization, and if $`M`$ is simply connected, it is called the universal uniformization of $`(X,\beta _\phi )`$. Alternatively, when finiteness or universality can be understood from the context, one says: $`(X,\beta _\phi )`$ is uniformized by M.

For an orbifold $`(X,\beta )`$ it is possible to define orbifold Chern numbers $`c_1^2(X,\beta )`$ and $`e(X,\beta )`$ in such a way that for any finite uniformization $`\phi :MX`$ with $`\beta _\phi =\beta `$ one has

$$c_1^2(M)=\text{deg}(\phi )c_1^2(X,\beta ),e(M)=\text{deg}(\phi )e(X,\beta )$$

On the other hand, by results of \[KNS\] an orbifold of general type $`(X,\beta )`$ is covered by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ if the equality

(1)
$$c_1^2(X,\beta )=3e(X,\beta )$$

is satisfied. Hence, in order to discover lattices acting on $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ it suffices to find orbifolds satisfying (1). In this article, this idea is applied to rediscover some orbifolds discovered in \[HV\]. A study of some coverings (in the orbifold sense) of these orbifolds gave the following result.

###### Theorem 1.

There exists infinite series of pairwise non-isomorphic orbifolds on $`^2`$, uniformized by the 2-ball $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Corresponding lattices in $`\mathrm{SU}(1,2)`$ are all arithmetic.

In contrast with many known examples of orbifolds $`(^2,\beta )`$ uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, to the author’s knowledge there is just one orbifold $`(^2,\beta )`$ (alleged to Hirzebruch in \[Yo1\]) that is known to be uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. In Section 4 below, infinitely many examples of such orbifolds are given. In particular, the following result is proved.

###### Theorem 2.

For $`m>0`$ odd, let $`Q_m`$ be the irreducible curve given by the equation $`x^{m/2}+y^{m/2}+z^{m/2}=0`$. Define $`\beta _m:^2`$ by $`\beta _m(x)=2`$ if $`xQ_m\backslash \text{sing}(Q_m)`$, $`\beta _m(x)=2m`$ if $`x\text{sing}(Q_m)`$ and $`\beta _m(x)=1`$ otherwise. Then the orbifold $`(^2,\beta _m)`$ is uniformized by $`Q_m\times Q_m`$. Hence, for $`m>3`$ the universal uniformization of $`(^2,\beta _m)`$ is $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The uniformization $`Q_m\times Q_m(^2,\beta _m)`$ is of degree $`2m^2`$.

The curve $`Q_1`$ is a smooth quadric, and it is well known that $`(^2,\beta _1)`$ is uniformized by $`^1\times ^1`$. The curve $`Q_3`$ is the nine-cuspidal sextic, it was shown in \[KTY\] that $`^2`$ is the universal uniformization of $`(^2,\beta _3)`$. For a generalization of Theorem 2 to higher dimensional projective spaces, see \[U\].

## 2. Orbifolds

We shall mostly follow the terminology settled in \[YY\]. Let $`M`$ be a connected complex manifold, $`G\text{Aut}(M)`$ a properly discontinuous subgroup and put $`X:=M/G`$. Then the projection $`\phi :MX`$ is a branched Galois covering endowing $`X`$ with a map $`\beta _\phi :X`$ defined by $`\beta _\phi (p):=|G_q|`$ where $`q`$ is a point in $`\phi ^1(p)`$ and $`G_q`$ is the isotropy subgroup of $`G`$ at $`q`$. In this setting, the pair $`(X,\beta _\phi )`$ is said to be uniformized by $`\phi :M(X,\beta _\phi )`$. An orbifold is a pair $`(X,\beta )`$ of an irreducible normal analytic space $`X`$ with a function $`\beta :X`$ such that the pair $`(X,\beta )`$ is locally finitely uniformizable. Let $`(X,\beta )`$ and $`(X,\gamma )`$ be two orbifolds with $`\gamma |\beta `$, and let $`\phi :(X^{},1)(X,\gamma )`$ be a uniformization of $`(X,\gamma )`$, e.g. $`\beta _\phi =\gamma `$. Then $`\phi :(X^{},\beta ^{})(X,\beta )`$ is called an orbifold covering, where $`\beta ^{}:=\beta \mathrm{o}\phi /\gamma \mathrm{o}\phi `$. The orbifold $`(X^{},\beta ^{})`$ is called the lifting of $`(X,\beta )`$ to the uniformization $`X^{}`$ of $`(X,\gamma )`$.

Let $`(X,b)`$ be an orbifold, $`B_\beta :=\mathrm{supp}(\beta 1)`$ and let $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$ be the irreducible components of $`B_\beta `$. Then $`\beta `$ is constant on $`B_i\backslash \mathrm{sing}(B_\beta )`$; so let $`b_i`$ be this number. The orbifold fundamental group $`\pi _1^{orb}(X,\beta )`$ of $`(X,\beta )`$ is the group defined by $`\pi _1^{orb}(X,\beta ):=\pi _1(X\backslash B_\beta )/\mu _1^{b_1},\mathrm{},\mu _n^{b_n}`$ where $`\mu _i^{b_i}`$ is a meridian of $`B_i`$ and $``$ denotes the normal closure. An orbifold $`(X,\beta )`$ is said to be smooth if $`X`$ is smooth. In case $`(X,\beta )`$ is a smooth orbifold the map $`\beta `$ is determined by the numbers $`b_i`$; in fact $`\beta (p)`$ is the order of the local orbifold fundamental group at $`p`$. In case $`dimX=2`$ the orbifold condition (i.e. locally finitely uniformizability) is equivalent to the finiteness of the local fundamental groups. For example if $`x=B_iB_j`$ is a simple node of $`B_\beta `$ then $`\beta (p)=b_ib_j`$. For some other singularities of $`B_\beta `$ one has

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`(X,\beta )`$ be an orbifold where $`X`$ is a smooth complex surface and $`pX`$. (i) If $`p=B_iB_jB_k`$ is a transversal intersection of smooth branches of $`B_\beta `$ then $`b_i^1+b_j^1+b_k^1>1`$ and $`\beta (p)=4[b_i^1+b_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+b_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}1]^2`$ (ii) If $`p=B_iB_j`$ is a tacnode of $`B_\beta `$ then $`b_i^1+b_j^1>1/2`$ and $`\beta (p)=2[b_i^1+b_j^12^1]^2`$ (iii) If $`pB_i`$ is a simple cusp of $`B_\beta `$ then $`b_i^1>6^1`$ and $`\beta (p)=\frac{2}{3}[b_i^16^1]^2`$.

###### Proof.

Part (i) is well known, see e.g. \[Yo1\]. Now let $`B_1,B_2,B_3^2`$ be respectively the lines $`x=0`$, $`x=y`$ and $`y=0`$. By part (i) the pair $`(^2,\beta )`$ is an orbifold where $`\beta :^2`$ is the function

$$\beta (p)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_i,\hfill & pB_i\backslash \{(0,0)\}\hfill \\ 4[b_1^1+b_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+b_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}1]^2,\hfill & p=(0,0)\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

for integers $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$ satisfying $`b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^1>1`$. To prove (ii) put $`b_3=2`$ and consider the branched Galois covering $`\phi :(x,y)^2(x,y^2)^2`$. One has $`\beta _\phi (p)=b_3=2`$ for $`pB_3`$ and $`\beta _\phi (p)=1`$ otherwise. Let $`B_1^{},B_2^{}^2`$ be respectively the line $`x=0`$ and the curve $`x=y^2`$. Then $`\phi (B_1^{})=B_1`$ and $`\phi (B_2^{})=B_2`$. Let $`\beta ^{}:^2`$ be the function which takes the value $`b_i`$ on $`B_i^{}\backslash \{(0,0)\}`$, the value $`2[b_i^1+b_j^12^1]^2`$ on $`(0,0)`$ and the value $`1`$ otherwise. Then $`\phi :(^2,\beta ^{})(^2,\beta )`$ is an orbifold covering, which proves (ii). To prove (iii) one applies the above argument with $`\phi :(x,y)^2(x^3,y^2)`$, $`b_1=3`$ and $`b_2=2`$. (Setting $`B_1^{}`$ to be the curve $`x^3=y^2`$, one has $`\phi (B_2^{})=B_2`$). ∎

Conventions. We shall almost exclusively be concerned with orbifolds $`(X,\beta )`$ with $`X`$ being a smooth algebraic surface. In most cases $`X`$ will be the projective plane $`^2`$. Since in this case $`\beta `$ is determined by its values $`b_i`$ on $`B_i\backslash \mathrm{sing}(B_\beta )`$, a smooth orbifold can alternatively be defined as a pair $`(X,B)`$ where $`B:=b_1B_1+\mathrm{}b_nB_n`$ is a divisor on $`X`$ with $`b_i1`$. For an orbifold $`(X,B)`$ the corresponding map $`X`$ will be denoted by $`\beta _B`$. The locus of the orbifold $`(X,B)`$ is the hypersurface $`BX`$.

### 2.1. Orbifold Chern numbers.

Let $`(^2,B)`$ be an orbifold where $`B=b_1B_1+\mathrm{}+b_nB_n`$ with $`B_i`$ being an irreducible curve of degree $`d_i`$.

Definition. The orbifold Chern numbers of $`(^2,B)`$ are defined as

$$c_1^2(^2,B):=\left[3+\underset{1in}{}d_i\left(1b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)\right]^2$$

$$e(^2,B):=3\underset{1in}{}\left(1b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)e(B_i\backslash \mathrm{sing}(B))\underset{p\mathrm{sing}(B)}{}\left(1\beta _B(p)^1\right)$$

If $`(M,1)(^2,\beta )`$ is a finite uniformization of degree $`d`$ then the Chern numbers of $`M`$ are given by $`e(M)=de(^2,B)`$ and $`c_1^2(M)=dc_1^2(^2,B)`$.

In dimension 2, an orbifold $`(X,\beta )`$ is said to be of general type if it is uniformized by a surface of general type. In the context of the following theorem, this simply means that $`(X,\beta )`$ is not uniformized by $`^2`$.

###### Theorem 3 (Kobayashi, Nakamura, Sakai \[KNS\]).

Let $`(^2,B)`$ be an orbifold of general type. Then $`c_1^2(^2,B)3e(^2,B)`$, the equality holding if and only if $`(^2,B)`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

In fact, the KNS theorem is proved in greater generality then its version stated above; in particular it is valid for orbifolds $`(^2,\beta )`$ with at worst “log-canonical singularities” and $`\beta `$ being a function $`^2\mathrm{}`$. This implies that in Lemma 1 (i) one may have $`b_i^1+b_j^1+b_k^1=1`$ with $`\beta (p)=\mathrm{}`$, in (ii) one may have $`b_i^1+b_j^1=1/2`$ with $`\beta (p)=\mathrm{}`$ and in (iii) one may have $`b_i^1=1/6`$ with $`\beta (p)=\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`M`$ be an algebraic surface with $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as the universal covering. Then by the Hirzebruch proportionality \[H1\] one has $`c_1^2(M)=2e(M)`$. Similarly if an orbifold $`(X,\beta )`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ then by Selberg’s theorem the corresponding transformation group has a torsion-free normal subgroup of finite index $`d`$, which implies that $`(X,\beta )`$ admits a finite uniformization $`MX`$ of degree $`d`$. Since $`M`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, one has $`dc_1^2(X,\beta )=c_1^2(M)=2e(M)=2de(X,\beta )`$.

## 3. The Apollonius configuration

Let $`A_n:=QT_1\mathrm{}T_n`$ be an arrangement consisting of a smooth quadric $`Q`$ with $`n`$ distinct tangent lines of $`Q`$. Since there are only two tangent lines to a quadric from a point $`^2\backslash Q`$, the lines $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$ meets each other one by one. The configuration space of $`A_n`$’s is naturally identified with the configuration space $`_n`$ of $`n`$ distinct points in $`^1`$, via the contact points of the tangent lines with the quadric $`Q^1`$. Since the space $`_n`$ is connected, any two arrangements $`A_n`$ with $`n`$ fixed are isotopic in $`^2`$. In particular fundamental groups of their complements are isomorphic, see Theorem 6 for a presentation of this group. In \[HV\], the configuration $`A_3`$ was named the Apollonius configuration and studied from the orbifold point of view.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`Q^2`$ be a smooth quadric. Then there is a uniformization $`\psi :Q\times Q(^2,2Q)`$. Let $`pQ`$ and put $`T_p^v:=\{p\}\times Q`$, $`T_p^h:=Q\times \{p\}`$. Then $`T_p:=\psi (T_p^h)=\psi (T_p^v)^2`$ is a line tangent to $`Q`$ at the point $`pQ`$.

###### Proof.

Since any two smooth quadrics are projectively equivalent, it suffices to prove this for a given quadric. Consider the $`/(2)`$-action defined by $`(x,y)^1\times ^1(y,x)^1\times ^1`$. The diagonal $`Q=\{(x,x):x^1\}`$ is fixed under this action. Let $`x=[a:b]^1`$ and $`y=[c:d]`$, then the symmetric polynomials $`\sigma _1([a:b],[c:d]):=ad+bc`$, $`\sigma _2([a:b],[c,d]):=bd`$, $`\sigma _3([a:b],[c:d]):=ac`$ are invariant under this action, and the Viéte map

$$\psi :(x,y)^1\times ^1[\sigma _1(x,y):\sigma _2(x,y):\sigma _3(x,y)]^2$$

is a branched covering map of degree 2. The branching locus $`^2`$ can be found as the image of $`Q`$. Note that the restriction of $`\psi `$ to the diagonal $`Q`$ is one-to-one, so that one can denote $`\psi (Q)`$ by the letter $`Q`$ again. One has $`\psi (Q)=[2ab:b^2:a^2]`$ ($`[a:b]^1`$), so that $`Q`$ is a quadric given by the equation $`4yz=x^2`$. One can identify the surface $`^1\times ^1`$ with $`Q\times Q`$, via the projections of the diagonal $`Q^1\times ^1`$. Let $`pQ`$, and put $`T_p^h:=Q\times \{p\}`$, $`T_p^v:\{p\}\times Q`$. Then $`T_p:=\psi (T_p^h)=\psi (T_p^v)^2`$ is a line tangent to $`Q`$. Indeed, if $`p=[a:b]`$, then $`\psi (T_p^h)`$ is parametrized as $`[cb+da:db:ca]`$ ($`[c:d]^1`$), and can be given by the equation $`b^2z+a^2yabx=0`$, which shows that $`T_p`$ is tangent to $`Q`$ at the point $`[2ab:b^2:a^2]`$.

Consider the pair $`(^2,aQ+b_1T_1+\mathrm{}+b_nT_n)`$. By Lemma 1 this is an orbifold provided $`1/a+1/b_i1/2`$. Denote

$$𝒜(a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n):=(^2,aQ+b_1T_1\mathrm{}+b_nT_n)$$

###### Theorem 4.

Suppose that $`n>1`$ and if $`n=2`$ then $`b_1=b_2`$. Then there is a finite uniformization $`\xi :R\times R𝒜(2;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$, the Riemann surface $`R`$ being a uniformization of $`(Q,b_1p_1+\mathrm{}+b_np_n)`$, where $`p_i:=T_iQ`$. Moreover;
(i) If $`n=2`$ and $`b:=b_1=b_2<\mathrm{}`$ or $`n=3`$ and $`b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^1>1`$ then $`R^1`$. Furthermore, one has $`|\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(2;b,b))|=2b^2`$ and $`|\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(2;b_1,b_2,b_3))|=8[b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^11]^2`$ (see Figure 2)
(ii) If $`n=2`$, $`b_1=b_2=\mathrm{}`$ or $`n=3`$ and $`b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^1=1`$ or $`n=4`$ and $`b_1=b_2=b_3=b_4=2`$ then $`R`$ is elliptic. In this case the universal uniformization of $`𝒜`$ is $`\times `$ (see Figure 1)
(iii) Otherwise $`R`$ is of genus$`>1`$ and the universal uniformization of $`𝒜`$ is $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2, the lifting of $`𝒜(2a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ to the uniformization of $`𝒜(2)=(^2,2Q)`$ is the orbifold (see Figure 1)

$$(a,b_1,\mathrm{},b_n):=(Q\times Q,aQ+\underset{1in}{}b_i(T_{p_i}^v+T_{p_i}^h))$$

Consequently, there is a covering $`\psi :(a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)𝒜(2a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$.

Consider the case $`a=2`$, and denote $`^{}(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n):=(1;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$. Then $`^{}=𝒮\times 𝒮`$, where $`𝒮`$ is the one-dimensional orbifold $`𝒮(b_1,\mathrm{}b_n):=(Q,b_1p_1+\mathrm{}+b_np_n)`$. Recall that $`Q^1`$. Assume that $`n>1`$ and if $`n=2`$, then $`b_1=b_2`$. Then $`𝒮`$ admits a finite uniformization $`f:R𝒮`$ by the Bundgaard-Nielsen-Fox theorem (\[BuNi\],\[F\]). The Riemann surface $`R`$ is of genus $`0`$, $`1`$ or $`>1`$ according to the conditions stated in the theorem. It is well known that in case $`R^1`$ the degree of $`f`$ is the order of the triangle group $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒮)`$, which is $`b^2`$ if $`n=2`$, $`b:=b_1=b_2<\mathrm{}`$ and is $`2[b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^11]^1`$ if $`n=3`$, $`b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^1>1`$.

The map $`\zeta :(x,y)R\times R(f(x),f(y))𝒮\times 𝒮^{}`$ is a uniformization of $`^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(\zeta )=\mathrm{deg}(f)^2`$. Since $`\zeta `$ is compatible with the involution on $`^{}`$, the composition $`\xi :=\psi \mathrm{o}\zeta :R\times R𝒜`$ is a Galois uniformization of $`𝒜`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(\xi )=\mathrm{deg}(\psi )\mathrm{deg}(\zeta )=2\mathrm{deg}(f)^2.`$

The orbifolds in Figure 3 were discovered in \[KTY\], where a complete classification of the orbifolds $`(^2,D)`$ uniformized by $`\times `$ was also given. Besides these ones there are two other orbifolds, which we shall rediscover in Section 4.

### 3.1. Chern numbers of the orbifolds $`𝒜(a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$

By definition, the Chern numbers of $`𝒜(a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ are given by

$$c_1^2(𝒜)=\left[n12a^1\underset{1in}{}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right]^2$$

$`e(𝒜)={\displaystyle \frac{(n1)(n2)}{2}}+(2n)a^1+{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}(2n)b_i^1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{1ijn}{}}b_i^1b_j^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}\left[b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}+a^12^1\right]^2`$
###### Proposition 1.

For the orbifold $`𝒜(a;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$, one has
(i) $`2e=c^2`$ if and only if $`a=2`$ or $`n=4`$, $`b_1=b_2=b_3=b_4=2`$ or $`n=3`$, $`(a;b_1,b_2,b_3)=(3;2,3,4)`$.
(ii) $`e=c^2=0`$ if and only if $`n=2`$, $`a=2`$; $`b_1=b_2=\mathrm{}`$ or $`n=3`$, $`a=2`$; $`b_1^1+b_2^1+b_3^1=1`$ or $`n=4`$, $`a=2`$; $`b_1=b_2=b_3=b_4=2`$.
(iii) $`3e=c_1^2>0`$ if and only if $`n=3`$ and $`(a;b_1,b_2,b_3)`$ is one of $`(4;4,4,4)`$, $`(3;3,4,4)`$, $`(3;6,6,2)`$ or $`(3;6,3,3)`$.
(iv) $`c_1^2=0`$ and $`e>0`$ if and only if $`n=2`$, and $`(a;b_1,b_2)`$ is one of $`(4;4,4)`$, $`(3;6,6)`$, $`(6;3,3)`$ or $`n=3`$ and $`(a;b_1,b_2,b_3)`$ is one of $`(4;2,2,2)`$ or $`(3;3,2,2)`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`\beta =_{1in}b_i^1`$ and $`\alpha :=\beta a^1`$. We shall prove the following splitting formulas for the difference of the Chern numbers of $`𝒜`$, the claims of the proposition follows easily from these formulas.

(2)
$$2(2ec_1^2)(𝒜)=(a^12^1)\left[n(2a^1+3)4\beta 4(2a^1+1)\right]$$

(3)
$$8(3ec_1^2)(𝒜)=(2\alpha +52n)^2+3(n3)\left(2a^11\right)^2$$

To prove (2), first note that

$$c_1^2(𝒜)=(n1)^2+4a^2+\beta ^24(n1)a^12(n1)\beta +4a^1\beta $$

and

$`2e(𝒜)=(n1)(n2)+2(2n)a^1+2\beta (2n)+2{\displaystyle \underset{1ijn}{}}b_i^1b_j^1+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}\left[b_i^2+a^2+2^2+2b_i^1a^1b_i^1a^1\right]^2`$
$$=(n1)(n2)+\frac{n}{4}+2(2n)a^1+2\beta (2n)+\beta ^2+na^2na^1+2\beta a^1\beta $$

which gives

(4)
$$(2ec_1^2)(𝒜)=1\frac{3n}{4}+na^1+\beta +(n4)a^22a^1\beta $$

The formula (2) is easily seen to be equivalent to (4). The formula (3) is proved similarly, by using the above expressions for $`e(𝒜)`$ and $`c_1^2(𝒜)`$. ∎

The orbifolds (i)-(ii) in Proposition 1 were shown to be uniformizable in Theorem 4. Orbifolds $`𝒜(a;2,2,2,2)`$ will be shown to be uniformizable in Proposition 2 below. We don’t know if the orbifold $`𝒜(3;2,3,4)`$ in $`(i)`$ is uniformizable. The uniformizability by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of the orbifolds (iii) follows from the KNS theorem \[KNS\] or from \[Ho\], where it is also shown that the corresponding lattices are arithmetic. As for the orbifolds (iv), it will be shown elsewhere that the orbifolds $`𝒜(4;4,4)`$, $`𝒜(3;6,6)`$ and $`𝒜(6;3,3)`$ are not uniformizable, and that the orbifold $`𝒜(3;3,2,2)`$ is uniformized by a K3 surface. The universal uniformization of the orbifold $`𝒜(4;2,2,2)`$ is a K3 surface, and the group $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(4;2,2,2))`$ is finite of order 256, see Proposition 3.

### 3.2. Another orbifold covering of $`𝒜`$

Let $`𝒜=(^2,aQ+_{1in}b_iT_i)`$ be an orbifold over the Apollonius configuration with $`n3`$. Suppose without loss of generality that the lines $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$ are defined by the equations $`x=0`$, $`y=0`$, and $`z=0`$. Let $`k`$ and consider the orbifold $`(^2,kT_1+kT_2+kT_3)`$. This orbifold admits the uniformization $`\phi _k:[x,y,z]^2[x^k,y^k,z^k]^2`$. Denote by $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ the lines $`\phi _k^1(T_1)`$, $`\phi _k^1(T_2)`$ and $`\phi _k^1(T_3)`$ respectively. For $`i4`$, $`T_i`$ is given by the equation $`\alpha x+\beta y+\gamma z=0`$, then $`T_{i,k}:=\phi _k^1(T_i)`$ is the Fermat curve given by the equation $`\alpha x^k+\beta y^k+\gamma z^k=0`$.

The equation of the quadric $`Q`$, tangent to the lines $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$ can be written in the form

(5)
$$Q:\alpha ^{}x^{1/2}+\beta ^{}y^{1/2}+\gamma ^{}z^{1/2}=0,$$

where $`\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}0`$. This shows that for $`k`$ odd, $`Q_k:=\phi _k^1(Q)`$ is an irreducible curve given by the equation $`\alpha ^{}x^{k/2}+\beta ^{}y^{k/2}+\gamma ^{}z^{k/2}=0`$, and for $`k=2m`$ even, $`\phi _k^1(Q)`$ consists of four Fermat curves $`Q_{1,k}`$, $`Q_{2,k}`$, $`Q_{3,k}`$, $`Q_{4,k}`$ given by the equations $`\alpha ^{}x^m\underset{¯}{+}\beta ^{}y^m\underset{¯}{+}\gamma ^{}z^m`$.

For $`k`$ odd, define the orbifolds

$$𝒞_k(a;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n):=(^2,aQ_k+eX+fY+gZ+\underset{i=4}{\overset{n}{}}b_iT_{i,k}),$$

and for even $`k=2m`$, define the orbifolds

$`𝒞_k(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n):=`$
$`(^2,{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}a_jQ_{j,k}+eX+fY+gZ+{\displaystyle \underset{i=4}{\overset{n}{}}}b_iT_{i,k})`$
With these notations, one has the following obvious lemma:

###### Lemma 3.

(i) For $`k`$ odd, there is an orbifold covering

$$\phi _k:𝒞_k(a;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)𝒜(a;ke,kf,kg;b_4,\mathrm{}b_n).$$

(ii) For $`k`$ even, there is an orbifold covering

$$𝒞_k(a,a,a,a;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)𝒜(a;ke,kf,kg;b_4,\mathrm{}b_n).$$

The covering map $`\phi _2`$ and the orbifold $`𝒞_2`$ are particularly interesting. In this case, $`L_1:=Q_{1,2}`$, $`L_2:=Q_{2,2}`$, $`L_3:=Q_{3,2}`$, $`L_4:=Q_{4,2}`$ are four lines given by the equations $`\alpha ^{}x\underset{¯}{+}\beta ^{}y\underset{¯}{+}\gamma ^{}z`$. Since $`abc0`$, the points $`L_iL_j`$ lie on the smooth points of $`xyz=0`$. The curves $`T_{i,2}`$ are smooth quadrics for $`i4`$. Each $`T_{i,2}`$ has the four lines $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, $`L_3`$, $`L_4`$ as tangents. In particular, for $`n=3`$ one has the lines $`L_i`$ ($`i\{1,2,3,4\}`$) and the lines $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$, forming an arrangement of 7 lines with 6 triple points and 3 nodes.

For $`n=4`$, the curve $`T_{4,2}`$ is a quadric, and the lines $`L_i`$ ($`i\{1,2,3,4\}`$) are tangent to this quadric, in other words $`𝒞_2(b,b,b,b;1,1,1;2)𝒜(2;b,b,b,b)`$. This proves the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.

There is a covering $`\phi _2:𝒜(2;b,b,b,b)𝒜(b;2,2,2,2)`$. Hence the orbifolds $`𝒜(b;2,2,2,2)`$ are uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for $`b>2`$ .

For the orbifolds $`𝒜(a;2,2,2)`$ one has

###### Proposition 3.

The group $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(a;2,2,2))`$ is finite of order $`4a^3`$. There is a universal uniformization $`M_a𝒜(a;2,2,2)`$ such that

$$e(M_a)=a(a^24a+6),c_1^2(M_a)=a(4a)^2.$$

In particular, $`𝒜(4;2,2,2)`$ is uniformized by a $`K3`$ surface.

###### Proof.

The orbifold $`𝒞_2(a,a,a,a;1,1,1)`$ admits a universal uniformization of degree $`a^3`$ since its locus consists of the lines $`L_i`$ $`(1i4)`$ in general position and $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒞_2(a,a,a,a;1,1,1))/(a)/(a)/(a)`$. Composing this with the covering $`𝒞_2(a,a,a,a;1,1,1)𝒜(a;2,2,2)`$ gives the desired result. ∎

## 4. Coverings of the orbifolds uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

###### Theorem 5.

(i) The orbifolds $`𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;e,1,1)`$ are uniformized by $`^1\times ^1`$ (see Figure 7)
(ii) The orbifolds $`𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;2,2,1)`$ and $`𝒞_3(2;1,1,1)`$ are uniformized by $`\times `$ (see Figure 7)
(iii) Otherwise, $`𝒞_k(2,2,2,2;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (see Figure 8).

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3, for $`k`$ even there is a covering

$$𝒞_k(2,2,2,2;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)𝒜(2;ek,fk,gk;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n),$$

and for $`k`$ odd there is a covering

$$𝒞_k(2,2,2,2;e,f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)𝒜(2;ek,fk,gk;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n).$$

On the other hand, by Theorem 4, the orbifolds $`𝒜(2;ek,fk,gk,b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ are uniformized by $`^1\times ^1`$, $`\times `$, or $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ according to the conditions stated in the theorem.

Consider the line arrangement $`\{L_1,L_2,L_3,L_4,X,Y,Z\}`$. The lines $`\{L_1,`$ $`L_2,L_3,`$ $`L_4,X,Y\}`$ forms a complete quadrilateral, i.e. an arrangement of six lines with four triple points and three nodes. The triple points of the complete quadrilateral can be given as $`L_1L_2Y`$, $`L_2L_3X`$, $`L_3L_4Y`$ and $`L_4L_1X`$, in this case the nodes are $`XY`$, $`L_1L_3`$ and $`L_2L_4`$. The line $`Z`$ passes through the nodes $`L_1L_3`$ and $`L_2L_4`$. Take the lines $`\{L_1,L_2,X\}`$, which do not meet at a triple point, and consider the uniformization map $`\gamma _2:^2(^2,mL_1+mL_2+mX)`$. Then $`\gamma _2^1(L_3)`$ (or $`\gamma _2^1(L_4)`$ or $`\gamma _2^1(Y)`$) will consist of $`m`$ lines, forming an arrangement of $`3m`$ lines with $`m^2`$ triple points and three points of multiplicity $`m`$. The curve $`Z^{}:=\gamma _2^1(Z)`$ will be a smooth Fermat curve of degree $`m`$. In the particular case where $`m=2`$, let

$$\{L_3^{},L_3^{\prime \prime }\}:=\gamma _2^1(L_3),\{L_4^{},L_4^{\prime \prime }\}:=\gamma _2^1(L_4),\{Y^{},Y^{\prime \prime }\}:=\gamma _2^1(Y),$$

and define the orbifold $`𝒟(a_1,a_2;a_3^{},a_3^{\prime \prime };a_4^{},a_4^{\prime \prime };e;f^{},f^{\prime \prime };g)`$ as

$$(^2,a_1L_1^{}+a_2L_2^{}+a_3^{}L_3^{}+a_3^{\prime \prime }L_3^{\prime \prime }+a_4^{}L_4^{}+a_4^{\prime \prime }L_4^{\prime \prime }+eX^{}+f^{}Y^{}+f^{\prime \prime }Y^{\prime \prime }+gZ^{})$$

so that there is a covering of orbifolds

(6)
$$𝒟(a_1,a_2;a_3,a_3;a_4,a_4;e;f,f;g)𝒞_2(2a_1,2a_2,a_3,a_4;2e,f,g)$$

In particular there is a covering

(7)
$$𝒟(1,1;2,2;2,2;1;2,2;1)𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;2,2)$$

The locus of the orbifold $`𝒟(1,1;2,2;2,2;1;2,2;1)`$ consists of the lines $`\{L_3^{},L_3^{\prime \prime },L_4^{},L_4^{\prime \prime },Y^{},Y^{\prime \prime }\}`$. Since the lifting $`\gamma _2^1(L_3L_4Y)`$ consist of four triple points, these lines forms an arrangement of 6 lines with 4 triple points, which is the complete quadrilateral. In other words, one has an isomorphism $`𝒟(1,1;2,2;2,2;1;2,2;1)𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;2,2,1))`$. The orbifolds $`𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;2e,2f,g;b_4,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ can be lifted recursively by these coverings $`𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;2,2,1)𝒞_2(2,2,2,2;2,2,1)`$. The lifted orbifolds provide many examples of orbifolds $`(^2,D)`$ uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. In Figure 9, we have shown an orbifold obtained this way, namely the orbifold $`𝒟(1,1;2,2;2,2;1;2,2;2)`$. Now one can take another set of three lines that do not meet at a triple point and lift this orbifold to the corresponding covering $`^2^2`$.

Consider the covering $`𝒞_4(2,2,2,2)𝒜(2;4,4,4)`$. The curves $`Q_{4,1}`$, $`Q_{4,2}`$, $`Q_{4,3}`$, $`Q_{4,4}`$ are smooth quadrics, such that $`Q_{4,i}Q_{4,j}`$ consists of exactly two points, and $`Q_{4,i}Q_{4,j}Q_{4,k}=\mathrm{}`$ for $`1ijk4`$. Explicitly, these quadrics can be given by the equations $`\alpha ^{}x^2\underset{¯}{+}\beta ^{}y^2\underset{¯}{+}\gamma ^{}z^2=0`$. Since the orbifold $`𝒜(2;4,4,4)`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, so is the orbifold $`𝒞_4(2,2,2,2)`$.

The orbifolds $`𝒜(2;b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$ can be lifted to the uniformizations by K3 surfaces $`X_i`$ of the orbifolds given in the following lemma, yielding infinitely many examples of orbifolds $`(X_i,D)`$ uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}\times 𝐁_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, with $`X_i`$ ($`i\{1,2,3\}`$) being a K3 surface.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`T_i`$ ($`1i6`$) be six lines in $`^2`$ in general position. Then the orbifolds

$$\begin{array}{c}_1:=(^2,6T_1+6T_2+6T_3+2T_4),\\ _2:=(^2,4T_1+4T_2+4T_3+4T_4),\\ _3:=(^2,2T_1+2T_2+2T_3+2T_4+2T_5+2T_6)\end{array}$$

are uniformized by K3 surfaces.

###### Proof.

Lifting $`_1`$ to the uniformization of $`(^2,6T_1+6T_2+6T_3)`$ yields an orbifold $`(^2,2T_{4,6})`$ where $`T_{4,6}`$ is a smooth sextic. This latter orbifold clearly admits a universal uniformization by a K3 surface. Similarly, lifting $`_2`$ to the uniformization of $`(^2,4T_1+4T_2+4T_3)`$ yields an orbifold $`(^2,4T_{4,4})`$ where $`T_{4,4}`$ is a smooth quartic, which clearly admits a universal uniformization by a K3 surface. The case of the orbifold $`_3`$ is well known, see e.g. \[Hu\].

Proof of Theorem 2 The orbifold $`(^2,2Q_m)`$ is a lifting of the orbifold $`𝒜(2;m,m,m)`$ to the uniformization of $`(^2,mT_1+mT_2+mT_3)`$. For $`i\{1,2,3\}`$, let $`p_i:=QT_i`$. Then the orbifold $`(^2,mT_1+mT_2+mT_3)`$ restricts to $`Q`$ as the orbifold $`𝒮(m,m,m):=(Q,mp_1+mp_2+mp_3)`$, provided that $`m`$ is an odd integer. The restriction of $`\phi _m`$ to $`Q`$ shows that there is a uniformization $`Q_m𝒮(m,m,m)`$ by an abelian map of degree $`m^2`$, and consequently there is a uniformization of degree $`m^4`$

$$\zeta :Q_m\times Q_m𝒮(m,m,m)\times 𝒮(m,m,m)$$

On the other hand, with the notations of Section 3 there is a covering

$$\psi :𝒮(m,m,m)\times 𝒮(m,m,m)𝒜(2;m,m,m)$$

Taking the above uniformization of $`𝒮(m,m,m)`$, we see that there is a Galois covering $`\psi \mathrm{o}\zeta :Q_m\times Q_m𝒜(2;m,m,m)`$. The map $`\psi \mathrm{o}\zeta `$ is of degree $`2m^4`$. Let $`G`$ be the corresponding Galois group.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(^2,2Q_m)& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& Q_m\times Q_m\\ & & \\ \phi _m& & \zeta \\ & & \\ 𝒜(2;m,m,m)& \stackrel{\psi }{}& 𝒮(m,m,m)\times 𝒮(m,m,m)\end{array}$$

We want to show that the uniformization $`Q_m\times Q_m𝒜(2;m,m,m)`$ lifts to a uniformization of $`(^2,2Q_m)`$. This is equivalent to showing that

$$H:=(\psi \mathrm{o}\zeta )_{}(\pi _1(Q_m)\times \pi _1(Q_m))\mathrm{}K:=(\phi _m)_{}(\pi _1^{orb}(^2,2Q_m))$$

The quotient of $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(2;m,m,m))`$ by the normal subgroup generated by the meridians of $`Q`$ gives the group

$$\pi _1^{orb}(^2,mT_1+mT_2+mT_3)/(m)/(m)$$

Since this is the Galois group of $`\phi _m`$, the group $`K`$ is the normal subgroup of $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(2;m,m,m))`$ generated by the meridians of $`Q`$. Note that since $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(2;m,m,m))/K`$ is abelian, $`K`$ should contain the commutators $`[\tau _i,\tau _j]`$, for all meridians $`\tau _i`$ of $`T_i`$ and $`\tau _j`$ of $`T_j`$. On the other hand, the quotient of $`\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(2;m,m,m))`$ by the normal subgroup generated by the meridians of $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$ gives the group $`\pi _1^{orb}(^2,2Q)/(2)`$, which shows that $`\psi _{}(\pi _1^{orb}(S(m,m,m)\times S(m,m,m)))`$ is the normal subgroup of $`𝒜(2;m,m,m)`$ generated by the meridians of $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$. Since

$$\zeta :Q_m\times Q_mS(m,m,m)\times S(m,m,m)$$

is the maximal abelian covering, the group $`H`$ is the normal subgroup of $`𝒜(2;m,m,m)`$ generated by the commutators of the meridians of $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_3`$. This proves that $`H`$ is a normal subgroup of $`K`$. ∎

Double covers of $`^2`$ branched along the curves $`Q_m`$ were also studied in \[P\]. For a discussion of the groups $`\pi _1(^2\backslash Q_m)`$ see Section 7.

## 5. Coverings of the orbifolds $`𝒜`$ uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$

Coverings of $`𝒜(3;6,3,3)`$.
There is a covering $`\phi _3:𝒞_3(3;2,1,1)𝒜(3;3,3,6)`$. More explicitly, $`𝒞_3(3,2,1,1)`$ is the orbifold $`(^2,3Q_m+2X)`$, where $`Q_m`$ is the nine-cuspidal sextic, and $`X`$ is a line passing through three of its cusps.

Coverings of $`𝒜(3;6,6,2)`$.
There is a covering $`\phi _2:𝒞_2(3,3,3,3;3,3,1)𝒜(3;6,6,2)`$. More explicitly, one has, as in Section 4,

$$𝒞_2(3,3,3,3;3,3,1):=(^2,3L_1+3L_2+3L_3+3L_4+3X+3Y),$$

where the set of lines $`\{L_1,L_2,L_3,L_4,X,Y\}`$ forms a complete quadrilateral. Keeping the notations of Section 4, consider the uniformization map $`\gamma _3:^2(^2,3X+3Y+3L_1)`$. The lifting $`\gamma _3^1(L_2)`$ consists of three lines $`L_{2,1}`$, $`L_{2,2}`$ and $`L_{2,3}`$ which meet at the point $`\gamma _3^1(L_{1,2}L_{2,2}Y)`$. Similarly, the lifting $`\gamma _3^1(L_{4,2})`$ consists of three lines $`L_{4,1}`$, $`L_{4,2}`$, $`L_{4,3}`$ which meet at the point $`\gamma _3^1(L_{4,2}L_{1,2}X)`$. The lifting $`\gamma _3^1(L_{3,2})`$ is a smooth cubic $`L_{3,1}`$, and it is readily seen by local considerations that for $`i\{1,2,3\}`$ the lines $`L_{2,i}`$, $`L_{4,i}`$ are tangent to $`L_{3,1}`$ with multiplicity 3. The points $`\gamma _3^1(L_{2,2}L_{4,2})`$ lifts as the nine points of intersection $`L_{2,i}L_{2,j}`$ ($`i,j\{1,2,3\}`$). This shows that the lift of $`𝒞_2(3,3,3,3;3,3,1)`$ along $`\gamma _3`$ is the orbifold

$$(^2,3L_{3,1}+3L_{2,1}+3L_{2,2}+3L_{2,3}+3L_{4,1}+3L_{4,2}+3L_{4,3})$$

with 2 points of type $`x^3=y^3`$, nine points of type $`x^2=y^2`$, and 6 points of type $`x^6=y^2`$.

Lifting this orbifold once more to the uniformization of $`(^2,3L_{2,1}+3L_{2,2}+3L_{4,1})`$ yields an arrangement of a smooth curve $`L_{3,1,1}`$ of degree 9 with two smooth cubics $`L_{4,2,1}`$ and $`L_{4,3,1}`$ and three lines $`L_{2,3,1}`$, $`L_{2,3,2}`$, $`L_{2,3,3}`$. These lines meet at a point, and intersects the two cubics at $`18`$ nodes. The cubics are tangent to each other at 3 points with multiplicity 3. Cubics and lines altogether intersect the degree-9 curve at 27 distinct points of type $`x^6=y^2`$.

Returning again to the orbifold $`𝒞_2(3,3,3,3;3,3,1)`$, consider the uniformization map $`\sigma _3:^2(^2,3L_1+3L_2+3X)`$. One has

$$\sigma _3lift(𝒞(3,3,3,3;3,3,1))=(^2,3K_1+3K_2+\mathrm{}+3K_9),$$

where the lines $`K_1,\mathrm{},K_9`$ forms a Ceva arrangement, which can be given by the equation $`(x^3y^3)(y^3z^3)(z^3x^3)=0`$. Suppose that $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$ do not meet at a triple point. Lifting this orbifold to the uniformization by $`^2`$ of $`(^2,3K_1+3K_2+3K_3)`$ yields an arrangement of nine lines with three smooth cubics. It is left to the reader to verify that this arrangement can be lifted once more to $`^2`$ in two different ways.

Coverings of $`𝒜(3;3,4,4)`$.
This orbifold (and the orbifold $`𝒜(3;6,6,2)`$) can be lifted to a K3 - uniformization of $`𝒜(3;3,2,2)`$. An example of a ball quotient orbifold over a K3 surface was also given in \[N\]. Recall that $`𝒜(3;3,4,2)`$ satisfy $`c_1^2=2e`$, but we don’t know whether it admits a uniformization. In case it does, $`𝒜(3;3,4,4)`$ lifts to this uniformization.

Coverings of $`𝒜(4;4,4,4)`$.
Lifting $`𝒜(4;4,4,4)`$ by $`\phi _4`$ gives the orbifold $`𝒞_4(4,4,4,4)`$ over four mutually tangent quadrics. It can also be lifted to the uniformization of $`𝒜(4;2,2,2)`$, which is a K3 surface. Note that by Theorem 4 the orbifold $`𝒜(2;4,4,4)`$ is uniformized by a product of two Riemann surfaces. The orbifold $`𝒜(4;4,4,4)`$ can also be lifted to this product.

Proof of Theorem 1 There is an orbifold covering

$$\mu _1:𝒞_2(4,4,4,4;2,2,2)𝒜(4;4,4,4),$$

where $`\mu _1`$ is a bicyclic covering of degree 4, branched along the dashed lines in the locus of $`𝒜(4,4,4,4)`$ (see Figure 11). The lattices corresponding to both of the orbifolds $`𝒜(4;4,4,4)`$ and $`𝒪_1:=𝒞_2(4,4,4,4;2,2,2)`$ are known to be arithmetic, see \[Ho\] and \[DeMo\]. In the locus of the orbifold $`𝒪_1`$, take three dashed lines and mark the remaining lines with red and blue as in Figure 12. Consider the degree-4 bicyclic covering $`\mu _2:^2^2`$ branched along the dashed lines.

Since the orbifold $`𝒪_1`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, so is the orbifold $`𝒪_2:=\mu _2lift(𝒪_1)`$. Since the red lines pass through the intersection points of the dashed lines, the red lines will be lifted as 6 lines forming a complete quadrilateral. Since the blue line intersects the dashed lines at three distinct points, its lifting will be a smooth quadric. Two dashed lines with weight 4 also lifts as two lines, and their weight becomes 2 (see Figure 12). Now redraw the locus of the orbifold and mark the curves in this locus as in Figure 13.

Consider the degree-4 bicyclic covering $`\mu _3:^2^2`$ branched along the dashed lines. Since the orbifold $`𝒪_1`$ is uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, so is the orbifold $`𝒪_3:=\mu _3lift(𝒪_2)`$. Let us describe the locus of $`𝒪_3`$. Since the red lines pass through the intersection points of the dashed lines, they will lift as 6 lines, forming a complete quadrilateral. Denote these lines by $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_6`$. The pink line also pass through an intersection point of the dashed lines, so it will lift as two lines $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. Green line intersects the dashed lines at three distinct points, so its lifting will be a smooth quadric $`G`$. The blue quadric will be lifted as a quartic curve $`B`$ (which is in fact irreducible with two nodes). The dashed line with weight four will also lift as a line $`D`$ with weight 2. Hence, $`𝒪_3`$ is the orbifold

$$(^2,4R_1+4R_2+4R_3+4R_4+2R_5+2R_6+2P_1+2P_2+4G+2B+2D)$$

Consider the complete quadrilateral formed by the lines $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_6`$. Suppose that the lines $`R_1,R_3,R_5`$ meets at a point. Then the lines $`R_2,R_4,R_6`$ intersect each other at three distinct points. Let $`\mu _4`$ be the degree-4 bicyclic covering $`\mu _4:^2^2`$ branched along $`R_2,R_4,R_6`$. Consider the orbifold $`𝒪_4:=\mu _4lift(𝒪_3)`$. Since the lines $`R_1,R_3,R_5`$ pass through the intersection points of $`R_2,R_4,R_6`$, they fill be lifted as 6 lines forming a complete quadrilateral, so that the locus of $`𝒪_4`$ will contain a complete quadrilateral. Now one can recursively apply this proces to get an infinite series $`𝒪_r`$ of orbifolds uniformized by $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Let $`\mu _r:𝒪_r𝒪_{r1}`$ be the $`r+1`$th covering in the recursion. Consider the blue quadric in the locus of $`𝒪_2`$. Mark a curve in the locus of $`𝒪_r`$ with blue if $`\mu _r(C)`$ is blue. During the recursion, one may assume that $`\mu _r`$ is never branched along a blue curve. Such a covering has the effect of multiplying the total degree of blue curves by two. Hence, the degree of the locus of $`𝒪_r`$ is $`2^r`$, which shows that among $`𝒪_r`$ there are infinitely many distinct orbifolds. ∎

Remarks. (1) For $`r2`$, the uniformizations $`𝐁_\mathrm{𝟐}𝒪_r`$ take place outside of finitely many cusp points. Indeed, the orbifold $`𝒪_2`$ has cusp points only and locally an orbifold-covering of a cusp point is also a cusp point. But since $`𝒪_r𝒪_{r1}`$ is an orbifold covering, singular points of $`𝒪_r`$ are locally coverings of the singular points of $`𝒪_{r1}`$.
(2) One may apply the recursion described above in many different ways, for example taking three lines in the locus of $`𝒪_2`$, which are tangent to the blue quadric and lifting $`𝒪_2`$ to the bicyclic covering $`^2^2`$ branched along these lines gives another infinite series of ball-quotient orbifolds.
(3) The orbifold $`𝒜(4;4,4,4)`$ is invariant under a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$-action on $`^2`$, and the quotient orbifold $`𝒬:=𝒜(4;4,4,4)/\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ (with a singular base space $`^2/\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$) is the “queen” of the orbifolds constructed above. Its locus consists of two rational curves, one is the image of the quadric, and the other is the image of the tangent lines.

## 6. Fundamental groups

A presentation of the group $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_n)`$ is known, see \[ATU\] and see \[Be1\], \[Be2\], \[L\] for generalizations.

###### Theorem 6.

One has the presentation

(8)
$$\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_n)\begin{array}{c}\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n,\hfill \\ \kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _n\hfill \end{array}|\begin{array}{cc}\kappa _i=\tau _i\kappa _{i1}\tau _i^1,2in\hfill & \\ (\kappa _i\tau _i)^2=(\tau _i\kappa _i)^2,1in\hfill & \\ [\kappa _i^1\tau _i\kappa _i,\tau _j]=1,1i<jn\hfill & \\ \tau _n\mathrm{}\tau _1\kappa _1^2=1\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`\kappa _i`$ are meridians of $`Q`$ and $`\tau _i`$ is a meridian of $`T_i`$ for $`1in`$.

Note that $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_n)`$ is the braid group on two strands of the punctured sphere $`Q\backslash \{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. For small $`n`$, its presentation can be simplified:

###### Corollary 1.

\[ATU\] (i) The group $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_1)`$ is abelian.
(ii) \[DOZ\] The group $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_2)`$ admits the presentation $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_2)\tau ,\kappa |(\tau \kappa )^2=(\kappa \tau )^2`$, where $`\kappa `$ is a meridian of $`Q`$ and $`\tau `$ is a meridian of $`T_1`$. A meridian of $`T_2`$ is given by $`\kappa ^2\tau ^1`$.
(iii) \[Deg\] The group $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_3)`$ admits the presentation $`\pi _1(^2\backslash 𝒜_3)\tau ,\sigma ,\kappa |(\tau \kappa )^2=(\kappa \tau )^2,(\sigma \kappa )^2=(\kappa \sigma )^2,[\sigma ,\tau ]=1`$, where $`\sigma `$, $`\tau `$ are meridians of $`T_1`$ and $`T_3`$ respectively, and $`\kappa `$ is a meridian of $`Q`$. A meridian of $`T_2`$ is given by $`(\kappa \tau \kappa \sigma )^1`$.

###### Corollary 2.

One has the presentation

$$\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(a;b_1,b_2,b_3))\kappa ,\tau ,\sigma \begin{array}{c}(\tau \kappa )^2=(\kappa \tau )^2,(\sigma \kappa )^2=(\kappa \sigma )^2,\\ [\sigma ,\tau ]=\kappa ^a=\tau ^{b_1}=\sigma ^{b_2}=(\kappa \tau \kappa \sigma )^{b_3}=1\end{array}$$

Fundamental groups of almost all the curves or arrangements appearing in this article is a subgroup of this group. In particular, there is an exact sequence

$$0\pi _1(^2\backslash Q_m)\pi _1^{orb}(𝒜(\mathrm{};m,m,m))/(m)/(m)0$$

In \[C\], a presentation of $`\pi _1(^2\backslash Q_m)`$ was computed from this exact sequence by using the Reidemeister-Schreier algorithm. A presentation of the group $`\pi _1(^2\backslash Q_3)`$ was found by Zariski \[Za\], see also \[K\].

## 7. Final remarks

Let $`C^2`$ be an irreducible curve with $`\kappa `$ simple cusps $`\nu `$ nodes and no other singularities. The Euler number of the orbifold $`(^2,bC)`$ ($`b\{2,3,4,5,6\}`$) is

$$e(^2,bC)=e(^2\backslash C)+\frac{e(C\backslash \text{Sing}(C))}{b}+\frac{3\kappa }{2}\left[\frac{1}{b}\frac{1}{6}\right]^2$$

Considering $`C`$ as a subset of $`^2`$, one has $`e(C)=d^2+3d+2\kappa +\nu `$, so that $`e(^2\backslash C)=3+d^23d2\kappa \nu `$. Setting $`e(C\backslash \text{Sing}(C))=e(C)\kappa \nu `$ gives

$$e(^2,mC)=3+d^23d2\kappa \nu +\frac{d^2+3d+\kappa }{b}+\frac{\nu }{b^2}+\frac{3\kappa }{2}\left[\frac{1}{b}\frac{1}{6}\right]^2$$

On the other hand, the first Chern number of this orbifold is

$$c_1^2(^2,bC)=\left[3+d\left(1\frac{1}{b}\right)\right]^2$$

Let $`g`$ be the genus of $`C`$. It is easy to show that there exists infinitely many five-tuples $`(d,\kappa ,\nu ,b,g)`$ with $`(3ec_1^2)(^2,bC)=0`$. Some examples are given in the table below. The first curve in the table is the 9-cuspidal sextic. We don’t know whether the other curves exists.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}& d\hfill & \kappa \hfill & \nu \hfill & b\hfill & g\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \text{1}\hfill & 6\hfill & 9\hfill & 0\hfill & 2\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \text{2}\hfill & 7\hfill & 11\hfill & 3\hfill & 2\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \text{3}\hfill & 8\hfill & 17\hfill & 0\hfill & 2\hfill & 4\hfill \\ \text{4}\hfill & 9\hfill & 18\hfill & 7\hfill & 2\hfill & 3\hfill \\ \text{5}\hfill & 9\hfill & 18\hfill & 8\hfill & 4\hfill & 2\hfill \\ \text{6}\hfill & 10\hfill & 23\hfill & 8\hfill & 2\hfill & 5\hfill \\ \text{7}\hfill & 11\hfill & 32\hfill & 3\hfill & 2\hfill & 10\hfill \\ \text{8}\hfill & 11\hfill & 23\hfill & 19\hfill & 2\hfill & 3\hfill \\ \text{9}\hfill & 12\hfill & 36\hfill & 8\hfill & 2\hfill & 11\hfill \\ \text{10}\hfill & 12\hfill & 36\hfill & 10\hfill & 4\hfill & 9\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cccccc}& d\hfill & \kappa \hfill & \nu \hfill & b\hfill & g\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \text{11}\hfill & 12\hfill & 27\hfill & 24\hfill & 2\hfill & 4\hfill \\ \text{12}\hfill & 13\hfill & 44\hfill & 7\hfill & 2\hfill & 15\hfill \\ \text{13}\hfill & 13\hfill & 35\hfill & 23\hfill & 2\hfill & 8\hfill \\ \text{14}\hfill & 13\hfill & 26\hfill & 39\hfill & 2\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \text{15}\hfill & 14\hfill & 56\hfill & 0\hfill & 2\hfill & 22\hfill \\ \text{16}\hfill & 14\hfill & 47\hfill & 16\hfill & 2\hfill & 15\hfill \\ \text{17}\hfill & 14\hfill & 38\hfill & 32\hfill & 2\hfill & 8\hfill \\ \text{18}\hfill & 14\hfill & 29\hfill & 48\hfill & 2\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \text{19}\hfill & 15\hfill & 63\hfill & 3\hfill & 2\hfill & 25\hfill \\ \text{20}\hfill & 15\hfill & 64\hfill & 3\hfill & 3\hfill & 24\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cccccc}& d\hfill & \kappa \hfill & \nu \hfill & b\hfill & g\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \text{21}\hfill & 15\hfill & 54\hfill & 19\hfill & 2\hfill & 18\hfill \\ \text{22}\hfill & 15\hfill & 45\hfill & 35\hfill & 2\hfill & 11\hfill \\ \text{23}\hfill & 15\hfill & 36\hfill & 51\hfill & 2\hfill & 4\hfill \\ \text{24}\hfill & 15\hfill & 40\hfill & 51\hfill & 6\hfill & 0\hfill \\ \text{25}\hfill & 16\hfill & 74\hfill & 0\hfill & 2\hfill & 31\hfill \\ \text{26}\hfill & 16\hfill & 65\hfill & 16\hfill & 2\hfill & 24\hfill \\ \text{27}\hfill & 16\hfill & 56\hfill & 32\hfill & 2\hfill & 17\hfill \\ \text{28}\hfill & 16\hfill & 47\hfill & 48\hfill & 2\hfill & 10\hfill \\ \text{29}\hfill & 16\hfill & 38\hfill & 64\hfill & 2\hfill & 3\hfill \\ \text{30}\hfill & 17\hfill & 80\hfill & 7\hfill & 2\hfill & 33\hfill \end{array}$$

Acknowledgements. This work was partially achieved during the author’s post-doctorate stay in the Emmy Noether Research Institute for Mathematics (center of the Minerva Foundation in Germany), and was partially supported by the Excellency Center “Group Theoretic Methods in the Study of Algebraic Varieties” of the Israel Science Foundation, and by EAGER (EU network, HPRN-CT-2009-00099). The author is grateful to Meirav Amram, Prof. Mina Teicher and to the Emmy Noether Research Institute for their hospitality. The author also expresses his gratitude to the Referee of Math. Annalen for his remarks.

Galatasaray University, Department of Mathematics, 80840 Ortaköy /Istanbul, TURKEY
email : muludag@gsu.edu.tr


format: text

text:
# Magnetic helicity evolution during the solar activity cycle: observations and dynamo theory

## 1 Introduction

The solar activity cycle is widely believed to be connected with dynamo action which occurs somewhere inside the solar convective zone or even in the overshoot layer. Starting from the seminal paper of Parker (1955), various dynamo models have been suggested for the solar cycle (see e.g. Rüdiger & Brandenburg 1995; Sofia et al. 1998; Tavakol et al. 2002; Brooke et al. 2002; also Blackman & Brandenburg 2003, whose dynamo model of solar cycle also includes magnetic helicity balance). These models exploit particular parameterizations for sources of the dynamo activity, i.e. the $`\alpha `$-effect, which in turn is connected with the mean hydrodynamic helicity $`\chi ^v`$ of the convective motions, and acts in conjunction with the nonuniform rotation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If the dynamo action is strong enough, a dynamo wave propagating somewhere inside the convective shell is excited. It is necessary to include some saturation mechanism to get a (quasi)stationary wave which can be compared with the observed activity cycle, instead of a dynamo wave with an exponentially growing amplitude. In principle, the phenomenology of the solar cycle can be reproduced using a very primitive $`\alpha `$-quenching model of dynamo saturation, with the energy of the dynamo generated magnetic field achieving approximate equipartition with the kinetic energy of the random motions.

A deeper treatment of solar dynamo saturation requires however some ideas concerning the physical processes that give rise to quenching of the generation mechanism. A scenario of dynamo saturation which is now widely discussed is connected with the concept of magnetic helicity. The point is that the weakest link in the dynamo self-excitation chain, i.e. $`\alpha `$, is a pseudoscalar quantity and cannot be directly connected with the magnetic energy, which is a scalar (not pseudoscalar) quantity. A magnetic helicity $`\chi ^m`$ can however be introduced to describe the level of magnetic field mirror-asymmetry and this quantity can be associated with the magnetic part of $`\alpha `$, i.e. $`\alpha ^m`$, which is thought to be responsible for $`\alpha `$-quenching.

The magnetic helicity $`\chi ^m`$ is an integral of motion for the ideal MHD equation, similar to the hydrodynamic helicity $`\chi ^v`$ which is conserved in the hydrodynamical case. During the solar activity cycle, magnetic helicity is redistributed between the large and small scale magnetic field. Based on this concept, a governing equation for $`\alpha ^m`$ has been suggested (Kleeorin & Ruzmaikin 1982; Kleeorin & Rogachevskii 1999). Together with the mean-field dynamo equations, this equation has solutions in form of a propagating steady dynamo wave (Kleeorin et al. 1994, 1995; Covas et al. 1998; Blackman & Brandenburg 2002).

For a long time, it was impossible to observe either the magnetic helicity $`\chi ^m`$ or the hydrodynamic helicity $`\chi ^v`$ and these values, crucial for dynamo theory, were taken from theoretical estimates only. In last decade, basic progress here has been achieved and the first observations of magnetic helicity in active regions on the solar surface have been obtained (Pevtsov et al. 1994, 1995; Zhang & Bao 1998, 1999; Canfield & Pevtsov 1998; Longcope et al. 1998). It is possible to some extent to isolate a latitudinal distribution of magnetic helicity averaged over a solar cycle (Zhang et al. 2002) as well as to follow the temporal evolution of magnetic helicity averaged over latitude. The obvious aim now is to confront predictions of dynamo theory concerning the latitudinal distribution of magnetic helicity and its evolution during a solar cycle with the corresponding observational data; this is the aim of the present paper. When carrying out our investigation, we take into account that the available data concerning magnetic helicity of the solar magnetic field are still quite uncertain, and it would be unrealistic to expect that more or less fine details can be isolated using this data. Correspondingly, we restrict ourself to a very crude theoretical model, that we confront with observations. Specifically, we simplify the mean-field dynamo equations at the level of the Parker migratory dynamo equations, and include the algebraic $`\alpha `$-quenching and the dynamic $`\alpha `$-quenching associated with magnetic helicity evolution as the only saturation mechanisms. Both hypotheses are obvious simplifications and there is no problem in principle in including many more realistic features into our dynamo model. However we consider that to be a topic for further work.

The other point to be clarified from the very beginning is the following. Magnetic helicity can be understood as a measure of the linkage of magnetic lines and it is necessary to reconstruct the complete 3D magnetic field structure to deduce this helicity from observations. Clearly, this is a very complicated observational problem and various intermediate quantities such as current helicity $`b(\times b)`$, i.e. the linkage between electric current lines, are used to this end (where $`b`$ represents magnetic fluctuations). These quantities are useful in theoretical studies of dynamo saturation also and we use them below. Our work needs a clear distinction between such concepts as $`\alpha `$-effect and the corresponding helicity, and between helicities of total magnetic field, large-scale magnetic field and small-scale magnetic field; these distinctions can be neglected to some extent in other areas of dynamo theory.

## 2 Magnetic and current helicity data obtained at the Huairou Solar Observing Station

The averaged value of the small-scale magnetic helicity, i.e. $`ab`$, evidently would be a convenient quantity to confront with a dynamo saturation scenario based on a magnetic helicity conservation argument. In practice however, the vector potential $`a`$, being a non-gauge invariant quantity is inconvenient observationally, and it is the current helicity $`b(\times b)=b_x(\times b)_x+b_y(\times b)_y+b_z(\times b)_z`$ which can be extracted from the observations (here $`x,y,z`$ are local cartesian coordinates connected with a point on the solar surface and the $`z`$-axis is normal to the surface). The observations are restricted to active regions on the solar surface and we obtain information concerning the surface magnetic field and helicity only. Monitoring of solar active regions while they are passing near to the central meridian of the solar disc enables observers to determine the full magnetic field vector. The observed magnetic field is subjected to further analysis to obtain the value $`\times b`$. Because it is calculated from the surface magnetic field distribution, the only electric current component that can be calculated is $`(\times b)_z`$. As a consequence of these restrictions, the observable quantity is

$$H_c=b_z(\times b)_z.$$
(1)
Because the surface magnetic field is almost force-free, it is also useful to consider the magnetic field twist $`a_{\mathrm{ff}}`$ (Woltjer, 1958) which is defined as the proportionality coefficient between magnetic field and electric current ($`𝐣=a_{\mathrm{ff}}𝐛`$). The observational restrictions discussed above imply that the observational equivalent of twist is

$$a_{\mathrm{ff}}=j_z/b_z.$$
(2)
The observational data used in our analysis were obtained at the Huairou Solar Observing station of the National Astronomical Observatories of China. The magnetographic instrument based on the FeI 5324 Å spectral line determines the magnetic field values at the photospheric level. The data are obtained from a CCD camera with $`512\times 512`$ pixels over the whole magnetogram, whose entire size is comparable with the size of an active region, as well as with the depth of the solar convective zone (about $`2\times 10^8`$ m). However, because of the observational technique, the line-of-sight field component $`b_z`$ can be determined with a much higher precision than the transverse components ($`b_x`$ and $`b_y`$). There are a number of other observational difficulties such as in resolving the so-called ‘$`180^{}`$ ambiguity’ in the direction of the transverse field etc. The observational technique is described in detail by Wang et al. (1996), see also Abramenko et al. (1996).

An observational programme to reveal the values of the twist and the current helicity density over the solar surface requires a systematic approach, both to the monitoring of magnetic fields in active regions and to the data reduction, in order to reduce the impact of noise. This work has been carried out by a number of research groups (e.g. Seehafer 1990; Pevtsov et al. 1994; Rust & Kumar 1996; Abramenko et al. 1997; Bao & Zhang 1998; Kuzanyan et al. 2000). While this work is still in progress, the largest systematic data-set of active regions presently available consists of 422 active regions over the 10 years 1988-1996 (Bao & Zhang 1998). We use averages and confidence intervals calculated from these data (Table 1). Note that both the averaged quantities of twist and current helicity density are positive/negative over Southern/Northern solar hemispheres respectively, and thus obey the so-called hemispheric rule (Table 2).

Observations at Huairou Observing Station also give dopplergrams of velocity fields $`v`$ over active regions from the FeI 5324 Å spectral line in the photosphere and from the $`H_\beta `$ line in the chromosphere. The processing of these data could provide values of $`v_zb_z`$ (which is related to the so-called cross-helicity) in the foreseeable future. However, at present this quantity is not available for statistical studies.

## 3 The dynamo model

We describe the solar dynamo by means of the mean-field equation (e.g. Moffatt 1978; Parker 1979; Krause & Rädler 1980; Zeldovich et al. 1983) which in general form is

$$\frac{B}{t}=\times (V\times B+\eta _\mathcal{0}\times ),$$
(3)
where $`V`$ is a mean velocity (e.g. the differential rotation), $`\eta _0`$ is the magnetic diffusion due to the electrical conductivity of the fluid, $`=𝓊\times 𝒷`$ is the mean electromotive force, $`u`$ and $`b`$ are fluctuations of the velocity and magnetic field respectively, and angular brackets denote averaging over an ensemble of fluctuations. The electromotive force $``$ can be separated into several contributions, which include the $`\alpha `$-effect, turbulent magnetic diffusivity $`\eta `$ and other terms such as the magnetic turbulent diamagnetic effect. For now, we restrict ourself to the two first terms, and consider $`\alpha `$ and $`\eta `$ to be isotropic quantities. We take the turbulent diffusivity as a prescribed quantity and take into account the nonlinearity of the $`\alpha `$-effect only, i.e. we use the parameterization

$$=\alpha ()\eta \times ,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ depends in principle on the entire evolution of the magnetic field, rather on its value in a given instant. This dependence is described by an evolution equation (such as Eqs. (8) and (13) below.)

Using spherical coordinates $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$, we represent an axisymmetric mean magnetic field as $`B=B_\varphi e_\varphi +\times (Ae_\varphi )`$. Following Parker (1955) we consider dynamo action in a thin convective shell, average $`A`$ and $`B_\varphi `$ over the depth of the convective shell and consider these quantities as functions of colatitude $`\theta `$ only. Then we neglect the curvature of the convective shell and replace it by a flat slab to get the following equations (we drop the suffix on $`B_\varphi `$ for the sake of brevity)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`gD\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{A}{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2B}{\theta ^2}}\mu ^2B,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha B+{\displaystyle \frac{^2A}{\theta ^2}}\mu ^2A,`$ (6)
(see Appendix A). Here we measure lengths in units of the solar radius and time in units of a diffusion time based on the solar radius and turbulent magnetic diffusivity. The terms $`\mu ^2B`$ and $`\mu ^2A`$ represent the role of turbulent diffusive losses in the radial direction – the value $`\mu =3`$ corresponds to a convective zone with a thickness of about 1/3 of the solar radius. $`g=\mathrm{\Omega }/r`$ is the radial shear of differential rotation. We neglect any latitudinal dependence of the rotation curve as well as the link between poloidal and toroidal magnetic field via the $`\alpha `$-effect, and so consider a simple $`\alpha \omega `$-dynamo. $`\alpha `$ and $`g`$ are normalized with respect to their maximal values and incorporated into the dimensionless dynamo number $`D`$, which gives the intensity of the dynamo action (see Sokoloff et al. 1995 for mathematical details of the derivation of Eqs. (5), (6) from Eqs. (3), (4)).

These equations are obviously oversimplified. Starting from the fundamental paper of Parker (1955) they can be used however to reproduce basic qualitative features of solar and stellar activity and appear to be viable for this purpose. Taking into account the nature of the approach, we use the simplest profiles of dynamo generators compatible with symmetry requirements, i.e. $`\alpha (\theta )=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`g=1`$.

The points $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =180^{}`$ correspond to North and South poles respectively. We take here zero boundary conditions for $`A`$ and $`B`$. (Because we neglect the convective shell curvature, these boundary conditions necessarily are approximate.) In principle, we could use a slightly more elaborate version of Eqs. (5), (6) which take into account some curvature effects, so the diffusion term becomes formally singular at the poles and a more realistic finiteness condition can be exploited (see Galitski & Sokoloff 1999). Magnetic helicity data are available for middle latitudes and the equatorial region ($`30^{}<\mathrm{\Theta }<30^{}`$ where the latitude $`\mathrm{\Theta }=90^{}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ corresponds to the equator) only and so here we are not very interested in details of dynamo wave behaviour near to the poles. We keep a factor $`\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ in Eq. (5) which reflects the fact that the length of the parallels $`\theta =\mathrm{const}`$ vanishes at the poles (Kuzanyan & Sokoloff 1995). Neglecting this term results in an unphysical coupling between the dynamo wave behaviour near to the pole and near to the equator.

We are interested in dynamo waves propagating from middle solar latitudes towards the equator. This corresponds to negative dynamo numbers provided $`\alpha `$ is chosen to be positive in the Northern hemisphere and $`g`$ is positive near to the solar equator. According to various models, the ranges of $`|D|10^310^6`$ can be considered as realistic for the solar case.

We nondimensionalize the dynamo equations by measuring length in units of the solar radius $`R`$, time in units of the turbulent magnetic diffusion time $`R^2/\eta `$, and the differential rotation $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ in units of the maximal value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. $`\alpha `$ is measured in units of the maximum value of the hydrodynamic part of the $`\alpha `$-effect.

It is convenient to present the dynamo number as $`D=R_\alpha R_\omega ,`$ where $`R_\alpha =\alpha R/\eta 1200`$ and $`R_\omega =\delta \mathrm{\Omega }R^2/\eta (14)\times 10^3`$ (where typical values of parameters have been used for these estimates) represent the contributions of the $`\alpha `$-effect and differential rotation, respectively. We use the equipartition magnetic field $`B_{}=u\sqrt{4\pi \rho }`$ as the unit of magnetic field. The vector potential of the poloidal field $`A`$ is measured in units of $`R_\alpha RB_{}`$, the density $`\rho `$ normalized to its value at the bottom of the convective zone, and the basic scale of the turbulent motions $`l`$ and turbulent velocity $`u`$ at the scale $`l`$ are measured in units of their maximum values through the convective region. The magnetic Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Rm}=lu/\eta _0`$ is defined using these maximal values. $`\eta =lu/3`$ is an estimate for the turbulent diffusivity.

We stress that all physical ingredients of the model vary more-or-less strongly with the depth $`h`$ below the solar surface and we have to use some average quantities in the Parker dynamo equations. We use mainly estimates of governing parameters taken from models of the solar convective zone (see, e.g., Spruit 1974 and Baker & Temesvary 1966; more modern treatments make little difference to these estimates). In particular, at depth $`h2\times 10^{10}`$ cm, $`\mathrm{Rm}210^9,`$ $`u2\times 10^3`$ cm s-1, $`l8\times 10^9`$ cm, $`\rho 2\times 10^1`$ g cm$`^3,`$ $`\eta 5.3\times 10^{12}`$ cm2s-1. The density stratification scale is estimated here as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho =\rho /|\rho |6.5\times 10^9`$ cm and the equipartition mean magnetic field $`B_{}=3000`$ G. In the upper part of the convective zone, say at depth $`h2\times 10^7`$ cm, these parameters are $`\mathrm{Rm}10^5,`$ $`u9.4\times 10^4`$ cm s-1, $`l2.6\times 10^7`$ cm, $`\rho 4.5\times 10^7`$ g cm$`^3,`$ $`\eta 0.8\times 10^{12}`$ cm2 s-1 and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho 3.6\times 10^7`$ cm; the equipartition mean magnetic field is $`B_{}=220`$ G here. This estimate for the equipartition magnetic field at the base of the convection zone $`(B_{}=3000`$ G) is roughly consistent with the magnetic field strength in sunspots (about 1 kG). However obviously it should be distinguished from the mean magnetic field at the solar surface; a deeper discussion of this distinction is outside of the scope of the paper. For the Parker migratory dynamo, the toroidal magnetic field usually dominates and below we ignore the poloidal magnetic field when calculating the magnetic energy.

## 4 The nonlinearities

A key idea of the dynamo saturation scenario exploited below is a splitting of the total $`\alpha `$ effect into the hydrodynamic ($`\alpha ^v`$) and magnetic ($`\alpha ^m`$) parts

$$\alpha (r,\theta )=\alpha ^v+\alpha ^m,$$
(7)
as first suggested by Frisch et al. (1975). We need to parameterize both contributions, $`\alpha ^v`$ and $`\alpha ^m`$, in terms of the magnetic field components and helicities. Two types of effect should be taken into account. First of all, the link between $`\alpha `$-effect and the relevant helicities can be modified by the dynamo-generated magnetic field. Correspondingly, we introduce quenching functions $`\varphi _v`$ ($`\alpha ^v=\chi ^v\varphi _v`$ with $`\chi ^v=(\tau /3)u(\times u)`$) and $`\varphi _m`$ ($`\alpha ^m=\chi ^c\varphi _m,`$ and $`\chi ^c`$ is defined below) to obtain $`\alpha =\chi ^v\varphi _v+\chi ^c\varphi _m,`$ where $`\tau `$ is the correlation time of the turbulent velocity field. The second problem to be addressed is that magnetic helicity is not a very convenient quantity because it involves a gauge-noninvariant quantity, i.e. the vector potential. We connect magnetic helicity with the current helicity $`b(\times b)`$, by using the approximation of locally homogeneous turbulent convection (see Kleeorin & Rogachevskii 1999). Then we need to obtain a quantity of suitable dimension, and introduce the density $`\rho `$ to obtain the correctly dimensioned $`\chi ^c(\tau /12\pi \rho )b(\times b)`$. Thus,

$$\alpha (r,\theta )=\chi ^v\varphi _v+\chi ^c\varphi _m.$$
(8)
The quenching functions $`\varphi _v`$ and $`\varphi _m`$ in Eq. (8) are given by

$`\varphi _v(B)`$ $`=`$ $`(1/7)[4\varphi _m(B)+3L(B)],`$ (9)
$`\varphi _m(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8B^2}}[1\mathrm{arctan}(\sqrt{8}B)/\sqrt{8}B]`$ (10)
(see Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2000, 2001), where $`L(B)=116B^2+128B^4\mathrm{ln}(1+1/(8B^2)).`$ Thus $`\varphi _v=1/(4B^2)`$ and $`\varphi _m=3/(8B^2)`$ for $`B1/3;`$ and $`\varphi _v=1(48/5)B^2`$ and $`\varphi _m=1(24/5)B^2`$ for $`B1/3.`$ Here $`\chi ^v`$ and $`\chi ^c`$ are measured in units of the maximal value of the $`\alpha `$-effect.

The function $`\varphi _v`$ describes conventional quenching of the $`\alpha `$ effect. A simple form of such a quenching, $`\varphi _v=1/(1+B^2),`$ was introduced long ago (see, e.g. Iroshnikov 1970). This form is quite close to the more sophisticated form presented in Eq. (9). The magnetic part $`\alpha ^m`$ includes two types of nonlinearity: the algebraic quenching described by the function $`\varphi _m`$ (see e.g. Field et al. 1999; Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2000, 2001) and the dynamic nonlinearity which is determined by Eq. (13).

The quenching of the $`\alpha `$-effect is caused by the direct and indirect modification of the electromotive force by the mean magnetic field. The indirect modification of the electromotive force is caused by the effect of the mean magnetic field on the velocity fluctuations and on the magnetic fluctuations, while the direct modification is due to the effect of the mean magnetic field on the cross-helicity (see, e.g., Rogachevskii & Kleeorin 2000, 2001).

We can calculate also the cross-helicity $`ub`$ which may in the future be compared with observational data

$`ub=(\eta /2)[3\mathrm{\Lambda }_u^1B_r+\varphi _{\mathrm{ch}}(B)(B)B^2],`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_u^1=|u^2|/u^2,`$ $`\varphi _{\mathrm{ch}}(B)=(2/35B^2)[(15+224B^2)\varphi _m(2B)+6L(2B)21],`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{ch}}(B)=128/5`$ for $`B1/3,`$ and $`\varphi _{\mathrm{ch}}(B)=3\pi /(20\sqrt{2}B^3)`$ for $`B1/3.`$ When deriving Eq. (11) we used Eqs. (A14)-(A17) and (A21) of Rogachevskii & Kleeorin (2001).

Now we need to average Eq. (8) over the depth of the convective zone. The first term in the averaged equation seems to be determined by the values taken at some sort of mean position in the convective zone, while the situation concerning the second term is much less clear, because the density used to calculate $`\chi ^c`$ decreases strongly with radius. The clarification of this problem is obviously beyond the Parker approximation; however to address this problem as far as it possible here we introduce a phenomenological parameter $`\sigma `$ by

$$\alpha (\theta )=\chi ^v\varphi _v+\sigma \chi ^c\varphi _m,$$
(12)
where the helicities and quenching functions are associated with some sort of mean position in the convective zone. We emphasize that below we consider $`\sigma `$ as a free parameter in the context of the averaging process used to derive the Parker equations; probably we can only safely assert that $`\sigma 1`$.

For the sake of brevity of notation, we keep in Eq. (12) the same notation as in Eqs. (7) and (8). We stress that now we consider a parameterization for helicities which depends on colatitude $`\theta `$ only. Of course, this is not more than a phenomenological description, to be improved in more detailed models of the nonlinear solar dynamo.

The function $`\chi ^c(B)`$ is determined by a dynamical equation which follows from the conservation law for magnetic helicity (see Kleeorin & Rogachevskii 1999). A general dimensional form of this equation reads

$$\frac{\chi ^c}{t}+\frac{\chi ^c}{T}=\frac{1}{9\pi \eta \rho _{}}(+\mathcal{\Phi })+\kappa \mathcal{\Delta }\chi ^𝒸.$$
(13)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }=C\chi ^v\varphi _vB^2l^2e_r/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$ is a nonadvective flux of the magnetic helicity (here $`e_r`$ is the unit vector in radial direction), $`\kappa \chi ^c`$ is the diffusive flux of the magnetic helicity (see Kleeorin & Rogachevskii 1999; Kleeorin et al. 2000; 2002; 2003), and $`T=l^2/\eta _0`$ is the relaxation time of magnetic helicity. Magnetic helicity transport through the boundary of a dynamo region is reported by Chae (2001) to be observable at the solar surface. We also take into account that for an axisymmetric problem the term which determines the advective flux of the magnetic helicity, $`(V\chi ^c),`$ vanishes ($`V=e_\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }r\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ is the differential rotation). The parameter $`C`$ is a numerical coefficient and $`\kappa `$ is of order $`\eta `$. In principle, these parameters can be calculated given some model of convection, however we here take into account our real level of knowledge and keep them as free parameters. Note that in estimating the helicity flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we have to include density gradients in the radial direction which are neglected in other parts of the analysis.

The physical meaning of Eq. (13) is that the total magnetic helicity is a conserved quantity and if the large-scale magnetic helicity grows with magnetic field, the evolution of the small-scale helicity should somehow compensate this growth. Compensation mechanisms include dissipation and various kinds of transport.

The dynamical equation (13) for the function $`\chi ^c(B)`$ in nondimensional form in the context of the Parker migratory dynamo reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{t}}`$ $`+`$ $`(T^1+\kappa \mu ^2)\chi ^c=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2R}{l}}\right)^2({\displaystyle \frac{A}{\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\theta }}B{\displaystyle \frac{^2A}{\theta ^2}}`$ (14)
$`\alpha B^2+2\mu ^2AB+CB^2\varphi _v\chi ^v(\theta ))+\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi ^c}{\theta ^2}}`$
(see Appendix A), where we have averaged Eq. (13) over the depth of the convective zone, so that the averaged value of $`T^1`$ is

$`T^1`$ $`=`$ $`H^1{\displaystyle T^1(r)𝑑r}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_lR^2\eta _0}{Hl^2\eta }}0.20.5,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ is the characteristic scale of the variations $`l,`$ $`T(r)=(\eta /R^2)(l^2/\eta _0)`$ is the nondimensional relaxation time of magnetic helicity, and the quantities $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l,\eta _0,l`$ in Eq. (15) are associated with the upper part of the convective zone. The parameters $`C`$ and $`\kappa `$ can be chosen as $`C(0.11)\times 10^1`$ and $`\kappa =0.11.`$ The factor $`10^1`$ in the coefficient $`C`$ arises from the parameter $`(l^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )/R0.1`$ (see Appendix A).

## 5 Results

We simulated numerically the model of the nonlinear solar dynamo based on the Parker approximation and conservation of magnetic helicity arguments, as presented in previous sections. We found that the model gives a stable nonlinear wave-type solution similar to the solar cycle phenomenology from the generation threshold of the nonlinear system ($`D_{\mathrm{nonl},\mathrm{crit}}940`$ with $`\sigma =\kappa =1,C=0.1`$) up to $`D=10^4`$. It is quite interesting that a slightly stronger generation is needed to get stable nonlinear oscillations with a nonvanishing amplitude than to excite the linear dynamo, where $`D_{\mathrm{crit}}910`$. The temporal behaviour of nonlinear dynamo waves is quite similar to that with the simple algebraic $`\alpha `$-quenching, and we give here, instead of quite standard plots, details of the cycle parameters in Table 3. A feature of the activity cycles illustrated by this Table is a transition from singly to doubly periodic solutions with growth of dynamo intensity.

In the present paper we have concentrated on the dynamics of the current helicity (which is proportional to the function $`\chi ^c`$) and its comparison with the observations. At the present state of observations we can compare latitudinal distributions of $`\chi ^c`$ averaged over the activity cycle or the temporal behaviour of $`\chi ^c`$ averaged over a hemisphere. Such comparisons are presented in Figs. 1–3 for $`D=10^3`$, $`\sigma =1`$, $`T=3`$, $`(2R/l)^2=300`$. In Figs. 1 and 3 the parameter $`\kappa =0.1`$. We restrict ourselves to discussing dynamo models with singly periodic behaviour (although there are hints of a double periodicity in the sunspot record). Two types of behaviour are demonstrated. Provided that $`C`$ is negative (magnetic helicity inflow, see Fig. 2b) or small and positive ($`C<0.1`$, moderate magnetic helicity outflow, see Fig. 2a) the value of $`\chi ^c`$ is always negative in the Northern hemisphere, in accordance with naive theoretical expectations as well as the available observations. If $`C`$ is large and positive (strong magnetic helicity outflow), we obtain a cycle during which $`\chi ^c`$ changes sign. Both types of behaviour are shown in Fig. 1, for $`C=0.01`$ (solid curve) and $`C=0.1`$ (broken). Comparing observational and theoretical results we have to fit the numerical data for $`\chi ^c`$ with its observational equivalent $`H_c`$. We normalize the data to make them equal at $`\mathrm{\Theta }=28^{}`$ ($`\chi ^c_{\mathrm{\Theta }=28^{}}=23.5H_c`$). Because of this fitting procedure, the agreement between the observational and numerical data is much better in the Northern hemisphere than in the Southern.

We illustrate the importance of the fitting procedure for various parameter sets in Fig. 2 where we give the results for $`C=0.01`$ in panel (a) and for $`C=0.1`$ in panel (b). The results for $`\kappa =0.1`$ are shown by broken curves and those for $`\kappa =1`$ by solid. Both cases represent a model which does not exhibit helicity reversals. We appreciate that the agreement between numerical and observational data in the Northern hemisphere can be partially attributed to the fitting procedure; however the agreement obtained looks quite impressive for the primitive models considered. A disagreement between the model and observations at $`\mathrm{\Theta }=4^{}`$ can be explained, for example, as a result of a non-perfect North-South symmetry in the observed cycle. We conclude from Fig. 2 that the minimal value of $`\chi ^c`$ decreases with $`\kappa `$; experience from numerical simulations show that it decreases with $`\sigma `$ as well. Note however that the contribution of $`\chi ^c`$ to the magnetic part of the $`\alpha `$-effect is determined by $`\sigma \chi ^c`$ and this value is more or less stable.

Moving to the comparison of the temporal helicity evolution presented in Fig. 3, we note that the fitting procedures now have to be more complicated. The first two measured points (1988-89) and (1990-91) with approximately equal values of the latitude-averaged $`H_c`$ are chosen to be located symmetrically about the minimum of the function $`\chi ^c`$ for $`\mathrm{\Theta }>0`$. The distance between the observational points is $`(2/11)(T_c/2)`$, where $`T_c`$ is the period of oscillations of the toroidal magnetic field. The fitting factor is $`44.3`$, determined by the condition $`\chi ^c_{t=3.527t_d}=44.3H_c_{t=1988}`$, where $`t_d`$ is the turbulent diffusion time at the bottom of the convective zone.

The point is that we can base the fitting procedure on a comparison between the simulated value of the toroidal magnetic field and some tracer of cyclic solar activity, say, the averaged group sunspot number $`R_g`$ (Hoyt et al. 1994)111The data for $`R_g`$ were taken from the URL ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/. This fitting is also shown in Fig. 3 as follows. The dashed-dotted line shows the time dependence of the latitude-averaged function $`6B^2`$ for the same parameters. The fitting factor $`6`$ is determined by the condition $`6B^2_{t=3.527t_d}=0.07.`$ The values $`R_g/2160`$ are shown in Fig. 3 by the filled diamonds. The fitting factor $`1/2160`$ is determined by the condition: $`R_g(t=1988)/2160=0.07.`$ (Our slightly awkward looking choice of scale for some of the quantities plotted in Fig. 3 arises because we choose to fit our model in the Northern hemisphere where $`\chi ^c`$ and $`H_c`$ are negative.)

It can be seen from Fig. 3 that the maxima of the magnetic energy $`B^2`$ nearly coincide with the minima of the function $`\chi ^c`$. A similar behaviour was observed also for the quantity $`R_g`$ (a tracer of cyclic solar activity) and $`H_c`$ (the tracer of the current helicity), cf. Bao & Zhang (1998).

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

We have presented above a simple model of the nonlinear solar cycle with a dynamo saturation mechanism based on magnetic helicity conservation. The model is obviously oversimplified, however it reproduces some features of real stellar cycles as far as they are known from, say, the Wilson sample data (Baliunas et al. 1995). In particular, we obtain both singly periodic and doubly periodic cycles. As expected from qualitative arguments as well from observational data (see e.g. Bruevich et al. 2001) the transition from singly periodic to doubly periodic cycles is associated with a general trend from cycles with smaller amplitude to those with larger amplitude.

Our model of dynamo saturation gives stable oscillations for a limited region of parameter space. If the dynamo generation becomes stronger the numerical solution runs away. On one hand, we have not included in the model all kinds of nonlinear dynamo saturation; e.g. buoyancy and spot formation obviously lead to some losses of toroidal magnetic field and thus contribute to dynamo saturation. In addition, increasing the dynamo number can reduce the radial spatial scale of the toroidal magnetic field and effectively enlarge the parameter $`\mu `$ which determines the toroidal magnetic field dissipation. If $`\mu `$ is independent of $`D`$, we thus artificially overestimate the generation effect for larger dynamo numbers. On the other hand, experience from dynamo simulations as well as observational data suggests that cyclic behaviour is typical for moderate dynamo action only and chaotic behaviour occurs when the dynamo action is stronger. It is more than natural to expect that a parameter range with chaotic temporal behaviour will also exist in our model.

We have concentrated our attention here on current helicity data, so a deeper comparison of the cycle parameters with observational data is beyond the scope of this paper. Also, we should keep in mind that we compare the simulated current helicity $`\chi ^c`$ with just one part of the surface current helicity $`b_z(\times b)_z`$.

The properties of current helicity simulated with our model have been compared with the available observational data. The results of this comparison look quite promising in spite of the quite limited extent of the observational data, as well as the crude nature of the model. We have been able to choose a set of governing parameters which give helicity properties comparable with the available phenomenology. From another viewpoint, the observational data are rich enough to indicate a disagreement between the available observations and the predictions of the model with other parameter sets.

The parameters which gives an agreement between simulations and observations are quite plausible. However we feel that it is too early to insist that this agreement is more than a coincidence. Really, we base our comparison on the 10 year observational data of one scientific team. We stress that an extension of the observational programme to cover several cycles as well the inclusion of data obtained by other scientific teams and from other tracers would be very important. In particular it would be valuable to include the cross-helicity data into the analysis.

Note, that although the available observations cover just the period of 10 years, these data extend over parts of two different solar cycles, namely the 22nd (1988-1995) and the 23rd (1996-1997). The available data suggest that the shape of the current helicity distribution is the same for both cycles, and further, more recent, current helicity studies (Bao et al. 2000; 2002) support this interpretation. In particular, the hemispheric rule is obeyed from cycle to cycle (e.g. Pevtsov et al. 2001).

We stress that the scenario described in the present paper does not include all possible types of nonlinear processes which can occur at the nonlinear stage of the dynamo (see, e.g., Brandenburg & Subramanian 2000; Brandenburg & Dobler 2001), but rather is restricted to a minimal number of processes involved in magnetic helicity conservation. In the spirit of the basic ideas about the nonlinear saturation of solar dynamos, the analysis presented here has been restricted to the evolution of $`\alpha `$ only, while detailed simulations (e.g. Blackman & Brandenburg 2002; Brandenburg & Sokoloff 2002) also demonstrate a quenching of the turbulent magnetic diffusivity. A quantitative model for a nonlinear quenching of turbulent magnetic diffusivity has been recently suggested by Rogachevskii & Kleeorin (2001) and used in a galactic dynamo model by Kleeorin et. al. (2003).

We appreciate that alternative interpretations for the current helicity observations could be suggested, e.g. helicity could in principle be produced during active region formation rather than being connected with the magnetic field properties in the region of intensive dynamo action. A development of such an alternative explanation to the point where it could be confronted with the observational data looks highly desirable.

We conclude with the expression of a guarded but real optimism that magnetic helicity observations can result in the foreseeable future in a new level of understanding in dynamo theory, which will base the accepted $`\alpha `$-profiles not only on order-of-magnitude arguments and numerical simulations, but also on the observational data. It would be very important to support this progress in solar dynamo theory by similar progress in other areas of dynamo theory, in particular for galactic dynamos. We mention in this respect a recent suggestion of Enßlin & Vogt (2003) concerning the possibility of observing the magnetic helicity of galactic magnetic fields.

###### Acknowledgements.

Financial support from NATO under grant PST.CLG 974737, RFBR under grants 03-02-16384, 01-02-17693, the RFBR-NSFC grant 02-02-39027 and the INTAS Program Foundation under grant 99-348 is acknowledged. DS and KK are grateful for support from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and NSFC towards their visits to Beijing.

## Appendix A The nonlinear system of dynamo equations

The system of nonlinear equations in nondimensional form for an axisymmetric mean magnetic field $`B=Be_\varphi +\times (Ae_\varphi )`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{t}}=D\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}A+\mathrm{\Delta }_sB,`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{t}}=\alpha B+\mathrm{\Delta }_sA,`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^c}{T}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2R}{l}}\right)^2(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (_sA)(_sB)B\mathrm{\Delta }_sA`$
$`\alpha B^2+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{R}}(l^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^1\chi ^v\varphi _vB^2e_r))+\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^c,`$ (18)
where $`\alpha =\chi ^v\varphi _v+\chi ^c\varphi _m/\rho (r),`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _s^2\mathrm{\Delta }1/(r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ),`$ and

$`B_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_\alpha }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}(\mathrm{sin}\theta A),B_\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{R_\alpha }{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rA),`$
$`_sA`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\left(e_r{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}(rA)+e_\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta }}(\mathrm{sin}\theta A)\right),`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Omega },Ar\mathrm{sin}\theta )}{(r,\theta )}}.`$
Now we consider dynamo action in a thin convective shell, average $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`\alpha `$ over the depth of the shell and consider these quantities as functions of colatitude $`\theta `$ only. Then we neglect the convection shell curvature and replace it by a flat slab. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=^2/\theta ^2\mu ^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _s=e_\theta (/\theta )+\mu e_r`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}A=g(A/\theta ).`$ We also redefine $`C\mu l^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho R`$ as $`C`$. This yields Eqs. (5), (6) and (14).