text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Most 10-dimensional non-supersymmetric superstring theories are plagued with tachyons, possibly endangering the consistency of the theory. This not-withstanding, they have become an active field of research mainly due to lessons learned from duality relations in the supersymmetric theories. One of the most studied examples, and subject of this paper, are the so-called Type 0 theories.

Type 0 theories can be obtained by a diagonal GSO projection on the superstring spectrum or by orbifolding the corresponding Type II theories by $`()^{F_s}`$, the total target space fermion number . Note that there are two Type IIB theories, denoted IIB+ and IIB-,333These are denoted IIB and IIB resp. in . which are related by spacetime parity and lead to the same Type 0B theory. From the supergravity point of view, IIB+ differs from IIB- in that IIB+ has a selfdual 5-form field strength whereas IIB- has an anti-selfdual 5-form field strength. Similar statements can be made for the Type IIA± theories and its relation to the unique Type 0A theory.

In the notation of , the spectrum of the Type 0 theories are represented as

$`0B`$ $`:`$ $`(NS_{},NS_{})(NS_+,NS_+)(R_+,R_+)(R_{},R_{}),`$
$`0A`$ $`:`$ $`(NS_{},NS_{})(NS_+,NS_+)(R_+,R_{})(R_{},R_+),`$ (1)
which then consists of a tachyon, the string common sector and a doubling, w.r.t. the analogous Type II theory, of the RR-fields. Since there is a doubling of the RR-fields, there is also a doubling of the D-brane content in the Type 0 theories.

In Ref.  the lowest order field contributions to the Type 0B string effective action were calculated from the appropriate string scattering amplitudes and, in our conventions , and using the diagonal basis of RR fields $`\{\widehat{C}_{(p+1)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(4)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(p+1)}^{}\}_{p=1,1}`$, the action reads

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{S}& =& d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}\{e^{2\widehat{\phi }}[\widehat{R}4(\widehat{\phi })^2+\frac{1}{23!}\widehat{}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{𝒯})^2V(\widehat{𝒯})]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +f_+(\widehat{𝒯})\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{G}_{(1)}^+\right)^2+\frac{1}{23!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(3)}^+\right)^2+\frac{1}{25!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+\right)^2\right]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +f_{}(\widehat{𝒯})[\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{G}_{(1)}^{}\right)^2+\frac{1}{23!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(3)}^{}\right)^2]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where the field strengths are defined by

$$\widehat{}=d\widehat{},\widehat{G}_{(n)}^\pm =d\widehat{C}_{(n1)}^\pm ,$$
(3)
the tachyon potential is

$$V(\widehat{𝒯})=\frac{1}{2}m^2\widehat{𝒯}^24c_1\widehat{𝒯}^4,m^2=2/\mathrm{}_s^2,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{}_s=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ is the string length. It was later argued in Ref.  that there should be no such a potential in Type 0 superstring effective actions. However, since the tachyon is inert under T-duality, the value of the tachyon potential $`V`$ will be immaterial in most of our discussion.

Finally, the functions $`f_\pm (\widehat{𝒯})`$ are given by

$$f_\pm (\widehat{𝒯})=1\pm \sqrt{2}\widehat{𝒯}+\widehat{𝒯}^2+𝒪\left(\widehat{𝒯}^4\right).$$
(5)
The RR fields are combinations of the $`(R_+,R_+)`$ and $`(R_{},R_{})`$ fields, denoted by $`C`$ resp. $`\overline{C}`$, that diagonalize the kinetic terms:

$$\sqrt{2}\widehat{C}_{(2n)}^\pm =\widehat{C}_{(2n)}\pm \widehat{\overline{C}}_{(2n)},$$
(6)
and we will denote a brane charged w.r.t. $`C_{(p+1)}^+`$ ($`C_{(p+1)}^{}`$) by a $`Dp_+`$-brane ($`Dp_{}`$-brane resp.).

The fields $`\widehat{C}_{(4)}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(4)}`$ have self- and anti-selfdual field strengths and deserve further discussion. In principle, as in the Type IIB± cases, it is not possible to write a kinetic term for neither of them separately without the help of auxiliary fields or without breaking covariance. Combining them, however, it is possible to write a kinetic term of the form $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(5)}`$. From this term one recovers a standard-looking equation of motion, but not self- or anti-self-duality which still has to be imposed by hand. It is easy to convince oneself that this cannot be done consistently in the presence of coupling to the tachyon: the equation of motion

$$d\left(f_+{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$
(7)
should give the Bianchi identity under the duality transformation, which has to be

$$f_+{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}=\widehat{G}_{(5)},$$
(8)
which is clearly inconsistent for non-constant $`f_+`$.

Another possibility is to combine both of them into a completely unconstrained 5-form field strength $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+`$ with standard kinetic term, as it has been done here in the action Eq. (2). All we require is that it leads to the right equations of motion associated to the propagators that can be calculated from string amplitudes. Defining

$$\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}f_+{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{+}.$$
(9)
we can immediately find an alternative to the action Eq. (2) in which all the kinetic terms of the fields with a minus superscript have a factor $`f_{}\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)`$ except for $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$ that carries a factor $`f_+^1\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)`$.

Yet another possibility, which we will use later on, is to write an almost standard kinetic terms for $`\widehat{C}_{(4)}^+`$ and $`\widehat{C}_{(4)}^{}`$ with the understanding that self- and anti-self-duality have to be imposed on the subsequent equations of motion. In this case, the kinetic term would be

$$d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\left\{f_+\frac{1}{45!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+\right)^2+f_+^1\frac{1}{45!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}\right)^2\right\},$$
(10)
and we would impose Eq. (59) as a constraint. This non-selfdual (NSD) action would be a generalization of the Type IIB one . Eliminating the $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$ combination with the above constraint would take us to Eq. (2). Eliminating $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+`$ would give us the alternative action in terms of $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$.

A further remark must be made: the Type 0 theories have to be invariant under a $`_2`$ group associated to $`()^{f_L}`$, the worldsheet fermion number. This implies that the effective action should be invariant under the transformation $`\widehat{𝒯}\widehat{𝒯}`$ combined with an interchange of the +\- and - fields. A quick look at Eq. (2) then reveals that this can only be true if

$$f_+\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)=f_{}\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right).$$
(11)
Furthermore, since in the interchange of the +\- and - fields $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+`$ is transformed into $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$, it is clear that the action is not strictly invariant under this transformation. Actually, it takes us to the alternative action444We could also say that the transformation has to be supplemented by a dualization of $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$ to be a symmetry of the action. but with the 5-form kinetic term carrying a tachyon factor $`f_+\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)`$ instead of $`f_+^1\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)`$. This implies that

$$f_+\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)=f_+^1\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)=f_{}\left(\widehat{𝒯}\right).$$
(12)
These constraints, which will also coincide with the constraints coming from T-duality, determine to some extent the form of the functions $`f`$, as we will discuss later.

Due to the similarity of Type 0B with Type IIB we expect more terms in the RR field strengths and a Chern-Simons term in the action. These terms could in principle be determined from more complicated string amplitudes, but we are going to try to determine as many as we can of these additional terms by imposing T-duality between the Type 0B and Type 0A string effective actions using dimensional reduction as in Refs. . This is our main goal. The Type 0A string effective action has not been calculated from first principles as yet. However, it is clear that the tachyon-independent part of the NSNS sector effective action (the so-called “common sector”) is identical to the Type 0B one. Furthermore, it is also clear that T-duality acts on this sector according to the usual Buscher rules555In closed string theory, T-duality is always a symmetry that interchanges momentum and winding modes associated to a given compact direction whose radius is simultaneously inverted. It is worth remarking that the string effective action does not contain any field associated to these modes (they are massive). One could take into account massive Kaluza-Klein (momentum) modes arising in the compactification of the massless fields contained in the effective action, but there is no known way to take into account winding modes, which are stringy (not field-theoretical) objects. Given this fact, one may wonder how, if at all, can the string effective action give a description of T-duality. The answer lies in the observation that all Kaluza-Klein modes are charged with respect to the massless Kaluza-Klein vector coming from the metric while all winding modes are charged with respect to the winding vector coming from the Kalb-Ramond 2-form. The interchange of momentum and winding modes implies the interchange of the Kaluza-Klein and winding vectors of the string effective action. Furthermore, the inversion of the radius is expressed in the effective action as the inversion of the Kaluza-Klein scalar that measures that radius. The transformation of the remaining massless fields follows from these and from covariance. This is the content of the Buscher rules and this is why they have to take the same form in the NSNS sector of any closed string theory effective action.  which also implies that the tachyon is invariant under T-duality. We are going to show that these facts, plus our knowledge of the field content of the Type 0A theory and its T-duality relation to the Type 0B theory is enough to determine the effective action of both the Type 0A and Type 0B theories to identical orders in the fields.

In the next section we are going to reduce first the Type 0B action Eq. (2) to nine dimensions. From the form of the 9-dimensional action plus the T-duality invariance of the tachyon field we will immediately be able to derive an effective action for the Type 0A theory, including tachyon couplings about which we will obtain more information. Next, we will notice that we need additional terms in the RR field strengths to establish T-duality with the Type 0A effective action. This will follow from our knowledge of Buscher’s rules in the NSNS sector. The introduction of the new terms on the RR field strengths will also force us to introduce a Chern-Simons term.

## 1 The Type 0A action and T-duality

As was said above, the Type 0A action has not been calculated from first principles, although such an action was proposed in Ref. . In this section we will use T-duality as a guideline for the construction of the Type 0A effective action. We will leave the construction of the massive theory for section (2).

### 1.1 Reduction to $`d=9`$ of the Type 0B Effective Action

Our Kaluza-Klein Ansatz to reduce the the Type 0B action Eq. (2) in the direction of the coordinate $`y=x^9`$ will be similar to the one used in establishing Type IIA/B T-duality in Ref.  (identical in the NSNS sector, actually). The relation between the 10-dimensional fields

$$\{\widehat{ȷ},\widehat{},\widehat{\phi },\widehat{𝒯},\widehat{C}_{(0)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(0)}^{},\widehat{C}_{(2)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(2)}^{},\widehat{C}_{(4)}^+\},$$
(13)
and the 9-dimensional fields

$$\{g,B,A^{(1)},A^{(2)},k,\varphi ,T,C_{(0)}^+,C_{(1)}^+,C_{(2)}^+,C_{(3)}^+,C_{(4)}^+,C_{(0)}^{},C_{(1)}^{},C_{(2)}^{},\},$$
(14)
is, in the NSNS sector

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill \widehat{ȷ}_{\mu \nu }& =& g_{\mu \nu }k^2A^{(2)}{}_{\mu }{}^{}A_{}^{(2)}{}_{\nu }{}^{},\hfill & \hfill \widehat{}_{\mu \nu }& =& B_{\mu \nu }+A^{(1)}{}_{[\mu }{}^{}A_{}^{(2)}{}_{\nu ]}{}^{},\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill \widehat{ȷ}_{\mu \underset{¯}{y}}& =& k^2A^{(2)}{}_{\mu }{}^{},\hfill & \hfill \widehat{}_{\mu \underset{¯}{y}}& =& A^{(1)}{}_{\mu }{}^{},\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill \widehat{ȷ}_{\underset{¯}{yy}}& =& k^2,\hfill & \hfill \widehat{\phi }& =& \varphi \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}k,\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill \widehat{𝒯}& =& T,\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(15)
and, in the RR sector

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{C}_{(2n)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n}}^\pm \hfill & =& C_{(2n)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n}}^\pm 2nA^{(2)}{}_{[\mu _1}{}^{}C_{(2n1)\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2n}]}^{\pm },\hfill \\ & & \\ \widehat{C}_{(2n)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n1}\underset{¯}{y}}^\pm \hfill & =& C_{(2n1)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n1}}^\pm .\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The field strengths are related, in flat indices, by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{}_{abc}& =& H_{abc},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \widehat{}_{aby}& =& kF^{(1)}{}_{ab}{}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
where

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H& =& dB\frac{1}{2}A^{(1)}F^{(2)}\frac{1}{2}A^{(2)}F^{(1)},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F^{(1,2)}& =& dA^{(1,2)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
in the NSNS sector and by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{G}_{(2n+1)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n+1}}^\pm & =& G_{(2n+1)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n+1}}^\pm ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \widehat{G}_{(2n+1)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n}y}^\pm & =& kG_{(2n)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n}}^\pm ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
where

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}G_{(2n+1)}^\pm \hfill & =& dC_{(2n)}^\pm +F^{(2)}C_{(2n1)}^\pm ,\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{(2n)}^\pm \hfill & =& dC_{(2n1)}^\pm ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
in the RR sector. The reduced action is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& =& d^9x\sqrt{|g|}\{e^{2\varphi }[R4(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{23!}H^2+(\mathrm{log}k)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}k^2\left(F^{(1)}\right)^2\frac{1}{4}k^2\left(F^{(2)}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}(T)^2V(T)]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +f_+(T)[\frac{1}{2}k^1\left(G_{(1)}^+\right)^2\frac{1}{4}k\left(G_{(2)}^+\right)^2+\frac{1}{23!}k^1\left(G_{(3)}^+\right)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{24!}k\left(G_{(4)}^+\right)^2+\frac{1}{25!}k^1\left(G_{(5)}^+\right)^2]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +f_{}(T)[\frac{1}{2}k^1\left(G_{(1)}^{}\right)^2\frac{1}{4}k\left(G_{(2)}^{}\right)^2+\frac{1}{23!}k^1\left(G_{(3)}^{}\right)^2]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
### 1.2 The Type 0A Effective Action and its Reduction to $`d=9`$

We should compare the above action with the dimensionally reduced Type 0A effective action which we do not know in detail. Let us summarize our knowledge of this action: first of all, it contains the same 10-dimensional NSNS fields as the Type 0B action and all of them (except, possibly, the tachyon) appear in it in identical fashion. This implies that the T-duality rules in this sector will be Buscher’s and also implies that the tachyon will appear also in the same form and will be invariant under T-duality (its reduction is trivial).

As for the RR fields, the Type 0A string effective action contains 2 1-forms, and 2 3-forms:666There must be a massive extension of the Type 0A theory, with two constant field strengths $`\widehat{G}_{(0)}`$ and $`\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(0)}`$. We will consider it later. $`\widehat{C}_{(1)},\widehat{C}_{(3)},\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(1)},\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(3)}`$ that may couple to the tachyon as in the Type 0B case. Whatever the couplings to the tachyon are, we can always diagonalize the kinetic terms. We denote the potentials in the diagonal basis by $`\widehat{C}_{(1)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(3)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(1)}^{},\widehat{C}_{(3)}^{}`$ but we will not make any assumption about the relation with the original potentials. It is now evident that the fields with index $`+`$ (resp. $``$) will couple to the tachyon through $`f_+(\widehat{T})`$ (resp. $`f_{}(\widehat{T})`$), since otherwise it would be impossible to get the reduced action Eq. (21).

Thus, to the order considered, the Type 0A string effective action must be of the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{S}_{0A}& =& d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}\{e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}[\widehat{R}4(\widehat{\varphi })^2+\frac{1}{23!}\widehat{H}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{T})^2V(\widehat{T})]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +_{\alpha =+,}f_\alpha (\widehat{T})[\frac{1}{4}\left(\widehat{G}_{(2)}^\alpha \right)^2\frac{1}{24!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(4)}^\alpha \right)^2]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where the field strengths are defined as in Eq. (3) and the tachyon potential and coupling functions are identical to those of the Type 0B theory.

Let us now reduce this action to 9-dimensions in the direction of the coordinate $`x`$. The relation between the 10-dimensional fields

$$\{\widehat{g},\widehat{B},\widehat{\varphi },\widehat{T},\widehat{C}_{(1)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(3)}^+,\widehat{C}_{(1)}^{},\widehat{C}_{(3)}^{}\},$$
(23)
and the 9-dimensional fields

$$\{g,B,A^{(1)},A^{(2)},k,\varphi ,T,C_{(0)}^+,C_{(1)}^+,C_{(2)}^+,C_{(3)}^+,C_{(0)}^{},C_{(1)}^{},C_{(2)}^{},C_{(3)}^{}\},$$
(24)
is, in the NSNS sector777We use the T-dual KK Ansatz. This ensures that the resulting 9-dimensional actions are the same in stead of being related by $`kk^1`$ and $`A^{(1)}A^{(2)}`$.

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }& =& g_{\mu \nu }k^2A^{(1)}{}_{\mu }{}^{}A_{}^{(1)}{}_{\nu }{}^{},\hfill & \hfill \widehat{B}_{\mu \nu }& =& B_{\mu \nu }A^{(1)}{}_{[\mu }{}^{}A_{}^{(2)}{}_{\nu ]}{}^{},\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill \widehat{g}_{\mu \underset{¯}{x}}& =& k^2A^{(1)}{}_{\mu }{}^{},\hfill & \hfill \widehat{B}_{\mu \underset{¯}{x}}& =& A^{(2)}{}_{\mu }{}^{},\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill \widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{xx}}& =& k^2,\hfill & \hfill \widehat{\varphi }& =& \varphi +\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}k,\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill \widehat{T}& =& T.\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(25)
This will give a 9-dimensional NSNS sector identical to that of the action Eq. (21). The only possible relation between the 10- and 9-dimensional RR fields is

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{C}_{(2n1)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n1}}^\pm & =& C_{(2n1)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n1}}^\pm +(2n1)A^{(1)}{}_{[\mu _1}{}^{}C_{(2n2)\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{2n1}]}^{\pm },\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \widehat{C}_{(2n1)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n2}\underset{¯}{x}}^\pm & =& C_{(2n2)\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{2n2}}^\pm ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
and we remark that it involves $`A^{(1)}`$ and not $`A^{(2)}`$, as in the Type 0B case. We cannot change this without spoiling T-duality in the NSNS sector.

The field strengths are related in flat indices by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{H}_{abc}& =& H_{abc},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \widehat{H}_{abx}& =& k^1F^{(2)}{}_{ab}{}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
in the NSNS sector where the 9-dimensional field strengths are also given by Eq. (18).

The RR field strengths are related by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{G}_{(2n)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n}}^\pm & =& G_{(2n)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n}}^\pm ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \widehat{G}_{(2n)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n1}x}^\pm & =& k^1G_{(2n1)a_1\mathrm{}a_{2n1}}^\pm ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
where the 9-dimensional ones are defined as follows

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}G_{(2n+1)}^\pm \hfill & =& dC_{(2n)}^\pm ,\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{(2n)}^\pm \hfill & =& dC_{(2n1)}^\pm +F^{(1)}C_{(2n2)}^\pm .\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
The even ones involve $`F^{(1)}`$ while in the Type 0B the odd ones involve $`F^{(2)}`$.

Summarizing, we have obtained the action

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& =& d^9x\sqrt{|g|}\{e^{2\varphi }[R4(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{23!}H^2+(\mathrm{log}k)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}k^2\left(F^{(1)}\right)^2\frac{1}{4}k^2\left(F^{(2)}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}(T)^2V(T)]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +_{\alpha =+,}f_\alpha (T)[\frac{1}{2}k^1\left(G_{(1)}^\alpha \right)^2\frac{1}{4}k\left(G_{(2)}^\alpha \right)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\frac{1}{23!}k^1\left(G_{(3)}^\alpha \right)^2\frac{1}{24!}k\left(G_{(4)}^\alpha \right)^2]\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
This action is different from the one we obtained from the Type 0B theory Eq. (21) in two points: the definition of the 9-dimensional field strengths involves only one of the two 9-dimensional vectors: the Kaluza-Klein one. Since they are interchanged by T-duality, we need both vectors to appear in the field strengths. On the other hand, in the Type 0B case we have obtained one RR field strength which is not present in the reduced Type 0A theory: $`G_{(5)}^+`$ and in the Type 0A case we have obtained another RR field strength absent in the reduced Type 0B action: $`G_{(4)}^{}`$.

The first problem can only be solved by making the winding vector appear in the reduced RR field strengths, which implies that $`\widehat{B}`$ must appear in the 10-dimensional RR field strengths. Up to possible field redefinitions, there is only one way of doing this: precisely defining the RR field strengths as in the Type II theories, i.e.

$$\widehat{G}_{(n)}^\pm =d\widehat{C}_{(n1)}^\pm \widehat{}\widehat{C}_{(n3)}^\pm ,$$
(31)
in both the Type 0B and 0A theories. This is consistent with the fact that the amplitudes involving two RR fields of the same sector and a NSNS field (different fro the tachyon) are identical to those of the Type IIB± theories. The only difference could be the sign of the second term. We can set it to minus, as above, for the Type 0B $`\widehat{G}_{(2n+1)}^+`$ field strengths by fixing the relative sign between $`\widehat{}`$ and the $`\widehat{C}_{(2n)}^+`$ potentials. In principle the sign of the second term in the Type 0B field strengths $`\widehat{G}_{(2n+1)}^{}`$ could still be arbitrarily chosen by changing the sign of all the RR potentials $`\widehat{C}_{2n}^{}`$ because the $`+`$ and $``$ RR potentials are decoupled in the action Eq. (21). However, as we are going to argue next, we are going to have to introduce a Chern-Simons term that may couple them and we have to be open to the two possible signs.

The second problem can only be solved by Hodge-dualizing $`G_{(5)}^+`$ and identifying the dual field with $`G_{(4)}^{}`$. This is somewhat reminiscent of the procedure followed in Type II theories . For this dualization to give the right form of $`G_{(4)}^{}`$ it will be necessary to add to the 10-dimensional Type 0B action a Chern-Simons term and this will force us to introduce another one in the 10-dimensional Type 0A action. A subtle point arises here: when one dualizes a field strength whose kinetic term comes multiplied by a function, the kinetic term of the dual field comes multiplied by the inverse function. Thus, the $`G_{(4)}^{}`$ kinetic term will carry an $`f_+^1(T)k`$ factor. We expected the $`k`$ factor, but we also expected an $`f_{}(T)`$ factor. To establish T-duality, then, we must have $`f_+^1=f_{}`$ which together with Eq. (11) implies that

$$f_\pm \left(\widehat{𝒯}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm h(\widehat{𝒯})\right),$$
(32)
where $`h`$ is an odd function of $`\widehat{𝒯}`$. Note that this result was anticipated in Ref.  by means of tadpole considerations; here it arises as a necessity for T-duality to work.

The need to introduce a 10-dimensional Chern-Simons term can also be seen directly in 10-dimensions starting with the NSD action with the kinetic terms Eq. (10). It is instructive to derive the Chern-Simons term using an argument different from T-duality. Let us for the moment set to zero the tachyon field, in order to simplify the calculations (in any case, it does not play any role in the determination of the Chern-Simons term). The kinetic terms are just

$$d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\left[\frac{1}{25!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}\right)^2+\frac{1}{25!}\left(\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(5)}\right)^2\right].$$
(33)
The Chern-Simons term has to be such that selfduality of $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}`$ and the anti-selfduality of $`\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(5)}`$ can be consistently imposed, i.e. such that the equations of motion are identical to the Bianchi identities,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill d\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}+\widehat{H}\widehat{C}_{(2)}\right)& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill d\left(\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(5)}+\widehat{H}\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(2)}\right)& =& 0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
using the (anti-) selfduality constraints. The Chern-Simons is, therefore, given by the addition of the Type IIB+ and Type IIB- Chern-Simons terms, namely

$$d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\left\{\frac{1}{25!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}\right)^2+\frac{1}{25!}\left(\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(5)}\right)^2+\frac{10}{(5!)^2}\widehat{ϵ}\left[\widehat{G}_{(5)}\widehat{}\widehat{C}_{(2)}\widehat{\overline{G}}_{(5)}\widehat{}\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(2)}\right]\right\},$$
(35)
which, written in terms of the diagonal fields is

$$d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\left\{\frac{1}{45!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+\right)^2+\frac{1}{45!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}\right)^2+\frac{1}{4!5!}\widehat{ϵ}\left[\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+\widehat{}\widehat{C}_{(2)}^{}+\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}\widehat{}\widehat{C}_{(2)}^+\right]\right\}.$$
(36)
We can now Poincaré-dualize $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$, adding to the above action a Lagrange-multiplier term to enforce its Bianchi identity

$$d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\frac{1}{4!5!}\widehat{ϵ}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{C}}{}_{(4)}{}^{}(\widehat{G}_{(5)}+10\widehat{H}\widehat{C}_{(2)}),$$
(37)
then, solving for $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$

$$\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}={}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{G}}{}_{(5)}{}^{},\stackrel{~}{\widehat{G}}{}_{(5)}{}^{}=5\stackrel{~}{\widehat{C}}{}_{(4)}{}^{}10\widehat{}\widehat{C}_{(2)}^{},$$
(38)
and substituting this solution into the action and, finally, identifying $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{G}}{}_{(5)}{}^{}=\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+`$, we find

$$d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\left[\frac{1}{25!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+\right)^2\frac{1}{45!}\frac{\widehat{ϵ}}{\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}}\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+\widehat{C}_{(2)}^{}\right],$$
(39)
which contains the actual kinetic term that we have and the Chern-Simons term that we should expect.

### 1.3 Corrected 10-dimensional Type 0A/B Effective Actions and T-Duality Rules

It is quite straightforward to carry on with the program. First, we consider again the action Eq. (2) but with RR field strengths given by Eq. (31) in both, $`+`$ and $``$, sectors and repeat the dimensional reduction. The Kaluza-Klein Ansatz is the same for all the fields, and the 10-dimensional field strengths decompose in 9-dimensional field strengths in the same form and so, we get an action of the form Eq. (21), but with lower-dimensional RR-field strengths defined by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}G_{(2n+1)}^\pm \hfill & =& dC_{(2n)}^\pm HC_{(2n2)}^\pm +F^{(2)}C_{(2n1)}^\pm ,\hfill \\ & & \\ G_{(2n)}^\pm \hfill & =& dC_{(2n1)}^\pm HC_{(2n3)}^\pm +F^{(1)}C_{(2n2)}^\pm .\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
Now, both the Kaluza-Klein and winding vector field are present in the 9-dimensional RR field strengths.

The next step is to Poincaré-dualize $`G_{(5)}^+`$ into $`G_{(4)}^{}`$: we add to the 9-dimensional action a Lagrange-multiplier term to enforce the Bianchi identity

$$d\left[G_{(5)}^++HC_{(2)}^+F^{(2)}C_{(3)}^+\right]=0.$$
(41)
The Lagrange multiplier has to be a 3-form that will become the dual potential $`C_{(3)}^{}`$. Then, the Lagrange multiplier term will take the form

$$\alpha d^9xϵC_{(3)}^{}\left[G_{(5)}^++10HC_{(2)}^+10F^{(2)}C_{(3)}^+\right],$$
(42)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant whose value has to be chosen so as to get the right normalization for the kinetic term of $`C_{(3)}^{}`$. In the action Eq. (21) with the above Lagrange-multiplier term, $`C_{(4)}^+`$ only appears through $`G_{(5)}^+`$. We can consider it as a functional of $`G_{(5)}^+`$ since we can always recover the expression of $`G_{(5)}^+`$ in terms of $`C_{(4)}^+`$ through equation of motion of the Lagrange-multiplier. Now, the $`G_{(5)}^+`$ equation of motion is

$$G_{(5)}^+=\alpha f_+^1(T)k\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{|g|}}C_{(3)}^{}.$$
(43)
We expected

$$G_{(5)}^+=\sqrt{f_{}/f_+}k{}_{}{}^{}G_{(4)}^{},$$
(44)
with

$$G_{(4)}^{}=dC_{(3)}^{}HC_{(1)}^{}+F^{(1)}C_{(2)}^{}.$$
(45)
This fixes the normalization constant $`\alpha =+\frac{1}{3!5!}`$, implies $`f_+^1(T)=f_{}(T)`$ and also tells us that there should be a 9-dimensional Chern-Simons term in the 9-dimensional action Eq. (21) of the form

$$\frac{1}{23!5!}d^9xϵG_{(5)}^+\left[2HC_{(1)}^{}3F^{(1)}C_{(2)}^{}\right],$$
(46)
to get Eq. (44). This term can only come from the 10-dimensional Chern-Simons term in Eq. (39) that we can also write, up to total derivatives, in the form

$$\frac{1}{96}d^{10}\widehat{x}\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{C}_{(4)}^+\widehat{C}_{(2)}^{}\widehat{},$$
(47)
which gives rise to the term we wanted and another term not involving $`C_{(4)}^+`$ in any way:

$$\frac{1}{23!5!}d^9xϵ\left[G_{(5)}^+\left(2HC_{(1)}^{}3F^{(1)}C_{(2)}^{}\right)5G_{(4)}^+HC_{(2)}^{}\right].$$
(48)
Observe that the Chern-Simons term Eq. (39,39) is very similar to the Chern-Simons term in the Type IIB NSD string effective action . Here, however, it mixes non-trivially the two RR sectors.

Adding to this 9-dimensional Chern-Simons the Lagrange-multiplier term Eq. (42) with the value of $`\alpha `$ that we have calculated, we find the equation of motion Eq. (44), and, using it to eliminate $`G_{(5)}^+`$, we finally get the 9-dimensional Type 0 string effective action

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S& =& d^9x\sqrt{|g|}\{e^{2\varphi }[R4(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{23!}H^2+(\mathrm{log}k)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{4}k^2\left(F^{(1)}\right)^2\frac{1}{4}k^2\left(F^{(2)}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}(T)^2V(T)]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +_{\alpha =+,}f_\alpha (T)[\frac{1}{2}k^1\left(G_{(1)}^\alpha \right)^2\frac{1}{4}k\left(G_{(2)}^\alpha \right)^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\frac{1}{23!}k^1\left(G_{(3)}^\alpha \right)^2\frac{1}{24!}k\left(G_{(4)}^\alpha \right)^2]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{36}\frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{|g|}}\{C_{(3)}^+C_{(3)}^{}A^{(2)}\frac{9}{2}C_{(2)}^+C_{(2)}^{}A^{(1)}(BA^{(1)}A^{(2)}A^{(2)}A^{(1)})\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\frac{3}{2}[C_{(3)}^+C_{(2)}^{}(B+A^{(1)}A^{(2)})+2C_{(3)}^+C_{(2)}^{}A^{(2)}A^{(1)}A^{(2)}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +C_{(3)}^{}C_{(2)}^+(B+A^{(1)}A^{(2)})+2C_{(3)}^{}C_{(2)}^+A^{(2)}A^{(1)}A^{(2)}]\}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(49)
In order to establish T-duality then, we have to find a 10-dimensional Chern-Simons term to add to the Type 0A string effective action Eq. (30) leading to the above 9-dimensional Type 0 string effective action using the same Ansatz as before. This is a very non-trivial check of our construction. It takes little time to see that the sought for Chern-Simons term is

$$\frac{1}{72}d^{10}\widehat{x}\widehat{ϵ}\widehat{C}_{(3)}^+\widehat{C}_{(3)}^{}\widehat{B}.$$
(50)
Again, this Chern-Simons term looks very similar to the one in the Type IIA string effective action. In fact, we could rewrite it in the form

$$\frac{1}{144}d^{10}\widehat{x}\widehat{ϵ}\left[\widehat{C}_{(3)}\widehat{C}_{(3)}\widehat{B}\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(3)}\widehat{\overline{C}}_{(3)}\widehat{B}\right].$$
(51)
which would be the sum of the Chern-Simons terms of the Type IIA+ and Type IIA- theories (which are related by target space parity).

The resulting Type 0A string effective action (Eq. (22) plus the Chern-Simons term Eq. (50)) is left-right invariant (i.e. invariant under the interchange of the two RR sectors $`\widehat{C}^\pm \pm \widehat{C}^\pm `$ and sign reversal of the Kalb-Ramond form $`\widehat{B}\widehat{B}`$), as it should.

In the same way, the complete Type 0B action (Eq. (2) plus Eq. (47)) is invariant under the transformation that changes the sign of the tachyon and interchanges the $`+`$ and $``$ RR field strengths if we dualize $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^{}`$ into $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+`$.

We have just established T-duality between the Type 0A and 0B string effective actions, as we intended to do. The T-duality rules are identical to those of the Type II theories , but now working inside each of the + and - diagonal RR sectors.

## 2 Democratic Type 0 Actions and Massive 0A

In Ref.  a “democratic” pseudo-action for Type II theories was proposed in which all RR potentials appear on the same footing. The pseudo-action has to be supplemented by duality constraints relating “electric” and “magnetic” RR fields (hence the “pseudo”) and one of its properties is that it has no Chern-Simons term and only the kinetic terms for all the field strengths appear in it. In the Type 0 case, it is a simple exercise to get an action in which RR field strengths of all orders appear in the same footing: in the 0B action we can dualize $`\widehat{G}_{(3)}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{(1)}^{}`$ into $`\widehat{G}_{(7)}^+`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{(9)}^+`$ respectively, and in this order888We cannot directly dualize $`\widehat{G}_{(1)}^{}`$ because there are explicit $`\widehat{C}_{(0)}^{}`$ potentials in $`\widehat{G}_{(3)}^{}`$. We could absorb them into a redefinition of $`\widehat{C}_{(2)}^{}`$, but this would introduce unnecessary complications. by the standard Poincaré-dualization procedure. There is no need to impose any duality constraint as the resulting $`\widehat{G}_{(2n+1)}^+,n=0,1,2,3,4`$ field strengths are independent. Actually, not all “electric” and “magnetic” field strengths appear, but only some electric and some magnetic. In any case, the action obtained in this way is really much simpler than the one we arrived at in the previous section given by Eq. (2) plus Eq. (39) or Eq. (47) with RR field strengths given by Eq. (31). In particular, there is no Chern-Simons term and only the kinetic terms of all field strengths $`\widehat{G}_{(2n+1)}^+`$ $`(n=0,1,2,3,4`$) appear:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{S}_{0B}& =& d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{ȷ}|}\{e^{2\widehat{\phi }}[\widehat{R}4(\widehat{\phi })^2+\frac{1}{23!}\widehat{}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{𝒯})^2V(\widehat{𝒯})]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +f_+(\widehat{𝒯})_{n=1}^{n=4}\frac{1}{2(2n+1)!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(2n+1)}^+\right)^2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
We could have dualized instead the $`\widehat{G}_{(5)}^+`$, $`\widehat{G}_{(3)}^+`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{(1)}^+`$ field strengths, in this order, and we would have obtained the above action with the $`+`$ indices replaced by $``$ indices. The transformation that changes the sign of the tachyon and interchanges the two RR sectors would take us back to the above action which is, thus, invariant under a combination of that transformation and the Poincaré-dualization of all the field strengths.

Needless to say one can also write down a democratic formulation of the Type 0A action created in the foregoing section and it has the same features as the democratic 0B action, namely only kinetic terms appear. T-duality is then established by extending the decomposition rules (16,26) to include the higher (“magnetic”) RR forms.

In Ref.  it was shown that in order to establish T-duality between Type IIB and massive Type IIA, Romans’ theory for short , one has to apply Generalized Dimensional Reduction on the Type IIB side and standard dimensional reduction on Romans’ side. The symmetry abused to perform the GDR is the invariance under the addition of constants to the Type IIB RR scalar, i.e. $`\delta \widehat{C}_{(0)}=m=cte.`$

In the democratic formulation, the symmetry under constant shifts of the two RR zero forms also acts on the higher RR forms and can be written as

$$\widehat{C}^\pm =\widehat{C}^\pm +a^\pm e^{\widehat{B}},$$
(53)
so we can apply GDR in much the same way as in Ref.  and oxidize the 9-dimensional theory to the massive 0A action. In the democratic 0B action there is however only one RR scalar present so that it might seem that we would end up with only one mass parameter, whereas Type 0A can support 2 mass parameters associated to the 2 D8-branes present in its spectrum. This is however only an illusion: the 9-form field strength in Type 0B will induce a 9-form field strength in d=9, which in its turn can only be related to a 10-form field strength in Type 0A. It is this 10-form field strength that couples to the second D8-brane.

Generalized Dimensional Reduction, then, boils down to using the decomposition999Please note the $`\widehat{}`$ on the $`B`$.

$$\widehat{C}_{(2n)}^+=C_{(2n)}^+C_{(2n1)}^+\left(d\underset{¯}{y}+A^{(2)}\right)+\underset{¯}{y}G_{(0)}^+\frac{1}{n!}\widehat{B}^n,$$
(54)
in stead of (16), in the reduction carried out in Sec. (1). The resulting 9-dimensional action can be obtained by standard dimensional reduction from the action

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{S}_{0A}& =& d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}\{e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}[\widehat{R}4(\widehat{\varphi })^2+\frac{1}{23!}\widehat{H}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{𝒯})^2V(\widehat{𝒯})]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & f_+(\widehat{𝒯})_{n=0}^{n=5}\frac{1}{2(2n)!}\left(\widehat{G}_{(2n)}^+\right)^2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
where the RR field strengths read

$$\widehat{G}^\pm =d\widehat{C}^\pm \widehat{H}\widehat{C}^\pm +G_{(0)}^\pm e^B.$$
(56)
The non-democratic formulation of massive 0A can be obtained by dualizing the 10-, 8- and 6-form field strengths, resulting in

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{S}_{0A}& =& d^{10}\widehat{x}\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}\{e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}[\widehat{R}4(\widehat{\varphi })^2+\frac{1}{23!}\widehat{H}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{𝒯})^2V(\widehat{𝒯})]\hfill \\ & & \\ & & _{\alpha =\pm }f_\alpha _{n=0}^2\frac{1}{2(2n)!}G_{(2n)}^{\alpha 2}\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{1}{72\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}\widehat{ϵ}[\widehat{C}_{(3)}^+\widehat{C}_{(3)}^{}\widehat{B}+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{G}_{(0)}^{}\widehat{C}_{(3)}^+\widehat{B}^3+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{G}_{(0)}^+\widehat{C}_{(3)}^{}\widehat{B}^3+\frac{9}{80}\widehat{G}_{(0)}^+\widehat{G}_{(0)}^{}\widehat{B}^5]\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
which is just what one would expect.

## 3 Type 0 D-brane solutions from Type II

In this section we are going to see how to adapt Type II BPS solutions to the Type 0 setting. This will be done under the assumption of a constant tachyon field $`\widehat{𝒯}_0`$, and we will absorb any tachyon dependence in the equations of motion into the RR-fields. In order to do this consistently however, we must investigate the tachyon equation of motion, i.e.

$$^\mu \left(e^{2\varphi }_\mu 𝒯\right)+V^{}(\widehat{𝒯})h^{}(𝒯)\left[\underset{n}{}\frac{()^n}{2n!}F_{(n)}^{+2}_n\frac{()^n}{2n!}F_{(n)}^{2}\right]=0,$$
(58)
where we made use of Eq. (32) and $`F_{(n)}^\pm `$ denotes the rescaled field strength. It is natural to choose a constant value of the tachyon $`\widehat{𝒯}_0`$ that minimizes the potential $`V^{}(\widehat{𝒯}_0)=0`$. We will assume that a minimum exists and, further, that $`h^{}(\widehat{𝒯}_0)`$ is finite101010If $`h^{}(\widehat{𝒯}_0)=0`$ we end up with no extra constraint and we can embed every Type II solution in Type 0. Therefore, from now on we will consider the $`h^{}0`$ case only.. The tachyon equation of motion, then, leads to the constraint

$$\underset{n}{}\frac{()^n}{2n!}F_{(n)}^{+2}_n\frac{()^n}{2n!}F_{(n)}^{2}=0.$$
(59)
In terms of the rescaled RR field strengths, denoted by $`F`$, the equations of motions can be written as,111111We will adapt the same philosophy as in  meaning that in the equations of motion also the dual fields are given. This for instance means that not only $`F_{(5)}^+`$, but also $`F_{(5)}^{}`$ will contribute.

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`d{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\pm }+HF^\pm ,`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`d\left(e^{2\varphi }{}_{}{}^{}H\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha }F^\alpha ,`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`R+4\left(\varphi \right)^24^2\varphi +\frac{1}{23!}H^2,`$
$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2_\mu _\nu \varphi \frac{1}{4}H_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }H_{\nu \rho \sigma }^{}+\frac{1}{4}e^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle \underset{n,\alpha }{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!}T^{\alpha (n)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},`$ (60)
where $`T^{\pm (n)}_{\mu \nu }`$ are the energy-momentum tensor of the RR fields

$$T^{\pm (n)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=nF^\pm {}_{(n)\mu }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{n1}}F_{(n)\nu \rho _1\mathrm{}\rho _{n1}}^{\pm }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }F_{(n)}^\pm {}_{}{}^{2}.$$
(61)
The Type II equations of motion can be obtained from these by taking for example all the - RR-fields to vanish.

Now, a typical Type II brane solution cannot, except for the D3-brane, be a solution of the constraint Eq. (59), and so the best thing we can do is to distribute each Type II D-brane charge evenly over the + and - $`(p+2)`$-form field strength121212A similar idea was proposed in Ref. .. The constraint is, then, automatically satisfied and the solution reads

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{1/2}\left(dt^2d\stackrel{}{y}_{(p)}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)H^{1/2}d\stackrel{}{x}_{(9p)}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`H^{\frac{p3}{4}},`$
$`C_{ty_1\mathrm{}y_p}^+`$ $`=`$ $`\pm C_{ty_1\mathrm{}y_p}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}H^1,`$ (62)
where $`H`$ only depends on the transverse coordinates, $`\stackrel{}{x}_{(9p)}`$, and is harmonic. Since this solution bears + and - charge, but has the form of only one object we are destined to interpret these solutions as the $`Dp_\pm `$-brane , a bound state of a $`Dp_+`$\- and a $`Dp_{}`$-brane131313Please note that in this notation the system of a coincident electric and magnetic $`D3`$ brane  is denoted by $`D3_\pm `$.. Observe that these solutions are simpler in terms of the original (but rescaled), non-diagonal $`C_{(p+1)},\overline{C}_{(p+1)}`$ RR potentials because they are charged only with respect to one of them. They are also trivially related by T-duality as Type II D$`p`$-branes are.

The fact that this pairing occurs follows naturally from the Type IIB $`D3`$-brane solution: Since it is selfdual it automatically satisfies the condition (59), but as before the $`D3`$-brane charge must be divided by $`\sqrt{2}`$ in order to satisfy the equations of motion. Consider then T-duality in a worldvolume direction; in the democratic formulation, the electric component of the 5-form field strength gives rise to the electric component of $`G_{(4)}^+`$, whereas its magnetic part gives rise to a magnetic $`G_{(6)}^+`$ and thus leads to an electric $`G_{(4)}^{}`$. Needless to say it works also in the other direction, implying that all the $`Dp_\pm `$ branes are connected by T-duality.

In Ref.  it was shown that the potential between a $`D(p+r)_\pm `$-brane and a $`D(p+s)_\pm `$ vanishes if $`r+s=4`$. This means that we can expect the, adapting the notation of  to the case at hand, $`\left(pD(p+r)_\pm ,D(p+4r)_\pm \right)`$ intersection to be described by the harmonic superposition rule . In Type II the $`r+s=4`$ class can be generated by T-duality from the $`\left(1D3,D3\right)`$, which in the Type 0 setting has to be interpreted as a $`\left(1D3_\pm ,D3_\pm \right)`$ intersection. Since we embed a solution which is based on a selfdual 5-form, Eq. (58) is identically satisfied, and as before will give rise to a solution once we divide the Type II RR-field Ansatz by $`\sqrt{2}`$. Applying T-duality to this Type 0 intersection, we can generate the whole class of $`\left(pD(p+r)_\pm ,D(p+4r)_\pm \right)`$ intersections.141414Note that this will not reproduce ’s $`D5_\pm D1_\pm `$ solution as we took the tachyon potential to be zero in contrast to . Please observe that Eq. (58) is automatically obeyed: by using the $`Dp_\pm `$-branes in stead of a $`Dp_+`$-brane, say, we are effectively identifying the + and - sector, automatically satisfying Eq. (59).

It should be clear that we can embed every Type II solution into Type 0: just distribute the Type II RR-charge over the + and - sector in the appropriate way. For Type II brane solutions this means changing the $`Dp`$-brane for a $`Dp_\pm `$-brane. In particular this means that the Type II BPS intersections will give rise to Type 0 intersections of various $`Dp_\pm `$-branes. It would be nice to study the stability of these Type 0 intersections.

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper we have, starting from the Type 0B effective action, constructed the Type 0A effective action by means of T-duality. Although there is a doubling of RR-fields in the Type 0 theories w.r.t. the Type II theories, T-duality does not mix RR-fields from the different sectors. Due to this doubling of RR-fields, one can write down a democratic formulation of the action, in which we dualize the fields of one sector giving rise to an action with only kinetic terms for the RR-fields, i.e. in the democratic formulation there is no Chern-Simons term in the action. Using this democratic formulation we applied generalized dimensional reduction based on the translational symmetry of the RR-scalar(s), in order to find the Type 0 analogue of Romans’ theory, massive Type 0A.

Type 0 inherits a $`_2`$ symmetry from the left worldsheet fermion number operator, which takes the tachyon to its negative and interchanges the electric (+) and magnetic ($`{}_{}{}^{})`$ RR-sector. This discrete symmetry together with the consistency of T-duality between the Type 0 effective actions, then constrains the possible couplings of the tachyon to the RR-fields.

Finally we have shown how to create Type 0 solutions starting from Type II solutions, assuming a constant tachyon. In short, it all boils down to change a Type II $`Dp`$-brane to a Type 0 $`Dp_\pm `$\- brane, which is nothing but a bound state of a $`Dp_+`$\- and a $`Dp_{}`$-brane. In particular we can embed the Type II BPS intersections. For these intersections the stability is guaranteed by supersymmetry which to a large extent also dictates the form of the solution. Now the form of the Type 0 intersections is the same, making the question of stability in this class of solution an interesting one.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Frederik Roose for a great many discussions. The work of P.M. was partially supported by the F.W.O.-Vlaanderen and the E.U. RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00131. The work of T.O. has been supported in part by the Spanish grant FPA2000-1584.


format: text

text:
# CsMn(BrxI1-x)3: Crossover from an 𝑋𝑌 to an Ising Chiral Antiferromagnet

## I Introduction

The triangular-lattice antiferromagnets ABX3 with CsNiCl3 structure, where the magnetic B2+ ions form a triangular lattice, exhibit frustration due to the antiferromagnetic interactions on a triangular plaquette if the magnetic moments have a component in the triangular $`ab`$ plane. The magnetic moments then form a 120 structure, with the extra two-fold degeneracy of chirality being broken at the antiferromagnetic transition. Simply speaking, the extra degeneracy arises from the possibility that the 120 spin structure on a given plaquette can be arranged clockwise or counterclockwise when moving around the plaquette. It has been suggested that the chiral degeneracy leads to new universality classes for three-dimensional $`XY`$ and Heisenberg models . The largest changes of the critical exponents are predicted to occur in the specific-heat exponent $`\alpha `$, where the chiral $`XY`$ and chiral Heisenberg universality classes are predicted to show $`\alpha =0.34`$ and 0.24, compared to $`\alpha =0.01`$ and $`0.12`$ for the standard $`XY`$ and Heisenberg models, respectively . However, whether this concept of new universality classes is indeed applicable is a strongly debated question. Especially within recent years theoretical studies have supplied growing support for a weakly first-order scenario for both chiral phase transitions (see  and references therein). An experimental indication for this behavior was found recently .

In any case, the frustration enhances the degeneracy giving rise to different physics with rich phase diagrams and strongly modified critical behavior, which has been studied experimentally for a large number of different triangular-lattice antiferromagnets . A well-studied example is the easy-plane system CsMnBr3, for which a number of experiments  revealed a critical behavior in line with the theoretical prediction . For ABX3 systems with easy-axis anisotropy like CsMnI3 (as well as CsNiCl3), chiral behavior can be induced by applying a spin-flop field along the easy $`c`$ direction thus forcing the spins into the $`ab`$ planes. At the spin-flop field $`B_M`$ ($``$6.4 T for CsMnI3 and $``$2.3 T for CsNiCl3) the magnetic energy is equal to the anisotropy energy, i.e., full isotropy in spin space is attained and chiral Heisenberg behavior is found . For higher fields, an easy-plane anisotropy is induced and $`XY`$ chirality occurs .

Not many triangular-lattice antiferromagnets with negligible anisotropy exist. Besides the above-mentioned materials at their spin-flop fields, only the hexagonal antiferromagnet VBr2 is known. Indeed, for VBr2 critical exponents were found in line with the behavior predicted for a chiral Heisenberg system . The possibility to tune a chiral Heisenberg system is offered by the solid solution CsMn(BrxI1-x)3 which spans the range from an easy-axis system ($`x=0`$) to an easy-plane system ($`x=1`$). This system, therefore, allows to study the crossover in the magnetic phase diagrams and its influence on the critical behavior. In particular, the composition with $`x=0.19`$ presents an almost isotropic system and should therefore follow chiral Heisenberg behavior . Magnetization measurements of CsMn(BrxI1-x)3 which gave some information on the magnetic phase diagrams have already been reported by Ono et al. . Here we report on detailed specific-heat and magnetocaloric-effect measurements.

The spin-Hamiltonian that describes the system is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`J_c{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{\mathrm{chain}}{}}}𝐒_i𝐒_jJ_{ab}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{\mathrm{plane}}{}}}𝐒_i𝐒_j`$ (2)
$`+D{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(S_i^z)^2g\mu _B{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝐁𝐒_i.`$
The summation ($`i,j`$) is over nearest neighbors, with the first sum along the $`c`$ direction and the second sum in the $`ab`$ plane, with the exchange constants $`J_c`$ and $`J_{ab}`$, respectively. $`D<0`$ corresponds to an easy-axis system, $`D>0`$ to an easy-plane system. For CsMnBr3, $`J_c=0.89`$ meV, $`J_{ab}=1.7\mu `$eV, and $`D=12\mu `$eV, for CsMnI3, $`J_c=1.5`$ meV, $`J_{ab}=7.6\mu `$eV, and $`D=3.8\mu `$eV. For both materials we are dealing with the $`S=5/2`$ spins of Mn2+.

The topology of the magnetic phase-diagrams for ABX3 antiferromagnets depends crucially on the sign of $`D`$ and on the ratio $`D/J_{ab}`$. Systems with Ising anisotropy ($`D<0`$) show two successive phase transitions at $`T_{N1}`$ and $`T_{N2}`$ for $`B=0`$. In the low-temperature phase ($`T<T_{N2}`$) the spins order in three sublattices where one third of the spins align along the $`c`$ axis, whereas the other two thirds are tilted by an angle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (which depends on the ratio $`D/J_{ab}`$ ) with respect to the $`c`$ axis \[see Fig. 1(a)\]. For CsMnI3 this angle is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=51^{}`$ . All spins lie within a plane which includes the $`c`$ axis. At higher temperatures in the intermediate phase ($`T_{N2}<T<T_{N1}`$) the tilted spins have an additional degree of freedom, i.e., their components within the basal $`ab`$ plane is not defined. For $`T>T_{N1}`$ in the paramagnetic phase only short-range ordered independent spin chains exist along the $`c`$ axis. For a magnetic field applied within the basal plane ($`Bc`$) the two phase boundaries shift somewhat to higher temperatures (at least up to 6 T for CsMnI3 and CsNiCl3) without changing the principal spin topology .

Of much more relevance is the case when $`B`$ is applied along $`c`$ \[Fig. 1(a)\]. For $`T<T_{N2}`$, a first-order phase transition occurs at the spin-flop field $`B_c`$ above which the three sublattices form a $`120^{}`$ umbrella-like structure. The $`c`$-axis spin component grows with further increasing $`B`$. For classical spins with $`J_cJ_{ab}`$, $`B_c`$ at $`T=0`$ is given by

$$(g\mu _BB_c)^2=16|J_cD|S^2.$$
(3)
At the multicritical point ($`T_M`$,$`B_M`$) the three phase lines merge tangentially into the first-order spin-flop line . At this point full isotropy in spin space is achieved which leads to a chiral Heisenberg universality as experimentally observed for CsNiCl3  and CsMnI3 .

For systems with easy-plane anisotropy ($`D>0`$) only one phase transition at $`T_N`$ from the paramagnetic to the chiral 120 structure exists at $`B=0`$. The critical behavior, therefore, is of the chiral $`XY`$ type. A magnetic field applied along the $`c`$ direction does not change the symmetry of the ground state. Consequently, the critical behavior stays essentially constant . A much richer phase diagram can be observed for $`Bc`$. The phase diagram as predicted for $`D<3|J_{ab}|`$ is shown in Fig. 1(b) . At $`T<T_N`$ and $`B<B_c`$ the chiral phase exists. The competition between the Zeeman energy and the anisotropy energy leads to a spin-flop phase above $`B_c`$ which is also given by Eq. (3) . Thereby, the spin triangle is oriented perpendicularly to $`B`$. Between the chiral low-temperature and the paramagnetic high-temperature phase, a collinear spin structure evolves where the spins remain in the $`ab`$ plane with two spins of a triangle pointing parallel and one in the opposite direction. With increasing field the spin components along $`B`$ become larger.

Experimentally, very little is known about the phase diagrams and the critical properties of easy-plane systems with such a small anisotropy ($`D<3|J_{ab}|`$) . On the other hand, for materials with $`D>3|J_{ab}|`$, like CsMnBr3, the phase diagram has been very well established . Due to the stronger anisotropy $`D`$ the spin-flop phase is absent for such $`XY`$ systems with only the chiral phase and the collinear structure remaining .

## II Experimental

Single-crystalline samples of CsMn(BrxI1-x)3 were grown by the Bridgman technique at the Tokyo Institute of Technology . For the measurements pieces of 24 to 111 mg were cleaved from the crystals. The specific heat, $`C`$, was measured by a standard semiadiabatic heat-pulse technique. Magnetic fields up to 14 T were applied either along or perpendicularly to the clearly visible $`c`$ axis of the crystals. The magnetocaloric effect, $`(\delta T/\delta B)_S=(T/C)(\delta S/\delta B)_T`$, was measured in the same calorimeter. $`S`$ denotes the entropy of the system. Upon changing the magnetic field by small steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$, the resulting temperature variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ was recorded. Taking into account the small eddy-current heating the magnetocaloric effect $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ was extracted. For more details on the experiment see Ref. .

## III Results and Discussion

The specific heat of the sample with the smallest Br concentration, CsMn(Br0.1I0.9)3, is shown in Fig. 2 for different fields $`B`$ aligned along the $`c`$ direction. This easy-axis system shows two consecutive zero-field transitions, which merge into one at the spin-flop field of about 4 T. The steep anomaly found beyond this field resembles that found for pure CsMnI3 which was analyzed in terms of a chiral Heisenberg model at the spin-flop field $`B_M6.4`$ T . The substitution of 10% of the I- ions by Br- with the concomitant increase of the (negative) anisotropy $`D`$ towards zero reduces considerably the spin-flop field and likewise the width of the intermediate phase ($`T_{N2}=8.36`$ K $`<T<T_{N1}`$ = 9.80 K). This trend continues further for a sample with $`x=0.18`$ (data not shown) where $`T_{N1}=8.50`$ K, $`T_{N2}=8.40`$ K, and $`B_M1`$ T (see also Figs. 7 and 8 below).

The data for $`x=0.25`$, on the other hand, resemble those of the pure easy-plane system CsMnBr3 , where a magnetic field in the $`ab`$ plane quickly removes the chiral degeneracy and leads to a splitting of the zero-field transition (Fig. 3). In contrast to pure CsMnBr3, however, the anomaly at lower temperatures changes its appearance above about 3 T, i.e., the anomaly (visualized by the arrows in Fig. 3) becomes much more rounded and the feature in $`C`$ shifts towards higher temperatures for increasing $`B`$ rather than to lower $`T`$ as in CsMnBr3 . Indeed, what is reflected by the low-temperature anomalies in Fig. 3 are two different phase transitions; from the chiral phase to the collinear phase at low $`B`$ and from the spin-flop phase to the collinear phase at $`B`$ larger than about 3 T (see Fig. 1(b) and also the phase diagram in Fig. 7 below). This result, therefore, reflects the fact that the anisotropy $`D`$ for $`x=0.25`$ has switched from negative to positive, with $`D<3|J_{ab}|`$. We found a similar behavior with a considerably reduced width of the collinear phase in the specific heat of a sample with $`x=0.20`$ (data not shown).

Consequently, the anisotropy $`D`$ should become zero somewhere between $`x=0.18`$ and $`x=0.20`$. A good candidate for such a chiral Heisenberg system is therefore CsMn(Br0.19I0.81)3. For an isotropic Heisenberg system only one phase-transition line from the paramagnetic to the chiral phase is expected, independent of the magnetic-field orientation. Indeed, magnetization and susceptibility data could not observe any spin-flop line or splitting of the zero-field transition . Our specific-heat data for $`Bc`$ (Fig. 4) are in line with these observations. We particularly can resolve only a single strong anomaly at $`T_N`$ which becomes somewhat larger with increasing field up to 6 T, similar to what is observed for $`x=0.1`$ above $`B_M`$.

However, measurements of CsMn(Br0.19I0.81)3 for $`Bc`$ (Fig. 5) reflect a small residual planar anisotropy, as evidenced by a slight splitting of the transition in fields between 1 and 3 T. The anomaly at lower temperatures is still relatively sharp and large at $`B=1`$ T, but becomes clearly reduced at 1.2 T which indicates the junction with the spin-flop phase line. At higher fields the phase lines merge and only one anomaly remains at 6 T.

In order to determine the complete phase diagrams including the expected spin-flop lines (see Fig. 1) we measured the magnetocaloric effect for all samples. Since the spin-flop transition at $`B_c`$ is almost temperature independent, the specific heat is not sensitive to this transition, contrary to magnetocaloric-effect measurements which cross the corresponding phase line at an approximately right angle. Figure 6(a) shows the magnetocaloric effect for the samples with $`x=0.18`$ and $`x=0.19`$ at $`T7`$ K in fields aligned parallel to the $`c`$ axis. For $`x=0.18`$, a clear step at about 0.9 T is visible which signals the spin-flop transition in line with the data of Ono et al. . The spin-flop field at each temperature was estimated from the position of the maximum in the derivative of the magnetocaloric-effect data. For $`x=0.19`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ increases monotonically without any detectable step or anomaly. This confirms that CsMn(Br0.19I0.81)3 has no Ising-like anisotropy.

Instead the anisotropy $`D`$ has switched to an $`XY`$ type, as the specific-heat data (Fig. 5) show. Consequently, a spin-flop line is expected for fields perpendicular to $`c`$ \[see Fig. 1(b)\]. Indeed, magnetocaloric-effect data could verify this phase diagram by showing a step-like feature at about 1.2 T almost independent of temperature \[Fig. 6(b)\]. Therefore, the critical concentration for which $`D=0`$ should be just below $`x=0.19`$.

Figure 7 summarizes the results in terms of $`(B,T)`$ phase diagrams for various $`x`$. In Fig. 7(a), the absolute magnitude of the easy-axis anisotropy $`(D<0)`$ decreases with increasing $`x`$, getting close to zero for $`x=0.18`$. From the reduced spin-flop field $`B_c1`$ T for $`x=0.18`$ one can estimate with Eq. (3) that $`|J_cD|`$ has reduced to about 2.5% of the value for CsMnI3. Since $`J_c`$ should depend little on $`x`$, this means that $`|D|`$ has reduced to about 95 neV corresponding to 1.1 mK. The phase diagrams for $`x=0.10`$ and $`x=0.18`$ fully agree with the predicted behavior for easy-axis systems \[Fig. 1(a)\] .

The phase-diagram topology changes for easy-plane systems with $`D>0`$. In Fig. 7(b), the absolute magnitude of $`D`$ increases with $`x`$, with a small anisotropy present for $`x=0.19`$. As for $`Bc`$, the phase diagrams for $`Bc`$ $`(D>0)`$ are in full agreement with mean-field calculations and verify nicely the predictions for easy-plane systems with $`D<3|J_{ab}|`$ .

The phase diagram of the transition temperatures vs Br concentration $`x`$ is shown in Fig. 8. The lower Néel temperature $`T_{N2}`$ increases slightly with $`x`$, whereas $`T_{N1}`$ rapidly decreases. The two phase lines merge at a critical concentration, $`x_c`$, somewhere between $`x=0.18`$ and $`x=0.19`$. The phase diagram is in line with that reported by Ono et al. . With our specific-heat and magnetocaloric-effect measurements, however, we were able to resolve the spin-flop line and the intermediate collinear phase for $`x=0.19`$ at fields between 1 and 3 T proving that the critical concentration with $`D=0`$ must be slightly less than $`x=0.19`$.

For completeness, the inset of Fig. 8 shows a comparative $`BT`$ phase diagram for different chiral $`XY`$ systems with $`B`$ aligned along the $`c`$ direction. The data for CsMnBr3 are from . With increasing field the phase transition from the paramagnetic to the chiral phase shifts to higher temperatures. This effect is less prominent for larger $`x`$ indicating that the field-induced $`T_N`$ increase becomes larger for reduced $`D`$.

As a final point, we discuss the critical behavior of CsMn(BrxI1-x)3. In order to describe the specific-heat data close to the critical temperature $`T_c`$ we applied the usual fit function

$$C^\pm =(A^\pm /\alpha )|t|^\alpha +B+Et,$$
(4)
where $`t=(TT_c)/T_c`$ and the superscript $`+`$ ($``$) refers to $`t>0`$ ($`t<0`$). The first term describes the leading contribution to the singularity in $`C`$ and the non-singular contribution to the specific heat is approximated by $`B+Et`$. After a good fit of the data had been achieved except very close to $`T_c`$, a Gaussian distribution of $`T_c`$ with width $`\delta T_c`$ was introduced. This procedure is able to describe a rounding of the transitions caused by sample inhomogeneities (see also Refs. ).

Figure 9(a) shows the specific heat $`C`$ for $`x=0.19`$ vs the reduced temperature $`|t|`$ at $`B=0`$. The data are compatible with an exponent $`\alpha =0.23(7)`$ of the specific heat if we include a Gaussian broadening of $`\delta T_c/T_c4.2\times 10^4`$. The dashed lines indicate the fit with these parameters, while the solid lines represent a fit with $`\delta T_c=0`$. The exponent $`\alpha `$ as well as the experimental amplitude ratio $`A^+/A^{}=0.54(13)`$ are in line with the chiral Heisenberg model, which predicts $`\alpha =0.24(8)`$ and $`A^+/A^{}=0.54(20)`$ . This is in accordance with the small easy-plane anisotropy which obviously is too small to force the system to $`XY`$ chirality. The available results of neutron-scattering experiments for $`x=0.19`$ are rather inconclusive . While the exponent $`\beta =0.28(2)`$ of the sublattice magnetization agrees well with the theoretical value of a chiral Heisenberg system ($`\beta =0.30`$), the exponents of the susceptibility, $`\gamma =0.75(4)`$, and of the correlation length, $`\nu =0.42(3)`$, are at variance with the predictions ($`\gamma =1.17`$ and $`\nu =0.59`$). Furthermore, the experimentally found exponents are in contradiction to the fundamental scaling laws $`\alpha +2\beta +\gamma =2`$ and $`\alpha +d\nu =2`$ ($`d`$ is the dimension), which should be fulfilled at universal second-order phase transitions.

Theoretically, the region around the multicritical point where a chiral Heisenberg scenario is expected should not be large . This would imply that either the increase of the Br concentration ($`x>x_c`$) or the application of a large magnetic field ($`B>B_M`$) should drive the system quickly to chiral $`XY`$ behavior with $`\alpha =0.34(6)`$, which for CsMnBr3 ($`x=1`$) has been observed . Nevertheless, for $`x=0.20`$ and for $`x=0.25`$ the critical exponents remain approximately constant with $`\alpha =0.25(7)`$ and $`\alpha =0.20(6)`$, respectively, suggesting that the chiral Heisenberg behavior is rather stable.

Another unexpected result becomes obvious from the analysis of the specific-heat data of $`x=0.19`$ in $`B=6`$ T applied along the $`c`$ direction \[Fig. 9(b)\]. A magnetic field of this strength, i.e., much larger than $`B_M`$, should induce $`XY`$ chirality for a system with Ising anisotropy as previously observed for CsNiCl3  and, in this work, with $`\alpha =0.37(10)`$ for CsMn(Br0.1I0.9)3 at $`B=6`$ T (not shown). Likewise, for an easy-plane system like CsMnBr3 the critical behavior remains chiral $`XY`$-like for fields applied along $`c`$ . However, for $`x=0.19`$ (as well as for $`x=0.18`$, data not shown) in a magnetic field of 6 T, $`C`$ for $`t10^3`$ still follows a chiral Heisenberg-like behavior with $`\alpha =0.21(8)`$ \[$`\alpha =0.23(6)`$ for $`x=0.18`$\] and increases much more strongly for $`t0`$ which can neither be described by a reasonable critical exponent nor by a $`T_c`$ distribution. This possibly indicates a crossover to a weakly first-order transition, similar as previously observed for CsCuCl3 close to $`T_c`$ at $`B=0`$ .

In conclusion, we have mapped out in detail the impact of an axial versus a planar anisotropy on the magnetic phase diagrams of triangular-lattice antiferromagnets by fine-tuning $`x`$ of the system CsMn(BrxI1-x)3. In particular, the predicted phase diagram \[Fig. 1(b)\] of easy-plane systems with small anisotropy could by accurately verified. The critical concentration for which the spin anisotropy vanishes was found to be located between $`x=0.18`$, a system with small axial anisotropy ($`D<0`$), and $`x=0.19`$, a system with small planar anisotropy ($`D>0`$). The critical behavior at $`B=0`$ for $`x=0.19`$, $`x=0.20`$, and $`x=0.25`$ can be described with critical exponents $`\alpha `$ as predicted from Monte-Carlo simulations for the chiral Heisenberg universality class . Thereby, rounding effects due to sample inhomogeneities prevent the possible detection of a crossover to a first-order scenario as proposed recently . In a magnetic field $`B=6`$ T, the samples with $`x=0.18`$ and $`x=0.19`$ show a weakly first-order phase transition. For $`10^3<t<0.1`$, the data can be described by chiral Heisenberg critical exponents. For all other samples with either larger planar or larger axial symmetry, no indication for a first-order phase transition was detected.