text:
# Comparison of 3-Dimensional and 1-Dimensional Schemes in the calculation of Atmospheric Neutrinos

## I Introduction:

The conflict between experimental data and the theoretical predictions of atmospheric neutrinos gives evidence for neutrino oscillations (see also ). The data from Super-Kamiokande, which dominate the statistics in the atmospheric neutrino data, are well explained by $`\nu _\tau \nu _\mu `$ oscillation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`sin^22\theta 1`$. We note that the oscillation mode of $`\nu _\tau \nu _\mu `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^21\times 10^2`$ eV2 was suggested immediately after the discovery of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, using the the atmospheric neutrinos flux predicted in the 1-dimensional approximation. The theoretical study of the atmospheric neutrinos has also been improved since that time, but most of them still employ the 1-dimensional approximation. For further study of neutrino oscillations, a better prediction of the atmospheric neutrino flux calculated using a 3-dimensional scheme may be needed.

The ‘3D-effects’ are not so large; the bending of muons in the geomagnetic field is $`0.1`$ radian ($``$ 5 degree) in the average muon lifetime, and the transverse momentum of a secondary particle in a hadronic interaction is typically 0.3GeV/c. Both are small effects for neutrinos with energy of $``$ 1GeV, and could be ignored for $``$ 1 GeV. Therefore it is considered that 1-dimensional calculation is sufficient for the confirmation of neutrino oscillation and their nonzero masses. The effects become important, however, for neutrinos with energies $``$ 1GeV.

One of the difficult problems of the 3-dimensional calculation is the computation time. If we sample the cosmic ray uniformly over the surface of the Earth, roughly speaking, only $`(Detectorsize/Earthradius)^2`$ of the produced neutrinos go through the detector. The 3-dimensional calculations that have been reported so far adopt some ideas which address this computation problem. Tserkovnyak et al. assumed a huge detector size. However, they still suffered from small statistics. On the other hand, Battistoni et al. assumed a spherical symmetry ignoring the geomagnetic field in the air, and they found an enhancement of atmospheric neutrino fluxes in near-horizontal directions at low energies. This is a general feature in the 3-dimensional calculation, as Lipari gives an explanation of it in terms of geometry. Such a feature is not seen in the 1-dimensional calculation.

In this study, we introduce a dipole geomagnetic field both for the geomagnetic cutoff test and particle simulation in the air. With the axisymmetry of the dipole geomagnetic field, we can integrate the results over longitudinal directions and reduce the computation time to get the sufficient statistics. This dipole magnetic field may be an over simplification for the geomagnetism, but is useful to estimate the effect of the geomagnetic field in the air on atmospheric neutrinos. This is stressed by Lipari.

In this paper, we concentrate on the comparison of the 3-dimensional calculation, with and without the geomagnetic field in the air, and the 1 dimensional one. The flux value will be reported in a separate paper with an improved interaction model.

## II Simulation Setups and procedure

The atmospheric neutrino flux of $``$ 1 GeV, in which we expect sizable differences between 1-dimensional and 3-dimensional calculations, is mainly produced by the cosmic rays with energies below 100 GeV. The recently observed proton cosmic ray flux in this energy region is lower than the HKKM flux model above 30 GeV, showing the maximum difference of 30 % at around 100 GeV (Fig. 1). Variations of observed flux for $`<`$ 10 GeV are also seen. However, this is mainly due to modulation by Solar activity, and they agree with each other when a proper correction is applied. Therefore, we renew the primary proton flux model based on recent observations, especially those of BESS and AMS. Above 100 GeV, we construct two primary flux models for proton cosmic rays: New Flux Model I and New Flux Model II shown in Fig. 1 with available data. They are considered as the upper and lower bounds of plausible extrapolation from lower energies. The fraction of heavier chemical composition in cosmic rays is small at $`<`$ 100 GeV, and we take the values of the old HKKM flux model for them.

As a temporary choice, we use the New Flux Model I in this study. The differences in the primary flux model, including that for heavier nuclei, would not result in large differences in the comparison of 1D and 3D calculation schemes. However, the differences in neutrino flux between the New Flux Model I, II, and the Old Flux Model are briefly addressed in a later section.

For the interaction model, we use the same interaction model as the HKKM calculations in this study. We stress that, however, we are improving the interaction model, since the combination of new flux model and present interaction model does not explain the observed flux of secondary cosmic rays at several altitudes. The updated interaction model as well as the primary flux model will be reported in a forthcoming paper with the resulting neutrino flux.

We assume that the surface of the Earth is a simple sphere with radius of $`R_e6378`$ km, and use a geomagnetic coordinate system such that the center of the Earth is the origin and the line from the center of the Earth to the magnetic north pole is the z-axis. The geomagnetic field is approximated by a dipole magnetic field as,

$$B_x=B_03zxR_e^3/r^5,B_y=B_03zyR_e^3/r^5,\mathrm{and}B_z=B_0(3z^2r^2)R_e^3/r^5$$
(1)
with $`B_0=0.30`$ Gauss in this coordinate system. The position of magnetic north pole is calculated to be at (71.4W, 79.3N) for the geomagnetic field in 1995. And the magnetic latitudes for SK, Soudan-II, and SNO are 26.9 N, 58 N, and 54.0 N, respectively. The position of SK may be considered as the mid-magnetic-latitudes (MML), and that of Soudan-II and SNO as the high-magnetic-latitudes (HML).

In addition to the surface of the Earth, we consider three more spheres. The first one is called the injection sphere with the radius of $`R_e+100`$ km, the second one is the simulation boundary sphere with radius of $`R_e+300`$ km, and the third one is the geomagnetic sphere with radius of $`10\times R_e`$. (See Fig. 2.) The simulation of cosmic rays starts at the injection sphere, and is carried out in the space between the surface of the Earth and the simulation boundary sphere. Outside of the geomagnetic sphere, we consider the cosmic rays are free from the effects of the geomagnetic field.

First, the chemical composition and energy are sampled for a cosmic ray following the energy spectrum of each chemical composition. Then the injection position is sampled uniformly over the injection sphere and the arrival directions are sampled so that the zenith angle distribution is proportional to \[ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ \], where $`\theta `$ is the zenith angle at the injection point. We record the sampled energy, the chemical composition, the position of the injection and the direction of the cosmic ray, irrespective of the result of the geomagnetic cutoff test.

For the geomagnetic cutoff test, we trace the backward path of a particle with the same mass and energy as the cosmic ray but with the opposite charge. If the particle goes out of the geomagnetic sphere within 100 sec without going into the injection sphere, we judge the cosmic ray has passed the geomagnetic cutoff. The above geomagnetic cutoff test only picks up cosmic rays which arrive in the injection plane for the first time. Note that the geomagnetic cutoff test works exactly the same way for two particles with the same rigidity ($`p/Z`$).

The cosmic rays which pass the geomagnetic cutoff test are fed into Cosmos simulation code. When a neutrino is produced in the simulation, the production position and the direction are recorded. Other particles are traced until they decay, they leave the simulation sphere or enter the Earth.

For the neutrinos, we calculate both the point of entrance into the Earth and the point of emergence from the Earth; neutrinos which do not enter the Earth are discarded. At each point, the arrival zenith angle and the azimuth angles are calculated. We note that the arrival zenith angle is defined as the angle between the downward normal vector direction and direction of the neutrino at each point. The azimuth angle is defined as the projection angle on the tangential plane at each point.

We refer to the calculation setup explained in the above as the 3D calculation. We performed three other calculations with different setups to the above. The first is a 1-dimensional calculation such that the geomagnetic cutoff test is applied with the same dipole magnetic field as in the 3-dimensional case, but all particles are treated by Cosmos in a 1-dimensional fashion (1D calculation), in which all secondary particles are produced in the direction of the primary cosmic ray. The second is such that the geomagnetic cutoff and the interaction are treated in the same way as the 3D calculation but the effect of the geomagnetic field is ignored in the air (3D-nomag calculation). The third is another 1D calculation such that most of procedures are the same as the 1D, but the the geomagnetic cutoff is applied with the multi-pole expanded (8th order) geomagnetic field (1D-multipole calculation). This is almost the same as the HKKM calculation except for the Flux model. The New Flux Model I is used for all the above calculations. These calculations are perfomed both for the SK site and for North America.

## III Simulation Results

### A Direction averaged flux

In Fig. 3, we show the energy spectra averaged over all directions of atmospheric neutrinos predicted by several different calculations for the MML (mid-magnetic-latitudes), and in Fig. 4 for HML (high-magnetic-latitudes). To see the difference more clearly, we also calculated the ratios of the 1D, 3D, and 3D-nomag to the 1D-multipole fluxes for MML and HML, and the ratio of 3D fluxes for HML to that for MML in Fig. 5.

The differences between 1D, 3D, 3D-nomag, and 1D-multipole calculations using the same primary cosmic ray flux model are small for MML. The differences are less than 5 % for $``$ 0.2 GeV for all the calculation schemes, and for $``$ 0.1 GeV between 1D and 3D. On the other hand, the differences between different calculation schemes are larger in HML than those in MML.

The neutrino flux difference between the New Flux Model-I and II is $``$ 2 – 3 % at 1 GeV and it grows to $``$ 10 % at 10 GeV. It is rather small in the energy region where the ‘3D-effects’ are important. However, the difference between the Old Flux Model and New Flux Model-I is 8 $``$ 12 % at 1 GeV and grows to a maximum of $``$ 20 % at 6 $``$ 8 GeV, and decreases above these energies.

The flux of Battistoni et al. is a little smaller than ours for $``$ 3 GeV, and the difference is $``$ 15% at 1 GeV in MML. In HML, their flux is again smaller than ours for 0.3 GeV $``$ E$`{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$ 3 GeV ($``$ 15% at 1 GeV). But below 0.3 GeV, their flux is similar or even larger than ours. However, their flux is very similar to ours at energies $``$ 3 GeV in both MML and HML.

### B Zenith angle dependence

In the 1-dimensional approximation, and without the geomagnetic cutoff, we expect larger atmospheric neutrino flux for the horizontal direction than for the vertical direction. Since the average first interaction point of cosmic rays is $``$ 100 $`\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ in column density, the inclined cosmic rays produce pions in a higher altitude than the vertical ones. When $`\pi `$$`\mu `$ decays take place in the dense air, the resulting neutrino flux is reduced, since the interaction probability of pions with the other air nuclei and the energy loss of the muons increases with the air density. Note, however, the muon energy loss is more important than the interaction probability of pions in the energy region in which we are interested ($``$ 1 GeV).

The geomagnetic cutoff modifies the zenith angle dependence of the atmospheric neutrino flux at low energies ($``$ 3 GeV). In MML, even high rigidity particles ($``$ 35 GV) do not pass the geomagnetic cutoff test in the near-horizontal easterly directions, while relatively low rigidity particles ($``$ 11 GV) pass the test in the near-vertical directions. Thus the atmospheric neutrino flux for horizontal directions is lower than that for the neighboring directions, even after averaging over all azimuth angles. In HML, we expect the downward going neutrino flux is larger than the upward going neutrino flux, since averaged cutoff rigidity is lower for down going directions.

We show the zenith angle variation calculated in the 1D, 3D, and 3D-nomag schemes in Figs. 6 and 7 for MML and HML respectively to compare the zenith angle dependence of the atmospheric neutrino flux among different calculation schemes. The neutrino fluxes are integrated in the energy range of 0.1 – 0.3 GeV, 0.3 – 1 GeV, and 1 – 3.1 GeV, and averaged over all azimuth angles.

The zenith angle variations of the atmospheric neutrino fluxes calculated in the 1D and 1D-multipole schemes are well explained by the incident angle of the primary cosmic ray and the geomagnetic cutoff as above. In the 3D and 3D-nomag calculations, however, there is a large enhancement of neutrino fluxes in the near-horizontal directions, which is not seen in the 1D and 1D-multipole calculations. This horizontal enhancement is seen in both MML and HML. The horizontal enhancement of atmospheric neutrino flux was first reported by Battistoni et al. , and Lipari gave an explanation in terms of geometry .

For the comparison with the results of Battistoni et al. , we plotted their results alongside our 3D-nomag results, since they considered the geomagnetic field outside the atmosphere to calculate the geomagnetic cutoff but they did not apply the geomagnetic field in the atmosphere. We found the horizontal enhancement is $``$ 10 % larger than ours. However, this is not considered to be the result of the difference between the multipole and dipole geomagentic cutoff schemes. The 1D calculation gives a larger flux than the 1D-multipole at near-horizontal directions in our study. Therefore, we conclude that the larger horizontal enhancement in the results Battistoni et al. can be explained by the difference of hadronic interaction model from ours, especially that of transverse momentum of secondary pions.

### C East-West effect

We show the azimuth variation of the neutrino fluxes calculated in 1D, 3D, and 3D-nomag schemes in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 for MML and HML, respectively. The azimuth variation calculated in 1D-multipole scheme is also shown with that in the 1D scheme as a histogram. The neutrino flux is integrated over the energy range of 0.1 – 0.3 GeV, 0.3 – 1 GeV, and 1 – 3.1 GeV, and averaged over the zenith angles: $`|\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{\mathrm{Zenith}})|<0.5`$.

The azimuthal variation of the neutrino fluxes is determined only by the geomagnetic cutoff in the 1-dimensional approximation, and we expect only a small deviation from that in the 3-dimensional schemes. (For detailed discussions, see Lipari et al. .) The difference between 1D, 3D, and 3D-nomag is small since they use the same geomagnetic cutoff scheme. The difference between the dipole and multi-pole geomagnetic cutoff scheme is also small. Note that there is an experimental study of the azimuth variation of the atmospheric neutrino flux, although the statistics in this study is small.

In both MML and HML, the atmospheric neutrinos fluxes are larger in the westerly directions ($`180^{}<\mathrm{azimuth}<360^{}`$) than the easterly directions ($`0^{}<\mathrm{azimuth}<180^{}`$) due to the lower cutoff rigidity for the westerly directions. However, the difference between the westerly direction and the easterly direction is smaller in HML than in MML. Since the corresponding energy to the cutoff rigidity is near or even lower than the pion production threshold of cosmic rays in HML, the effect of the geomagnetic cutoff is small.

We would like to note, however, that there is a feature which is not explained by the geomagnetic cutoff only. The azimuth variation of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ fluxes is larger than that of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ fluxes only in the 3D calculation, and this is not seen in other calculation schemes. The differences betweeen $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, and $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ are considered to result from the curvature of muons in the geomagnetic field. This feature is seen both in HML and MML.

In order to study the horizontal enhancement in more detail, we have taken the flux ratio between the 3D and 3D-nomag calculations and the 1D calculation for MML. The flux ratio is shown separately in Fig. 10 for easterly directions (S-E-N 180 in azimuth angle), and in Fig. 11 for westerly directions (N-W-S 180 in azimuth angle). Note that the unit of the vertical axis is different in these ratio-figures.

Firstly, the amplitude of the horizontal enhancement is different in easterly and westerly directions for both 3D and 3D-nomag calculations. In the near-horizontal easterly directions, it is $``$ 200 % for 0.1 – 0.3 GeV, and $``$ 50 % for 0.3 – 1.0 GeV, while in the westerly directions, it is $``$ 100 % for 0.1 – 0.3 GeV, and $``$ 30% for 0.3 – 1 GeV. The large amplitude of the horizontal enhancement for easterly direction is caused by the low neutrino flux in 1D calculation in near-horizontal easterly directions due to the high cutoff rigidity ($``$ 35GV). The ‘3D effects’ work to smear out such a quick variation, and the ratio of the 3D flux to 1D one is larger for the region with higher cutoff rigidity if the zenith angle is the same.

In the energy range of 1.0 – 3.1 GeV, however, the horizontal enhancement becomes small and the difference between 3D and 3D-nomag calculation becomes apparent. In the 3D calculation, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ fluxes are enhanced, while $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ fluxes are suppressed for easterly horizontal direction, and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ fluxes are enhanced, while $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ fluxes are suppressed for westerly horizontal direction. These feature is not seen in the 3D-nomag calculation. Remember the fact that both the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$ are produced in a $`\mu ^+`$ decay, while both the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ are produced in a $`\mu ^{}`$ decay. These enhancement and suppression are related to the muon curvature in the geomagentic field.

A muon is produced in a direction following the $`P_t`$ distrubution of pions in the hadronic interaction of the parent cosmic ray. The directions of the potential parent cosmic rays of a muon distribut in a axisymmetric distribution around the muon direction at the muon production point, ignoring the bending of pions in the geomagnetic field. For near-horizontal muons, therfore, some of the potential parent cosmic rays are shaded by the Earth. Since a muon changes its direction by $`5^{}`$ within the average life time in the geomagnetic field, the shading of the cosmic ray by the Earth works different way depending on the direction and chage of muons. For a easterly $`\mu ^+`$ and westerly $`\mu ^{}`$, the shading by the Earth works more effectively, and the neutrinos produced by these muons are suppressed. For easterly $`\mu ^{}`$ and westerly $`\mu ^+`$, the shading by the Earth works less effectively, and the neutrino produced by these muons are enhanced. Note, the shading by the Earth reduce the neutrino flux near the horizontal directions, but is not seen in the resulting neutrino flux due to the large horizontal enhancement.

There is an additinal effect related to the geomagnetic cutoff. The geomagnetic cutoff applied to the parent cosmic ray is different between 3D and 3D-nomag calculations due to the muon curvature. Generally speaking, a higher cutoff rigidity is applied to a $`\mu ^+`$, and a lower rigidity cutoff is applied to a $`\mu ^{}`$ irrespective of direction. However, this effect is not evident except for the easterly and near-horizontal directions, where the cutoff rigidity rapidly increase toward the horizontal direction.

The amplitudes of the enhancement or suppression in geomagnetic field are $``$ 5 % for the $`\nu _\mu `$, and $``$ 10 % for the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, 20 $``$ 30 % for $`\nu _e`$ and 10 $``$ 20 % for $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, over a wide energy range in the near-horizontal, westerly or easterly directions. These amplitude could be understood by the muon curvature effect explained above. Note Lipari pointed the importance of the magnetic field after the geomagnetic cutoff in Ref. .

For the HML, the flux ratio is also calculated and shown separately in Fig. 12 for easterly directions (S-E-N 180 in azimuth angle), and Fig. 13 for westerly directions (N-W-S 180 in azimuth angle). Note that the unit of the vertical axis is different in these ratio-figures.

The general feature is the same as in the MML, but the horizontal enhancement is larger for lower neutrino energies, and the difference between 3D and 3D-nomag calculation is seen in near-horizontal directions for $``$ 1 GeV. However, the difference between easterly and westerly directions is smaller than that in the MML, since the effect of rigidity cutoff is small even in the near-horizontal directions. It is $``$ 100 % for 0.1 – 0.3 GeV, and $``$ 30% for 0.3 – 1 GeV for both directions. Also the differences of the fluxes in 3D and 3D-nomag calculation are similar to those in MML, but a little smaller.

### D Neutrino Production Height

As we have already discussed in section III B, the production height of atmospheric neutrinos is mainly determined by the zenith angle of incoming cosmic rays in the 1D calculation. The cutoff rigidity also gives an additional effect to the production height for low energy neutrinos. The production height of a fixed energy neutrino is lower for higher energy parent cosmic rays, since the interaction-decay cascade extends deeper into the atmosphere when it is initiated by higher energy cosmic rays. The production height is also different for different kinds of neutrino. It is lower for $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ than for $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, because the former are mainly produced only in the decay of muons and the latter are produced both in the muon and pion decays, and the muons are mainly produced in the pion decay.

In order to study the difference of the production height between the 1D and 3D calculations, we integrate it from ground level to the top of the atmosphere for the 1D and 3D calculations. We show the accumulated probabilities of 20 %, 50 %(median), and 80 % in Figs. 14 and 15.

We find that the production heights in the 3D and 1D calculations are almost identical for the near-vertical directions. Also they roughly agree each other for the near-horizontal directions at high energies ($``$ 1 GeV). However, the production height in the 3D calculation is apparently lower than that in the 1D calculation for near-horizontal direction and neutrino energies $`<`$ 1 GeV. Despite of this difference, the essential discussions for the production height in the 1D calculation can be applied to the 3D calculation. The production height for near-vertical direction is lower than that for near-horizontal direction. Also the effect of geomagnetic cutoff on the production height can be seen in the comparison of MML and HML, and in the comparison for easterly and westerly near-horizontal directions.

From these figures, we find that the neutrino production heights calculated in the 1D and 3D calculations agree with each other for $`>`$ 0.3GeV in near-vertical direction, and for $`>`$ 1GeV in near-horizontal directions. Note that at high energies ($``$ 2 GeV), our calculation also suffers from small statistics. However, in the near-horizontal direction and for $`<`$ 1 GeV, the production height is lower in the 3D calculation than that in the 1D calculation. The difference of the production height between the decay products of $`\mu ^{}`$ ($`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$) and those of $`\mu ^+`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$) is also seen in the 3D calculation in the energies of $``$ 0.3 GeV. The production height of $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is higher than that of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ or $`\nu _e`$ for westerly direction, and the production height of $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is lower than that of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ or $`\nu _e`$ for easterly direction. This can be understood by the curvature of muons.

Gaisser and Stanev stressed the importance of the production height and the path length in the study of neutrino oscillations. We compare the path length calculated in the 1D and 3D calculations, converting the median production height to the path length by a simple relation:

$$d=\sqrt{(h^2+2R_eh)+(R_e\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}R_e\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(2)
where $`h`$ is the height, $`R_e`$ is the radius of the Earth, and $`d`$ is the path length. We show the ratio of the two path lengths (3D$`/`$1D) as a function of cos(Zenith) in Fig. 16. In this comparison, we integrated over all the azimuth angles.

At near horizontal directions the production distance of 0.3 GeV neutrino is $``$ 10 % smaller for 3D calculation than for 1D at near horizontal directions. However, the difference is small $``$ 5 % for 1 GeV neutrinos, as is expected from the comparison of production height. There is almost no difference between MML and HML in this comparison.

## IV Summary and Discussions

We have calculated the flux of atmospheric neutrinos in a 3-dimensional scheme (3D), with the geomagnetic field simplified by a dipole approximation. We have made two other calculations using the same geomagnetic cutoff scheme: one is a 1-dimensional scheme (1D) and the other a 3-dimensional calculation without geomagnetic field in the air (3D-nomag). Adding to the above three, we have prepared another 1-dimensional calculation using the geomagnetic cutoff scheme due to a multi-pole expanded geomagnetic field similar to HKKM calculation  (1D-multipole).

The most remarkable fact is the large enhancement of the low energy neutrino flux at near-horizontal directions found both in the 3D and 3D-nomag calculations in both mid and high magnetic latitudes. This enhancement is already reported by other 3-dimensional calculations, and Lipari showed that the enhancement can be explained by the geometry.

We introduce an explanation which is a little different to that by Lipari. We simplify the 1D-calculation; assuming that the atmospheric neutrino is produced at a fixed height $`h`$, or on a shpere with the radius of $`R_e+h`$. We also ignore the geomagnetic cutoff and the zenith angle dependence of production. As primary cosmic rays arrive uniformly on the sphere, the neutrino is also produced uniformly at the sphere for the downward direction. The directional distribution is proportional to

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta d\mathrm{cos}\theta dS(\mathrm{cos}\theta >0),$$
(3)
where $`\theta `$ is the zenith angle of the neutrino. Note that we take $`\mathrm{cos}\theta >0`$ as the downward direction, and we integrate over the azimuth angles.

In the 3D calculation, the neutrino is produced in a little different direction to the primary cosmic ray direction. The directional distribution is calculated by a convolution at the production place, and proportional to

$$_{\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}>0}D(\theta ,\theta ^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}d\mathrm{cos}\theta dS.$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ are the zenith angle for the neutrino in case of 3D and 1D calculations respectively, and $`D(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ is a dispersion function due to the ‘3D effects’. It is important that equation 4 gives a non-zero value at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$, unless $`D(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ is a $`\delta `$-function. The ratio of the two expressions, $`_{\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}>0}D(\theta ,\theta ^{})d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}/\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ has a divergence at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. The zenith angle $`\theta `$ is almost the same as the arrival direction at the ground, however, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ never be 0 for neutrinos which is observed at ground level. The horizontal direction at the ground level actually corresponds to $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )=\sqrt{1(R_e/(R_e+h))^2}`$ at the production sphere. We do not see a divergence but rather an enhancement of the neutrino flux at horizontal directions.

For neutrinos with energies $`>`$ 1 GeV, $`D(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ is well approximated by the $`\delta `$-function. However, as long as $`D(\theta ,\theta ^{})`$ has a extended structure more than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =90^{}\mathrm{cos}^1(\sqrt{1(R_E/(R_E+h))^2})5^{}`$, a flux enhancement at horizontal directions would be seen. Thus, although ‘3D-effects’ are small, but they are enhanced by the geometry.

When we compare the 1D and 3D calculations averaging over all directions (Fig. 5), we found the difference is rather small, and 3D calculation gives $``$ 5 % larger than 1D even at 0.1 GeV for MML (mid-magnetic-latitudes, SK). It is also true that the the difference between the calculation with the axisymmetric dipole geomagnetic cutoff (1D) and the multipole geomagnetic cutoff (1D-multipole) is also small; 1D gives $``$ 5 % smaller flux than 1D-multipole calculation Considering these facts, we would be able to conclude that the 1-dimensional calculation made in  is reasonably justified for the MML (mid-magnetic-latitudes, SK) as for as the average over all directions is concerned. when the neutrino flux is averaged over all directions. We note, however, this is not a general statement; the 3D calculation for the HML (high-magnetic-latitudes, Soudan-II and SNO) gives $``$ 5 % higher flux at 0.3 GeV and $``$ 10 % higher flux at 0.1 GeV. Thus, the ‘3d-effects’ work more effectively in HML than in MML, or for the position with lower cutoff rigidities.

The effect of the geomagnetic field is different for the neutrinos produced by $`\mu ^+`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$) and the neutrinos produced by $`\mu ^{}`$ ($`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$), as is also predicted by Lipari. This effect is not as large as the geometric enhancement for $`<`$ 1 GeV. However, it gives 5 $``$ 30 % effect depending on the kind of neutrinos for near-horizontal directions, and is almost independent of the neutrino energy and magnetic latitude. Since this is caused by the curvature of muons in the geomagnetic field, it would affect neutrino fluxes up to energies of $``$ 10 GeV.

The comparision of the 3D and 3D-nomag calculations in the over all direction average is also interesting. The variation of the cosmic ray shading by the muon curvature discussed in section III B works different ways in the easterly and westerly directions. We expect the difference betwen 3D and 3D-nomag calculations are small due to the compensation of the effect in both directions. This is true in the calculation in HML; that they agree each other within the statistical errors. In MML, however, the neutrino flux is 2 $``$ 3 % smaller in 3D calculation than 3D-nomag at $``$ 0.3 GeV even in the all direction average (Fig. 5). The coupled effect of muon curvature and geomagnetic cutoff may explain this fact, since the cutoff rigidity ($`10`$ GV) and the effect works more effectively at MML.

The production heights of the atmospheric neutrino in the 3D calculation are similar to that in the 1D calculation for $`>`$ 1 GeV. They are almost identical in the near vertical directions. In the near-horizontal directions, however, the production height in 3D calculation is lower than that in 1D calculation, and there are apparent differences in the production heights of between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, and between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ due to curvature of muons in the geomagnetic field.

The path length of atmospheric neutrino is also compared in the 1D and 3D calculations, integrating all azimuth directions. The maximum difference is seen at a near horizontal direction, and is $``$ 10 % for 0.3 GeV neutrinos and $``$ 5 % neutrinos. For higher energy neutrinos ($``$ 1 GeV), we expect very small difference between 1D and 3D calculations.

## V Acknowledgments

We are grateful to P. Lipari, A. Okada, and J. Nishimura for useful discussions and comments. We thank to S. Orito and T. Sanuki for showing us the data before publication and for discussions. We also thank to C.T. Taylor for a careful reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Chandra and RXTE Spectroscopy of the Galactic Microquasar XTE J1550-564 in Outburst

## 1 Introduction

XTE J1550$``$564 is a transient Galactic black hole. At the time of writing, four outbursts — each separated by clear quiescent periods — have been observed from this source. Radio observations during its 1998–1999 outburst revealed optically thick emission, with apparent superluminal motion (v$`{}_{\mathrm{jet}}{}^{}>2c`$) (Hannikainen et al. 2000). As a result, XTE J1550$``$564 was further classified as a “microquasar.” Recently, Orosz et al. (2002) have constrained the mass of the black hole primary in this system through optical observations of the source in quiescence ($`9.86M_{}<M_{BH}<11.58M_{}`$).

The accretion flow geometry of Galactic black holes in outburst may change considerably with the mass accretion rate ($`\dot{m}`$), which is often assumed to be traced directly by the soft X-ray luminosity (see, however, Homan et al. 2001). In transient outbursts, the soft X-ray luminosity may suddenly rise, and decay over a period ranging between days and months; from quiescence to the outburst peak, the luminosity may increase by a factor of $`10^6`$ or more. In all such systems, periods of characteristic X-ray timing and spectral behaviors and correlated multi-wavelength properties are observed which are known as “states” (for reviews, see Tanaka & Lewin 1995, Belloni 2001, Done 2002; for a critical discussion see Homan et al. 2001). The existence of states likely indicates that only certain accretion modes and geometries are allowed in Galactic black hole systems.

At luminosities below $`L_X10^{3435}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$, the geometry is particularly uncertain; the accretion disk may be recessed to $`R_{in}10^{24}R_g,R_g=GM_{BH}/c^2`$ (see, e.g., Esin, McClintock, & Narayan 1997; for a competing description see Ross, Fabian, & Young 1999). In contrast, near peak outburst luminosity — $`L_X10^{3738}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ — there is general agreement that the accretion disk may extend to the marginally stable circular orbit. In such cases, the disk may serve as a probe of the general relativistic regime around the black hole.

This regime can be explored through continuum spectroscopy (e.g., through the multi-colour disk blackbody model, Mitsuda et al. 1984), studies of high frequency quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in the X-ray lightcurve (possibly associated with the Keplerian frequency at the marginally stable circular orbit), and through studies of Fe K$`\alpha `$ line profiles and X-ray reflection spectra (Fabian et al. 1989, Miller et al. 2002a; George & Fabian 1991, Ross, Fabian, & Young 1999). XTE J1550$``$564 and GRO J1655$``$40 are the only two dynamically-constrained Galactic black holes for which each of these tools has revealed evidence of an accretion disk at the marginally stable orbit, and perhaps evidence of black hole spin (Sobczak et al. 1999, Sobczak et al. 2000; Remillard et al. 1999a, Homan, Wijnands, & van der Klis 1999; Strohmayer 2001, Miller et al. 2001a).

We obtained two nearly-simultaneous observations of XTE J1550$``$564 with Chandra and RXTE near the peak of its May, 2001 outburst, at source luminosities of $`L_X0.8\times 10^{38}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and $`L_X1.0\times 10^{38}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (0.65–10.0 keV) for $`d=5.3`$ kpc (Orosz et al. 2002). Our short $`4`$ kilosecond observations with Chandra were designed for a much brighter source; the sensitivity achieved does not permit detailed studies of the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line region. However, we are able to confirm that broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission lines in the RXTE spectra are not due to an intrinsically narrow line.

## 2 Outburst History and Observation

XTE J1550$``$564 was discovered on 7 September 1998 (Smith 1998), by the All Sky Monitor (ASM) aboard the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE). A radio (Campbell-Wilson et al. 1998) and optical counterpart (Orosz, Bailyn, & Jain 1998) was quickly identified. The ensuing outburst lasted until June 1999, and displayed some of the most remarkable behavior yet seen in an X-ray nova, e.g. an initial flare which reached a flux level equivalent to 6.8 Crab (1.5–12 keV, RXTE/ASM), very rapid state transitions, and strong (7% rms) QPOs at frequencies as high as 285 Hz (Sobczak et al. 2000, Homan et al. 2001).

On 2 April, 2000, new source activity was noticed by the RXTE ASM (Smith et al. 2000). XTE J1550$``$564 was active in X-rays for nearly 70 days thereafter, and reached a peak flux of $``$1 Crab (ASM, 1.5-12 keV); it was also seen out to 300 keV with BATSE aboard CGRO, and simultaneously in optical bands (Masetti & Soria 2000, Jain & Bailyn 2000). Spectrally-inverted radio emission, likely from a compact jet, is detected in the low/hard state, as well as a possible discrete ejection event at the low/hard – intermediate state transition (Corbel et al. 2001). The ASM light curve and (5–12 keV)/(3–5 keV) hardness ratio of this outburst is shown in Figure 1. The lightcurve of the first outburst of XTE J1550$``$564 departed radically from a typical profile (Homan et al. 2001), but the second outburst is more similar to a fast-rise exponential-decay (or, “FRED”) envelope.

Near the peak of this outburst, Miller et al. (2001a) report simultaneous high-frequency QPOs at 188 Hz and 276 Hz. These QPOs appear in an approximate 2:3 ratio like the 300 Hz and 450 Hz QPOs found in observations of GRO J1655$``$40 (Strohmayer et al. 2001). If these QPOs are tied to the Keplerian frequency at the marginally stable circular orbit, they provide evidence for black hole spin. Tomsick et al. (2001a) and Kalemci et al. (2001) discuss the spectral and timing properties, respectively, of the declining phase of this outburst.

On 28 January, 2001, RXTE found XTE J1550$``$564 to be in the low/hard state, with timing noise of 40% rms and a spectrum well-described by a power-law with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.52`$ (Tomsick et al. 2001b). On 10 January, 2002, RXTE again found XTE J1550$``$564 to be in the low/hard state. Belloni et al. (2002) report that the timing and spectral properties typical of the low/hard state in this short outburst.

The second outburst of XTE J1550$``$564 met the trigger criteria for our approved Chandra AO-1 target of opportunity (TOO) program, as well as our RXTE AO-5 TOO program. In all, we made seven observations of XTE J1550$``$564 with Chandra (18 observations with RXTE). Of these, here we report on the first two observations only (see Table 1), when the source was brightest. Of the remaining Chandra observations, in two cases the HETGS failed to insert, and in two other cases the source intensity was too faint for our graded, continuous-clocking observational mode to yield good spectra, but the source was clearly detected (for a good discussion of continuous clocking mode, see Marshall et al. 2001). Imaging data from a final observation will be presented in separate work.

## 3 Data Reduction

### 3.1 RXTE Modes and Selections

The RXTE data we report here were obtained through pointed observations of the proportional counter array (PCA), which consists of five individual proportional counter units (PCUs). Due to gain uncertainties in PCU-0 following the loss of its propane layer, we exclude data from this detector. With this exception, we include data from all layers of all active detectors (see Table 1; for observation R1 this includes PCUs 2, 3, and 4; for observation R2 this includes PCUs 1, 2, 3, and 4). The data was reduced using the LHEASOFT suite (version 5.1). We apply the standard “goodtime” and detector “deadtime” corrections. The background was calculated using the “bright source” model within LHEASOFT. Response matrices were made using the tool “pcarsp.”

At the resolution of the PCA, the spectrum of the Crab nebula is known to be a simple power-law. We fit a spectrum from the Crab obtained on 14 May 2000 (as close to our observations as possible), with a power-law index for the pulsar component of 1.8 (Knight, 1982) and a column density of $`3.2\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Massaro et al, 2000). Below 3 keV, residuals are very large, and so we fix 3 keV as our lower fitting bound. Similarly, above 25 keV, residuals in fits to the Crab are large, and our data from XTE J1550$``$564 becomes dominated by the background flux, so we adopt this energy as an upper fitting bound. As we wish to address the iron line region in XTE J1550$``$564, we consider residuals as a function of energy in power-law fits to this Crab observation. We find that with the addition of 0.4% systematic errors in the 3–8 keV band, and 0.8% systematic errors in the 8–25 keV band, the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ fitting statistic drops to 1.0 (similar results were obtained by Tomsick et al. 2001a). Therefore, we add this energy-dependent systematic error to our PCA data from XTE J1550$``$564.

### 3.2 Chandra Modes and Selections

XTE J1550$``$564 was observed with the Chandra HETGS using the ACIS-S CCD array operating in continuous clocking (CC) mode. Because XTE J1550$``$564 had flared to 6.8 Crab (1.5–12 keV) during its 1998 outburst, avoiding damage to the ACIS array was a paramount concern. To this end, we employed a large dither (20” amplitude) to spread the most intense parts of the zeroth order over many pixels. Furthermore, the zeroth order aim point was shifted toward the top of the chip via a SIM-Z translation of $`+`$10.0mm from the nominal S3 aim point. A $`+`$1.33’ Y-offset was used to place the iron Kα region of the HEG $``$1 order on ACIS-S3. Finally, we blocked-out rows 367–467, eliminating any read-out of zeroth-order photons. This blocking acted to limit any telemetry saturation that would result from the zeroth-order counts. The CC mode was employed to limit pile-up of the dispersed spectrum and to achieve 3 msec time resolution.

As our observing mode is non-standard, the data is not well-suited to reduction via the tools available in the CIAO suite. We have managed to build robust, custom software to reduce and analyse our data. We first correct for bad aspect times (e.g. slewing, see Table 1). The events are then examined in projected chip-x space to correct for “hot” pixels which report erroneously large event numbers (a list of bad pixels is available through CIAO). ACIS-S4 sometimes produces “streaks” which appear in the ACIS chip image (see http://asc.harvard.edu); the events were removed using a 50 column median filter, rejecting deviations greater than 3$`\sigma `$. The spacecraft dither pattern is removed by calculating the mean chip-x position as a function of time, which is a sine wave. We are able to interpolate the dither-corrected chip x position of each event by removing this sine wave. With the dither removed, it is possible to calculate the wavelength corresponding to each chip-x value via the grating equation. A linear gain correction is performed on each of the four independent read-out and amplifier nodes on each ACIS-S chip. Finally, we extract first-order MEG and HEG events and background regions, and apply the appropriate response matrices.

Indeed, although we have blocked-out the zeroth-order photons, we are able to accurately locate the position of the zeroth-order, and therefore are able to convert accurately from chip x space to wavelength or energy space via the grating equation. To do this, we make use of the fact that the ACIS chips are silicon-based, and that silicon has an absorption edge at 1.8395 keV. For an assumed zeroth-order position, then, we can examine the location of this edge in the HEG $`+`$1 and HEG $``$1 spectra (which are on opposite sides of the zeroth-order position) and iterate the assumed zeroth-order position until the edge is seen at the same energy in both (see Figure 2).

As per Marshall et al. (2001), we perform an effective area correction, and add 5% systematic errors to the dispersed spectra. Due to the fact that our Chandra observations were offset towards the top of the ACIS-S array, less of the HEG $`1`$ and MEG $`+`$1 orders were read-out in comparison to the HEG $`+1`$ and MEG $``$1 orders. Moreover, with the spacecraft dither, the portions of the HEG $`1`$ and MEG $`+`$1 spectra dispersed far from the zeroth order were moved onto and off of the ACIS-S array. This is reflected in the spectra we obtained from the truncated orders, which show significant deviations from the shape expected based on the spectra obtained with RXTE. Therefore, we only consider the HEG $`+`$1 and MEG $``$1 spectra from our Chandra observations.

Even after rebinning by a factor of 10, flux bins below 0.65 keV in the MEG $``$1 spectrum are consistent with zero. The HEG $`+`$1 spectrum suffers from low effective area below 1.0 keV, displaying a flux trend inconsistent with the MEG $``$1 spectrum. These energies serve as lower fitting bounds. We exclude data from regions near gaps in the ACIS-S CCD array. In the MEG $``$1 spectrum we exclude the 0.74-0.80 keV band. There is another gap between 2.2–3.0 keV in this grating order, and at higher energies the effective area of the HEG is higher. We therefore adopt 2 keV as an upper fitting bound for the MEG $`1`$ order. We exclude the 1.3–1.4 keV and 3.2–4.2 keV bands in the HEG $`+`$1 spectrum, and set 10.0 keV as an upper fitting bound (this is the effective upper energy limit of the HEG).

## 4 Analysis and Results

The reduced spectra were analyzed using XSPEC version 11.1.0 (Arnaud et al. 1996). All errors quoted in this paper reflect the difference between the best-fit value, and the value of the parameter at its 90% confidence limits.

We fit the spectra from the Chandra/HETGS and the RXTE/PCA spectra simultaneously; spectra R1 and C1 are nearly simultaneous, and spectra R2 and C2 are simultaneous (see Table 1). Joint fits are desirable to characterize the continuum emission, as the range of the Chandra/HETGS is well-suited to measuring the soft spectral component expected from an accretion disk, and the RXTE/PCA range is well-suited to contraining the hard power-law spectral component.

Fits with a model consisting of interstellar absorption (“phabs” in XSPEC), a multi-colour disk (MCD) blackbody component (Mitsuda et al. 1984), and a power-law component did not yield acceptable fits ( $`\chi ^2/\nu >5`$). Fits with Comptonization models such as “compTT” (Titarchuk 1994) and the “bulk motion Comptonization” model (Shrader & Titarchuk 1999) gave slightly worse fits. This is principally due to strong residuals in the Fe Kα region. We therefore add a broad Gaussian line and smeared edge (“smedge” within XSPEC; Ebisawa et al. 1994). This is the same model used by Sobczak et al. (2000) in fits to the 1998–1999 outburst of XTE J1550$``$564, and to be consistent with this prior work we fix the width of the edge to 7.0 keV, and the width (FWHM) of the line to 1.2 keV. The widths are poorly constrained when allowed to vary (th 90% confidence error limits are approximately 50% of the assumed values). The addition of line plus edge combination consistent with neutral iron (E$`{}_{line}{}^{}=6.40`$ keV, E$`{}_{edge}{}^{}=7.1`$ keV) does improve the fit considerably ($`\chi ^2/\nu 3`$), but this is not an acceptable fit. When the Gaussian and smeared edge energies are allowed to float, values consistent with helium-like Fe XXV (E$`{}_{line}{}^{}=6.68`$ keV, E$`{}_{edge}{}^{}=8.83`$ keV) are preferred statistically. We fix these values in our final model, and acceptable fits are achieved: $`\chi ^2/\nu =`$0.996 (R1$`+`$C1), $`\chi ^2/\nu =`$1.017 (R2$`+`$C2). As a first test of whether or not the line is intrinsically narrow, we also made fits with a Gaussian of zero width. The fit obtained is not statistically acceptable ($`\chi ^2/\nu 5`$), suggesting that the observed line is not merely instrumentally broadened.

We report the best-fit model parameters in Table 2; the data and the best-fit model are shown in Figure 3. We measure an equivalent neutral hydrogen column density of N$`{}_{H}{}^{}=8.0_{0.3}^{+0.4}\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Relatively high inner disk colour temperatures are found with the MCD model (kT$`=0.790\pm 0.008`$ keV and kT$`=0.753\pm 0.008`$ keV, respectively). We measure power-law indices of $`2.36\pm 0.01`$ and $`2.32\pm 0.01`$, respectively. The unabsorbed fluxes measured via our model are listed in Table 3; in the energy range we consider the disk flux is approximately 60% of the total. These spectral results are consistent with the XTE J1550$``$564 being in the intermediate state at the time of our observations (this is confirmed by X-ray timing results, see Miller et al. 2001a). The broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission line is relatively strong and highly significant; we measure equivalent widths of $`160\pm 20`$ eV and $`180\pm 20`$ eV, respectively. We measure the optical depth of the smeared edge to be $`1.34\pm 0.07`$ and $`1.39\pm 0.06`$, respectively.

For a known source distance and inclination, the MCD model gives a measure of the inner disk radius via the model normalization. Assuming the mean values for the black hole mass ($`M_{BH}10.7M_{}`$), system inclination ($`i73.1^{}`$), and distance ($`d5.3`$ kpc) reported by Orosz et al. (2002), we measure inner disk radii of $`45`$ km and $`56`$ km (corresponding to $`R_{in}2.8R_g`$ and $`R_{in}3.5R_g`$, respectively). As these values are within the marginally stable circular orbit ($`R_{in}=6R_g`$) for a non-spinning (Schwarzschild) black hole, they may imply a black hole with significant angular momentum in XTE J1550$``$564.

### 4.1 Testing for narrow features.

To further examine whether or not a single emission line might merely be smeared by the PCA response to produce the broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ line required in joint fits, we calculated the 95% confidence upper-limits on the strength of single-bin emission lines in the Chandra/HETGS spectra (see Figure 4). Due to Auger destruction, intermediate Fe ion species are not likely to be observed; relatively few narrow Fe K$`\alpha `$ lines (e.g., Fe I, XXV, XXVI at 6.40, 6.68, and 6.97 keV, respectively) are expected. It is clear that the upper-limits on line features at these energies are a fraction of the $`170`$ eV equivalent width of the broad lines required in joint fits. The spectra we obtained are of too coarse a sensitivity to detect narrow emission or absorption features like those found in the high/soft state of XTE J1650$``$500 (Miller et al. 2002b).

## 5 Discussion

We have analyzed spectra from two nearly-simultaneous Chandra/HETGS and RXTE observations of the Galactic microquasar XTE J1550$``$564. We jointly fit the 0.65–25.0 keV spectra with a continuum model consisting of two components: a multi-colour disk blackbody (likely from an accretion disk) and a power-law (likely from a corona). This simple model described the data better than Comptonization models. The data strongly require the addition of a broad Gaussian emission line and smeared edge features consistent with Fe XXV (see Section 3 and Table 2). This model may be regarded as an approximation to a full reflection model in the 0.65–25.0 keV band.

The multi-colour disk blackbody model yields a measure of the inner accretion disk edge. Our fits give inner disk radii of $`R_{in}2.8R_g`$ and $`R_{in}3.5R_g`$, which suggests that XTE J1550$``$564 may harbor a spinning black hole. If the Shimura & Takahara (1995) colour correction is applied ($`R_{in,ST}=f^2\times R_{in,MCD}`$, $`f=1.7`$ for stellar-mass black holes) black hole spin is not required. However, this correction may be overly simplifed. Merloni, Fabian, & Ross (2000) have detailed more systematic difficulties with the inner disk estimates of this model, but suggest that the MCD model may give acceptable inner disk measures at high $`\dot{m}`$. The 284 Hz QPO found in the 1998–1999 outburst of this source (Homan et al. 1999, 2001) and the 276 Hz QPO found in this outburst (Miller et al. 2001a) also suggest a spinning black hole.

Broad Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission line studies may provide another means of diagnosing the accretion flow geometry and black hole spin, as these lines are plausibly produced by irradiation of the inner disk (Fabian et al. 1989). We find that lines with widths of 1.2 keV (FWHM) adequately describe our data. Intrinsically narrow lines (with widths fixed at zero, as per a line with a FWHM less than the RXTE/PCA resolution) give significantly worse fit results. Moreover, the Chandra/HETGS spectra confirm that the line is not likely due to an intrinsically narrow line which is smeared by the resolution of the RXTE/PCA (see Section 3 and Figure 4). The sensitivity achieved with our Chandra/HETGS snapshot observations is not sufficient to constrain the parameters of more sophisticated line models which can estimate the inner disk extent more directly (and thereby black hole spin, e.g. Miller et al. 2002a). The 1.2 keV (FWHM) width we adopt in fits with a Gaussian model is not broad enough to require black hole spin, but it does suggest significant Doppler shifting. Compton broadening may also contribute to the observed line width.

Our best-fit spectral model is the same as that adopted by Sobczak et al. (2000) in fits to RXTE spectra from the 1998–1999 outburst. The parameters we measure are broadly consistent with those reported previously when XTE J1550$``$564 was found to be in the very high or intermediate states. The properties of these states are quite similar, and they are only distinguished by relative luminosity (if multiple such states are observed, the most luminous may be called the “very high” state, and the others “intermediate” states). The Fe K$`\alpha `$ emisson line equivalent widths we measure ($`W_{K\alpha }=160\pm 20\mathrm{and}180\pm 20`$ eV) are consistent with the strongest lines reported by Sobczak et al. (2000). We speculate that the sensitivity and energy range of the Chandra/HETGS spectra have allowed for a better characterization of the continuum spectrum, and therefore a better characterization of the line parameters as well.

At present, few very high and intermediate states have been observed relative to the more common high/soft and low/hard states. The spectra we have observed are similar to other very high and/or intermediate states observed in the RXTE and BeppoSAX era, including: XTE J1650$``$500, GRO J1655$``$40, GRS 1739$``$278, XTE J1748$``$288, and XTE J2012$`+`$381 (Miller et al. 2002, Sobczak et al. 1999, Borozdin et al. 1998, Miller et al. 2001b, Campana et al. 2002).

## 6 Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Harvey Tananbaum, Fred Seward, Jean Swank, Evan Smith, and the Chandra and RXTE operations staffs, for executing and coordinating these TOO observations. We thank Chandra scientist David Huenemoerder for sharing his analysis software expertise, and RXTE/PCA scientist Keith Jahoda for his generous help with the PCA detector response. We thank Ron Remillard for helpful discussions. W. H. G. L. gratefully acknowledges support from NASA. R. W. was supported by NASA through Chandra fellowship grant PF9-10010, operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for NASA under contract NAS8-39073. This research has made use of the data and resources obtained through the HEASARC on-line service, provided by the NASA–GSFC.