text:
# Transport Properties Calculation in the Superconducting State for a Quasi-Twodimensional System

## I Introduction

Although, a large number of experimental and theoretical investigations indicate that two dimensionality of the normal and superconducting state is one of the key factors in high temperature superconductivity , it remains to examine whether the cuprates are two-dimensional ($`2D`$) metals or three-dimensional ($`3D`$) metals with strong anisotropy. The high temperature superconductors show remarkable deviation from Fermi liquid behavior in the normal state, such as the appearance of the pseudogap phenomena and their related issues. The pseudogap phenomena mean the suppression of the low frequency spectral weight without any long range order. There are enormous studies from both experimental  and theoretical point of view  in order to explain these phenomena. The direct measurements of electronic spectrum such as $`ARPES`$  have indicated the similarity between the pseudogap and superconducting gap while using Intrinsic Tunneling Spectroscopy , it was found that the pseudogap, is coexisting with the superconducting gap, indicating a different nature of the two phenomena. The crucial test for superconducting origin of the gaps is their magnetic field dependencies. Magnetic field is a strong depairing factor and destroys superconductivity when the field exceeds the upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$.

The opening of the pseudogap has drastic effect on the physical properties of the high $`T_c`$ cuprates. It is found that associated with the pseudogap the in-plane resistivity deviates from the $`T`$-linear behavior  and the $`T`$ coefficient of the $`c`$-axis resistivity changes sign, signaling semiconductor like behavior . A remarkable point of the pseudogap is that it’s structure in momentum space is the same as the superconducting $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry with continuous evolution through $`T_c`$. This implies that the pseudogap phenomena have close connection to the superconducting fluctuations , and strongly suggested that the pseudogap is a precursor of the superconductivity . The main difference between the superconducting gap and the pseudogap is that the gap function is caused by the superconducting order, while the pseudogap is caused by the superconducting fluctuations. The optical conductivity is one of the quantities which most evidently display the anisotropy of the system. Measurements of the $`ab`$-plane conductivity suggest that the conductance in plane is coherent both in underdoped and overdoped regimes while the $`c`$-axis conductivity changes in character from a coherent behavior in overdoped regime to an incoherent behavior in the underdoped regime . Theoretical investigations of the $`ab`$-plane and $`c`$-axis conductivity both in the normal and superconducting phase can be found in .

In this paper we extend the self-consistent T-matrix calculation to the superconducting state. We consider the effects of the superconducting fluctuations on the electronic state which are the origin of the pseudogap. In the superconducting state the T-matrix approximation includes both the amplitude and the phase mode of the superconductor order parameter. We investigate the transport properties which show the pseudogap phenomena. We calculate their behavior in the superconducting state. The normal state behavior was calculated in . This paper is constructed as follows. In section II we give the Hamiltonian and explain the theoretical framework. In section III we present the results for the spectral function $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ and the results for the transport properties studied in this paper. In section IV we present the conclusions.

## II  Theoretical Framework

### A  Model Hamiltonian

In this section we present the theoretical framework of this paper. We consider a microscopic model, which incorporates both strong electron fluctuation in the $`CuO`$ planes and a weak interlayer coupling. The hopping between layers is included in the following Hamiltonian:

$$H=\underset{l}{}H_l\underset{𝐥}{}t_c\left(i\right)\left(c_{l,i,\sigma }^+c_{l+1,i,\sigma }+c_{l+1,i,\sigma }^+c_{l,i,\sigma }\right)$$
(1)
where $`t_c`$ is the hopping amplitude between layers and $`c_{l,i,\sigma }(c_{l,i,\sigma }^+)`$ is the annihilation (creation) operator for an electron within the planar site $`i`$, with spin $`\sigma `$, in layer $`l`$. Within each layer we consider the following two-dimensional model Hamiltonian which has $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry superconducting ground state:

$`H_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\sigma }{}}\epsilon _𝐤c_{l,𝐤,\sigma }^+c_{l,𝐤,\sigma }`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{},\sigma }{}}V_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}c_{l,𝐤,}^+c_{l,𝐤+𝐪,}c_{l,𝐤^{},}^+c_{l,𝐤^{}𝐪,}`$
where $`c_{_{𝐥,𝐤,\sigma }}(c_{_{𝐥,𝐤,\sigma }}^+)`$ is the annihilation (creation) operator for an electron with momentum $`𝐤`$, and spin $`\sigma `$ in the layer $`l`$. The electron dispersion relation is given by:

$$\epsilon _𝐤=2t\left(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y\right)4t^{}\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y\mu $$
(4)
where $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ are the nearest and the next-nearest neighbors hopping amplitudes and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. For now on we will consider $`t`$ equal to unity and $`t^{}=0.5t.`$ The pair interaction is written as:

$$V_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=Vf_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}$$
(5)
where

$$f_𝐤=\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y$$
(6)
is the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ wave factor. In equation (5) $`V`$ is negative. The important character of high $`T_c`$ cuprates is the momentum dependence of the interlayer hopping matrix element $`t_c(𝐤)`$. The transfer matrix $`t_c(𝐤)`$ obtained by the band calculation  is expressed as:

$$t_c(𝐤)=\left(cosk_xcosk_y\right)^2$$
(7)
The large magnitude of the resistivity anisotropy in the normal state reflects that the c-axis mean free path is shorter than the interlayer distance, and the carriers are tightly confined to the $`CuO`$ planes, and also is the evidence of the incoherent charge dynamics in the $`c`$-axis direction.

### B Self-Consistent T-Matrix Approximation

In this paper we focused on the calculation of the Green function directly on the real frequency axis  in order to avoid the difficulties of controlling the accuracy of the calculations used in the numerical analytical continuations from the imaginary to the real axis by Padé algorithm . In the previous paper  we presented the self-consistent equations set, which must be solved in order to obtain the Green function in the normal state. In this section we will present the equations only for the superconducting state. In the superconducting state, the self-consistent T-matrix approximation is a conserving approximation in the sense of Baym and Kadanoff .

For a continuum model with local interactions, the corresponding equations have been derived by Haussmann  and the analogous equations for the Hubbard model by Pedersen et. al. . The equations were solved in  and the thermodynamics of a superconductor was also studied. A similar model was also studied in .

Here we extend the self-consistent T-matrix calculation to the superconducting state. We carry out a self-consistent calculation for the spectral functions:

$$A(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }ImG(𝐤,\omega )$$
(8)
and:

$$B(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }ImF(𝐤,\omega )$$
(9)
where the Green function $`G(𝐤,\omega )`$ is given by:

$$G(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{\omega +\epsilon _𝐤+\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )}{\left(\omega \epsilon _𝐤\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )\right)\left(\omega +\epsilon _𝐤+\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}$$
(10)
and the anomalous Green function $`F(𝐤,\omega )`$ is given by:

$$F(𝐤,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤}{\left(\omega \epsilon _𝐤\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )\right)\left(\omega +\epsilon _𝐤+\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )`$ is the retarded self-energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ is the order parameter in the superconducting state. We choose for the gap function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-symmetry form $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_𝐤`$. The imaginary part of the self-energy can be expressed as:

$`Im\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`f_𝐤^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}{\displaystyle }d\omega ^{}[f(\omega ^{})+n(\omega +\omega ^{})]\times `$ (13)
$`A(𝐤^{},\omega ^{})ImT_{11}(𝐤+𝐤^{},\omega +\omega ^{})`$
where $`f(\omega )`$ and $`n(\omega )`$ are the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions. The real part of the retarded self-energy can be calculated using the Kramers-Krönig relation:

$$Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤,\omega )=p.v.\frac{d\omega ^{}}{\pi }\frac{Im\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐤^{},\omega ^{})}{\omega \omega ^{}}$$
(14)
where $`p.v.`$ represent the principal value of the integral. We have to mention that only the diagonal part of the T-matrix is taken into account when we calculated the self-energy. Ignoring the off-diagonal part of the T-matrix means that the anomalous self-energy is not considered. The T-matrix is given by the following relation:

$$T(𝐪,\omega )=V\left[1+V\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )\right]^1$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix given by:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐪,\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}K(𝐪,\omega )\hfill & L(𝐪,\omega )\hfill \\ L^{}(𝐪,\omega )\hfill & K(𝐪,\omega )\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(16)
The imaginary part of $`K(𝐪,\omega )`$ and $`L(𝐪,\omega )`$ can be calculated as follows:

$`ImK(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle }d\omega ^{}f_𝐤^2tgh{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{2T}}\times `$ (18)
$`A(𝐤,\omega ^{})A(𝐪𝐤,\omega \omega ^{})`$
$`ImL(𝐪,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle }d\omega ^{}f_𝐤^2tgh{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^{}}{2T}}\times `$ (20)
$`B(𝐤,\omega ^{})B(𝐪𝐤,\omega \omega ^{})`$
The real part of the $`K(𝐪,\omega )`$ and $`L(𝐪,\omega )`$ are also calculated using Kramers-Krönig relation. The chemical potential is determined by fixing the carriers density $`n`$ through the relation:

$$n=2\underset{𝐤}{}𝑑\omega A(𝐤,\omega )f(\omega )$$
(21)
We will consider in the following, the hole doping $`\delta =1n.`$ We also have the sum rule which must be satisfied:

$$1=\underset{𝐤}{}𝑑\omega A(𝐤,\omega )$$
(22)
The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be calculated self-consistently using the gap equation which in our notations can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=V\underset{𝐤}{}𝑑\omega f_𝐤^2B(𝐤,\omega )f(\omega )$$
(23)
Equations (21)-(23) must be satisfied at each step in the self-consistent calculation in order to obtain the new chemical potential and the gap function. We have to mention at this point that we did not take into account the anomalous self-energy at this level of calculations. The gap function can be calculated from the equation: $`1+VK(\mathrm{𝟎},0)VL(\mathrm{𝟎},0)=0`$, which is equivalent to the gap equation and is realized in the superconducting state. We determined the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ using both methods and found similar behavior as function of $`T`$.

For this calculation we used a Brillouin zone divided into $`32\times 32`$ lattice and the frequency integration was done over $`1024`$ points. All the correlations and the convolutions appearing in Eqs. (13)-(23) were done using the $`FFT`$ algorithm. Performing the self-consistent calculation we obtain the spectral functions $`A(𝐤,\omega )`$ and $`B(𝐤,\omega )`$. Using this spectral functions we can calculate different physical characteristics of cuprates. We can also calculate the density of state:

$$N(\omega )=\underset{𝐤}{}A(𝐤,\omega )$$
(24)
The $`ab`$-plane conductivity can be calculated using the following relation :

$`\sigma _{ab}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _𝐤}{k_x}}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _𝐤}{k_y}}\right)^2]\times `$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{\pi }}[f(\omega ^{}+\omega )f(\omega ^{})]\times `$
$`\left[A(𝐤,\omega ^{})A(𝐤,\omega +\omega ^{})+B(𝐤,\omega ^{})B(𝐤,\omega +\omega ^{})\right]`$
The equation (27) for the $`ab`$-plane conductivity neglects the vertex corrections and is coherent in character. For the calculation of $`c`$-axis conductivity we consider both the coherent and incoherent limits. The coherent $`c`$-axis conductivity is given by the relation:

$`\sigma _c(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`de^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}t_c^2(𝐤){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{\pi }}[f(\omega ^{}+\omega )f(\omega ^{})]\times `$ (29)
$`\left[A(𝐤,\omega ^{})A(𝐤,\omega +\omega ^{})+B(𝐤,\omega ^{})B(𝐤,\omega +\omega ^{})\right]`$
In equations (27)-(29) $`d`$ represents the interlayer distance. The contribution from the incoherent process has been discussed by different authors . The contribution from the tunneling process can be written as:

$`\sigma _{inc}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`de^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{}}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{\pi }}[f(\omega ^{}+\omega )f(\omega ^{})]\times `$ (31)
$`A(𝐤,\omega ^{})A(𝐤^{},\omega +\omega ^{})`$
We calculate also, the London penetration depth. This quantity is proportional with the superfluid density. The in-plane penetration depth is given by:

$$\frac{1}{\lambda _{ab}^2}=2\frac{e^2}{d}\underset{𝐤}{}𝑑\omega \left[\left(\frac{\epsilon _𝐤}{k_x}\right)^2+\left(\frac{\epsilon _𝐤}{k_y}\right)^2\right]\left|F(𝐤,\omega )\right|^2f\left(\omega \right)$$
(32)
and the $`c`$-axis penetration depth is:

$$\frac{1}{\lambda _c^2}=8de^2\frac{1}{\omega }\underset{𝐤}{}𝑑\omega t_c^2(𝐤)\left|F(𝐤,\omega )\right|^2f\left(\omega \right)$$
(33)
In the next section we present the results obtained for the transport properties calculated in this paper and compare the results with other theoretical works and with experimental data.

## III Results

In this section we present the results obtained for the self-consistent T-matrix approximation set of equations, introduced in the previous section. Through out of our calculation we chose for the coupling constant $`V=5.5t.`$ To study the superconducting state, we first calculated superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$. The superconducting transition temperature was determined as the highest temperature where the set of equations (8)-(23) has a non zero solution for the gap function. Near the critical temperature the algoritm becomes unstable because of the rapid growth of order parameter which was found also in the $`FLEX`$ calculations in , caused by the depairing effect due to low frequency spin fluctuations. In our case we consider the effect of the superconducting fluctuations. The effect is included in the retarded self-energy, which is determined self-consistently. Using T-matrix approximation we include both the amplitude and phase mode of the superconducting fluctuations in the self-energy . The self-energy corrections are reduced in the superconducting state because the fluctuations are reduced. The T-matrix approximation gives a unified description for the normal state in the pseudogap region of the underdoped cuprates and the superconducting state . The approximation is not accurate near the critical temperature $`T_c`$ because of the strong suppression of the depairing effect due to the pseudogap, followed by rapid growth of superconducting gap below $`T_c.`$ The order parameter grows more rapidly than in the $`BCS`$ model. We chose $`\delta =0.15`$ as the hole concentration. We found the $`BCS`$ critical temperature $`T_{BCS}=0.37t`$ and in the case of the self-consistent calculations $`T_C=0.22t`$. In $`Fig.1`$ we present the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as function of temperature.

After performing the self-consistent calculation we can calculate the transport properties of the system. The penetration depth can be calculated along the $`ab`$-plane and c-axis directions, using Eqs. (32) and (33). In $`Fig.2`$ and $`Fig.3`$, we present the temperature dependence of the penetration depth as function of temperature

We found a similar behavior as in the case of $`BCS`$ model. Due to the rapid increase of the order parameter blow $`T_C`$ we found a rapid decrease of the penetration depth with decreasing temperature in both $`ab`$-plane and $`c`$-axis directions. Recently, the penetration depth was measured as function of temperature by different authors for $`YBCO`$ and $`Bi2212`$ using different techniques . The magnetic field penetration depth $`\lambda `$ of superconductors is related to the superconducting carrier density $`n_s`$ divided by the effective mass $`m^{}`$ as $`1/\lambda ^2n_s/m^{}`$. In a recent paper Uemura  explained the experimental data found in  assuming a microscopic phase separation between superfluid and non-superconducting fermionic carriers, similar to the superfluid $`He`$ films.

Recently, it was reported that, the photoemission spectra near the Brillouin zone boundary, exhibit unexpected sensitivity to the superfluid density , supporting the universality as function of doping and temperature of the properties of the cuprates. We did not consider the vertex corrections for the calculation of $`F(𝐤,\omega )`$. Desired improvements of the present approach include the consideration of the vertex corrections neglected in the present approach.

We also analyze the $`ab`$-plane and $`c`$-axis optical conductivity in the superconducting state using the same approximation. For the calculation of $`\sigma _{ab}`$ we consider a coherent nature of the interlayer coupling. For the $`c`$-axis conductivity we consider the coherent and the incoherent coupling. Coherent coupling originates from an overlap of electronic wave functions between planes, and in-plane momentum is conserved in interlayer hopping. By contrast, for impurity mediated incoherent coupling, the in-plane momentum is not conserved.

The influence of the nature of the interlayer coupling on $`c`$-axis conductivity was studied by different authors . The $`ab`$-plane conductivity is mainly due to the quasiparticles near the ’cold points’, although the $`c`$-axis conductivity is due to the quasiparticles near the ’hot points’. Since the superconducting $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ gap and the pseudogap in the underdoped region above $`T_c`$ are large at ’hot points’, the $`c`$-axis conductivity reflects the pseudogap more clearly then the $`ab`$-plane conductivity.

In $`Fig.4`$ we present the calculated $`\sigma _{ab}`$, based on Eq. (27). The behavior in the superconducting state is similar with the behavior in the normal state.

The in-plane spectrum is dominated by a Drude peak at $`\omega =0`$. The intensity of the peak, increases with increasing temperature. Below $`T_c`$ there is no signature of superconducting gap seen in $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$ . Careful study of optical conductivity by different methods shows that the width of the Drude peak diminished by several orders of magnitude by decreasing the temperature, just below $`T_c`$ . In cuprates, in contrast with $`BCS`$ theory, the excitations are electronic, and as the gap develops in this excitations, the decrease in the scattering take place. The optical properties of the cuprates, are those of a clean limit of a $`BCS`$ superconductor. For the calculations of the $`c`$-axis conductivity we consider both the coherent and the incoherent nature of the interlayer coupling.

In $`Fig.5`$ we present the results for the $`c`$-axis optical conductivity in the case of the coherent nature of the interlayer coupling. The approximation assumes the independent electron propagation in each layer and is justified for $`t_ct`$. In this case, the $`\sigma _c`$ spectrum is dominated by a Drude peak at $`\omega =0`$. This features are characteristics of the $`d`$-wave symmetry, and due to the contribution from the gap node.

In $`Fig.6`$, the results for the $`c`$-axis conductivity are presented in the limit of the incoherent nature of the interlayer coupling. In this case the electronic contribution to $`\sigma _c\left(\omega \right)`$ does not form a Drude peak at $`\omega =0`$ . In the superconducting state, the $`c`$-axis optical conductivity is suppressed furthermore with decreasing temperature and shows the gap structure at low temperatures. We consider both limit, because measurements of $`c`$-axis conductivity suggest that conductance in $`c`$-direction is coherent in the overdoped regime , and incoherent in the underdoped regime . The coherent $`\sigma _c`$ was calculated using Eq. (29) and the incoherent $`\sigma _c`$ using Eq. (31).

The results presented in $`Fig.6`$ are in agreement with the experimental results obtained for the underdoped $`YBa_2Cu_3O_{7\delta }`$. Here we calculate the conductivity by neglected the vertex corrections. The vertex correction is not important, except for the Umklapp scattering in the case of electron correlation .

## IV Conclusions

Solving the self-consistent T-matrix equations for the model presented in the section 2 we have computed the transport properties of the system in the superconducting state. Calculations were performed for the superconducting order parameter of $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry. The effect of the superconducting fluctuations is included in the self-energy corrections. It is clear that the T-Matrix approximation breaks down in the limit $`TT_C`$ since the propagator is dramatically renormalized at the Fermi level. Our scenario is based on resonance scattering . The gap function was found to develop more rapidly than in the $`BCS`$ model. We calculated the London penetration depth and the $`c`$-axis and $`ab`$-plane conductivity and compared the results with the experimental data. The study of experimental dependence of the penetration depth is an important problem .

Desired improvements of the present approach include the considerations of the vertex corrections neglected in this approximation. The vertex corrections have a significant effect in the calculation of Hall resistivity  and magnetoresistance  in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. Although, the effect was suggested to be insignificant to superconductivity , a self-consistent calculation included vertex corrections is desired.


format: text

text:
# 𝐻₀ from an orientation-unbiased sample of SZ and X-ray clusters

## 1 Introduction

It has long been recognised that the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (SZ) effect \[Sunyaev & Zel’dovich 1972\] in clusters of galaxies, along with X-ray measurements, can provide a method of measuring distances on cosmological scales \[Gunn 1978, Silk & White 1978, Cavaliere et al. 1979, Birkinshaw 1979\]. The method takes advantage of the differing dependences on the cluster electron density $`n_\mathrm{e}`$ and temperature $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ of the X-ray bremsstrahlung ($`n_\mathrm{e}^2T_\mathrm{e}^{1/2}`$) and SZ effect ($`n_\mathrm{e}T_\mathrm{e}`$) to measure the physical size of the cluster, and hence its angular-diameter distance. The dependence of the derived value of $`H_0`$ on the important quantities is

$$H_0\left(\frac{T_\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{SZ}}}\right)^2\theta S_\mathrm{X}\frac{\mathrm{}_{}}{\mathrm{}_{}},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_{\mathrm{SZ}}`$ is the SZ brightness decrement, $`S_\mathrm{X}`$ is the X-ray surface brightness, $`\theta `$ is the apparent angular size of the cluster, and $`\frac{\mathrm{}_{}}{\mathrm{}_{}}`$ is the ratio of the linear sizes of the cluster perpendicular and parallel to the line of sight.

The systematic effects in this method of measuring $`H_0`$ are quite different from those in other methods, either in the traditional distance ladder or in other direct physical methods such as gravitational lensing, and are mostly due to the difficulty of modelling the cluster gas that causes both the SZ effect and the X-ray emission. Recent work has shown that the small-scale features in the gas distribution such as cooling flows or clumping contribute smaller biases than might have been thought, since the effects on the observed quantities entering $`H_0`$ tend to cancel each other even for a single cluster (eg, Grainger \[Grainger 2001\], Maggi et al.). However, the large-scale distribution of the gas poses a problem, since the line-of-sight depth through the cluster cannot be measured directly, and has to be assumed to be the same as the size of the cluster in the plane of the sky. This asumption will be violated if clusters are chosen preferentially because of high surface brightness, since this will favour clusters that are extended along the line of sight. This will bias low the derived value of $`H_0`$. We therefore need a cluster sample that is selected on total flux rather than surface brightness, well above the surface brightness limit of the survey. Although several individual $`H_0`$ estimates from the SZ/X-ray method have been published (eg \[Hughes & Birkinshaw 1998, Holzapfel et al. 1997, Reese et al. 2000\]), properly selected cluster samples are only recently beginning to emerge \[Mason, Myers & Readhead 2001\]. In this paper we derive a sample of moderate-redshift X-ray-selected clusters that is carefully controlled to be free of any orientation bias, and use it to calculate $`H_0`$ using the SZ data from the Ryle Telescope (RT).

Unless stated otherwise, we assume a standard cold dark matter cosmology (SCDM, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1.0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.0`$). We also give our results assuming a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$).

## 2 X-ray cluster selection

The most complete X-ray cluster samples suitable for our purpose are selected from the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS). We use two such samples, the Bright Cluster Sample (BCS) \[Ebeling et al. 1998\], and Northern Rosat All-Sky Survey (NORAS) \[Böhringer et al. 2000\]. We began selection of our SZ sample from BCS while it was being compiled; we use NORAS as a consistency check. Both surveys are based on cluster candidates found in the first processing (SASS) of the RASS data, with further tests to check they are indeed clusters. A problem, particularly for clusters at high redshift, is the risk of incompleteness for compact clusters that may not appear extended enough to be recognised as such. BCS attempts to overcome this problem by adding known Abell and Zwicky clusters to the sample. However, comparing the BCS and NORAS samples after applying our RT selection criteria, it turns out that our sample is not affected by differences between the BCS and NORAS secondary selections.

The flux limit of NORAS is $`3\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 at 90% completeness; that of BCS is $`4.4\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 to the same completeness. But we limit our sample to even higher fluxes, of greater than $`5\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (see Figure 1). Both this and a restriction to redshifts $`z<0.3`$ help reduce the risk of missing compact clusters. In accordance with the requirements for the Ryle Telescope we restrict our sample to the northern sky at declinations $`\delta >`$ 20, to a redshift range of $`z>0.14`$, and luminosities of $`L_x>8\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1. Table 1 lists the clusters from BCS and from NORAS that meet these criteria, and also indicates those which have radio sources that would make SZ measurement difficult or impossible. Where the surveys disagree on whether a cluster should be included on grounds of flux, we cautiously select only those clusters that meet our criteria in both surveys: this excludes three clusters above our flux limits in BCS and not in NORAS, and one in NORAS but not in BCS. This is consistent with the errors in the flux estimates in each survey. Two BCS-selected clusters are not in NORAS, consistent with the inclusion of optically selected clusters in BCS that are not in NORAS due to lack of extent. Of the eleven clusters satisfying our X-ray criteria, six have radio sources in the cluster or within the field of view of the RT that are too bright at 15 GHz to allow SZ observation with the RT. We have observed the remaining five, A697, A773, A1413, A1914 and A2218 with the RT and obtained detections for all of them; the results are discussed below. Since the presence of radio sources cannot be correlated with cluster orientation, this subsample is effectively randomly chosen, and therefore retains the orientation-independence of the whole sample. Indeed, we have checked that the our subsample is not correlated to X-ray properties such as flux, extent likelihood and measured extent. It therefore appears unlikely that any significant bias, larger than the random error, is present in our averaged $`H_0`$ result. Clearly a larger sample would improve matters: the small size of our sample highlights the difficulty of selecting rigorously at moderately high redshift, even using the best large-area X-ray surveys available.

## 3 SZ observations and $`H_0`$ calculation

Details of our observational and modelling methods are given in Grainge et al. \[Grainge et al. 2001a\], Grainge et al. \[Grainge et al. 2001b\] and Grainger et al. \[Grainger et al. 2001\]. We briefly summarise them here.

In each case we fit the ROSAT PSPC or HRI image using an ellipsoidal $`\beta `$-model, with $`\beta `$, the core radii in the plane of the sky, $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$, the position angle of the major axis, the position on the sky, and the central electron density $`n_0`$ all as free parameters. The core radius in the line of sight is set to the geometric mean of the other two. A downhill simplex method is used to maximise the likelihood of the data given the model, using Poisson statistics. For the PSPC images we use the hard band (0.5–2 keV) in order to minimise the effect of Galactic absorption.

We remove contaminating radio sources by a maximum likelihood fit to the visibility data, simultaneously fitting the SZ decrement (using the X-ray-determined model, with a variable amplitude) and the sources. We include trial sources at all positions suggested either from the long baseline RT data or from other observations such as NVSS \[Condon et al. 1998\], and allow their positions and fluxes to vary in the fit. This allows us to remove the effects of sources whose existence is known from lower-frequency observations but whose brightness would not warrant a significant detection from the RT data alone.

Finally we take the source-subtracted data and compare them with mock SZ data derived from the X-ray model, taking into account the full response of the RT. We vary the normalisation of the mock data (equivalent to varying $`H_0`$) and find the likelihood of the data, and then multiply by a prior that is uniform in log space (since $`H_0`$ is a scale parameter) to find the peak and extent of the posterior probability distribution. We then apply corrections for the more exact relativistic form of the Compton $`y`$ parameter \[Challinor & Lasenby 1998\], and small time-dependant variations from the nominal RT flux calibration scale (determined from VLA monitoring of our primary flux calibrators, 3C48 and 3C286), as well as adding in (in quadrature) estimates of the other main sources of error.

We now give details of the procedure for each of the five clusters. Two have been published more fully elsewhere (A773, Saunders et al. \[Saunders et al. 2001\] and A1413, Grainge et al. \[Grainge et al. 2001b\]) and are briefly summarised here; one (A2218) is a re-analysis of previously published data \[Jones 1995\]; the other two (A697 and A1914) are new.

### 3.1 A697

A697 was observed with the ROSAT HRI on 1995 November 6 with a live time of 28.1 ks. We also observed it using ASCA during 1996 April in order to determine its temperature. Analysing both the GIS and SIS data using standard XSPEC tools, we find a temperature of $`8.0_{0.4}^{+0.6}`$ keV (68% confidence), with a metallicity of $`0.24\pm 0.07`$ solar. Fitting to the ROSAT HRI data, we find the parameters given in Table 2. The HRI image, model and residuals are shown in Figure 2.

We observed A697 with the RT on 42 occasions between 1994 August 6 and 1996 April 27. The map of all the data is shown in Figure 4. The bright source to the NW is extended, but can be successfully modelled as three point sources. Fitting simultaneously to the sources and SZ decrement gives a good fit with the source parameters listed in Table 3. Fitting the source-subtracted data to the model derived from the X-ray data (Figure 3), and applying the relativistic and flux-scale corrections, we find $`H_0=52_6^{+8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ (errors from SZ fitting only). Including the other errors, dominated by the X-ray temperature ($`{}_{10}{}^{+14}\%`$) and ellipticity ($`\pm 14\%`$), we find $`H_0=52_{11}^{+13}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. For a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, this becomes $`H_0=59_{12}^{+15}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

### 3.2 A773

Details of the determination of $`H_0`$ from A773 are given in Saunders et al. \[Saunders et al. 2001\]. We used a ROSAT HRI image and a temperature measurement from ASCA in conjunction with our RT data to estimate a value of $`H_0=77_{17}^{+19}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for SCDM, $`H_0=85_{19}^{+20}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM.

### 3.3 A1413

Details for A1413 are given by Grainge et al. \[Grainge et al. 2001b\], who also discuss the contributions to the $`H_0`$ error budget in general. Using a ROSAT PSPC image and ASCA temperature, we find $`H_0=57_{16}^{+23}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for SCDM, $`H_0=61_{17}^{+25}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM.

### 3.4 A1914

A1914 was observed with the ROSAT PSPC for 8.6 ks in 1992 July. There are several pieces of evidence to suggest that A1914 is undergoing a merger. The ROSAT image (see Figure 5) shows significant substructure in the core of the cluster, but no evidence of a cooling flow. The temperature, measured from an ASCA observation, is rather high at $`8.56\pm 0.39`$ keV. The POSS optical image shows two distinct groups of galaxies with no single dominant galaxy, and finally there is a diffuse steep-spectrum radio source to the NE of the cluster centre that is detected in the WENSS (300 MHz) \[Rengelink et al. 1996\] and NVSS (1.4 GHz) surveys. This raises the question of whether A1914 should be included in our sample, since it is possible that the cluster gas might be far from hydrostatic equilibrium and difficult to model. We choose to include it in our sample since simulations \[Grainger 2001\] show that even including clusters with large internal kinetic energies in their gas does not bias the sample average $`H_0`$ However, such clusters can have a large scatter about the mean value – this does appear to be the case with A1914 and also with A2218.

We fitted a $`\beta `$ model to the ROSAT PSPC image with the parameters given in Table 2. The residuals (see Figure 2) were noticeably poorer than those from the fits to other clusters such as A1413; a Monte Carlo analysis shows that the hypothesis that the true structure is a $`\beta `$ model and that the features seen result from Poisson noise can be rejected at the 4-$`\sigma `$ level. A1914 was observed with the RT on 19 occasions between 1996 March 6 and April 16; the full resolution radio image is shown in Figure 5. There are clearly several radio sources near the cluster centre, some of which are also detected in a VLA image (Figure 5). We used the VLA source positions and positions from a long-baseline RT image to estimate the fluxes of nine sources; the fluxes found and subtracted are shown in Table 3. Fitting the source-subtracted short-baseline data to the X-ray-based model (Figure 3) results in a value of $`H_0=119_{31}^{+42}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ with errors just from the SZ fitting, and $`H_0=119_{38}^{+46}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ including the other sources of error. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM this becomes $`H_0=129_{42}^{+51}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$.

### 3.5 A2218

A2218 was the first cluster to be observed in the RT SZ programme \[Jones et al. 1993\], and has also been extensively observed in many wavebands, with SZ detections in the radio (eg Birkinshaw & Hughes \[Birkinshaw & Hughes 1994\]) as well as strong and weak lensing observations (eg Kneib et al. \[Kneib et al. 1995\] and Squires et al. \[Squires et al. 1996\]) and X-ray studies (eg Markevitch \[Markevitch 1997\]). We have previously reported a measurement of $`H_0`$ from this cluster \[Jones 1995\]; we re-analyse our data here because we have improved our source-subtraction and modelling techniques, and because a new temperature measurement from ASCA is available that supersedes the previous GINGA measurement.

Figure 6 shows the image made by combining 30 days’ RT data taken in two array configurations between 1992 December 4 and 1993 March 23. This map has simply been CLEANed with no source subtraction; nevertheless, even at this high resolution the SZ decrement is clearly visible, and an approximate calculation of the observed temperature decrement, using the CLEAN restoring beam size of $`40^{\prime \prime }\times 36^{\prime \prime }`$, gives a maximum decrement of $`760\pm 150\mu `$K. This agrees well with the fitted $`\beta `$-model central temperature of $`797\mu `$K.

We used the ROSAT PSPC observation made on 1991 May 25, which has a live time of 42.47 ks. The X-ray model fitting parameters are shown in Table 2. As with A1914, the X-ray image contains substructure that is significantly different from a smooth ellipsoidal $`\beta `$ model (see Figure 2). Preliminary source subtraction in the map plane had shown that, of the three bright sources evident in Figure 6, the central one was point-like but the eastern and western sources had some additional extended flux. We therefore fitted a total of six trial sources, modelling the western source as three points and the eastern source as two. This gave a good fit to the data with the source parameters listed in Table 3. Subtracting these sources and fitting to the X-ray model (using an ASCA-derived temperature of $`7.20\pm 0.36`$ keV \[Mushotzky & Loewenstein 1997\]), we find a best fit value of $`H_0=31_6^{+8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, where these errors only include the SZ fitting. Including the other dominant sources of error ($`\pm 10\%`$ from the temperature measurement and $`\pm 14\%`$ from the likely ellipticity), we find $`H_0=31_8^{+10}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, or $`H_0=35_9^{+11}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM.

### 3.6 Combined result

The values of $`H_0`$ derived from each cluster are summarised in in Table 4. Since the main sources of error in each value are in the form of a multiplicative factor, we calculate the sample mean by taking a weighted average of $`\mathrm{log}H_0`$. The result is $`H_0=59_7^{+8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for SCDM or $`H_0=65_7^{+8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM. Looking at the scatter in our individual values, we see that A697, A773 and A1413 all agree with the mean within 1-$`\sigma `$. A1914 is 1.6 $`\sigma `$ above the mean and A2218 is 2.8 $`\sigma `$ below it. These are the two clusters for which there is independent evidence, from the lack of a good fit of the X-ray model and from the optical galaxy distribution, of significant dynamical activity. Since our error estimate does not include a component to take account of this effect (for lack of a means of quantifiying it), it is not suprising that the scatter appears anomalously large. Nevertheless we feel justified in keeping these two clusters in the sample based on the evidence from simulations that dynamically active clusters do not bias the value of $`H_0`$ – indeed, removing them does not significantly change the best estimate of $`H_0`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have used ROSAT and ASCA X-ray data and Ryle Telescope SZ observations to measure the Hubble constant $`H_0`$ from a sample of five clusters, selected using the BCS and NORAS cluster catalogues to be free of orientation bias. The weighted geometric mean value of $`H_0`$ from this sample is $`H_0=59_7^{+8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ assuming a standard CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1.0,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.0`$, or $`H_0=65_7^{+8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We thank the staff of the Cavendish Astrophysics group who ensure the operation of the Ryle Telescope, which is funded by PPARC. AE acknowledges support from the Royal Society; RK acknowledges support from an EU Marie Curie Fellowship; WFG acknowledges support from a PPARC studentship. We have made use of the ROSAT Data Archive of the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) at Garching, Germany. We thank Hans Böhringer for helpful discussions.


text:
# The Redshift of the Optical Transient Associated with GRB 010222

## 1 Introduction

Since the discovery of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs; Klebesadel, Strong, & Olson, 1973), their nature has proved enigmatic. The CGRO and BATSE observations demonstrated they were isotropically distributed on the sky (Meegan et al., 1992), which could either have been explained by Galactic (Lamb, 1995) or cosmological (Paczyński, 1995) spatial distributions. The BeppoSAX satellite (Boella et al., 1997) contributed the breakthrough in this field by providing rapid localizations of the X-ray afterglow of a GRB to a precision of several arcminutes. Such precision allowed for rapid optical (van Paradijs et al., 1997) and radio (Frail et al., 1997) identifications of transients associated with individual GRBs. The identification of the optical transient (OT) associated with GRB 970508 (Bond, 1997; Djorgovski et al., 1997) led to the first optical spectroscopic redshift determination for a GRB, placing it at $`z0.835`$ (Metzger et al., 1997), and thus firmly at a cosmological distance.

Despite such rapid progress and intensive followup campaigns at many wavelengths, only some GRBs have had associated X-ray, optical or radio afterglows, and all of these events have been among the “long-duration” GRB population (Kulkarni et al., 2000). Of these, only $``$15 have had unambiguous spectroscopic redshift identification (see those to date tabulated by Bloom, Kulkarni & Djorgovski, 2001a). The primary difficulty is the combined delays imposed by the time necessary to improve the X-ray localizations, interruption of a telescope observing program to obtain optical imaging data, reduction and analysis of those data relative to POSS images to identify the OT, and interruption of another telescope observing program to obtain a spectrum (usually on a different telescope, since there are very few combined imaging and spectrograph instruments). By the time a spectrum is taken, the OT has usually faded significantly, generally limiting such followup observations to only the largest available ground-based optical telescopes or the Hubble Space Telescope. Furthermore, observational conditions may not be optimal immediately after a GRB event, such that only approximately half of the known GRB redshifts were obtained with spectroscopy of the OT itself—the others were obtained at later times from the presumptive host galaxy, after the OT had faded.

Here we report the rapid identification of an OT associated with GRB 010222, and the spectroscopy of the source within five hours after the GRB occured. The quick localization of the X-ray and optical transients allowed for spectroscopic observations on a modest 1.5 m telescope, the smallest aperture telescope to measure the redshift of a GRB to date.

## 2 Data

GRB 010222 was detected by the Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor and Wide Field Camera 1 instruments on board BeppoSAX at 07:23:30 UT on 2001 February 22 (Piro, 2001). An optical transient (OT) associated with GRB 010222 was reported within several hours by Henden (2001a). McDowell et al. (2001) provided independent confirmation of the OT from images taken with the F. L. Whipple Observatory (FLWO) 1.2 m telescope and 4Shooter CCD mosaic camera (Szentgyorgyi et al., 2001). The identification of the OT ($`\alpha `$ = $`14^\mathrm{h}52^\mathrm{m}12\stackrel{\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{.}}54`$, $`\delta `$ = $`+43\mathrm{°}01\mathrm{}06\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}2`$, J2000.0) on these latter discovery images is shown in Figure 1.

A spectrum of the OT was obtained with the FLWO 1.5 m Tillinghast telescope beginning at UT 2001 February 22 12:18, 4.92 hours after the burst. The OT apparent magnitude was $`R18.6`$ mag around the time of the spectroscopy (McDowell et al., 2001; Henden, 2001b). Despite the faintness of the OT, it was visible on the telescope acquisition camera, such that it could unambiguously identified and placed on the spectrograph slit. The observations were made with the FAST spectrograph (Fabricant et al., 1998) using a 3 arcsec wide slit and 300 l/mm grating, yielding 6 Å FWHM resolution over the range $`3720<\lambda <7540`$ Å. Two 1200s exposures were taken with the slit rotated to the parallactic angle (and moreover the airmass was $``$1.04), reduced in the standard manner with an optimal extraction (Horne, 1986), and combined. Wavelength calibration was provided via HeNeAr lamp spectra taken immediately after the OT exposures, with minor adjustment based on night sky lines in the OT frames. We corrected for telluric lines (Wade & Horne, 1988) and flux-calibrated the spectra with exposures of the spectrophotometric standard star Hiltner 600 (Stone, 1977), also taken at the parallactic angle, yielding relative fluxes in our OT spectrum accurate to $``$5% over the observed wavelength range. The discovery spectrum is shown in Figure 2, and preliminary results from it have been reported previously (Garnavich et al., 2001; Jha et al., 2001). Four additional spectra of $`1800`$ s each were obtained the following night (UT 2001 February 23) when the OT had faded by $``$1.5 to 2 mag (Stanek et al., 2001). The dispersed spectrum was at the detection threshold of the spectrograph, hence no reliable results could be obtained from these data.

## 3 Results

The optical spectrum of GRB 010222 in Figure 2 shows a blue continuum that is typical for GRBs. Superimposed upon this continuum are a number of strong and weak absorption line systems at $`z=1.157`$ and $`1.477`$, which are identified by the metallic lines of Mg I, Mg II, Fe II, Mn II, Si II, Al II, Zn II, Cr II, and C IV. Two additional lines are tentatively identified with Mg II at $`z=0.928`$ because these lines are weaker and no other lines are found at a similar redshift (although the S/N is worse at these shorter wavelengths). All three systems were independently detected by Bloom et al. (2001b) and confirmed by Castro et al. (2001) from spectroscopy at the Keck Observatory. Our line identifications are summarized in Table 1; as is typical for metal-line absorption systems, the Mg II lines are the strongest in the spectrum, nearly reaching zero flux for the highest redshift system even at this relatively low spectral resolution.

The redshift of GRB 010222 is therefore unambiguously $`z1.477`$, corresponding to the most distant absorber. Furthermore, the non-detection of Ly$`\alpha `$ forest absorption or continuum decrement at $`\lambda >4000`$ Å would suggest the GRB host is at $`z<2.3`$, though this is not a firm constraint given the S/N ratio of the data. If the highest-redshift lines are from the GRB host itself, then the GRB is at $`z=1.477`$. Several other GRB OTs have shown absorption line systems which have been argued to arise from the ISM of the GRB host galaxy: GRB 090508 (Metzger et al., 1997), GRB 980703 (Djorgovski et al., 1998), GRB 990123 (Kulkarni et al., 1999), GRB 990510 and GRB 990712 (Vreeswijk et al., 2001), and GRB 991216 (Vreeswijk et al., 1999).

While Mg II absorption systems are commonly found along the line-of-sight to distant QSOs, the three detected at $`3800<\lambda <7500`$ Å—corresponding to a redshift interval of $`0.36<z<1.68`$, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=1.32`$—is significantly larger than the mean of $`N/z=0.97`$ (Steidel & Sargent, 1992). Moreover, that value was derived based on systems with a Mg II $`\lambda `$2796 Å rest-frame equivalent width $`W_0(\lambda 2796)0.3`$ Å, measured with generally similar spectral resolution as the observations presented here. Though our detection threshhold for this line is difficult to determine a priori, it is likely at least 0.6 Å, and Steidel & Sargent (1992) find an average of $`N/z=0.52`$ for systems with such strong absorption ($`W_0(\lambda 2796)0.6`$ Å). Thus, there is quite a discrepancy between the expectation of $``$0.7 systems over the observed wavelength region compared to the 3 systems actually detected. This discrepancy would be mitigated if the $`z=1.477`$ system were the host galaxy of the GRB.

In addition, $`z=1.477`$ system has an unusually large rest-frame equivalent width of the Mg II $`\lambda `$ 2796 Å line of $`W_0(\lambda 2796)=3.0\pm 0.2`$ Å, which is larger than all 111 systems found by Steidel & Sargent (1992). The $`z=1.157`$ system equivalent width places it in the top 10%, while the $`z=0.928`$ system is more typical. The Mg II doublet ratios $`W_0(\lambda 2796)/W_0(\lambda 2803)`$ are $`1.1\pm 0.3`$, $`0.9\pm 0.3`$, and $`1.5\pm 0.4)`$ for systems with redshifts of 1.477, 1.157, and 0.928, respectively; these values are typical of the anticorrelation between $`W(\lambda 2796)`$ and the doublet ratio, indicating the lines are strongly saturated (Steidel & Sargent, 1992). The Fe II and Mg I equivalent widths for the $`z=1.477`$ system are likewise unusually strong (Churchill et al., 2000). Since these absorption line strengths for the $`z=1.477`$ are so large, either the impact parameter is extremely small or this system represents the OT host galaxy. Nearly all of the absorption line systems in GRB OTs show substantially weaker lines than the $`z=1.477`$ system (the host of GRB 990712 is the lone exception, with an equivalent width of $`W_0(\lambda 2796)+W_0(\lambda 2803)=9`$ Å; Vreeswijk et al., 2001) further strengthening the case that the high-redshift system is the OT host.

To make these arguments more quantitative, we calculate the Bayesian odds ratio for the following two hypotheses (assumed to be equally likely a priori): $`H_1`$, that the OT is at redshift $`z>1.477`$ with three foreground absorption systems, and $`H_2`$, that the OT is at redshift $`z=1.477`$ with two foreground absorption systems. For $`H_1`$, the redshift path-length for detection of absorption systems is our full spectral window,111Actually, this leads to a very slight overestimate of the likelihood of $`H_1`$, because the spectral window for detecting foreground Mg II is less than our observed wavelength range if the OT redshift is $`z1.7`$. This only strengthens the argument presented. $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=1.32`$, implying, as above, an expectation of $`\overline{N}=0.52\times 1.32=0.69`$ absorption systems, assuming a detection threshold of $`W_00.6`$ Å (Steidel & Sargent, 1992). For $`H_2`$, the redshift path has an upper bound at $`z=1.477`$, yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }z=1.12`$ and $`\overline{N}=0.52\times 1.12=0.58`$. The observed number of systems follows a simple Poisson distribution, and so the Bayesian odds $`p(H_2)/p(H_1)`$ are given by $`[P(N=2;\overline{N}=0.58)/P(N=3;\overline{N}=0.69)]=3.4`$, indicating that $`H_2`$ is more than three times as likely as $`H_1`$ under the given assumptions. In addition to the *number* of observed absorption systems, we can also take into account their *strength*, by adopting the Mg II $`\lambda `$2796 equivalent width distribution function of Steidel & Sargent (1992), $`n(W_0)dW_0\mathrm{exp}(W_0/W_0^{})dW_0`$ with $`W_0^{}`$ = 0.66 Å (a good fit to the data for $`W_0`$ 0.6 Å, our detection threshhold222Steidel & Sargent (1992) note that for the strongest absorbers, $`n(W_0)`$ seems to change with redshift, whereas we have assumed it to be fixed over the redshift range $`0.35z1.7`$. However, we do not expect significant changes in the results taking this evolution into account, because the mean redshift of the absorber population that Steidel & Sargent (1992) used to derive $`n(W_0)`$, $`z_{\mathrm{abs}}=1.17`$, well matches our observable redshift range.). Because of the rarity of absorption systems as strong as the one detected at $`z=1.477`$, incorporating the line strengths into the calculation increases the Bayesian odds favoring $`H_2`$ over $`H_1`$ to 28:1. Thus, there is strong support for the identification of the $`z=1.477`$ system as the host of GRB 010222.

Beyond the absorption systems along the line of sight, we also use the observed spectrum to measure the spectral power-law index of the OT. The continuum flux is overwhelmingly dominated by the OT, so contamination from an underlying host or other objects on the slit is negligible. After correcting for Galactic extinction, $`E(\mathrm{B V})=0.023`$ mag (Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis, 1998), adopting a standard $`R_V=3.1`$ extinction law (Cardelli, Clayton, & Mathis, 1989), we bin the spectrum into ten segments (excluding the absorption lines), using the rms deviation in each bin as an estimate of the uncertainty, as shown in Figure 3. We have adjusted the normalization to match the concurrent photometry (Stanek et al., 2001). A least squares minimization yields a power law index $`\beta =0.89\pm 0.03`$ (where $`F_\nu \nu ^\beta `$). As mentioned above, additional uncertainty due to the relative flux calibration is likely to be small. The spectral slope is rather steep in comparison to early observations of other bright GRB afterglows. For example GRB 990510 had a $`\beta 0.5`$ less than one day after the burst (Stanek et al., 1999) and GRB 991216 had $`\beta 0.6`$ after a correction for large Galactic extinction (Garnavich et al., 2000). On the other hand, GRB 000926 exhibited a very steep spectral slope with an index of 1.5 which was attributed to significant dust extinction along the line of sight (Price et al., 2001).

The steep spectral slope for GRB 010222 may also indicate significant extinction from dust in the host galaxy. Furthermore, jet models by Sari, Piran, & Halpern (1999) predict a shallower spectral index than we observe given the reported light curve decline rates (for details, see Stanek et al., 2001), also suggesting significant extinction. However, as shown in Figure 3, the spectrum exhibits no clear evidence for the $`\lambda `$2175 Å “bump”, typical of Galactic interstellar dust (Cardelli et al., 1989), which falls in the observed spectral region for $`z=1.477`$. Such a feature would be easily detectable even at levels $`A_V0.1`$ mag. Thus we conclude that there is no significant extinction from Galactic-type dust in the $`z=1.477`$ absorption system. However, substantial extinction from dust with an extinction law like that found in the SMC could still account for the steep spectral slope, as such dust does not show a significant $`\lambda `$2175 Å feature (Prévot et al., 1984). An SMC-like extinction curve may be a more natural choice if GRBs come from young stellar environments, since dust in starburst galaxies tends to lack the $`\lambda `$2175 Å bump (Gordon, Calzetti, & Witt, 1997).

We are grateful to the entire BeppoSAX team for the quick turnaround in providing precise GRB positions to the astronomical community, as well as to Scott Barthelmy and the GRB Coordinates Network (GCN). That these results could be obtained with small aperture telescopes is entirely due to the speed in which positions are reported and disseminated.