First results from the Hertzsprung SONG Telescope:
Asteroseismology of the G5 subgiant star Her
^{1}^{1}1Based on observations made with the Hertzsprung SONG telescope operated on the Spanish
Observatorio del Teide on the island of Tenerife by the Aarhus and Copenhagen Universities and by the
Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias.
Abstract
We report the first asteroseismic results obtained with the Hertzsprung SONG Telescope from an extensive highprecision radialvelocity observing campaign of the subgiant Herculis. The data set was collected during 215 nights in 2014 and 2015. We detected a total of 49 oscillation modes with values from 0 to 3, including some mixed modes. Based on the rotational splitting observed in modes, we determine a rotational period of 52 days and a stellar inclination angle of 63 degrees. The parameters obtained through modeling of the observed oscillation frequencies agree very well with independent observations and imply a stellar mass between 1.11 and 1.15 M and an age of Gyr. Furthermore, the highquality data allowed us to determine the acoustic depths of the He ii ionization layer and the base of the convection zone.
1 Introduction
Asteroseismology of solarlike oscillations has blossomed as an observational science in the past few years, thanks to the steady flow of highprecision photometry from the CoRoT and Kepler space missions (see Chaplin & Miglio, 2013, for a review). From Kepler we now have oscillation spectra, based on four years of continuous observations, for hundreds of mainsequence stars and tens of thousands of red giants. However, groundbased spectroscopic measurements of solarlike oscillations (see Bedding, 2012, and references therein for a review) still have an important role to play. They can be used to target specific stars of interest anywhere in the sky, and they can provide a higher signaltonoise ratio than photometry because the stellar background from granulation is much lower in velocity than intensity compared to the oscillations (see, e.g., Grundahl et al., 2007, Fig. 1). This property makes the detection of lower frequency and modes less difficult. Subgiants are particularly interesting for asteroseismology because some of their oscillations occur as mixed modes, which have characteristics of both pressure and gravity modes and are very sensitive to the conditions in the stellar core (ChristensenDalsgaard, Bedding & Kjeldsen, 1995).
SONG (Stellar Observations Network Group) is planned as a network of 1m telescopes that will carry out highprecision radialvelocity measurements of stars. The first node at Observatorio del Teide on Tenerife has been operating since 2014 and consists of the Hertzsprung SONG Telescope, which is equipped with a coudé échelle spectrograph with an iodine cell (Grundahl et al., 2007). Here, we present observations over two observing seasons (2014 and 2015) of the G5 subgiant star Herculis ( Her). Importantly, this star turns out to have a frequency spacing that is highly favorable for singlesite observations (Arentoft et al., 2014). Our observations span a total of 215 nights and have yielded an oscillation spectrum with high signaltonoise ratio and high frequency resolution, allowing the most detailed asteroseismic study ever performed for a subgiant observed from ground.
2 Basic properties of Her
The star Her (HD 161797, HR 6623, HIP 86974) is a bright G5 subgiant. Solarlike oscillations were detected by Bonanno et al. (2008) using iodinereferenced radial–velocity observations over seven nights with the 3.6m Italian TNG Telescope on La Palma. They detected a clear excess of power centered at a frequency of Hz and found the most likely value for the large frequency separation to be Hz. Based on this value, Bonanno et al. (2008) extracted frequencies for 15 individual oscillation modes, which were subsequently used for theoretical modeling (Pinheiro & Fernandes, 2010; Yang & Meng, 2010).
In the following sections we discuss the fundamental stellar properties of Her as input for modeling the measured oscillation frequencies. Estimates for the radius and luminosity are also provided for later comparison to the model results.
2.1 T, and [Fe/H]
Because of its brightness, the basic parameters for Her have been determined in many studies. The most recent publication is the 2016 version of the PASTEL catalog (Soubiran et al., 2016), which also summarizes nearly all literature values.
The reported effective temperature determinations range from 5397 ^{2}^{2}2 Baines et al. (2014) provided a estimate of 5317 K based on an angular–diameter measurement. The low value is probably due to a low value for the estimated bolometric flux, with a reported uncertainty which appears to be unrealistically small. Note also that the reported parallaxes for Her and HD 188512 in their Table 2 are incorrect. to 5650 K, from 3.7 to 4.1 and [Fe/H] values between +0.04 and +0.3. Most of these studies employed ‘standard’ 1D–LTE analysis of highresolution, high signaltonoise spectra to determine these parameters and arrived slightly different conclusions. We do not have a quantitative way to decide which values are the best. We therefore adopted the most recent parameters (Jofré et al., 2015, hereafter J15) and list them in Table 1. To reflect that this choice is a compromise, we assigned larger uncertainties than reported by J15. Specifically, Bruntt et al. (2010) have discussed the accuracy of the determination of stellar temperature, gravity and [Fe/H] and concluded that realistic error bars for these quantities are 80 K, 0.08 dex, and 0.07 dex, respectively. We have adopted these values here. Finally, J15 also determined km s, which is in accordance with expectations for an old, slightly evolved low–mass star.
2.2 Luminosity and radius
To estimate the luminosity we used the measured (Bessel, 2000), the Hipparcos parallax (120.330.16 mas), and assumed , which yielded . The bolometric correction was calculated using equation 9 from Torres (2010). We used the Casagrande & Vandenberg (2014) filter bolometric corrections and found 0086 and 0068 for Her and the Sun, respectively. Based on these values, we determined . The radius can be determined from angular–diameter measurements. Observations of Her were recently made with the Precision Astronomical Visual Observations (PAVO) beam combiner (Ireland et al., 2008) at the Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) Array (ten Brummelaar et al., 2005). A fit of a uniformdisc model to these observations resulted in a uniformdisc diameter of mas (Karovicova et al., in prep.). We determined a linear limbdarkening coefficient in the band (0.600.04) by interpolating the model grids of Claret & Bloemen (2011) to the spectroscopic values of , and [Fe/H]. The subsequent limbdarkened diameter is determined to be mas. Using the parallax, this translates to a radius of .
While angular diameters are often used to determine effective stellar temperatures we have opted not to do this here because we have found three independent literature values for the bolometric flux that differ by 25%, which makes it problematic to select the correct value (Mozurkewich et al., 2003; Boyajian et al., 2013; Baines et al., 2014). We note that if we adopt the luminosity from photometry, our interferometric radius and neglecting the uncertainty in the parallax, the inferred temperature for Her becomes 5540 K, which is fully consistent with the adopted spectroscopic temperature.
2.3 Activity
There are only two reports on the activity level for Her, based on the Ca HK lines: Wright et al. (2004) reported R and Isaacson & Fischer (2010) found R. Both values are lower than the level found for the Sun, suggesting that Her is a rather inactive star, consistent with its evolutionary stage. This is, however, contradicted by the newly released measurements by the Mount Wilson Observatory HK Project^{3}^{3}3http://www.nso.edu/node/1335. These measurements of Her indicate an abrupt change in the S index from 0.14 to more than 0.3. At this stage, it is impossible to conclude whether this jump is of stellar origin, and only additional data can solve this ambiguity.
2.4 Multiplicity
Roberts et al. (2016) provided a detailed summary of the quadruple nature of Her. All other components of the system are Mtype dwarfs. Interestingly, the inner pair (Her and one of the Mdwarfs) of the system has an orbital inclination of degrees (Roberts et al., 2016), which agrees very well with the inclination of the Her rotation axis determined from our seismic measurements (see Sec. 7). From the analysis of published radial–velocity and astrometric measurements, Roberts et al. (2016) determined an orbital period of 100 years and concluded that this pair is currently close to the lower inflection point of the radial–velocity curve. We expect to cover this portion of the orbit with SONG radial–velocity measurements in the coming years.
Parameter  Value  Uncertainty  Reference 

[K]  5560  80  J15, our uncertainty 
[dex]  0.28  0.07  J15, our uncertainty 
[dex]  3.98  0.10  J15, our uncertainty 
[km s]  1.7  0.4  J15 
Parallax [mas]  120.33  0.16  van Leeuwen (2007) 
[mas]  1.93  0.03  Derived here 
1.73  0.02  Derived here  
2.54  0.08  Derived here  
3.82  0.03  Derived here  
System velocity [km s]  17.07  0.12  SIMBAD 
log  0.1  Isaacson & Fischer (2010)  

3 The SONG prototype and observations of Her
Her was observed with the automated 1m Hertzsprung SONG telescope (Andersen et al., 2014) at Observatorio del Teide during the summers of 2014 (105 nights) and 2015 (110 nights). All spectra for radial–velocity determination were collected through an iodine cell for precise wavelength calibration. Each observation consisted of a 120 s exposure, with 2.3 s readout time for the CCD camera. A spectral resolution of 90,000 was used throughout the entire observing campaign. The median count per pixel at 5560 Å was 25514 ADU. The spectra have 51 spectral orders covering 4400 Å to 6900 Å. A total of nearly 30000 spectra were collected during the two observing seasons. All the 2014 spectra were reduced using an IDLbased pipeline that uses the routines of Piskunov & Valenti (2002). For the 2015, data the extraction pipeline was based on the C++ reimplementation of the same routines by Ritter et al. (2014). Before each observing night, calibration frames (bias frames, flat fields and ThAr spectra) were obtained and applied nightly. The extracted spectra, with the superimposed iodine absorption spectrum, were analysed with the code iSONG (e.g., Corsaro et al., 2012; Antoci et al., 2013). This code closely follows the procedures outlined by Butler et al. (1996) to extract the stellar radial velocities. To generate the required intrinsic stellar template, the bright fastrotating star HR 6410 was observed at to determine the spectrallinespread function of the spectrograph. This was used to deconvolve a highS/N spectrum of Her obtained without the iodine cell. For each spectrum the RV code extracted velocities in 24 spectral orders, each subdivided into 22 “chunks” of 91 pixels (approximately 2Å) . This resulted in 528 independent radial–velocity estimates. We calculated the final velocities as the weighted average velocity of all chunks. The noise was estimated from the power–spectrum analysis in Section 4, resulting in an average precision of 1.5 m s per spectrum. For each exposure, we calculated the barycentric Julian midtime and barycentric velocity correction using the program BarCor^{4}^{4}4sirrah.troja.mff.cuni.cz/m̃ary by M. Hrudková.
4 Initial processing of the time series
The quality of the data is very high (a 7hr segment from one of the best nights of the time series is shown in Fig. 1). However, the data quality does vary slightly from night to night, and also within nights, as a function of zenith distance, seeing, and instrumental effects. In order to optimize the signaltonoise ratio in the power spectrum, we estimated the statistical quality of each measurement. To do this, we first created a highpassfiltered version by smoothing the time series with a Gaussian filter with a FWHM of 500 s, which was then subtracted from the original data to remove all pmode oscillations and longterm drifts. This filtered time series was used to estimate the local variance, , which we calculated as the moving mean of the square over a duration of 6 hours (about 180 data points). In this way only slow changes were included in the estimates of the local variance. Data points that deviated more than 4 times the local rootmeansquare (rms) scatter were removed from the raw time series and from the highpass filtered series. This 4 clipping removed 3.9% of the data points from the 2014 and 1.4% from the 2015 data sets. This new highpass filtered time series was then used to recalculate the variances, , and weights were assigned to each data point as:
(1) 
The median rms noise is 1.47 m s and the best observing periods have noise levels below 1.3 m s (16% of the data points). The noise levels are above 2 m s for only 6% of the data points.
After removing the bad data and assigning statistical weights to each data point, we calculated the power spectrum, as described in the next section. The full time series is shown in Fig. 2. Note that the nightly average was subtracted from each night, which removes long–period variations but does not affect the oscillation signal.
5 Data analysis
5.1 Calculating the power spectrum
The power spectrum of the Her time series was calculated as a weighted fit of sinusoids, following the algorithms described by Frandsen et al. (1995) and Handberg (2013). We calculated power spectra separately for the 2014 and 2015 series, and then combined them into one power spectrum as a weighted average based on their mean noise levels. The relative weights were 42% and 58% for the 2014 and 2015 data, respectively. The individual and combined power spectra are shown in Fig. 3.
The noise level in the combined power spectrum corresponds to 2 cm s in amplitude at a frequency of 3000 Hz, which translates to 19.4 Hz in power density. This is similar to the noise levels in the Cen A and B time series data (see Butler et al., 2004; Bedding et al., 2004; Kjeldsen et al., 2005). For example, the noise level in amplitude for Cen B was 1.4 cm s at 7000 Hz, but close to 2 cm s at 3000 Hz. Thus the 1m SONG telescope and spectrograph has achieved a noise level in Her over the 200 nights that is comparable to that achieved with the 8m VLT and 4m AAT over nine nights in a star that is 7 times brighter.
Extraction of mode frequencies was done in the combined power spectrum. A large number of pmodes are clearly present, especially near the maximum power at 1200 Hz. However, the singlesite data result in a complicated spectral window with strong sidelobes. The spectral windows for the 2014 and 2015 data are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
5.2 Identifying the pmodes
As a next step we determined the large frequency separation. Figure 6 shows the autocorrelation of the power spectrum after smoothing with a Gaussian of FWHM 0.5Å, for frequency shifts between 0 and 100 Hz. The peaks at 11.6 and 23.1 Hz correspond to 1 and 2 cycles per day, respectively, arising from the daily gaps. We can identify the large frequency separation of Her as Hz. This value for agrees with the prediction by Bedding et al. (1996), which was based on their estimates of the mass and radius of the star. It is also consistent with the observed value of Hz. Our measurement disagrees with the value of 56.5 Hz determined by Bonanno et al. (2008) based on 7 nights of radialvelocity measurements. However, we note that in their Fig. 3, which is a combresponse function of their power spectrum (analogous to an autocorrelation), there is a secondary peak close to 64 Hz. The incorrect determination of is most likely due to the short time span of the observations and the confusion with the daily sidebands.
Figure 7 illustrates the observed power spectrum in échelle format, where we see clear vertical ridges corresponding to modes with different degrees. We tested other values of and found that none gave the same clear structure of vertical ridges. Due to the singlesite nature of the data, the first and second daily sidelobes are prominent. To locate the individual oscillation modes we constructed a folded power spectrum using the following procedure. We first smoothed the power spectrum by using a Gaussian function with a FWHM of 1 Hz. This was then folded with a spacing of 64 Hz between 976 Hz and 1424 Hz (7 radial orders, centered at 1200 Hz). The resulting folded power spectrum is shown in Fig. 8, where the positions of modes of different degrees ( = 0, 1 and 2) can be seen. We used the peaks identified in Fig. 8 to estimate the parameters in the asymptotic relation (Tassoul, 1980; Scherrer et al., 1983; ChristensenDalsgaard, 1988):
(2) 
We found Hz, = 0.80 Hz and . Note that this value of is consistent with expectations for a star with the effective temperature of Her (White et al., 2012).
Using Eq. 2 we estimated the expected frequencies of the individual pmodes and identified them in the power spectrum. Thanks to the high data quality, we also detected five modes in the range 1100–1400 Hz, where the S/N is highest. Additionally, one bumped mixed mode is apparently present at low frequencies.
In total, we identified 49 probable modes, shown as filled symbols in the right panel of Fig. 7, superimposed on a smoothed version of the observed power spectrum. The open symbols show the first and second daily sidelobes on either side of each mode. It is remarkable that none of the sidelobes coincide with other pmodes or their sidelobes. It is extremely fortunate that the singlesite spectral window has little impact on our efforts to identify and measure the oscillation modes. Indeed, it seems that its frequency spacings make Her an ideal target for singlesite observations (see Arentoft et al., 2014, for a discussion of SONG’s spectral window and its influence on choice of targets).
We estimated uncertainties in the frequencies based on their S/N using a procedure similar to Kjeldsen et al. (2005, Section 4). These frequencies and their uncertainties were used as input for the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) frequency extraction described in Sec. 5.4. The identified modes in the central part of the spectrum, together with their daily sidelobes, are shown in Fig. 9.
5.3 Amplitude and frequency of maximum power
To determine the frequency of maximum power () and the peak oscillation amplitude () for Her, we followed the procedure described in Section 3.2 of Kjeldsen et al. (2008). This involves smoothing the power spectrum to estimate the total power in the oscillations in a manner that is insensitive to the spectral window.
We found the following values: Hz and . Note that this velocity amplitude corresponds to radial modes and is 2.08 0.10 times the mean solar value (see Kjeldsen et al. 2008 for details).
Interestingly, the oscillation amplitude for Her decreased significantly from 2014 to 2015. This is clearly seen in Fig. 3. Analyzing the two power spectra separately, as described above, showed the peak amplitude to be in 2014 and in 2015.
5.4 Extraction of mode properties using MCMC analysis
The next step was to measure parameters for the 49 individual modes using an MCMC analysis. In order to use the full timespan of the measurements we constructed a full time series using all the available data from the two observing runs. The two time series were concatenated, but the gap between them was reduced to 80 days. This can be justified by the fact that we are searching for stochastic oscillations where the modelifetime is significantly shorter than 80 days. In this way we ensure that any oscillations from the 2014 data set will have disappeared and do not affect the 2015 data set. This concatenation creates a better window function. The final power density spectrum and corresponding spectral window function were then calculated from the time series specified above, following the prescriptions outlined in Section 4.
5.4.1 MCMC peakbagging
The fit to the power spectrum was performed using the APT MCMC algorithm (Handberg & Campante, 2011) and the preliminary frequencies determined in Section 5.2 were used as starting guesses. We ran 4 million iterations, which were subsequently thinned to 2 million, using 10 parallel tempering levels to avoid local maxima solutions. The model limit spectrum that was fitted to the observed power spectrum was defined as:
(3) 
where is the mode frequency, is the mode height, is the linewidth (which is inversely proportional to the mode lifetime) and is the rotational splitting. The factor is the attenuation of signals arising from the nonzero integration time (). The noise model was simply a white–noise profile across the region of interest. In order to limit the number of free parameters, and were linearly interpolated in frequency between and , respectively, and the height was scaled with the visibility of the mode (see Handberg & Campante, 2011). The relative heights of rotationally split components within a multiplet were taken as (Gizon & Solanki, 2003):
(4) 
where are the associated Legendre functions.
Instead of using the mode height, , directly as the free parameter in the fit, the mode amplitude was used. This is less correlated with the linewidth, , and therefore provides a more stable fit. The conversion from amplitude to height was done following Fletcher et al. (2006), which allows for linewidths becoming comparable to the frequency resolution. Similarly, the projected rotational splitting, , was used as the free parameter instead of the rotational splitting itself, to avoid known correlations.
Uniform priors were set for mode frequencies, the rotational splitting and the inclination angle, whereas modified Jeffreys priors were used for mode heights and linewidths.
In order to account for the singlesite window function, the model spectrum, , was convolved with the spectral window in each iteration of the MCMC. This has a very significant impact on the computing time, but is essential in order to describe the spread of power to sidelobes due to the noncontinuous observations.
blackFrom the resulting Markov chain, the final parameters and errors listed in Table 2 were estimated from the full posterior probability distributions as the median values and 68.3% confidence interval. The final mode frequencies (with uncertainties) were corrected for the systemic radialvelocity Doppler shift ( km s) in order to list the frequencies in the rest frame of the star (Davies et al., 2014).
Finally, we calculated the frequencyseparation ratio as defined by Roxburgh & Vorontsov (2003), which are used in the following sections for modeling of the observations:
(5)  
(6)  
(7) 
These were calculated using the full Markov chains for each frequency coming from the MCMC analysis, yielding the full correlation matrices between all ratios.
From the MCMC analysis, we were also able to constrain the rotational splitting between the different components of the multiplets. We also measured the stellar inclination angle, based on the relative heights of these components (Gizon & Solanki, 2003) (see Figs. 10 and 11). The resulting rotational period is days and the stellar rotational inclination angle is degrees. Both values and their errors were determined as the mode values and 68.3% confidence intervals in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.



24  —  —  
23  —  —  —  
22  —  
21  —  —  
20  
19  
18  
17  
16  
15  —  
14  —  
13  —  
12  —  
11  —  
10  —  
9  — 
6 Modeling the oscillations
Once the oscillation frequencies were extracted we used different codes and procedures to model the observations of Her. In this section we provide detailed descriptions of this endeavor.
6.1 Fits to individual frequencies
We fitted the 49 frequencies in Table 2 and their ratios following procedures described by Silva Aguirre et al. (2015), in this case taking into account the presence of the mixed modes. One fit was applied to the individual frequencies, which were assumed to be statistically independent. A grid of models and oscillation frequencies was calculated using the ASTEC stellar evolution code (ChristensenDalsgaard, 2008a) and the ADIPLS adiabatic pulsation code (ChristensenDalsgaard, 2008b). The evolution modeling used the OPAL equation of state (Rogers & Nayfonov, 2002) and OPAL opacities (Iglesias & Rogers, 1996), supplemented by the Ferguson et al. (2005) lowtemperature opacities. The nuclear reaction rates were obtained from the NACRE compilation (Angulo et al., 1999). Diffusion and settling of helium and heavy elements were not included. Convection was described using the mixinglength formalism (BöhmVitense, 1958), and convective overshoot was not included. The grid spanned a large range in mass and composition, although constrained by an assumed Galactic chemical evolution model with , where and are the abundances of helium and heavy elements, respectively. Models with three values of the mixinglength parameter , 1.5, 1.8 and 2.1, were included, where roughly corresponds to the solar calibration.
To match the observed frequencies, the computed frequencies were corrected for the errors introduced by the treatment of the nearsurface layers by applying a fitted scaled solar surface correction (ChristensenDalsgaard, 2012), described in more detail, together with other aspects of this socalled ASTFIT fitting technique, by Silva Aguirre et al. (2015). Briefly, the fit is carried out by minimizing, along each evolution sequence,
(8) 
Here, is based on observed values of and [Fe/H] (cf. Table 1), and
(9) 
is based on the observed frequencies and standard deviations listed in Table 2. The remaining observed properties were not included in the fit but were used to check the results. The model frequencies, , included the surface correction (see above). An initial minimization was carried out between timesteps in the evolution sequence by assuming that the frequencies scale as . This defined a minimum for each evolution track in the grid. The bestfitting models were found by locating the smallest resulting values of .
Owing to the presence of mixed modes, the scaling of the frequencies is not universally valid, leading to potential systematic errors in the fits. To correct for this, the fit was refined by computing, in the vicinity of the minima determined by the above scaling procedure, frequencies for a small set of models suitably interpolated between timesteps in the evolution sequence. As shown by ChristensenDalsgaard & Houdek (2010), this allows to fully resolve the behavior of the frequencies in the vicinity of an avoided crossing involving mixed modes. In practice, this was applied only to evolution tracks where the as determined by the simple procedure was less than twice the minimum amongst the values of so determined.
The stars analyzed by Silva Aguirre et al. (2015) were all on the main sequence and the observed modes were purely acoustic. In contrast, Her is a subgiant with clearly identified mixed modes (Fig. 12), and the relevant models also have several mixed modes. This complicates the identification of the observed modes with those of the models in the grid. We have applied a relatively simple technique to identify the relevant model modes in cases with mixed modes, taking into account that the present observations show only one nonradial mode of each degree in each interval between two adjacent radial modes. Thus in each radialmode interval we chose (with an exception noted below) that frequency of a given degree which minimized the normalized inertia
(10) 
where is the inertia of the mode and is the radialmode inertia, interpolated logarithmically to the frequency of the given mode. The underlying assumption is that this is the mode most likely to be observed.
For and there was typically a clear minimum of amongst the relevant modes, and the above procedure produced a reasonable fit. For , however, there may be two modes in a given radialmode interval with comparable values of , and there is a risk that the selected mode does not provide the optimal fit to the observations. To circumvent this problem, the procedure was modified by including in the minimization a suitably weighted measure of the distance to the nearest observed dipolar mode. Although fairly crude, this method yielded a reasonable behavior of the fit along the evolution tracks.
As applied by Silva Aguirre et al. (2015), ASTFIT determined likelihoodweighted averages of the various stellar parameters. In the present case, we have found that (cf. Eq. 9) is dominated by a few modes, particularly the dipolar mode undergoing avoided crossing, and hence this statistical procedure has little meaning (see also Fig. 13). For this preliminary analysis we therefore simply considered a few examples of optimized fits for representative selected evolution tracks, chosen to yield values of and [Fe/H] within of the observed values and near its minimum value. These are listed in Table 3. Two examples with masses of and are shown in the échelle diagram in Fig. 12. Figure 13 shows the resulting frequency differences for the model, compared with the fitted surface function.
To determine the uncertainties in the stellar properties, we also fitted combinations of pmode dominated frequencies using the BAyesian STellar Algorithm (BASTA, see Silva Aguirre et al., 2015). Briefly, this Bayesian approach relies on a large grid of stellar models to determine the probability density function of a given stellar property based on the fit to a set of observational quantities. In this case, we considered the spectroscopic constraints and [Fe/H] and the frequencyseparation ratios and above 1000 Hz (to avoid the impact of the mixed modes in the fit) as the input parameters to be reproduced. We report in Table 3, the median and the 16 and 84 percentiles of the posterior probability density function. The results are in excellent agreement with those obtained with ASTFIT, as well as with the independent radius determination from interferometry.
Using the effective temperature, large frequency separation and [Fe/H] (see Table 4) as inputs, we also calculated the stellar parameters using the Asteroseismology Made Easy (AME Lundkvist, Kjeldsen & Silva Aguirre, 2014) gridbased method and found the values to be in agreement with those listed in Table 3.
Model  [Fe/H]  Age  
[]  []  []  [K]  [dex]  [Gyr]  
ASTFIT1 
1.12  1.71  2.7  5650  0.26  7.6 
ASTFIT2  1.15  1.73  2.6  5600  0.30  7.9 
BASTA  
From Table 1 
6.2 Modeling amplitudes and mode life times
Mode linewidths and amplitudes can be used to test models of stellar structure and stability. In particular, comparison between observations and models can be used to calibrate the parameters in the convection model used in the numerical stability analysis. In Fig. 14 theoretical estimates of linear damping rates^{5}^{5}5The mode lifetime and the linewidths are related through . of radial modes are compared to the SONG observations. These computations were performed for global model parameters of the models ASTFIT1 and ASTFIT2 (see Table 3).
The depth of the (surface) convection zone was calibrated to the values obtained from the seismic models ASTFIT1 and ASTFIT2 described in Section 6.1. The basic stability computations were as in Houdek (2006) using Gough’s (Gough, 1977a, b) nonlocal, timedependent convection model, but adopted for the stellar atmosphere a temperature – optical depth () relation from Trampedach et al. (2014) 3D hydrodynamical simulations. The agreement with the observations is reasonably good.
We also estimated the maximum value of the velocity amplitudes of the acoustic oscillations. Various excitation models have been used in the past to estimate amplitudes of stochastically excited oscillations (Goldreich & Keeley, 1977; Balmforth, 1992; Samadi & Goupil, 2001; Houdek, 2006; Chaplin et al., 2005). Here we adapt the scaling relation by Chaplin et al. (2011) for estimating the maximum velocity amplitude. Adopting the global parameters listed in Table 1, we estimate for Her a relative maximum velocity amplitude ( being the maximum solar velocity amplitude), which is in reasonable agreement with the observed value of 2.080.10 discussed in Section 5.3. We should, however, note that the function in Chaplin et al. (2011) equation (7) is rather uncertain and will add to the uncertainty from the adopted effective temperature for Her. The predicted value of the velocity amplitude will therefore capture the uncertainties in both the observations and the scaling relation.
6.3 Using acoustic glitches
Abrupt variations in the sound speed, which are called acoustic glitches, produce seismic signatures in the spacing of the observed frequencies. From these seismic signatures, the locations of the abrupt variation (in terms of acoustic depth ) can be estimated. Figure 15 displays observed second differences of lowdegree (, symbols), together with results of the seismic diagnostic by Houdek & Gough (2007). This analysis adopts Airy functions for the pulsation eigenfunctions and glitches of both stages of helium ionization. We estimated the acoustic depths of the glitches brought about by the second stage of helium ionization, , and by the abrupt variation of the sound speed at the base of convection zone, . We found s and s. The depths of the acoustic glitches obtained directly from the equilibrium structures of the models listed in Table 3, agree with to within 3% and for to within 15%. For the present work, we did not perform an error analysis for the acousticglitch depths, but plan to conduct a MonteCarlo error analysis in an upcoming paper.
7 Discussion and outlook
Our 215 nights of observations of Her represent the longest groundbased asteroseismology campaign of a solarlike star. For this first SONG longterm target, we have determined all the classical seismic observables and identified 49 oscillation modes (see Table 2). \textcolorblackUsing MCMC modeling we measured frequencies and linewidths of radial modes and rotational splitting of modes. From this, the rotation period and inclination of the rotation axis were determined to be days and degrees (68.3% confidence intervals), respectively. The observed oscillation frequencies were used as input for modeling and, taking into account the detected mixed mode, resulted in accurate determinations of the age as well as radius and luminosity in agreement with the observations (Table 3).
Parameter 
Value  Comment 
T[K]  556080  J15 
[cgs]  3.9810  J15 
0.2807  J15  
[km s]  1.70.4  J15 
[mas]  1.930.03  measured 
[]  1.730.02  angular diameter + parallax 
[]  2.540.08  assuming 
[]  121611  measured 
[]  64.20.2  measured 
1.44  measured  
[]  measured  
P [d]  measured  
age [Gyr]  from model  
[]  1.110.01  from model 
[]  1.720.02  from model 
[]  2.6 0.1  from model 
[cgs]  4.010.01  from model 
[s]  1938  from model 
[s]  4488  from model 

We also compared the observed linewidths with theoretical values and found good agreement at frequencies around and above . For lower frequencies the mode lifetimes are significantly longer and our data were insufficient to resolve them. With the large number of identified modes and the very good frequency precision, we determined the second frequency differences to measure the acoustic glitches associated with the He ii ionization layer and the base of the convection zone. Table 4 provides a full summary of our results.
Her is a very interesting seismic target, not only because it is ideal for singlesite SONG observations but for several other reasons. For example, Her and Cen A, the best asteroseismically studied bright solartype stars, have the same mass to within the measurement uncertainties. Very recently Pourbaix & Boffin (2016) redetermined the mass of Cen A to be M as compared to the 1.111.15 M reported here for Her. Note that this mass range is where the transition between convective and nonconvective core on the main sequence occurs (see Bazot et al., 2016, for an indepth discussion of Cen A). Within 0.1 dex, their reported metallicities are also identical. Thus, both stars should be on almost the same evolutionary track, allowing us to undertake comparative studies.
We also note that Her (given the metallicity, mass and age reported here) closely resembles stars in the old open cluster NGC 6791. Thus, differential studies can improve constraints on the helium mass fraction, , of Her and NGC 6791. If shifted to the reddening and distance of NGC 6791 using the and apparent distance modulus derived by Brogaard et al. (2012), Her sits right on the cluster subgiant branch (SGB) of the colormagnitude diagram, confirming the nearidentical properties of Her and the stars in NGC 6791. The relative spectroscopic of Her and SGB twins in the cluster can then be used to tightly constrain the cluster reddening. This can lead to an improved estimate of for NGC 6791 through reanalysis of the cluster (Brogaard et al., 2012), which also allows a precise estimate of for Her under the assumption of a common heliumtometal enrichment for stars.
With the results presented here we are now in the position to learn more about the stellar obliquity^{6}^{6}6the angle between the orbital angular momentum and the stellar spin of the Her system, which is a quadruple system as specified in Section 2.4. From our seismic analysis we determined the inclination of the stellar rotation axis of Her to be degrees. This is very close to the inclination angle of the orbital plane of Her and its closest orbiting component, which is determined to be (Roberts et al., 2016).
Combining our measurement of with the orientation of the orbit does not give us the complete information on the obliquity because we do not know the projection of the stellar spin axis on the plane of the sky. Nevertheless, given the good agreement between the inclination of the stellar rotation axis and the orbital plane, we assume in the following that the rotation axis of Her is indeed aligned with the angular momentum of its orbit and briefly discuss this finding. There are only a handful of obliquity measurements in double stars (see Albrecht et al., 2011, for a list) that have a short period (less then one month). Among those, misaligned as well as aligned systems were reported (e.g. Albrecht et al., 2009, 2014, 2007; Triaud et al., 2013). For systems with larger semimajor axes, Hale (1994, and references therein) estimated the stellar inclinations using the projected stellar rotation velocities () and found low obliquities in doublestar systems with semimajor axes up to AU. However, for systems with more than two stellar components no indication of coplanarity was found. This was interpreted as a sign of longterm secular interactions (Kozaicycles) between the different components (e.g. Fabrycky & Tremaine, 2007; Naoz, 2016; Anderson, Lai & Storch, 2016). With an apparently low obliquity for the primary component and a semimajor axis of AU, the Her system provides an interesting data point that does not seem to follow the trend observed by Hale (1994).
Based on 215 nights of observations we have presented the most detailed study of Her to date but there is still much we can learn about this star. We will continue observing Her during the coming years to improve the S/N in the power spectrum and the frequency resolution, and to check for oscillation amplitude and frequency variations. We expect additional detections of lowfrequency modes as well as more modes, which provide important constraints on the acoustic depth of the He ii ionization layer and the convection zone. Longer data sets, and therefore a higher S/N, will allow us to detect further mixed modes providing more insights about the deeper regions of the star.
With the upcoming NASA TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite) mission (Ricker et al., 2015) we will be in the position to simultaneously observe Her photometrically with TESS and spectroscopically with SONG^{7}^{7}7 Her has and which may be too bright for TESS. We note that photometry on strongly saturated stars has been done with success by White et al. (in prep.) for the Kepler mission data; hopefully this will be possible for TESS data as well.. This will allow us to measure the oscillation amplitude ratios, providing detailed input on the convective properties of Her. The only other solartype stars where similar observations were performed are the Sun (Houdek, 2006; Jiménez, 2002) and Procyon (Huber et al., 2011).
Based on its properties and the unprecedented data set, we expect Her to become a benchmark star during the next years. With the addition of more SONG nodes, many of the brightest stars in the sky can be subject to similar comprehensive studies. Such work will provide a reference base of highly accurate parameters for the nearest stars, where the availability of parallaxes and interferometric radii would provide strong model constraints. This will complement future spacebased observations from TESS and PLATO.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the Villum Foundation, The Danish Council for Independent Research Natural Science and the Carlsberg Foundation for the support on building the SONG prototype on Tenerife. The Stellar Astrophysics Centre is funded by The Danish National Research Foundation (Grant DNRF106) and research was supported by the ASTERISK project (ASTERoseismic Investigations with SONG and Kepler) funded by the European Research Council (Grant agreement n. 267864). We also gratefully acknowledge the support by the Spanish Ministry of Economy Competitiveness (MINECO) grant AYA201676378P and the Australian Research Council. W.J.C. acknowledges support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC). M.S.L. is supported by The Danish Council for Independent Research’s Sapere Aude program (Grant agreement no.: DFF–505100130). M.N.L. acknowledges the support of The Danish Council for Independent Research Natural Science (Grant DFF418100415). We thank the referee for a clear report resulting in improvements to the material presented in this paper. A special thank you also goes to the staff at the Observatorio del Teide for their expert help during construction and operation of the telescope.
References
 Albrecht et al. (2007) Albrecht, S., Reffert, S., Snellen, I., Quirrenbach, A. & Mitchell, D. S. 2007, A&A, 474, 565
 Albrecht et al. (2009) Albrecht, S., Reffert, S., Snellen, I. A. G., Winn, J. N. 2009, Nature, 461, 373
 Albrecht et al. (2011) Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Carter, J. A., Snellen, I. A. G. & de Mooij, E. J. W. 2011, ApJ, 726, 68
 Albrecht et al. (2014) Albrecht, S., Winn, J. N., Torres, G., et al. 2014, ApJ, 785, 83
 Andersen et al. (2014) Andersen, M. F., Grundahl, F., ChristensenDalsgaard, J., et al. 2014, RMxAC, 45, 83
 Anderson, Lai & Storch (2016) Anderson, K. R., Lai, D., Storch, N. I. 2016, MNRAS submitted (arXiv:1610.02626)
 Angulo et al. (1999) Angulo, C., Arnould, M., Rayet, M., et al. 1999, Nucl. Phys. A, 656, 3
 Antoci et al. (2013) Antoci, V., Handler, G., Grundahl, F., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1563
 Arentoft et al. (2014) Arentoft, T., Tingley, B., ChristensenDalsgaard, J., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1318
 Baines et al. (2014) Baines, E. K., Armstrong, J. T., Schmitt, H. R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 781, 90
 Balmforth (1992) Balmforth, N. J. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 639
 Bazot et al. (2016) Bazot, M., ChristensenDalsgaard, J., Gizon, L. & Benomar, O. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 1254
 Bedding (2012) Bedding, T. R. 2012, Progress in Solar/Stellar Physics with Helio and Asteroseismology, 462, 195
 Bedding et al. (2004) Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., Butler, R. P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 380
 Bedding et al. (1996) Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., Reetz, J. & Barbuy, B. 1996, MNRAS, 280, 1155
 Bessel (2000) Bessell, M. S., 2000, PASP, 112, 961
 Bonanno et al. (2008) Bonanno, A., Benatti, S., Claudi, R., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 1248
 Boyajian et al. (2013) Boyajian, T. S., von Braun, K., van Belle, G., et al. 2013 ApJ, 771, 40
 BöhmVitense (1958) BöhmVitense, E. 1958, Z. Astrophys., 46, 108
 Brogaard et al. (2012) Brogaard, K., VandenBerg, D. A., Bruntt, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, 106
 Bruntt et al. (2010) Bruntt, H., Bedding, T. R., Quirion, P.O., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1907
 Butler et al. (1996) Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Williams, E., et al. 1996, PASP, 108, 500
 Butler et al. (2004) Butler, R. P., Bedding, T. R., Kjeldsen, H., et al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L75
 Casagrande & Vandenberg (2014) Casagrande, L., & VandenBerg, D. A. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 392
 Chaplin et al. (2011) Chaplin, W. J., Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 54
 Chaplin et al. (2005) Chaplin, W. J., Houdek, G., Elsworth, Y., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 858
 Chaplin & Miglio (2013) Chaplin, W. J. & Miglio, A. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 353
 ChristensenDalsgaard (1988) ChristensenDalsgaard, J. 1988, Advances in Helio and Asteroseismology, IAU Symposium, 123, 295
 ChristensenDalsgaard, Bedding & Kjeldsen (1995) ChristensenDalsgaard, J., Bedding, T. R. & Kjeldsen, H. 1995, ApJ, 443, 29
 ChristensenDalsgaard (2008a) ChristensenDalsgaard, J. 2008a, Astrophys. Space Sci., 316, 13
 ChristensenDalsgaard (2008b) ChristensenDalsgaard, J. 2008b, Astrophys. Space Sci., 316, 113
 ChristensenDalsgaard (2012) ChristensenDalsgaard, J. 2012, In Proc. ESF Conference: ”The Modern Era of Helio and Asteroseismology”, Obergurgl, 20  25 May, 2012, ed. M. Roth. Astron. Nachr., 333, 914
 ChristensenDalsgaard & Houdek (2010) ChristensenDalsgaard, J. & Houdek, G. 2010, In Proc. HELAS Workshop on ‘Synergies between solar and stellar modelling’, Rome 22 – 26 June 2009, eds M. Marconi, D. Cardini & M. P. Di Mauro, Astrophys. Space Sci., 328, 51
 Claret & Bloemen (2011) Claret, A. & Bloemen, S. 2011, A&A, 529, A75
 Corsaro et al. (2012) Corsaro, E., Grundahl, F., Leccia, S., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A9
 Davies et al. (2014) Davies, G. R., Handberg, R., Miglio, A., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 445, L94
 Fabrycky & Tremaine (2007) Fabrycky, D., Tremaine, S. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1298
 Ferguson et al. (2005) Ferguson, J. W., Alexander, D. R., Allard, F., et al. 2005, ApJ, 623, 585
 Fletcher et al. (2006) Fletcher, S. T., Chaplin, W. J., Elsworth, Y., Schou, J. & Buzasi, D. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 935
 Frandsen et al. (1995) Frandsen, S., Jones, A., Kjeldsen, H., et al. 1995, A&A, 301, 123
 Gizon & Solanki (2003) Gizon, L. & Solanki, S. K. 2003, ApJ, 589, 1009
 Goldreich & Keeley (1977) Goldreich, P., & Keeley, D. A. 1977, ApJ, 212, 243
 Gough (1977a) Gough, D.O. 1977, LNP, 71, 15
 Gough (1977b) Gough, D.O. 1977, ApJ, 214, 196
 Grundahl et al. (2007) Grundahl, F., Kjeldsen, H., ChristensenDalsgaard, J., Arentoft, T. & Frandsen, S. 2007, Communications in Asteroseismology, 150, 300
 Hale (1994) Hale, A. 1994, AJ, 107, 306
 Handberg & Campante (2011) Handberg, R. & Campante, T. L. 2011, A&A, 527, A56
 Handberg (2013) Handberg, R. Aarhus Univerisity. 2013 PhD thesis
 Houdek (2006) Houdek, G. 2006, Proceedings of SOHO 18/GONG 2006/HELAS I, Beyond the spherical Sun, 624, 28
 Houdek & Gough (2007) Houdek, G. & Gough, D. O. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 861
 Huber et al. (2011) Huber, D., Bedding, T. R., Arentoft, T., et al. 2011, ApJ, 731, 94
 Iglesias & Rogers (1996) Iglesias, C. A. & Rogers, F. J. 1996, ApJ, 464, 943
 Ireland et al. (2008) Ireland, M. J., Mérand, A., ten Brummelaar, T. A., et al. 2008, In Proc. SPIE 7013: Optical, Infrared Interferometry, 7013, 24
 Isaacson & Fischer (2010) Isaacson, H. & Fischer, D. 2010, ApJ, 725, 875
 Jiménez (2002) Jiménez, A. 2002, ApJ, 581, 736
 Jofré et al. (2015) Jofré, E., Petrucci, R., Saffe, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, 50
 Kjeldsen et al. (2005) Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Butler, R. P., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, 1281
 Kjeldsen et al. (2008) Kjeldsen, H., Bedding, T. R., Arentoft, T., et al. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1370
 Lundkvist, Kjeldsen & Silva Aguirre (2014) Lundkvist, M., Kjeldsen, H. & Silva Aguirre, V. 2014, A&A, 566, 82
 Mozurkewich et al. (2003) Mozurkewich, D., Armstrong, J. T., Hindsley, R. B., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 2502
 Naoz (2016) Naoz, S. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 441
 Pinheiro & Fernandes (2010) Pinheiro, F. J. G. & Fernandes, J. M. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 73
 Piskunov & Valenti (2002) Piskunov, N. E. & Valenti, J. A. 2002, A&A, 385, 1095
 Pourbaix & Boffin (2016) Pourbaix, D. & Boffin, H. M. J. 2016, A&A, 586, 90
 Ricker et al. (2015) Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, Systems, 1, 1
 Ritter et al. (2014) Ritter, A., Hyde, E. A. & Parker, Q. A. 2014, PASP, 126, 170
 Roberts et al. (2016) Roberts, Jr., L. C., Mason, B. D., Aguilar, J., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 169
 Rogers & Nayfonov (2002) Rogers, F. J. & Nayfonov, A. 2002, ApJ, 576, 1064
 Roxburgh & Vorontsov (2003) Roxburgh, I. W. & Vorontsov, S. V. 2003, A&A, 411, 215
 Samadi & Goupil (2001) Samadi, R. & Goupil, M.J. 2001, A&A, 370, 136
 Scherrer et al. (1983) Scherrer, P. H., Wilcox, J. M., ChristensenDalsgaard, J. & Gough, D. O. 1983, Sol. Phys., 82, 75
 Silva Aguirre et al. (2015) Silva Aguirre, V., Davies, G. R., Basu, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2127
 Soubiran et al. (2016) Soubiran, C., Le Campion, J.F., Brouillet, N. & Chemin, L. 2016 A&A, 2016, 591, 118
 Tassoul (1980) Tassoul, M. 1980, ApJS, 43, 469
 ten Brummelaar et al. (2005) ten Brummelaar, T. A., McAlister, H. A., Ridgway, S. T., et al. 2005, ApJ, 628, 453
 Torres (2010) Torres, G. 2010, AJ, 140, 1158
 Trampedach et al. (2014) Trampedach, R., Stein, R. F., ChristensenDalsgaard, J., Nordlund, Å., & Asplund, M. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 805
 Triaud et al. (2013) Triaud, A. H. M. J., Hebb, L., Anderson, D. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 549, 18
 van Leeuwen (2007) van Leeuwen, F. 2007, A&A, 474, 653
 White et al. (2012) White, T. R., Bedding, T. R., Gruberbauer, M., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, L36
 Wright et al. (2004) Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P. & Vogt, S. S. 2004, ApJS, 152, 261
 Yang & Meng (2010) Yang, W. & Meng, X. 2010, New A, 15, 367