1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: \def\ms{m~s$^{-1}$}

4: \def\ks{km~s$^{-1}$}

5: \def\msini{$M_P\sin{i}$}

6: \def\asini{$a\sin{i}$}

7: \def\vsini{$V_{\rm rot}\sin{i}$}

8: \def\msun{$M_{\odot}$}

9: \def\mjup{$M_{\rm Jup}$}

10: \def\rjup{$R_{\rm Jup}$}

11: \def\rsun{$R_{\odot}$}

12: \def\lsun{$L_{\odot}$}

13: \def\chisq{$\sqrt{\chi^2_\nu}$}

14: \def\chis{$\chi^2_\nu$}

15: \def\plmn{~$\pm$~}

16: \def\feh{[Fe/H]}

17: \def\rphk{$R^\prime_{HK}$}

18: \def\shk{$S$}

19: 

20: 

21: \begin{document}

22: 

23: \title{Measurement of the Spin-Orbit Angle of Exoplanet HAT-P-1b\altaffilmark{1}}   

24: 

25: \author{

26:   John Asher Johnson\altaffilmark{2,3}, 

27:   Joshua N.\ Winn\altaffilmark{4}, 

28:   Norio Narita\altaffilmark{5},

29:   Keigo Enya\altaffilmark{6},

30:   Peter K.\ G.\ Williams\altaffilmark{2}, 

31:   Geoffrey W.\ Marcy\altaffilmark{2}, 

32:   Bun'ei Sato\altaffilmark{7},

33:   Yasuhiro Ohta\altaffilmark{8}, 

34:   Atsushi Taruya\altaffilmark{8},

35:   Yasushi Suto\altaffilmark{8},

36:   Edwin L.\ Turner\altaffilmark{9},

37:   Gaspar Bakos\altaffilmark{10},

38:   R. Paul Butler\altaffilmark{11},

39:   Steven S.\ Vogt\altaffilmark{12},

40:   Wako Aoki\altaffilmark{5}, 

41:   Motohide Tamura\altaffilmark{5},

42:   Toru Yamada\altaffilmark{13},

43:   Yuzuru Yoshii\altaffilmark{14},

44:   Marton Hidas\altaffilmark{15}

45: }

46: 

47: \email{johnjohn@ifa.hawaii.edu}

48: 

49: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained at the Keck

50:   Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among

51:   the California Institute of Technology, the University of

52:   California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

53:   the Subaru Telescope, which is operated by the National Astronomical

54:   Observatory of Japan;

55:   and the Lick Observatory, which is operated by the University of

56:   California.} 

57: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,

58:   Mail Code 3411, Berkeley, CA 94720}

59: \altaffiltext{3}{Current Address: Institute for Astronomy, University

60:   of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822; NSF Postdoctoral Fellow} 

61: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for

62:   Astrophysics and Space Research, Massachusetts Institute  

63:   of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}

64: \altaffiltext{5}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan,

65:   2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181--8588, Japan}

66: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Infrared Astrophysics, Institute of

67:   Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency,

68:   3-1-1 Yoshinodai, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 229--8510, Japan} 

69: \altaffiltext{7}{Global Edge Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology,

70: 2-12-1 Okayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan}

71: \altaffiltext{8}{Department of Physics, School of Science, The

72:   University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113--0033, Japan}

73: \altaffiltext{9}{Princeton University Observatory, Peyton Hall,

74: Princeton, NJ 08544, USA}

75: \altaffiltext{10}{Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60

76:   Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; NSF Postdoctoral Fellow}

77: \altaffiltext{11}{Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie

78:   Institution of Washington DC, 5241 Broad Branch Rd. NW, Washington DC,

79:  20015-1305} 

80: \altaffiltext{12}{UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California at

81:   Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064} 

82: \altaffiltext{13}{Astronomical Institute, Tohoku University, Aramaki,

83:   Aoba, Sendai, 980-8578, Japan}

84: \altaffiltext{14}{Institute of Astronomy, School of Science, The

85:   University of Tokyo, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181--0015, Japan} 

86: \altaffiltext{15}{Las Cumbres Observatory, 6740 Cortona Dr.~Suite 102,

87:   Santa Barbara, CA 93117}

88: 

89: \begin{abstract}

90:   We present new spectroscopic and photometric observations of the

91:   HAT-P-1 planetary system. Spectra obtained during three transits

92:   exhibit the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, allowing us to measure the

93:   angle between the sky projections of the stellar spin axis and orbit

94:   normal, $\lambda = 3\fdg 7 \pm 2\fdg 1$. The small value of

95:   $\lambda$ for this and other systems suggests that the dominant

96:   planet migration mechanism preserves spin-orbit alignment. Using two

97:   new transit light curves, we refine the transit ephemeris and reduce

98:   the uncertainty in the orbital period by an order of magnitude. We

99:   find a upper limit on the orbital eccentricity of 0.067, with 99\%

100:   confidence, by combining our new radial-velocity measurements with

101:   those obtained previously.

102: \end{abstract}

103: 

104: \keywords{techniques: radial velocities---planetary systems:

105:   formation---stars: individual (HAT-P-1, ADS\,16402A)}

106: 

107: \section{Introduction}

108: 

109: Prior to 1995, it was expected that Jovian planets around other stars

110: would inhabit wide, circular orbits similar to the Solar System gas

111: giants. It was therefore a surprise when the first exoplanet was

112: discovered with a minimum mass of 0.468~\mjup\ and a semimajor axis of

113: only 0.05~AU \citep{mayor95}. Since then, 85 ``hot Jupiters''---Jovian

114: planets with periods $\leq$10~days---have been detected around

115: Sun-like stars \citep{butler06,torres08}. It is unlikely that these

116: planets formed \emph{in situ}\, due to the low surface densities and

117: high temperatures of the inner regions of circumstellar disks

118: \citep{lin96}. A more likely scenario is that these massive planets

119: formed at a distance of several astronomical units, and then migrated

120: inward to their current locations.

121: 

122: Theories for the inward migration of planets can be divided into two

123: broad categories. The first category involves tidal interactions

124: between the planet and a remaining gaseous disk

125: \citep{lin96,moorhead08}. The second category involves few-body

126: gravitational dynamics, such as planet--planet scattering

127: \citep{rasio96,chat07}, dynamical relaxation \citep{pap01,adams03},

128: and Kozai cycles accompanied by tidal friction

129: \citep{holman97,fab07,wu07,nagasawa08}. One possible way to

130: distinguish between these categories is to examine the present-day

131: alignment between the stellar rotation axis and the planetary orbital axis.

132: Assuming that these axes were initially well aligned, disk-planet

133: tidal interactions would preserve this close alignment \citep{ward94},

134: while the second category of theories would at least occasionally

135: result in large misalignments. For example, \citet{adams03} predict a

136: final inclination distribution for dynamically relaxed planetary

137: systems that peaks near $20^\circ$ and extends to $85^\circ$.

138: Likewise, \citet{fab07} and \citet{wu07} simulated systems of planets

139: with randomly aligned outer companions and found that the Kozai

140: interaction resulted in a wide distribution of final orbital

141: inclinations for the inner planet, with retrograde orbits ($\lambda >

142: 90^\circ$) not uncommon. Similar results were found by

143: \citet{nagasawa08}, for the case in which Kozai oscillations are

144: caused by an outer planet, rather than a companion star.

145: 

146: Spin-orbit alignment can be measured by taking advantage of the

147: Rossiter--McLaughlin (RM) effect that occurs during a planetary

148: transit. As the planet blocks portions of the rotating stellar

149: surface, the star's rotational broadening kernel becomes asymmetric

150: and its spectrum appears to be anomalously Doppler-shifted. The RM

151: effect has previously been observed and modeled for eight transiting

152: planetary systems \citep{queloz00,winn05,winn06b,winn07a,wolf07,

153:   narita07,narita08,bouchy08,lo08,winn08}. In this work, we add HAT-P-1 to

154: this sample.

155: 

156: HAT-P-1 (ADS\,16402B) is a member of a G0V/G0V visual binary and

157: harbors a short--period, Jovian planet. The transits of HAT-P-1b were

158: discoverd by \citet{bakos07} as part of the Hungarian-made Automated

159: Telescope Network (HATNet). The planet has a 4.465~day orbital period,

160: a mass of 0.53~\mjup, a radius $R_P = 1.20$~\rjup\ \citep{bakos07,

161:   winn07b}. We have monitored HAT-P-1 using precise radial velocity

162: (RV) and photometric measurements made both in and out of transit in

163: order to measure the RM effect and improve the precision with which

164: the system's orbital parameters are known. In the following section we

165: describe our observations and data reduction procedures. In~\S

166: \ref{model} we present the transit model that we fit to our

167: observations, and in \S~\ref{results} we present our results, and we

168: conclude in \S~\ref{discussion} with a brief discussion.

169: 

170: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

171: \label{observations}

172: \subsection{Radial Velocity Measurements}

173: \label{sec:rv}

174: 

175: We observed the optical spectrum of HAT-P-1 using the High Resolution

176: Echelle Spectrometer \citep[HIRES,][]{vogt94} on the Keck~I 10m

177: telescope and the High Dispersion Spectrograph

178: \citep[HDS,][]{noguchi02} on the Subaru~8m telescope. We set up the

179: HIRES spectrometer in the same manner that has been used consistently

180: for the California-Carnegie planet search

181: \citep{butler96,marcy05b}. This is also the same setup that was used

182: to gather the 9 Keck/HIRES spectra reported by

183: \citet{bakos07}. Specifically, we employed the red cross-disperser and

184: used the I$_2$ absorption cell to calibrate the instrumental response

185: and the wavelength scale. The slit width was set by the $0\farcs85$ B5

186: decker, and the typical exposure times ranged from 3--5~min, giving a

187: resolution of about 60,000 at 5500\AA\ and a signal-to-noise ratio

188: (SNR) of approximately 120~pixel$^{-1}$. We gathered 3 spectra on

189: several nights when transits were not occurring, in order to refine

190: the parameters of the spectroscopic orbit. In addition we gathered a

191: dense time series of spectra on each of two nights, UT~2007~July~6 and

192: UT~2007~September~2, when transits were predicted to occur. On each

193: night we attempted to observe the star for many hours bracketing the

194: predicted transit midpoint, but there were interruptions due to clouds

195: and pointing failures. However, both nights of data provide good phase

196: coverage of the entire transit event. In total we obtained 79 new

197: Keck/HIRES spectra, of which 49 were observed while a transit was

198: happening.

199: 

200: For our Subaru/HDS spectra we employed the standard I2a setup of the

201: HDS, covering the wavelength range 4940--6180\AA\ with the I$_2$

202: absorption cell. The slit width of $0\farcs 8$ yielded a spectral

203: resolution of $\sim$45,000. The typical exposure time was 10~min

204: resulting in a SNR of 120~pixel$^{-1}$. Our Subaru observations took

205: place on 3 different nights spread out over 2 months. Two of the

206: nights were not transit nights; we gathered 8 spectra on those nights

207: in order to refine the parameters of the spectroscopic orbit. The last

208: night, UT~2007~September~20, was a transit night, and we gathered 25

209: spectra over 7.3~hr bracketing the predicted transit midpoint, of

210: which 16 were gathered during the transit.

211: 

212: We performed the Doppler analysis with the algorithm of

213: \citet{butler96}. For the Subaru data we used a version of this

214: algorithm customized for HDS by \citet{sato02}. We estimated the

215: measurement error in the Doppler shift derived from a given spectrum

216: based on the weighted standard deviation of the mean among the

217: solutions for individual 2~\AA\ spectral segments. The typical

218: measurement error was 3~m~s$^{-1}$ for the Keck data and 7~m~s$^{-1}$

219: for the Subaru data. The data are given in Table~\ref{tab:vels} and

220: plotted in Figs.~\ref{fig:rv} and \ref{fig:transit}. Also given in

221: that table, and shown in those figures, are data based on the 9

222: Keck/HIRES spectra and 4 Subaru/HDS spectra obtained previously by

223: \citet{bakos07}. We note that the RV timestamps reported by Bakos et

224: al.~(2007) are incorrect. They were said to be Heliocentric Julian

225: dates, but they are actually Julian dates. We provide the corrected

226: dates in Table~\ref{tab:vels}.

227: 

228: \subsection{Photometric Measurements}

229: 

230: We obtained photometric measurements of HAT-P-1 during the transit of

231: UT~2007~Oct~8 using the Nickel 1m telescope at Lick Observatory on

232: Mount Hamilton, California. We used the Nickel Direct Imaging Camera,

233: which is a thinned Loral $2048^2$ CCD with a $6.3\arcmin$ square field

234: of view\footnote{This is the same camera used by \citet{winn07b},

235:   which they mistakenly described as a 2048$^2$ Lawrence Labs CCD with

236:   a $6\farcm1 \times 6\farcm1$ field of view.}. We observed through a

237: Gunn $Z$ filter, and used $2\times2$ binning for an effective pixel

238: scale of $0\farcs37$~pixel$^{-1}$. The exposure times varied depending

239: upon conditions but were typically 10-12~s, with a readout and setup

240: time between exposures of 34~s. The conditions were clear for most of

241: the transit with $\sim1\farcs0$ seeing. However, observations during

242: ingress were partially obscured by clouds and the data from that time

243: period proved to be significantly noisier than the rest; we have

244: excluded those data from our analysis. We determined the instrumental

245: magnitude of HAT-P-1 relative to two comparison stars using an

246: aperture with an 11 pixel radius and a sky background annulus

247: extending from 15 to 18 pixels.

248: 

249: We observed the transit of UT~2007~September~20 with the MAGNUM~2m

250: telescope on Haleakala, in Hawaii

251: \citep{kobayashi98,yoshii02,yoshii03}. The MAGNUM photometric

252: observations were conducted on the same night as the Subaru/HDS

253: transit observations described in \S~\ref{sec:rv}. We employed the

254: Multicolor Imaging Photometer (MIP), using a $1024^2$ SITe CCD with a

255: pixel scale of $0\farcs277$~pixel$^{-1}$. The camera's field of view

256: is $1\farcm5$, which is much smaller than the field of view of the

257: detector. During each exposure, the field was shifted on the detector

258: along a $3\times3$ grid, which allowed us to increase the duty cycle

259: since the chip was read out only once for every 9

260: exposures. Observations were made through a Johnson $V$-band filter,

261: and the exposure times were 10~s, with 40~s per exposure for readout

262: and setup. The MIP images were reduced with the standard pipeline

263: described by \citet{minezaki04}. We determined the instrumental

264: magnitude of HAT-P-1 relative to its visual binary companion,

265: ADS\,16402A, using an aperture radius of 15 pixels, and estimated the

266: sky background level with an annulus from 20 to 25 pixels.

267: 

268: The photometric data are given in Table~\ref{tab:phot} and plotted in

269: Fig.~\ref{fig:phot}.  In the final light curves, the root-mean-squared

270: (rms) relative flux, outside of transits, is 0.0019 for the Nickel

271: data and 0.0016 for the MAGNUM data.

272: 

273: \section{The Model}

274: \label{model}

275: \subsection{An Updated Ephemeris}

276: \label{newphot}

277: 

278: The extended time baseline of our new photometric measurements allows

279: us to refine the transit ephemeris. We first computed midtransit times

280: from the light curves using the method described by

281: \citet{winn07b}. In particular, to assign proper weights to the

282: photometric data during the light curve fitting procedure, we applied

283: a correction to the uncertainties to take into account time-correlated

284: noise (``red noise''), which was determined by examining the rms

285: residuals in time-averaged light curves (see \citet{winn07b}). This

286: resulted in a factor-of-two increase in the error bars, relative to a

287: situation in which correlated noise is ignored.

288: 

289: We employed the same modeling procedure described in detail by

290: \citet{holman06} and \citet{winn07} and summarized as follows. We

291: modeled the path of the planet across the stellar disk using a

292: parameterized model based on a planet and star in a Keplerian orbit

293: about their center of mass. We fitted the photometric observations

294: using the analytic formulas of \citet{mandelagol} and a quadratic

295: limb--darkening law with fixed coefficients a based on the tabulated

296: calculations of \citet{claret04}.\footnote{For the $Z$ band, the

297:   coefficients were $a_Z=0.18$ and $b_Z=0.34$. For the $V$ band, the

298:   coefficients were $a_V=0.40$ and $b_V=0.32$.} The free parameters

299: were the scaled stellar radius $R_\star/a$ (where $a$ is the semimajor

300: axis), the planet-to-star radius ratio $R_p/R_\star$, the orbital

301: inclination $i$; and for each light curve, the midtransit time $T_c$,

302: the mean out-of-transit flux, and a time gradient of the

303: out-of-transit flux (to account for some systematic errors in the

304: photometry). The model fit was carried out using a Markov Chain Monte

305: Carlo (MCMC) algorithm with $10^6$ links, in which a single

306: randomly-chosen parameter was perturbed at each link, with a

307: perturbation size tuned such that $\sim$40\% of the jumps were

308: executed. The mean values and standard deviations of the posterior

309: probability distributions (which were nearly Gaussian in this case)

310: were adopted as the ``best--fit'' parameters and uncertainties.

311: 

312: We fit a linear ephemeris to all of the times listed in

313: Table~\ref{tab:tc}, which includes the new transit times and those

314: measured by \citet{winn07b}. We found that two of the entries in

315: Table~3 of \citet{winn07b} were incorrect: the first time was wrong

316: because the data had not been normalized correctly, and the sixth time

317: was too small by one period because of a rounding error in the

318: computer code that generated the table. The corrected times are given

319: in Table~\ref{tab:tc}. A linear fit to the transit times had

320: $\chi^2=10.2$ and 8 degrees of freedom, indicating an acceptable

321: fit. The fit residuals are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:tc} and the

322: updated ephemeris is given in Table~\ref{tab:params}. The uncertainty

323: in our updated period is about 10 times smaller than the previous

324: estimate. In our subsequent analysis we fix the period at this value,

325: as the uncertainty is negligible for our purposes.

326: 

327: \subsection{The Orbital Eccentricity}

328: 

329: \citep{bakos07} reported a tentative detection of a nonzero orbital

330: eccentricity, $e=0.09 \pm 0.02$, based on an analysis of 13 RV

331: measurements. With our expanded RV data set, we can check on this

332: tentative detection. We modeled our radial velocity measurements using

333: a Keplerian orbit with 6 free parameters: the velocity semiamplitude

334: $K$, the orbital eccentricity $e$, the argument of pericenter

335: $\omega$, and an additive velocity for each of the 3 velocity groups

336: (our Keck velocties and those of \citet{bakos07}; our Subaru

337: velocities; and the Subaru velocities of \citet{bakos07}). The time of

338: transit, $T_c$, and the orbital period $P$ were held fixed at the

339: values determined from the photometric data.

340: 

341: To avoid complications at this stage due to the RM effect, we fitted

342: only those 43 velocities that were gathered well outside of

343: transits. Specifically we excluded all velocities that were measured

344: within a 4~hr window centered on the calculated midtransit time (the

345: actual transit duration is 2.8~hr). To assign proper weights to the RV

346: measurements we needed to estimate the noise due to astrophysical

347: sources such as stellar pulsation or rotational modulation of surface

348: features, commonly known as ``jitter'' \citep{saar98, wright05}. We

349: found it necessary to add (in quadrature) 3.7~\ms\ to the measurement

350: errors in order to obtain a \chis\ of unity. This jitter estimate is

351: consistent with the 3.4~\ms\ predicted by \citet{wright05} and used by

352: \citet{bakos07}. In the modeling procedure described in the rest of

353: this section, we used the augmented error bars, while

354: Table~\ref{tab:vels} gives only the internal measurement

355: uncertainties. Unlike our previous analyses of HD~189733 and

356: HD\,147506 \citep{winn06b,winn07a}, we found no evidence for a higher

357: night--to--night jitter compared to the intra--night jitter. We

358: therefore did not modify the error bars any further than the

359: quadrature addition of our jitter estimate.

360: 

361: We employed an MCMC fitting algorithm using $10^6$ steps and

362: perturbation sizes resulting in a 30-50\% acceptance rate

363: \citep[e.g.][]{winn05}. The orthogonal parameters describing the

364: eccentricity $e$ and argument of periastron $\omega$ were $e\cos\omega

365: = 0.003\pm 0.013$, $e\sin\omega = 0.004\pm 0.025$. The orbital

366: eccentricity of the HAT-P-1 system was found to be smaller than 0.067

367: with 99\% confidence. This is consistent with the theoretical

368: expectation that the orbit should have circularized due to tidal

369: friction. The circularization timescale is $\sim$0.23~Gyr assuming a

370: tidal quality factor of $10^6$ \citep{bakos07}, and the estimated

371: stellar age is 2.7~Gyr \citep{torres08}. In what follows we assume

372: $e=0$ exactly.

373: 

374: \subsection{Joint Analysis of Radial Velocities and Photometry}

375: \label{subsec:joint}

376: 

377: To determine the projected spin-orbit angle and its uncertainty, we

378: simultaneously fitted a parametric model to the RV data as well as a

379: composite transit light curve, generated from all of the $Z$ and $z$

380: photometric data at our disposal, from this work and from

381: \citet{winn07b}. The composite light curve has 1 minute bins, and an

382: out-of-transit rms of 0.00057. It is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:transit}

383: along with the transit RVs. Although our main interest is in the

384: spin-orbit parameters, which are largely determined by the transit RV

385: data, we included the photometric data in the fit as a convenient way

386: to account for the uncertainties in the photometric parameters and

387: their covariances with the spin-orbit parameters, although in practice

388: these covariances proved to be small.

389: 

390: The aspects of the model that attempt to fit the photometry, and the

391: orbital Doppler data, have already been described. To calculate the

392: radial velocity during transits, we must calibrate the relationship

393: between the ``anomalous Doppler shift'' that is returned by our code

394: for measuring Doppler shifts, and the physical parameters and

395: configuration of the star and planet. For this purpose we used the

396: technique of \citet{winn05}, in which simulated stellar spectra are

397: created that exhibit the RM effect, and then these spectra are

398: analyzed with the same Doppler-measuring code that is used on actual

399: data. Such simulations are needed because the algorithm for measuring

400: Doppler shifts involves fitting for parameters that are intended to

401: describe the time-variable instrumental profile of the spectrograph,

402: and these parameters may interact with the spectral disortion of the

403: RM effect in ways that are hard to predict.

404: 

405: In our simulations the physical configuration of the planet and star

406: is characterized by the transit flux decrement, $\epsilon$, and the

407: velocity of the occulted portion of the stellar disk (the

408: ``sub--planet velocity''), denoted by $v_p$. We created simulated

409: spectra with the same data format and noise characteristics as the

410: observations, and analyzed these with the same analysis pipeline used

411: for the actual observations. The simulated in--transit spectra are

412: based on a ``template'' spectrum representing the disk--integrated

413: spectrum of the star (described below), which we broaden to match the

414: rotational velocity of HAT-P-1.\footnote{The broadening kernel depends

415:   on the assumed limb-darkening law of the star, which we took to be a

416:   linear law with limb-darkening parameter $u=0.67$. The results for

417:   the RM calibration formula are insensitive to the choice of $u$;

418:   very similar results were obtained for the choices $u=0.2$ and

419:   $u=0.8$.} We subtract from this template spectrum an unbroadened

420: copy that is scaled by $\epsilon$ and Doppler--shifted by $v_p$, and

421: then measure the radial velocity anomaly $\Delta v$. We repeat this

422: process for a grid of $\{\epsilon, v_p\}$ and approximate $\Delta

423: v(\epsilon, v_p)$ with a two--dimensional polynomial fit. Differential

424: rotation was ignored, as its effects are expected to be negligible

425: \citep{gaudi07}.

426: 

427: The template spectrum should be similar to that of HAT-P-1 but with

428: narrower lines because of the lack of rotational broadening exhibited

429: by the sub--planet spectrum. We selected the NSO solar atlas

430: \citep{kurucz84} and a Keck/HIRES spectrum of HD\,34411

431: \citep[$T_{eff} = 5911$~K, \feh~$=+0.12$;][]{valenti05}.  We

432: found that the results based on either template are consistent with

433: the function $\Delta v = - \epsilon v_p$. This function is consistent

434: with the analytic expressions of \citet{ohta05} and

435: \citet{gimenez06}. We have found the best functional form of this ``RM

436: calibration'' to vary from system to system; we also found a linear

437: relation for TrES-2 (Winn et al.~2008). Thus, for this study, the

438: calculated radial velocity of the star was taken to be the sum of the

439: radial velocity of the Keplerian orbit, and the anomalous velocity

440: $\Delta v = -\epsilon v_p$.

441: 

442: The model had 12 free parameters: $K$, $R_\star/a$, $R_p/R_\star$,

443: $i$, $T_c$, $v\sin i_\star$, $\lambda$, three additive constants for

444: the 3 different groups of velocity data, and two limb-darkening

445: coefficients $a_Z$ and $u$ (to be explained in the next few

446: paragraphs, see also Table~\ref{tab:params}). The orbital period was

447: fixed at the value determined 

448: previously and the eccentricity was fixed at $e=0$. The two model

449: parameters relating to the RM effect are the 

450: line-of-sight stellar rotation velocity ($v \sin i_\star$), and the

451: angle between the projected stellar spin axis and orbit normal

452: ($\lambda$). The projected spin-orbit angle $\lambda$ is measured

453: counterclockwise on the sky from the projected stellar rotational

454: angular-momentum vector to the projected orbital angular-momentum

455: vector (see Ohta et al.~2005 or Gaudi \& Winn 2007 for a diagram). Due

456: to the symmetry of the situation, a configuration with inclination $i$

457: and spin-orbit angle $\lambda$ cannot be distinguished from a

458: different configuration with inclination $180\arcdeg - i$ and

459: spin-orbit angle $-\lambda$. To break this degeneracy we restrict $i$

460: to the range from zero to 90 degrees, and allow $\lambda$ to range

461: from $-180\arcdeg$ to $+180\arcdeg$.

462: 

463: For the photometric model, the limb-darkening law was assumed to be

464: quadratic, $I/I_0 = 1 - a_Z(1-\mu) - b_Z(1-\mu)^2$, where $\mu$ is the

465: cosine of the angle between the line of sight and the local surface

466: normal. Given the precision of our data it is not possible to place

467: meaningful constraints on both $a_Z$ and $b_Z$. We fixed $b_Z=0.34$,

468: based on interpolation of the tables by \citet{claret04}. We allowed

469: $a_Z$ to be a free parameter subject to a mild {\it a priori}\,

470: constraint, shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chisqr}) below, that enforces

471: agreement with the tabulated value within $\approx$0.2. The choice of

472: 0.2 is somewhat arbitrary and is fairly conservative, in the sense

473: that better agreement is usually observed between fitted and

474: theoretical limb darkening coefficients for the cases when such

475: comparisons can be made (see, e.g., Winn, Holman, \& Roussanova 2007

476: and Southworth~2008). This approach is intermediate between the

477: extreme approaches of fixing the limb darkening parameters exactly

478: (placing too much trust in tabulated values) and allowing them to be

479: completely free parameters (disregarding all theoretical knowledge of

480: stellar atmospheres and possibly allowing unphysical parameter

481: values).

482: 

483: For the RM model, we adopted a linear law [$I/I_0 = 1-u(1-\mu)$] for

484: simplicity, since a quadratic law does not seem justified by the

485: precision of the RM data. The appropriate choice of the limb-darkening

486: coefficient $u$ is not obvious. The Doppler-shift measurement is based

487: on the portion of the spectrum between 5000 and 6200~\AA, where the

488: iodine absorption lines are plentiful. The tables of \citet{claret04}

489: lead to an expectation $u\approx 0.67$ for this spectral

490: region. However, the Doppler information arises primarily from the

491: steep sides of the stellar absorption lines in this region, and the

492: degree of limb darkening in the lines may differ from the degree of

493: limb darkening in the continuum, since the line radiation arises from

494: a different depth in the stellar atmosphere.

495: 

496: To investigate this issue we examined a Kurucz (1979) ATLAS12

497: plane-parallel model stellar atmosphere with $T_{\rm eff} = 5750$~K,

498: $\log g=4.5$, \feh~$=0.0$)\footnote{Downloaded from {\tt

499:     kurucz.harvard.edu}.}, which was originally computed for the star

500: XO-1 (McCullough et al.~2007) but whose properties are a reasonable

501: match to those of HAT-P-1 ($T_{\rm eff} = 5975$~K, $\log

502: g=4.5$, \feh~$=+0.1$; Torres et al.~2008). The stellar intensity was

503: computed for 17 different values of $\mu$, with a resolving power of

504: 500,000. When the spectrum is averaged between 500--620~nm, the

505: best-fitting linear limb-darkening coefficient is 0.65, in agreement

506: with \citet{claret04}. According to the model, the degree of limb

507: darkening is smaller in the steepest portions of absorption lines. For

508: example, for a band centered on one of the Mg~b triplet lines at

509: 518.5~nm, we find $u=0.66$ when the bandwidth is $\Delta\lambda=1$~nm,

510: and $u=0.50$ when $\Delta\lambda=0.02$~nm (encompassing only the

511: steepest portion of the line). For other strong lines we also

512: find that $u$ is decreased by 0.1--0.2 in the cores. For this reason,

513: we chose to allow $u$ to be a free parameter, with the same type of

514: {\it a priori}\, constraint used for the photometric limb-darkening

515: law (see below).

516: 

517: The fitting statistic was

518: \begin{eqnarray}

519: \label{eq:chisqr}

520: \chi^2 & = &

521: \sum_{j=1}^{287}

522: \left[

523: \frac{f_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - f_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_{f,j}}

524: \right]^2

525: +

526: \sum_{j=1}^{125}

527: \left[

528: \frac{v_j({\mathrm{obs}}) - v_j({\mathrm{calc}})}{\sigma_{v,j}}

529: \right]^2

530: +

531: \left(

532: \frac{a_Z-0.18}{0.2}

533: \right)^2

534: +

535: \left(

536: \frac{u-0.67}{0.2}

537: \right)^2

538: ,

539: \end{eqnarray}

540: where $f_j$(obs) are the relative flux data from the composite light

541: curve and $\sigma_{f,j}$ is the out-of-transit rms.  Likewise

542: $v_j$(obs) and $\sigma_{v,j}$ are the radial-velocity measurements and

543: uncertainties after adding the jitter as described above. The last two

544: terms represent {\it a priori}\, constraints on the linear

545: limb-darkening coefficients $a_Z$ (for the photometric data) and $u$

546: (for the radial-velocity data). As before, we solved for the model

547: parameters and uncertainties using a Markov Chain Monte Carlo

548: algorithm. We used a chain length of $10^6$ steps and adjusted the

549: perturbation size to yield an acceptance rate of $\sim$40\%. The

550: posterior probability distributions for each parameter were roughly

551: Gaussian, so we adopt the mean as the ``best--fit'' value and the

552: standard deviation as the 1-$\sigma$ error. For the joint model fit

553: the minimum $\chi^2$ is 412.2, with 402 degrees of freedom, giving

554: $\chi^2_\nu = 1.03$.  This nearly ``perfect'' goodness-of-fit

555: statistic should be interpreted as a check on the appropriateness of

556: our data weights, rather than an independent check on the validity of

557: the model, because we inflated the RV errors and attributed the RV

558: scatter to jitter, and likewise we set the flux uncertainties equal to

559: the out-of-transit RMS flux.

560: 

561: \section{Results}

562: \label{results}

563: 

564: The results from our analysis are given in Table~\ref{tab:params}.

565: The parameters depending on the RV data are $v\sin i_\star = 3.74 \pm

566: 0.30$~\ks\ and $\lambda = 3\fdg 7 \pm 2\fdg 1$. (Below, we

567: argue that the true error in $v\sin i_\star$ is subject to an

568: additional systematic error of 0.5~\ks.) The small $\lambda$

569: indicates close alignment between the sky--projected stellar spin axis

570: and orbit normal. Our measured rotation velocity is higher than the

571: value $v\sin i_\star = 2.2 \pm 0.2$~\ks that was reported by

572: \citet{bakos07}. Using the Spectroscopy Made Easy (SME) program

573: (Valenti \& Piskunov 1996, Valenti \& Fischer 2005), we reanalyzed the

574: same HIRES template observation of HAT-P-1 that was analyzed by Bakos

575: et al., and found $v\sin i_\star = 3.4 \pm 0.5$~\ks, which agrees with

576: the result of our RM analysis. All other spectroscopic parameters from

577: our SME analysis agreed with those reported previously. The primary

578: difference in our analysis is that we used an appropriately narrow

579: instrumental profile width, or equivalently a higher resolution, as

580: measured from the model instrumental profile used in our Doppler

581: analysis. The lower resolution assumed by Bakos et al.\ artificially

582: compensated for rotational broadening, resulting in an erroneously low

583: value of $v\sin i_\star$ (Debra~Fischer private communication 2008).

584: 

585: The parameters that rely primarily on our photometry agree well with

586: those of \citet{winn07b}, \citet{southworth07} and \citet{torres08};

587: and those authors generally agree with one another, though there are

588: differences in the exact treatment of red noise and limb darkening.

589: As an additional check on our quoted errors, and in particular our

590: assumption that the composite light curve had uncorrelated photometric

591: errors, we applied the ``residual-permutation'' or ``rosary-bead''

592: method. In this method, one calculates the residuals between the

593: photometric data and the best-fitting model, and creates many

594: different ``realizations'' of the data that preserve any

595: time-correlated noise by time-shifting the residuals and adding them

596: back to the model. Then, the {\it a posteriori}\, probability

597: distribution for each parameter is estimated by minimizing $\chi^2$

598: for each different realization of the data, and creating histograms of

599: the parameter values. The error bars returned by this method were

600: similar to, or smaller than, the error bars quoted in Table~4.

601: 

602: The result for the photometric limb-darkening parameter is $a_Z=0.26

603: \pm 0.06$, showing that the data prefer a slightly more limb-darkened

604: star than in the ATLAS models from which limb-darkening coefficients

605: were tabulated by \citet{claret04}. The result for the radial-velocity

606: limb-darkening parameter is $u=0.90_{-0.20}^{+0.03}$. This is about

607: 1$\sigma$ {\it larger}\, than the expected continuum value of 0.67,

608: even though the ATLAS models predict that the steepest portion of the

609: absorption lines (which provide most of the Doppler information)

610: should exhibit {\it smaller}\, limb darkening. Assuming the models are

611: correct, it is possible that the limb-darkening parameter $u$ is

612: compensating for an inaccuracy in our model of the RM effect,

613: especially for the ingress and egress phases where limb darkening is

614: strongest. This issue deserves further investigation, perhaps by

615: increasing the sophistication of our RM calibration procedure (see

616: \S~\ref{subsec:joint}), using spatially resolved theoretical intensity

617: distributions rather than an empirical stellar template. Fortunately

618: this issue affects only the results for $v\sin i_\star$, and not for

619: $\lambda$. This can be understood because $u$ and $v\sin i_\star$ both

620: depend on the amplitude of the anomalous Doppler shift, while

621: $\lambda$ depends almost entirely on the timing of the null of the

622: anomalous Doppler shift.\footnote{For other transiting systems with

623:   small impact parameters, such as TrES-1 (Narita et al.~2007) and

624:   HAT-P-2 (Winn et al.~2007, Loeillet et al.~2008), there is a strong

625:   degeneracy between $v\sin i_\star$ and $\lambda$ (Gaudi \& Winn

626:   2007). This type of systematic error may affect the results for

627:   $\lambda$ in those cases.} We verified this by fixing $u$ at values

628: between 0.5 and 0.9 and observing that the results for $v\sin i_\star$

629: change by 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ while the results for $\lambda$ are

630: unchanged. Thus, we conclude that our result for $v\sin i_\star$ is

631: subject to a systematic error of approximately 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$. In

632: Table 4, we have added this systematic error in quadrature to the

633: statistical error of 0.30~km~s$^{-1}$ giving a total error of

634: 0.58~km~s$^{-1}$.

635: 

636: \section{Summary and Discussion}

637: \label{discussion}

638: 

639: We have obtained high--precision photometric and spectroscopic

640: measurements of the star HAT-P-1. Our in--transit spectroscopic

641: observations clearly show the anomalous Doppler shift due to the

642: Rossiter--McLaughlin effect, and we find that the angle between the

643: sky projections of the stellar spin axis and the orbit normal is

644: $3\fdg7\pm 2\fdg1$. Additional Doppler measurements made during

645: non-transit orbital phases allow us to constrain the orbital

646: eccentricity to $e < 0.067$ with 99\% confidence. We measured the

647: transit times from two new light curves and refined the orbital period

648: by nearly an order of magnitude.

649: 

650: The HAT-P-1 system is an interesting case for planetary migration

651: theories because it is known to have a stellar companion in a wide

652: orbit \citep{bakos07}, a key ingredient for the Kozai mechanism. It is

653: also suggestive that the radius of the planet HAT-P-1b is on the high

654: end of theoretical expectations \citep{bakos07,winn07b}, which may 

655: a relic of tidal energy dissipation \citep{fab07}. Had the planetary

656: system exhibited a large spin--orbit misalignment, it would have

657: provided evidence for a scenario in which HAT-P-1b migrated to its

658: current orbit as a result of Kozai oscillations, coupled with tidal

659: dissipation within the planetary interior \citep{fab07}. However, the

660: small value of $\lambda$ does not necessarily rule out the Kozai

661: migration scenario, as small spin--orbit angles are not excluded by

662: the simulations \citep{fab07, wu07, nagasawa08}. But taken together

663: with the 7 other planetary systems with small values of $\lambda$, it

664: seems likely that the dominant migration mechanism responsible for hot

665: Jupiters preserves spin--orbit alignment.

666: 

667: Even if gravitational few-body mechanisms such as Kozai cycles do not

668: represent the dominant migration channel for the formation of hot

669: Jupiters, these mechanisms may be nonetheless be responsible for

670: configurations of some of close--in planets. A prime example is the

671: orbit of HD\,17156b, for which \citet{narita08} reported a 2.5$\sigma$

672: detection of a large misalignment ($\lambda = 62^\circ \pm

673: 25^\circ$). Since small values of $\lambda$ are not excluded by any of

674: the existing theories of planet migration, misaligned systems like

675: HD\,17156 provide the most important tests of the various migration

676: mechanisms. With wide--field transit surveys discovering new

677: planets at an accelerating pace, the sample of measured spin--orbit

678: angles will soon be large enough and precise enough to directly

679: confront the theory.

680: 

681: \acknowledgements We thank the students of GWM's Ay120 Advanced

682: Astronomy Lab course for observing and measuring the transit light

683: curve of HAT-P-1. In particular, we acknowledge the efforts of

684: Kimberly Aller, Niklaus Kemming, Anthony Shu and Edward Young. We

685: thank the UCO/Lick technical staff for the new remote-observing

686: capability, allowing the photometry to be carried out from UC

687: Berkeley. We are grateful for support from the NASA Keck PI Data

688: Analysis Fund (JPL 1326712). JAJ and GB are NSF Astronomy and

689: Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellows with support from the NSF grant

690: AST-0702821. We appreciate funding from NASA grant NNG05GK92G (to

691: GWM). PKGW is supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. This

692: research has made use of the SIMBAD database operated at CDS,

693: Strasbourg, France, and the NASA ADS database. The authors wish to

694: extend special thanks to those of Hawaiian ancestry on whose sacred

695: mountain of Mauna Kea we are privileged to be guests. Without their

696: generous hospitality, the Keck and Subaru observations presented

697: herein would not have been possible.

698: 

699: %\bibliographystyle{apj}

700: %\bibliography{apj-jour,myrefs}

701: \include{bbl}

702: 

703: \clearpage

704: 

705: %\input{table_lambda} 

706: \input{tab1}

707: \input{tab2}

708: \input{tab3}

709: \input{tab4}

710: 

711: \clearpage

712: \begin{figure}[p]

713: \epsscale{1.0}

714: \plotone{f1.eps}

715: \caption{{\it Top:} Relative radial velocity measurements of HAT-P-1,

716:   from this work and from 

717: Bakos et al.~(2007). The solid line is the best-fitting model. The

718: typical measurement uncertainties are illustrated as points with error

719: bars in the lower left corner. A detailed view near midtransit is

720: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:transit}. {\it Bottom:} Residual radial

721:   velocities after subtracting the best-fitting model.

722: \label{fig:rv}}

723: \end{figure}

724: 

725: \begin{figure}[p]

726: \epsscale{1.0}

727: \plotone{f2.eps}

728: \caption{ 

729: Photometry of transits of HAT-P-1, using the Nickel~1m telescope

730: and a $Z$-band filter (top), and the MAGNUM~2m telescope and a

731: $V$-band filter (bottom). The solid lines show the best-fitting model.

732: \label{fig:phot}}

733: \end{figure}

734: 

735: \begin{figure}[p]

736: \epsscale{1.0}

737: \plotone{f3.eps}

738: \caption{ 

739: Residuals from a linear ephemeris that was fitted to the transit times in

740: Table~\ref{tab:tc}. The best--fitting ephemeris has a period $P =

741: 4.4652934 \pm 0.0000093$~days and midtransit time 

742: $T_c = 2454363.94656 \pm 0.00072$ (HJD).

743: \label{fig:tc}}

744: \end{figure}

745: 

746: \begin{figure}[p]

747: \epsscale{0.8}

748: \plotone{f4.eps}

749: \caption{ 

750: {\it Top:} Relative radial velocity measurements of HAT-P-1,

751: centered on the midtransit time.

752: {\it Bottom:} Composite, time-binned transit light curve of HAT-P-1,

753: based on the $Z$ and $z$-band data from Winn et al.~(2007) and this

754: work. The rms scatter of the residuals is 0.00057. This composite

755: light curve was fitted simultaneously with the radial-velocity data.

756: \label{fig:transit}}

757: \end{figure}

758: 

759: \end{document}