arX

iv:1

307.

2900

v2 [

astr

o-ph

.HE

] 29

Aug

201

3DRAFT VERSIONJUNE 19, 2018Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11

SPOON-FEEDING GIANT STARS TO SUPERMASSIVE BLACK HOLES: EPISODIC MASS TRANSFER FROMEVOLVING STARS AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE QUIESCENT ACTIVITY OF GALACTIC NUCLEI

MORGAN MACLEOD, ENRICO RAMIREZ -RUIZ , SEAN GRADY, AND JAMES GUILLOCHONDepartment of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

Draft version June 19, 2018

ABSTRACTStars may be tidally disrupted if, in a single orbit, they arescattered too close to a supermassive black hole

(SMBH). Tidal disruption events are thought to power luminous but short-lived accretion episodes that can lightup otherwise quiescent SMBHs in transient flares. Here we explore a more gradual process of tidal strippingwhere stars approach the tidal disruption radius by stellarevolution while in an eccentric orbit. After the onsetof mass transfer, these stars episodically transfer mass tothe SMBH every pericenter passage giving rise tolow-level flares that repeat on the orbital timescale. Giantstars, in particular, will exhibit a runaway responseto mass loss and “spoon-feed” material to the black hole for tens to hundreds of orbital periods. In contrast tofull tidal disruption events, the duty cycle of this feedingmode is of order unity for black holesMbh & 107M⊙.This mode of quasi-steady SMBH feeding is competitive with indirect SMBH feeding through stellar winds,and spoon-fed giant stars may play a role in determining the quiescent luminosity of local SMBHs.Subject headings:accretion, accretion disks – black hole physics – galaxies:nuclei – hydrodynamics – meth-

ods: numerical – stars: evolution – stars: kinematics and dynamics

1. INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of quasar activity at early epochs providesevidence that supermassive black holes (SMBHs) must lurkin the centers of many galactic halos (Soltan 1982). Yet, inthe local universe the vast majority of galactic center SMBHsexhibit little activity. Recent study has revealed that manyof these SMBHs are likely shining due to mass accretion,but only at a tiny fraction of their Eddington luminosities,L/LEdd ≪ 1 (Ho 2009). To best understand the origin of thelow observed Eddington ratios of local SMBHs, it is impor-tant to develop a census of the processes that combine to es-tablish a minimum, “floor”, feeding level,M. This floor accre-tion rate determines the most typical level of SMBH activityand therefore gives rise to the quiescent luminosity of galacticnuclei, whereL = ηMc2. In galactic nuclei devoid of gas, anypotential fuel comes solely from the dense stellar clustersthatsurround SMBHs, thus stars alone serve to establish a lowerlimit of SMBH activity. By constructing an accurate censusof fuel sources arising from the stellar distribution, we caneventually constrain the accretion efficiencyη in an effort tobetter understand the accretion flows onto these SMBHs.

Stars feed the black hole in two primary ways, directlyand indirectly. Indirect feeding arises from processes thatinject material into the nuclear cluster medium, as occurswith stellar winds and stellar collisions (Holzer & Axford1970; Coker & Melia 1997; Loeb 2004; Quataert 2004;Cuadra et al. 2005, 2006, 2008; Freitag & Benz 2002;Volonteri et al. 2011; Rubin & Loeb 2011). To reach theSMBH, material fed indirectly into the cluster mediummust overcome a further barrier to accretion in theform of feedback from the stars themselves and theSMBH (e.g. Blandford & Begelman 1999; Quataert 2004;Shcherbakov et al. 2013).

Direct feeding of the SMBH results from tidal interac-tions between stars and the SMBH. Tidal interactions re-sult in a dynamically assembled disk (e.g.Bogdanovic et al.

mmacleod@ucolick.org

2004; Guillochon et al. 2013), which is relatively invulnera-ble to the feedback processes which plague our understand-ing of indirectly fed accretion mechanisms. Stars pass-ing within approximately a tidal radius of the SMBH,rt ≡(Mbh/M∗)1/3R∗, whereM∗ andR∗ are the stellar mass and ra-dius, will experience strong tidal distortions and may be par-tially or completely destroyed by the black hole’s tidal field(e.g.Hills 1975; Rees 1988). Half of the tidally stripped de-bris of tidal disruption eventually falls back to the SMBH,forms a disk, and viscously accretes. Full tidal disrup-tions of main-sequence (Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2013)and giant stars (MacLeod et al. 2012) produce luminous flares(e.g. Evans & Kochanek 1989; Strubbe & Quataert 2009,2011; Ramirez-Ruiz & Rosswog 2009; Lodato et al. 2009;Guillochon et al. 2013), but the duration of flares is gener-ally short compared to their repetition time,∼ 104 yr (Rees1988; Magorrian & Tremaine 1999; Wang & Merritt 2004).In quiescence, the accretion rate to the SMBH is determinedby the late time fallback of tidal debris (Milosavljevic et al.2006), which decays roughly asM ∝ t−5/3. While theaverage accretion rate is relatively large,∼ M⊙/trepeat∼10−4M⊙yr−1, the rapid decline in the fallback after peakresults in a median accretion rate that is much lower,∼Mpeak(trepeat/tpeak)−5/3 ∼ 10−9M⊙yr−1, assuming typical pa-rameters for a main-sequence star.

In this paper, we study a mechanism that does not result inluminous flares but can fill in between the tails of tidal disrup-tion events and result in much higher median accretion rates.This process is the mass transfer that ensues when a giant stargrows, over the course of many orbital periods, such that itstidal disruption radius becomes comparable to its orbital peri-center distance. Because of the large disparity betweenrt fora main-sequence star andrt for a giant star, there exist manymain-sequence star orbits that pass safely within the giantstartidal radius at pericenter. While on the main sequence, a starin such an orbit experiences little disturbance from the blackhole’s tidal field. However, as the star evolves off of the mainsequence it expands, and, as a result, its mean density drops.

2

With each passing orbit, the star therefore feels the tidal forc-ing from the SMBH with increasing strength. Eventually, thestar is distorted to the point that a fraction of its envelopemassis removed at pericenter.

As the star evolves up the giant branch, its recently devel-oped dense core helps protect it against complete disruption(Hjellming & Webbink 1987; MacLeod et al. 2012; Liu et al.2012), and the surviving remnant therefore returns to peri-center after each orbital period. The adjustment of the star’sstructure to the mass loss it undergoes determines the strengthof these subsequent encounters and the number of orbits overwhich the giant’s envelope is depleted. Stars that undergomany passages by the SMBH are altered by these encoun-ters (Alexander & Hopman 2003; Alexander & Morris 2003;Alexander 2005; Li & Loeb 2013), and the star’s history ofencounters with the SMBH will determine the nature of thesubsequent passages. It is worth noting that an orbital his-tory where the star returns to pericenter many times is distinctfrom the single-passage encounters that have received the ma-jority of focus in previous studies of tidal disruption in galac-tic nuclei. Recent studies of the tidal disruption of objects oneccentric orbits have looked at giant planets (Guillochon et al.2011), repeating flares from stars deposited into tightly boundorbits through binary disruption (Antonini et al. 2011), andthe fallback properties of tidal debris in eccentric disruptions(Hayasaki et al. 2012).

Giant stars that repeatedly transfer small amounts of theirenvelope mass to the SMBH (which we call “spoon-feeding”)do so over many orbital periods. As a result, this channel ofSMBH feeding results in a quasi-steady feeding rate to theblack hole, in contrast to the highly peaked feeding due tothe tidal disruption of stars. We find that as a result of ef-fectively spreading the bulk of their mass over longer feedingtimescales than typical tidal disruption events, spoon-fed gi-ant stars may play a significant role in determining the qui-escent luminosity of local SMBHs. The feeding that resultsfrom these mass-transferring stars is competitive with theamount of mass fed indirectly to the SMBH by stellar winds.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section2, we dis-cuss the onset of mass transfer resulting from the the evolu-tion of a giant star trapped in an elliptical orbit and the SMBH.In Section3, we show that the star episodically spoon-feedsmass to the SMBH over the course of many pericenter pas-sages. In Section4, we estimate the expected population ofthese trapped stars and estimate the rate at which they evolveto feed mass to the SMBH. In Section5, we discuss the ef-fects of these mass-transfer events on the floor activity leveland duty cycle of local, tidally-fed SMBHs. In Section6, weconclude and offer prospects for future study.

2. MASS TRANSFER FROM EVOLVING STARS

A main-sequence star in an orbit that passes within the max-imum red giant tidal radius at pericenter may survive for along time relatively unperturbed by the black hole. Eventu-ally, the star leaves the main sequence and evolves up the giantbranch, at which point its radius expands and its mean densitydrops. At each pericenter passage the evolving star feels thetidal force of the black hole with increasing strength. Finally,the star grazingly begins to lose mass at pericenter. In thissection we present a hydrodynamical simulation of this firstdisruptive passage. We will use this simulation to study theeffects of the encounter on the surviving stellar core and tomotivate a semi-analytical model for the subsequent passagesin Section3.

Previous analytic work and numerical simulations of masstransfer episodes in eccentric binaries have focused primar-ily on the context of stellar mass binaries (Regös et al. 2005;Sepinsky et al. 2007, 2009; Lee et al. 2010; Sepinsky et al.2010; Lajoie & Sills 2010; East et al. 2012; East & Pretorius2012; Davis et al. 2013). Recently,Faber et al.(2005) andGuillochon et al.(2011) have numerically explored highermass ratio eccentric encounters in the context of the orbitaldynamics and disruption of giant planets in eccentric orbitsabout their parent stars.Antonini et al. (2011) have specu-lated about the fate of stars that are dynamically depositedon tightly bound orbits through binary star disruptions, whileHayasaki et al.(2012) andDai et al.(2013) have numericallystudied the fallback properties of tidal debris in eccentric dis-ruptions.

In Figure 1, we present a simulation of a grazing en-counter between a giant star and the SMBH preformed inthe FLASH hydrodynamics code (Fryxell et al. 2000) usingthe method described in detail inMacLeod et al.(2012).Our formalism is based on theFLASH4 code in Newtoniangravity and follows the encounter in the frame of the star(Guillochon et al. 2009, 2011; MacLeod et al. 2012; Liu et al.2012; Guillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz 2013). Our initial stellarmodel is a nested polytrope representative of a 1.4M⊙, 50R⊙

red giant with a 0.3M⊙ dense core. A core mean molecularweight of twice that of the envelope fluid produces a rela-tively inert core. The structure of both the core and envelopearen = 1.5 polytropes. The adiabatic fluid gamma isΓ = 5/3for the envelope gas, and it isΓ = 5 to model the tidally un-perturbed core. The star is initially resolved by 90 grid cellsin radius. After the encounter, grid refinement adaptively fol-lows the density of the stripped gas.

Even in a relatively grazing encounter, the star is subjectto a rapidly time-varying potential at pericenter (Regös et al.2005). It is non-linearly distorted and some portion of itsenvelope mass may be unbound from the stellar core. Thismaterial is ejected from the star in two tidal tails, one ofwhich is bound to the black hole, while the other is ejectedon hyperbolic trajectories. The amount of mass lost dependson the impact parameter of the encounter, which is definedby the ratio of the star’s tidal radius to the pericenter of itsorbit, β ≡ rt/rp = (R∗/rp)(Mbh/M∗)1/3. The giant star inFigure 1 encounters the black hole withβ = 0.6 and loses∆M ≈ 10−2M⊙. A linearized approach to determining thedegree of mass loss at pericenter by calculating the degree towhich the stellar envelope overflows its effective Hill sphereat pericenter,rp(M∗/Mbh)1/3, would suggest that no mass islost at these grazingβ, where the star is still a factor of∼ 2smaller than its Hill sphere. Thus it is extremely importanttoaccount for the non-linear distortion of the star, even whenthedegree of mass loss is very small. We discuss a simple modelfor the degree of mass loss as a function ofβ in Section3.

Some of the material originally ejected into the tidal tailsduring the encounter will eventually fall back to the stellarsurface. The insets of Figure1 show the state of the rem-nant post-encounter. As a fraction of the stripped materialfalls back to the oscillating and rotating stellar envelope, spi-ral shocks are generated. These shocks heat a tenuous layerof envelope material with mass similar to the fallback mass(.∆M) that adiabatically expands to extend significantly be-yond the initial stellar radius (upper inset panel). By con-trast, the interior portion of the star,r ≪ R∗, is not heated byshocks in encounters where∆M ≪ M∗. Our adiabatic simu-

3

Figure 1. Mass stripping from a star in an eccentric orbit around a SMBH.The main panel shows the formation of black hole bound and unbound tidaltails. Bound material streams back pericenter where it willcircularize anddrain into the SMBH. The upper inset shows a layer of stellar envelope heatedby spiral shocks that originate from the remnant’s interaction with materialfalling back from the tidal tails. The lower inset shows thatdespite this heat-ing, the photon diffusion time through these tenuous layersis short enoughthat the envelope cools in much less than a typical orbital period, τorb. Ourinitial stellar model is a nested polytrope representativeof a 1.4M⊙, 50R⊙

red giant with a 0.3M⊙ dense core. The simulation shown was computedat a smaller mass ratio (Mbh = 104M⊙) and with lower eccentricitye = 0.8than the encounters described in the text in order to illustrate the fallback andcircularization processes. The scalebar is in units ofR∗ = 50R⊙ in this case.

lation does not capture the radiative cooling of this materialwhich extends to beyond the initial stellar radius. The lowerinset panel of Figure1 shows that the local photon diffusiontime (approximated asτdiff ∼ ρκesR2

∗/c) through these outer-most heated layers is very short, much less than an orbitalperiod, which we will denoteτorb. We therefore expect theseoutermost layers to cool effectively despite the heating due tointeraction with the fallback from the debris streams. As aresult, this fallback heating should be a small perturbation tothe remnant’s structure.

Additional heat may be deposited into the stellar interiorthrough the dissipation of oscillation energy or interactionwith gas in the circum-black hole medium. However, the tidalheating effect has been studied in detail byLi & Loeb (2013)and was shown to be a small perturbation to stellar structurefor timescales comparable to the star’s red giant branch life-time. This is partially because heat deposited into a giantstar’s envelope (rather than its core) is easily radiated due tothe short diffusion time through the envelope (McMillan et al.1987). Interactions between the star and the remnant disk atpericenter may also heat the stellar envelope through shocks(e.g.Armitage et al. 1996; Dai et al. 2010). In the case con-sidered here, this effect is likely to be of small importancebecause the disk mass will typically only be of order 10−2M⊙

(See Figure2), spread to extremely low density over the tidalsphere. These factors suggest that the state of the star in itssubsequent encounters with the SMBH will be dominated bythe stellar structure’s response to the mass loss experienced,rather than the effects of extra heating or orbital evolution.

Following a passage by the SMBH, changes in the rem-nant’s orbit will alter the properties of subsequent encounters.

Of particular importance in determining the strength of theen-counter is the orbital angular momentum, which determinesthe pericenter distance. There are several effects which canpotentially modify the orbital energy and angular momentumof the remnant. First, due to the cumulative effect of encoun-ters with other stars in the stellar cusp around the SMBH, theremnant’s orbit undergoes a random walk in orbital energyand angular momentum. In Section4, we define the phasespace of stellar orbits for which this random walk is small.

Second, any asymmetry in the mass ejection between thetidal tails results in a change in the orbital energy of thesurviving remnant (Faber et al. 2005; Guillochon et al. 2011;Liu et al. 2012; Cheng & Evans 2013; Manukian et al. 2013).This change in energy maximizes around the star’s ownspecific binding energy,E∗ ≈ GM∗/R∗, for coreless starsand deep encounters (Cheng & Evans 2013; Manukian et al.2013), but it is strongly limited by the presence of a stellarcore, as is the case in giant planets (Liu et al. 2012).

Finally, non-radial oscillations are excited in the remnantfollowing the encounter leading to a transfer of orbital en-ergy and angular momentum into stellar oscillation energyand angular momentum. The magnitude of these perturba-tions are typically a fraction of the star’s binding energy orbreakup angular momentum. This result was analyticallypredicted byPress & Teukolsky(1977), and has more re-cently been numerically explored in the case of objects with-out (Guillochon et al. 2011; Cheng & Evans 2013) and with(Liu et al. 2012) cores. In the case of giant stars interactingwith SMBHs on bound orbits, the star’s orbital energy and an-gular momentum are both large compared to the giant star’sbinding energy and maximum rotational angular momentum.Typical values for these ratios of orbital binding energy tostellar binding energy are

Eorb

E∗

≈ R∗

aMbh

M∗

≈ 11

(

R∗

50R⊙

)(

a1pc

)−1( Mbh

107M∗

)

, (1)

wherea is the orbital semi-major axis, andEorb = GMbh/(2a).By a similar analysis, the ratio of the orbital angular momen-tum,Jorb≈

√

2GMbhrp, to breakup rotational angular momen-tum of the star,J∗ ≈

√GM∗R∗, is of order

Jorb

J∗≈

(

Mbh

M∗

)2/3

≈ 5×104

(

Mbh

107M∗

)2/3

, (2)

if the substitution that the pericenter distance equals thetidalradius,rp = rt is made (which leads to the lack of dependenceon the stellar radius,R∗, in the above expression). Since theorbital quantities are much larger than the maximum reser-voir of binding energy or rotational angular momentum avail-able in the giant star, tidal excitation cannot induce substantialchanges in the orbit.

Interestingly, all of these processes result in only small per-turbations to the giant star’s orbit. The orbital parametersof the bound giant star remnant are therefore essentially un-changed following the passage by the SMBH. As a result, insubsequent orbits the star will return to the same pericenterdistance with a similar orbital period.

3. EPISODIC FLARES OVER MANY PERICENTER PASSAGES

In this section, we model the encounter history of a giantstar on a bound orbit with the SMBH after the onset of masstransfer. Previously, we argued that the remnant’s orbit ises-sentially unchanged by the encounter with the SMBH. There-

4

fore, we can determine the mass lost each pericenter passageby calculating the changes in the stellar structure and compar-ing the pericenter of the star to its new tidal radius throughthe impact parameter,β. We adopt a model that combines ananalytic description of the degree of mass loss and its returnto the black hole with a stellar evolution calculation of theadjustment of the mass-losing star’s structure. This approachis necessary to explore these multiple passage encounters be-cause the range of timescales between the star’s dynamicaltime and a typical orbital period make a full hydrodynamiccalculation prohibitively computationally expensive. Recentwork by Zalamea et al.(2010) has similarly adopted an ana-lytic model to study runaway flares from the progressive dis-ruption of a white dwarf by an intermediate mass black hole.

3.1. Mass Stripping

To predict the degree of mass loss at each passage as a func-tion of pericenter distance, we adopt a simple approximatingformula motivated by simulation results fromMacLeod et al.(2012) andGuillochon & Ramirez-Ruiz(2013),

∆M(β) = f (β)

(

M∗ − Mc

M∗

)2

M∗, (3)

whereMc is the core mass and

f (β) =

0 if β < 0.5,β/2− 1/4 if 0.5≤ β ≤ 2.5,1 if β > 2.5.

(4)

This parameterization captures two critical features of thesimulation results. First, convective stars with condensedcores begin to lose mass aroundβ ∼ 0.5 – a much more graz-ing encounter than linear models of the mass loss would pre-dict. Yet, the tidal stripping does not reach its maximum un-til much deeper encounters, aroundβ ∼ 2.5. Second, whileonly the envelope material is susceptible to disruption, the in-creased influence of the core makes it more difficult to removeenvelope material when the core is a larger mass-fraction ofthe star (thus the squared dependence onMenv/Mc, see Figure5 of MacLeod et al. 2012).

Each mass loss episode results in a readjustment of thestar’s structure and therefore a new effective impact param-eter with each pericenter passage. The importance of the ad-justment of the mass-losing star’s structure in the contextofextreme mass ratio circular binaries has been demonstratedby Dai et al.(2011) andDai & Blandford (2011). We calcu-late the changes to the stellar properties using theMESA stellarevolution code (Paxton et al. 2011, 2013).1 Our stellar modelsare non-rotating, and the only source of mass loss is the inter-action with the black hole. In theMESA models, we allow thestar to adjust to the mass loss continuously by applying an ef-fective stellar wind that carries away the outermost envelopematerial at a rateM = ∆M/τorb, recalculated each pericenter.Timesteps are chosen such that each orbital period,τorb, is re-solved by ten steps, but our results are not sensitive to thischoice.

Figure2 shows our results for a star that is 1.4M⊙ and 50R⊙

at the onset of mass loss. Due to the giant star’s isentropic en-velope, it first becomes less dense upon losing mass, resultingin a runaway process in which successive encounters are in-creasingly disruptive. The lower panel shows the correspond-ing ∆M at each pericenter passage. Eventually, when much

1 version 4849

of the star’s hydrogen envelope has been stripped, the corebecomes the dominant gravitational force in the star’s struc-ture, and the mean density of the object increases again withsubsequent mass loss episodes. This quenches the runawaymass loss, and∆M decreases in subsequent passages. Starsin longer orbital periods lose mass with decreasing adiabatic-ity. These stars evolve farther up the giant branch each orbit,resulting in a slow increase in the hydrogen shell-burning lu-minosity at the core-envelope interface. This evolution drivesthese stars to undergo stronger encounters with the SMBHand leads to their envelopes being stripped in fewer orbitalperiods.

Also in Figure2, we make a direct comparison with themass loss history that would be realized for the adiabatic evo-lution of a nested polytrope of 1.4M⊙ and 50R⊙ with a 0.3M⊙

condensed core. Here we compute the star’s mass-radius rela-tion asR∗/R0 = (M∗/M0)ξad, whereξad is given by an approx-imate formula fromHjellming & Webbink(1987),

ξad≈1

3− n

(

1− n+mc

M∗ − mc

)

. (5)

The contours forn = 1.5− 2.5 in intervals of 0.25 reveal thatthis expression does not provide a reasonable description forthe mass loss history from the star.n = 1.5 corresponds to aconvective envelope, highern indicate an increasing degreeof radiative transport in the giant’s envelope. The stellarevo-lution models are therefore essential to capture the realisticadjustment of the mass-losing star. Equation (5) provides apoor fit for two primary reasons. First, the assumption is thatthe readjustment of the stellar structure is adiabatic. However,through the differences between theMESAmass loss historieswith different orbital periods, we see that this is not the case.Second, this expression assumes that the giant’s envelope hasconstantn as a function of time, whereas in the stellar evolu-tion models the radial extent of convective and radiative zonesevolves as the star loses mass.

3.2. Return to the Black Hole

For each portion of mass removed from the star, about half,∆M/2, returns to the black hole. The other half is ejected onhyperbolic orbits. This is formally true if the initial orbit isparabolic, but we will demonstrate that this approximationisreasonable for a wide range of orbital parameters. The accre-tion rate onto the black hole,M, is then determined by the rateat which stellar material falls back to the vicinity of the blackhole (Rees 1988),

M ≈ Mpeak

(

tτpeak

)−5/3

, (6)

where, by requiring that the∫

Mdt = ∆M/2,

Mpeak≈13∆Mτpeak

, (7)

and the time of peak,τpeak, is similar to the fallback time ofthe most bound material,

τpeak∼ τfb ≈ 120

(

Mbh

107M⊙

)1/2( M∗

M⊙

)(

R∗

50R⊙

)3/2

yr. (8)

This formulation, which treats encounters as nearly parabolic,is a good approximation as long as the spread in energy across

5

100 50 0 50 100

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Orbits

Β=103 yr

=103.5 yrΤorb =104 yr

=104.5 yr

=105 yr

-100 -50 0 50 100-4.0-3.5-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.5

Number of Orbits

logD

M@M�D

polytropic

Figure 2. Episodic mass transfer from a giant star to the SMBH, plottedherefor a 1.4M⊙ giant star that is 50R⊙ at the onset of mass loss. The meandensity of the star decreases initially upon mass loss then begins to increaseagain when the bulk of the star’s hydrogen envelope is depleted. The responseof the star’s structure to mass loss determines the impact parameter of the nextencounter with the black hole and the quantity of mass removed at pericenter(lower panel). As a result of the changing stellar structure, no single one ofthe analytic adiabatic response curves can provide an adequate descriptionof the mass loss history. The contours shown are from Equation (5), shownfor n = 1.5 − 2.5 in intervals of 0.25 (with n = 1.5 producing the shallowestprofile). Stars in long orbital periods continue to evolve between passages,which drives the mass transfer episode to completion in fewer orbits. Thelines terminate when the star’s envelope mass decreases to 5×10−3M⊙.

the star at pericenter is large compared to the star’s orbitalbinding energy, satisfied for

arh

& 5×10−3

(

Mbh

107M⊙

)0.123( M∗

M⊙

)2/3( R∗

50R⊙

)

, (9)

wherea is the star’s orbital semi-major axis andrh is the ra-dius of the black hole sphere of influence, Equation (11). Theresultant scalings thus derive partially from the definition ofrh, which is based on the SMBHM −σ relation and discussedin Section4. Another condition for these expressions to beapplicable is that the viscous accretion time should be shortrelative toτfb. For mass to be stored in a reservoir at its circu-larization radius,∼ 2rt, for longer thanτfb (Equation8), theviscosity would have to be extremely low. Taking typical val-ues, the ratio of the viscous accretion timescale to the fallbacktimescale is

τντfb

≈ 3×10−3( αν

10−2

)−1(

Mbh

107M⊙

)1/2( M∗

1M⊙

)−1/2(HR

)−2

,

(10)where we have assumed anα-viscosity disk(Shakura & Sunyaev 1973).

In some cases, the condition expressed in Equation (9) isnot satisfied. For these more bound orbits, both tidal tails maybe bound to the black hole and the most bound material fallsback to the SMBH extremely rapidly (Hayasaki et al. 2012).In these cases, the nearly impulsively assembled disk is ac-creted as mediated by viscosity. The timescales and tempo-ral evolution of this accretion are complex and remain a sub-ject of debate. For example, see the self-similar solution ofCannizzo et al.(1990) as compared to recent numerical stud-ies by Montesinos Armijo & de Freitas Pacheco(2011) and

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

time @MyrD

log

M @M 

EddD

0.22 0.24 0.26

-6

-5

-4

-3

Figure 3. Profile of a repeating flaring episode due to the episodic masstransfer of a giant star to the SMBH. The figure shows a flare from a 1.4M⊙,50R⊙ star in a 103.5 year orbit about a 107M⊙ black hole. The gray shadedregion shows the overall envelope of the flaring episode, while the dashedline shows the median accretion rate. The inset, with axes inthe same unitsas the main figure, shows that the entire envelope is made of individual flaringepisodes witht−5/3 decay tails.

Shen & Matzner(2013). The common finding of these stud-ies is that turbulent disk viscosity spreads the accretion ofmaterial out over longer timescales that pure fallback. Theresulting median accretion rates are thus closer to the averageaccretion rate than in the pure fallback case. For simplicity,we adoptM = 〈M〉 = ∆M/τorb such that a pile-up of materialin the accretion disk does not occur between subsequent stel-lar orbits. However, in Section4 we argue that mass transferfrom giant stars in such tight orbits is probably rare due to thedestructive effects of direct stellar collisions.

Figure3 applies the flaring model described by Equations(6), (7), and (8) to a 1.4M⊙ star orbiting a 107M⊙ black holewith an orbital period ofτorb = 103.5 years. The star beginsto lose mass to the black hole when it reaches 50R⊙. Theshaded region in the main panel shows the overall envelope ofthe flaring event and the dashed line shows the medianM. Theinset panel reveals each flare to be made up of a short peak andpower-law decay phase. Because the star interacts with theblack hole only once per orbit at each pericenter passage, theorbital period sets the repetition timescale for the individualflaring episodes. The total duration of the repeating flare isseveral hundred orbital periods, or approximately 106 yr.

The remnants of spoon-feeding episodes are giant starsstripped of their hydrogen envelopes. The cores of these ob-jects are white dwarfs of helium or carbon/oxygen composi-tion, depending on the mass of the original giant star. Becausethe white dwarf core is relatively immune to the SMBH’stidal field, this population of remnants are not readily de-stroyed by the black hole. This population of objects mayeventually circularize through dissipation of orbital energy intides or gravitational waves (Frank & Rees 1976; Rees 1988;Khokhlov et al. 1993). This possibility emphasizes the stillpoorly constrained role that the SMBHs may play in shapingthe stellar populations that surround them.

4. ESTIMATING THE POPULATION OF MASS-TRANSFERRINGSTARS

In this section, we estimate the orbital phase space andnumber of actively mass-transferring giant stars in a stellarcusp surrounding the SMBH.Syer & Ulmer(1999) have con-sidered the rate at which stars evolve to reach their tidal dis-

6

ruption radius as a component of the tidal disruption rate. Thisapproach is problematic because, as we have shown, stars thatevolve to transfer mass to the black hole do so over many or-bital periods, rather than a single, fully disruptive encounter.With the context of repeating flares in mind, we first outlinea simple stellar cusp model and the relevant timescales of thestellar dynamical system. We then outline the phase spacein which giant stars might be expected to evolve to transfermass to the SMBH upon reaching their "loss cone" in angularmomentum space (Lightman & Shapiro 1977).

In what follows, we will use a simplified model of a nuclearstar cluster consisting of a power-law stellar density profileν∗(r) ∝ r−α, normalized such that there are a black hole massof stars within the black hole’s sphere of gravitational influ-ence,

rh =GMbh

σ2h

= 5.16

(

Mbh

107M⊙

)0.54

pc, (11)

whereσh is the external velocity dispersion of the greatergalactic bulge. In the numerical expression above weuse the Mbh − σ relation (e.g. Ferrarese & Merritt2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000; Tremaine et al. 2002;Gültekin et al. 2009; Kormendy & Ho 2013), withfitting values from Kormendy & Ho (2013), σh =2.3× 105(Mbh/M⊙)1/4.38 cm s−1. Interior to rh, the blackhole is the dominant gravitational influence on stellar orbits,while outsiderh, stellar orbits are primarily determined bythe collective gravitational influence of all of the other stars.

Observations of the centers of early-type galaxies with theHubble Space Telescope (HST)have shown that the stellarsurface brightness profiles in these galactic centers are bi-modal (Faber et al. 1997). Some galaxies exhibit a ‘cuspy’core that is defined by a power-law rise in surface bright-ness to the resolution limit of theHST imaging. Others ex-hibit a shallower ‘core’ profile with a break radius that istypically similar to the inferred black hole sphere of influ-ence (Faber et al. 1997). Given these observed stellar distri-butions, one could, in principle, analyze the populations ofmass-transferring giant stars expected in those galaxies andcompare to their SMBH activity on a case by case basis. Asa simple first step, we instead illustrate the expected popula-tions for two representative stellar profiles,ν∗(r) ∝ r−α withα = 2 to represent cuspy galactic center profiles andα = 1to represent the shallower core profiles (for an illustration ofthe stellar density profiles, see Figure 12 ofMacLeod et al.2012). These profiles were chosen to capture two extremecases for the stellar distribution in observed galactic centersin order to illustrate the range of possibilities for the rates ofmass-transfer interactions.

Stars in galactic nuclei live in orbits of periodτorb whoseenergy and angular momentum change on timescalesτε andτJ, respectively. τε is the cluster’s local relaxation time(Binney & Tremaine 2008; Alexander 2005). The angularmomentum of loss cone orbits,J ∼ Jlc ≈

√2GMbhrt, is typ-

ically much less than the circular angular momentum for agiven orbital semi-major axisa, Jc ≈

√GMbha. In other

words,rp ≈ rt ≪ a, and typical loss cone orbits are very ec-centric. Thus, the angular momentum change time for orbitsthat approach the loss cone,

τJ ≡(

Jlc/Jc)2τε, (12)

is much less than that for energy,τε, because the loss-coneangular momentum is much less than the circular angular mo-

mentum,Jlc ≪ Jc.Stars are also susceptible to collisions after a timeτcoll ≡

τorb/Ncoll(τorb), where the number of collisions per orbit is anintegral along the orbital path,

Ncoll(τorb) = 2∫ 2a(ε)

rp

Σ(s)ν∗(s)ds, (13)

whereΣ is the collision cross section of a star, approximatelythe geometric cross-sectionΣ ≈ πR2

∗ in the high velocitydispersion central regions of the cluster. For nearly radialloss-cone orbits and power-law density profiles, collisions aredominated by the orbital pericenter approach ifα> 1. If therewere to be a break in the power-law profile at small radii, thenumber of collisions would therefore be reduced. Here wewill also assume that collisions are always destructive, eventhough this may not be the case for high velocity collisions in-volving giant stars (Bailey & Davies 1999; Dale et al. 2009).In this way, we calculate an upper limit to the collisional de-struction of giant stars that might otherwise go on to spoon-feed the black hole.

Finally, the tidal radius of a star changes as a function oftime due to stellar evolution according to a timescale

τevol ≡rt

rt≈ R∗

R∗

. (14)

τevol is long on the main sequence and shortens as the starevolves off the giant branch. Because this change happensover the course of the red giant branch, this timescale isroughly the length of the red giant branch,〈τevol〉 ∼ τrgb. Weadoptτevol = 107 yr in the following analysis.

The population of stars that can evolve to reach the losscone is bounded to have angular momenta that are low enoughthat the black hole’s tides will impinge on the star at somepoint during the star’s giant-branch evolution, thus

J < Jlc(M∗,Rmax), (15)

whereRmax is the maximum stellar radius reached during thered giant phase. This condition impliesrp < rt(M∗,Rmax).This population of stars is also is bounded in orbital energyspace by several considerations based on the timescales ofvarious drivers of evolution in the star’s orbital parameters.The first condition is that stellar evolution, rather than thestar’s orbital random walk, must drive the star to reach theloss cone,τevol< τJ. Second, the orbital random walk must besmall during the flare duration,τflare< τJ. Because the peak ofthe flaring event takes∼ 102 orbits, we make the approxima-tion τflare ≈ 102τorb. These conditions define the least boundobjects, which have shorterτJ. The most bound objects ex-hibit very nearly Keplerian orbits, but since they pass throughthe densest central regions of the stellar cuspτevol/τorb timesduring their giant branch lifetime, they may be extremely vul-nerable to collisions. Figure4 shows these constraints on thephase space of trapped stars in the upper two panels.

The shading in Figure4 shows the distribution of or-bits in orbital energyε, and in orbital periodτorb. Thesedistributions are computed by considering the number ofstars per unit energy that satisfy the low angular momen-tum condition of Equation (15). This number isdN/dε =4π2 f (ε)τorb(ε)Jlc(M∗,Rmax), where f (ε) is the distributionfunction of stars in orbital energy (Magorrian & Tremaine1999). FollowingMagorrian & Tremaine(1999) we have as-sumed that the distribution function is isotropic inJ2 and

7

6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

@ D

logΤ

orb@y

rD

Τcoll = Τevol

ΤJ =Τflare

Τ J=Τ e

vol

trapped stars

log dN

dp@yr-1D

-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

@ D

logE@E

hD

Τcoll = Τevol

ΤJ = Τflare

ΤJ =Τ

evol

trapped stars

log dN

dE@Eh-1D

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

log Mbh@M�D

logXN

MT\

cusp

core

Figure 4. Phase space of stars that can evolve to transfer mass to the SMBH.The top two plots assume a cuspy stellar density profileν∗(r) ∝ r−2, as doesthe blue line in the third panel, while the red, core, line in the lower paneltakesν∗(r) ∝ r−1 (e.g.Faber et al. 1997). The phase space for tightly boundstars is limited by collisions. Two considerations limit the more weaklybound population: first, that the star reach the loss cone through evolutionrather than under the influence of a random walk in angular momentum,τevol < τJ, and, second, that once mass transfer begins, the flaring event tran-spires more rapidly than the random walk timescale,tflare < τJ. The lowerpanel shows the number of mass-transferring stars that might be expectedat any given time, estimated as〈NMT 〉 = 102〈τorb〉Γevol, where〈τorb〉 is theorbital period averaged over the distribution of stars in binding energy.

therefore only depends on energy. The distribution functionhas scalingf (ε) ∝ εα−3/2, while from Kepler’s law,τorb(ε) ∝ε−3/2. As a result,dN/dε ∝ εα−3 (Magorrian & Tremaine1999). Thus, for anα = 2 stellar density profile, orbits withinthe loss cone are distributed in energy asdN/dε ∝ ε−1. Thetotal number of stars trapped in this phase space that willlead to mass transfer with the SMBH is then an integral overdN/dε,

Ntrapped=∫ εmax

εmin

(

dNdε

)

dε, (16)

whereεmin and εmax are limits on the energy based on thecomparisons of timescales described above. Forα = 2, differ-

ent orbital energies contribute equally to the integrated num-ber of stars trapped within the giant star loss cone, becausedN/dε ∝ ε−1 or dN/d logε = constant. These flares haveequal likelihood of occurring with any pericenter distancebe-cause of the isotropic angular momentum distribution of thestellar cluster, thusdN/dJ2 and dN/drp are both constant.These flat distributions imply that a mass transfer episode in-volving a star of a given mass between 10 and 11R⊙ is equallylikely as when that star is between 100 and 101R⊙. The av-erage stellar radius on encountering the SMBH is therefore≈ Rmax/2, whereRmax is the maximum radius of stars on thered giant branch.

The rate at which theNtrapped trapped stars evolve to reachthe loss cone is given by the mean lifetime of the stars. Wefind,

Γevol ≈Ntrapped

τlife= 10−6

(

τlife

1 Gyr

)−1(Ntrapped

103

)

yr−1, (17)

whereτlife is the age of the stellar population. By compar-ing the duration of a typical flare, approximated as 102τorb,with the rate above, we can estimate the number of stars ex-pected to be actively mass transferring with the black hole atany given time. To do so, we must incorporate knowledgeof the orbital period distribution of mass-transferring stars.Figure 4 shows the distributions of trapped stars in orbitalbinding energy and period. In the lower panel of Figure4,we show the resultant number of actively mass-transferringstars, computed asNMT = 102〈τorb〉Γevol, based on the aver-age orbital period,〈τorb〉. Black holes with masses greaterthan approximately 107M⊙ might then be expected to host anactively mass-transferring population of trapped giant stars.The nuclei of lower-mass black holes are characterized byhigher stellar number densities, and thus have shorter relax-ation and collision times. In these nuclei (Mbh . 107) masstransfer events do occur but with a low duty-cycle.

5. SIGNIFICANCE TO THE DUTY CYCLE OF TIDALLY-FED SMBHS

In this section, we discuss the role of direct tidal feedingepisodes in the duty cycle of low-level SMBH activity. Weillustrate these processes with Monte Carlo realizations ofblack hole accretion histories. We make use of the stellar clus-ter properties described in Section4 with ν∗ ∝ r−2 and assumea stellar mass of 1.4M⊙, corresponding to a main-sequenceturnoff age of approximately 4 Gyr. While this choice ismeant to be illustrative rather than exact, similar stellaragesare seen in the nuclear region of M32 bySeth(2010). Suchstars have a giant-branch lifetime of∼ 4×108 years, and thusspend∼ 10% of their lifetime on the giant branch. The effectof stellar population age on the rate at which stars evolve toreach the loss cone and begin to transfer mass can be seen inequation (17), thus the expected event rate would be lower bya factor of three if the main-sequence turnoff age were 12 Gyr,and higher by a factor of four if it were instead 1 Gyr.

Accretion histories (a subset) and duty cycles are shown forMbh = 107M⊙, 107.5M⊙, and 108M⊙ in Figure5. We drawthe stellar parameters of tidal disruption flares accordingtothe methods described inMacLeod et al.(2012) and scale theprofiles derived from hydrodynamic simulations in timescaleand M. The relative likelihood of disruption of differentstellar types scales with their occurrence in the stellar pop-ulation andr1/4

t (Wang & Merritt 2004; Milosavljevic et al.2006; MacLeod et al. 2012). We draw the giant star mass

8

transfer events from the same stellar cluster distribution. Us-ing the distributions in Figure4, we populate the stars’ orbitalperiods and assume that the mass transfer profile follows oneof the profiles from Figure2, choosing the nearest in logarith-mic space to the orbital period. We then compare the resultantfeeding directly to observed Eddington ratio distributions inlocal quiescent galaxies and to the indirect SMBH feeding bystellar winds.

In this section, we normalize accretion rates with respectto black hole mass to a fiducial Eddington accretion rateMEdd = 0.02(Mbh/106M⊙)M⊙yr−1, which corresponds to a ra-diative efficiency ofη = 0.1 whereL = ηMc2 and thusMEdd =LEddη

−1c−2. The normalized mass accretion rates thus showwhat the bolometric accretion luminosity,L/LEdd, of a SMBHwould be given a certain radiative efficiency, and may bescaled to different values of the radiative efficiency accord-ing to (η/0.1).

5.1. Tidal disruption flares

At the highest Eddington ratios, main-sequence flares dom-inate the SMBH feeding (Figure5). At lower accretion ratesmain-sequence and giant-star flares contribute similarly to theduty cycle despite the lower rate of giant-star tidal disruptionevents because the decay timescaleτfb is longer for giant-star disruptions (Equation (8), andMacLeod et al. 2012). Thelate-time power law decay tails of tidal disruption events(∼ t−5/3) give rise to the power law seen in the duty cycleat lower Eddington ratios. In particular if the late time decayfollows Equation (6), then the duty cycle can be written

fon(> M) =τfb

trepeat

(

M

Mpeak

)−3/5

, (18)

wheretrepeatis generally the inverse ofΓTDE, the rate of tidaldisruption events. While the simulation results used in Fig-ure5 differ slightly in late-time power law slope, these basicscalings give intuition for the low Eddington ratio duty cyclethat results from tidal disruption events. One consequenceisthat since typicallyτfb ≪ trepeat, the accretion rate at whichfon ∼ 1 is far less thanMpeak. In Figure5, the steady stateaccretion rate between flares (for which the duty cycle is oforder unity) is only achieved atM ∼ 10−9Medd. A very simi-lar analysis has been performed byMilosavljevic et al.(2006)who further show that the resulting luminosity function mayexplain∼ 10% of local AGN activity. While our analysis isin agreement with previous work that has shown that tidaldisruption flares cannot explain the entire local AGN lumi-nosity function, we do find that quasi-steady feeding frommass-transferring giant stars may provide a significant contri-bution to the median accretion rate between luminous flaringepisodes.

5.2. Episodic mass transfer from evolving stars:Spoon-feeding

Giant stars that grow through stellar evolution to episodi-cally transfer mass at pericenter over the course of many or-bital periods to the SMBH. As a result, the SMBH feedingfrom this spoon-fed material is smeared over long timescalesby the episodic nature of the individual flaring episodes.Mass-transferring stars therefore generally feed the SMBHat low Eddington ratios but at quasi-steady rates. This canbe seen mathematically through inspection of Equation (18).

Mass transfer episodes repeat every orbital period, reduc-ing trepeat, and therefore achieve a duty cycle of order unityat higherM than full tidal disruption flares. These eventscan be expected to establish a minimum accretion rate abovethat established by the tails of tidal disruption events in sys-tems where the number of actively mass transferring stars(the lower panel of Figure4) is of order unity or greater,〈NMT〉& 1. In systems where〈NMT〉< 1 stars do occasionallygrow to the loss cone and feed the black hole, but they arenot able to establish a quasi-steady floor accretion rate withfon ∼ 1.

Episodic flares from evolving stars are represented with thepurple line in Figure5. In the upper panel, we show a rep-resentative timeseries of accretion rate to the SMBH, sev-eral interesting features appear. First, it is obvious thatwhilethey never reach luminosities similar to the peaks of tidal dis-ruption flares, the mass transfer from spoon-fed giant starsdoes fill in the "gaps" between tidal disruption flaring events.The quasi-steady accretion rate that results ranges betweenM ∼ 10−4 − 10−6MEdd. The structure in the curve results fromthe modulation of repeating flares of different orbital periods.Stars in relatively long period orbits have longer time betweenepisodes and relatively deeper troughs between peaks. Thisoverall curve is mediated by shorter timescale variation fromflares with shorter repetition times. At some times, like near0.4 Myr, it is possible to see the characteristic structure of anentire flaring episode with relatively short orbital period. Herethe flare and decay cycles are so rapid that they appear blurredin the Figure, and instead we see the shape of the overall flar-ing envelope, as in Figure3.

The dominance of mass transfer episodes over the tails oftidal disruption events can be seen in the lower panels of Fig-ure5. The relatively steep profile of these duty-cycle curvesarises from the small range ofM achieved in spoon-feedingevents, as seen both in the upper panel of Figure5 and the sin-gle event shown in Figure3. We find that mass-transferringstars are the dominant contribution to tidally fed SMBH ac-tivity at M . 10−4MEdd, particularly for relatively massiveblack holesMbh & 107M⊙. A similar behavior is realized atslightly higher black hole masses in the case of galactic nu-clei with shallow cores. In these galactic centers, spoon-fedstars might be expected to make a meaningful contribution tothe duty cycle in systems withMbh & 107.5M⊙. This behaviorcan be inferred directly from the lower panel of Figure4, inwhich we show the averaged duty cycle for the two extremecases of the galactic nucleus structure. As discussed in Sec-tion 4, shallower core-like profiles are probably most relevantfor massive black holesMbh & 108M⊙, thus we expect thatspoon-fed giant stars will feed these very massive black holesbut according to the core galaxy duty cycle shown in Figure4. SMBHs with massMbh & 108M⊙ will swallow main se-quence stars whole rather than tidally disrupting them (e.g.MacLeod et al. 2012), but giant stars might still be expectedto feed the SMBH through the spoon-feeding and tidal dis-ruption channels.

5.3. Diffusion to the loss cone

The gradual diffusion of main-sequence stars in angularmomentum space to the loss cone will have little effect onthe SMBH activity duty cycle. In general, these events con-tribute a fraction of the flux of stars into the loss cone. Theywill not result in a single, strongly disruptive passage by theSMBH. Only objects that are fully convective such as the

9

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

time @MyrD

M @M 

EddD

Mbh=107.5M�

M 

wH<rhL

M 

wHMHDL

-8 -6 -4 -2 0-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

log M @M 

EddD

log

f onH>

M L

Mbh = 107 M�

MTTDEsHGiantsLTDEsHMSL

-8 -6 -4 -2 0

log M @M 

EddD

Mbh = 107.5 M�

-8 -6 -4 -2 0

log M @M 

EddD

Mbh = 108 M�

Figure 5. Monte Carlo realizations of the duty cycle of tidally fed black hole activity for SMBH masses of 107M⊙, 107.5M⊙, and 108M⊙. The blue line showsthe tidal disruption of main-sequence stars, labeled TDEs (MS); the red line shows giant branch stars, labeled TDEs (Giants). These tidal disruption componentsonly include the fraction of events fed from the large angle scattering regime where∆J > Jlc. A fraction rs/rt of events are promptly swallowed by the SMBH,here we plot only those that pass outsiders and produce a flare. The purple line shows the contribution from episodically mass-transferring giant stars, labeledMT. For black hole masses& 107M⊙ the number of actively mass-transferring stars is& 1. These mass transfer episodes dominate above the decay tails of tidaldisruption events at low Eddington ratios. We expect these mass-transferring stars to be the dominant contribution to tidally fed SMBH activity atM/MEdd. 10−4.The dashed lines show two estimates of the degree to which stellar winds may feed the SMBH. The total stellar wind injection with the sphere of influence isan upper limit and is marked asMw(< rh). The winds found to actually accrete in models of Sgr A* are asmall fraction of that,Mw(MHD) from simulationsof the accretion flow byShcherbakov & Baganoff(2010); Shcherbakov et al.(2013). M/MEdd is computed assumingMEdd = 0.02(Mbh/106M⊙)M⊙yr−1, whichcorresponds to a radiative efficiency ofη = 0.1.

lowest mass (M . 0.4M⊙) and very high mass (M & 20M⊙)main-sequence stars exhibit a mass-radius relationship that al-lows for a runaway response to mass loss over multiple or-bits. Sun-like objects (which may be modeled byn = 3 poly-tropes) exhibit a strongly protective initial response to massloss (Hjellming & Webbink 1987). Further, the critical ra-dius that defines the transition between scattered orbits anddiffusing orbits moves to tighter binding energies for starswith smallJlc like main-sequence stars (Frank & Rees 1976;Lightman & Shapiro 1977). The orbital periods of these ob-jects become short (thus they contribute less to the duty cycleof SMBH activity). Additionally, in cuspy nuclei that are dy-namically relaxed, mass segregation likely leads to a relativelysmall number of low mass stars that are very tightly bound(e.g.Alexander 2005). Secular effects like the Schwarzschildbarrier also become important for such tightly bound orbits(Merritt et al. 2011). Main-sequence stars that are partiallydisrupted by the SMBH are likely kicked out by the resultantmass loss asymmetry, which increases their specific orbitalenergy by a factor∼ GM∗/R∗ which is greater than the or-bital binding energy for typical orbits when evaluated for themain-sequence mass and radius (Manukian et al. 2013).

Giant branch stars, if they are able to diffuse to reach theloss cone, likely undergo a spoon-feeding encounter historysimilar to that described in this paper. The population ofobjects able to do so may be limited. Collisions are partic-ularly damaging for giants in galactic nuclei (Davies et al.1998; Bailey & Davies 1999; Dale et al. 2009) and may be

even more severe for giants on very eccentric orbits that passthrough the densest regions of the stellar cluster every orbit(MacLeod et al. 2012). In high mass systems,Mbh & 107M⊙,evolution to the loss cone dominates, as shown in Figure4.In systems with lower mass black holes,Mbh ∼ 106 − 107M⊙,diffusion to the loss cone may be possible. Only a few per-cent of diffusing stars that reach the loss cone will be giantsbecause in the diffusion limit there is only a logarithmic en-hancement in the loss cone rate with tidal radius,Γdiff ∝ ln(rt)(Lightman & Shapiro 1977). A careful consideration of theimportance of these stars would need to include the orbitalrandom walk in the stars’ mass transfer histories and is aninteresting future application of the episodic mass transfermodel presented in this paper.

5.4. Comparison to stellar wind feeding

Stellar winds feed material indirectly to SMBHs by eject-ing material into the cluster medium (e.g.Holzer & Axford1970). Simulations of stellar wind feeding onto mas-sive black holes typically find two key features of theaccretion flow. First, only a small amount of the ma-terial ejected into the cluster medium ever reaches theSMBH. The low inflow rate arises because winds injectboth mass and kinetic energy into the cluster. Young starwinds, in particular, may have super-virial velocities, lead-ing to the ejection of the bulk of the mass (e.g.Quataert2004; Rockefeller et al. 2004; Cuadra et al. 2005, 2006, 2008;De Colle et al. 2012). Second, the accretion flows tend to

10

have low net angular momentum because they result fromthe combined contribution of many stars. In a spherical nu-cleus almost perfect cancelation of angular momentum re-sults, and the accretion flow circularizes only at very smallradii (Cuadra et al. 2008). The low angular momentum of theaccretion flow may contribute to the inferred low radiativeefficiency of accretion fed by stellar winds (Baganoff et al.2003; Ho 2009), particularly if the circularization radiusis inside the transition to an advection dominated accre-tion flow (ADAF) (Fabian & Rees 1995; Narayan et al. 1998;Quataert & Narayan 1999; Blandford & Begelman 1999).

In Figure 5, we include several direct comparisons tomodels of stellar wind feeding.Shcherbakov & Baganoff(2010) and Shcherbakov et al.(2013) use magnetohydrody-namic models of the accretion flow onto Sgr A* to con-clude that an inflow rate of∼ 10−8M⊙ yr−1 is consistentwith the feeding. This corresponds to an Eddington ratioMw(MHD)/MEdd = 1.25×10−7 and is shown in the panels ofFigure5 as scaling with mass to maintain a constant Edding-ton ratio. Considerably more mass is available to the SMBHwithin the nuclear cluster environment. As a strict upperlimit, we take a cluster of 1.4M⊙ stars that lose mass at rate〈M∗〉 ≈ 0.8M⊙/4Gyr = 2×10−10M⊙ yr−1 based on the initial-final mass relation and lifetime of these stars (Kalirai et al.2008). Multiplying by the number of stars within the SMBH’ssphere of influence gives a crude upper limit to the mass con-tributed by stellar winds that is potentially available to theblack hole ofMw(< rh) . 10−2MEdd. Considerable uncer-tainty exists between these two limiting cases, in particularwith respect to the degree to which material reaches the blackhole, and the radiative efficiency with which it will shine. Bycontrast, material spoon-fed to the SMBH is injected at smallradii (comparable to the tidal radius), making it less suscep-tible to feedback or outflows as it accretes than are stellarwinds, which are dominantly injected at the sphere of influ-ence. We see from Figure5 that spoon-feeding from mass-transferring giant stars can lead to accretion rates withintherange of those those implied by stellar wind feeding in galac-tic nuclei ofMbh ∼ 107 − 108M⊙.

5.5. Implications for low-luminosity active galactic nuclei

We compare our predictions about the duty cycle of spoon-fed SMBHs to distributions ofL/LEdd from Ho (2009). Usingdata from the Palomar sample of local active galactic nuclei(AGN), Ho (2009) finds that most galactic nuclei shine at avery small fraction of their Eddington limit. The range of me-dian luminosities for AGN classes computed byHo (2009)span several orders of magnitude. From low to highL/LEdd

these are Absorption (2.2× 10−7), Transition (1.5× 10−6),Liner (6×10−6), and Seyfert (1.1×10−4) nuclei. Some un-certainty lies in the determining whether accretion luminosityis the true source of nuclear activity at such lowL. Poten-tial sources of contamination include low-mass x-ray binaries(Miller et al. 2012) or perhaps even diffuse emmission (e.g.Soria et al. 2006). Thus, the constant Hα and x-ray to bolo-metric corrections assumed byHo (2009) are suggested tocarry an error for individual sources. 0.7 dex. Ho (2009)uses these data to conclude that we must be primarily observ-ing the signatures of radiatively inefficient (η ≪ 1) accretionof a relatively large amount of material supplied by stellarwinds. However, there remain large uncertainties in the de-gree to which gas within the black hole sphere of influenceis able to accrete (due to either feedback processes or out-

flows). Thus, both the radiative efficiency, and the efficiencywith which material reaches the SMBH are parameterized inthis conversion fromM to L.

At low black hole masses,Mbh . 107M⊙, stellar windslikely set the minimum accretion floor in gas-deprived galax-ies. For higher black hole masses in the rangeMbh ∼ 107 −108M⊙ plotted in Figure5, we suggest that the inferredL/LEdd Eddington ratios in some local galactic nuclei mayalso be consistent with the digestion of mass from spoon-fedstars given efficienciesη ∼ 10−3 − 10−1. Because stellar windfeeding and direct tidal feeding of SMBHs potentially resultin different morphologies of the resulting accretion structure,one might not necessarily expect thatη is fixed for a given fuelsupply,M. A more complete picture of the properties of thelowest luminosity AGN may provide some information abouttheir fueling mechanism, especially when coupled with moredetailed modeling of the accretion flows themselves. In par-ticular, parallel constraints on the activity level of SMBHs andthe stellar distributions that surround them may offer insightinto the feeding mechanism and, in turn, the morphology andradiative efficiency of the resulting accretion flow.

6. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

To understand of the nature of the accretion flows in qui-escent galactic nuclei, we must make certain our census ofpotential fuel sources is complete. To this end, we study theSMBH feeding that arises when stars trapped in eccentric or-bits evolve to transfer mass episodically to the SMBH. We callthis process spoon-feeding giant stars to SMBHs. About halfthe mass stripped from the star falls back towards the SMBH,lighting it up in an accretion flare. The remnant returns to theSMBH to transfer mass once per orbital period. We show thatthe thermal evolution of the remnants determines the mag-nitude of the subsequent mass-loss episodes. We computeorbital histories in which we self-consistently compute theadjustments to the the stellar structure in theMESA stellarevolution code. A typical low-mass giant branch star maytransfer mass for∼ 102 orbits before leaving behind a heliumwhite dwarf remnant. We estimate that a steady-state popula-tion of these mass-transferring stars is likely to exist in galac-tic nuclei hosting SMBHs more massive than approximately107M⊙. In nuclei with lower density cores, this transitionhappens at somewhat higher black hole massMbh & 107.5M⊙.Using Monte Carlo realizations of SMBH accretion histories,we show that this population of mass-transferring stars con-tributes significantly to the duty cycle of low-level SMBH ac-tivity. The feeding from these stars may exceed that from thedecay tails of tidal disruption events atM . 10−4MEdd.

In this work, we have presented a preliminary formal-ism for modeling the mass transfer that occurs when gi-ant stars in eccentric orbits grow to reach their loss coneand spoon-feed material to the SMBH. This approach maybe extended to explore several interesting questions. Inparticular, we have considered the idealized case in whichthe star’s orbit does not evolve in the course of the en-counter. Stars that diffuse in angular momentum un-dergo a random walk in angular momentum due to two-body relaxation (Lightman & Shapiro 1977), while stars innon-isotropic structures like rings, disks, or triaxial clus-ters are subject torques that can drive coherent orbitalevolution (Magorrian & Tremaine 1999; Merritt & Vasiliev2010; Madigan et al. 2009, 2011; Vasiliev & Merritt 2013;Antonini & Merritt 2013). These differing cases of orbit evo-

11

lution likely imprint themselves on the light curves of the re-sulting mass-transfer flares in unique ways, and in turn theduty cycle of SMBH activity, perhaps offering an avenue toexplore the dynamical processes at play in distant galacticnu-clei (e.g.Rauch & Ingalls 1998). In the giant star case wehave analyzed, the encounter itself does not change the or-bital parameters significantly. This is partially because of thestar’s stratified core-envelope structure (Liu et al. 2012) andpartially because the star’s specific orbital energy∼ GMbh/ais larger than the star’s specific binding energy,GM∗/R∗

(Manukian et al. 2013). For main-sequence stars and com-pact stellar remnants with higher escape velocities, this is notnecessarily the case. The orbital energy change imprintedby mass loss becomes an important factor in determining thestar’s encounter history with the SMBH.

We further assume in this work that the primary change instellar structure is due to the change in envelope mass. Aswe demonstrate in Section2, this is almost certainly the casefor giant stars where surface heating is counteracted by rapidradiative cooling (McMillan et al. 1987). However, in otherclasses of objects, particularly those for which their thermaladjustment time is long compared to an orbital period, the heatdeposited into the star may play a dramatic role in modifyingthe star’s structure and mass transfer history with the SMBH.Thus, the additional heat deposited deep within a star may notbe able to be radiated effectively in an orbital period. If thisis the case, the star will adiabatically expand (Podsiadlowski1996) and more strongly feel the tidal force of the SMBHin its subsequent passages. This process can easily lead to arunaway, as has been found byGuillochon et al.(2011) in thecase of giant planets interacting with their host stars. Therota-tion excited by the encounter with the SMBH is an additionaleffect on the stellar structure we do not address here. Theexpected rotation may be a significant fraction of the star’sbreakup rotation, leading to mixing and and other effects thatcan modify stars’ subsequent evolution (Alexander & Kumar2001), while also reducing their mean density. This may makestars more prone to disruption in subsequent passages.

In Section5, we illustrate how single-mass stellar clus-ters might imprint their presence on the accretion history andthus also the luminosity function of low-luminosity AGN. Thestellar cusps around SMBHs are certainly not single stellarmass, but our knowledge of stellar populations in galactic nu-clei other than our own (e.g.Schödel et al. 2007) is weaklyconstrained. The detailed nature of these stellar populationsplays a significant role in determining the relative rates ofdif-ferent classes of tidal interactions between stars and SMBHs(MacLeod et al. 2012). As we outline above, further com-plexities in the orbital distribution and orbital evolution of thepopulation of stars residing close to SMBHs in galactic cen-ters will also imprint themselves on the luminosity function oflow-level AGN. Thus, direct comparisons between observeddistributions of SMBH activity and predictions based on var-ious feeding mechanisms will offer a statistical window intothe more general nature of the stellar dynamics and popula-tions of galactic center stellar clusters.

We are grateful to the anonymous referee and to MartinRees for comments that improved this work. It is a plea-sure to thank Fabio Antonini, Elena Gallo, Jacqueline Gold-stein, Doug Lin, Brian Metzger, Cole Miller, Jill Naiman,Johan Samsing, Anil Seth, Nick Stone, and Simon Porte-gies Zwart, as well as the participants of the Snowpac 2013

“Black Hole Fingerprints” conference for helpful discussions.M.M. benefited from advice and discussions at the 2012MESA summer school and the hospitality of the DARK cos-mology centre. The software used in this work was in partdeveloped by the DOE-supported ASCI/Alliance Center forAstrophysical Thermonuclear Flashes at the University ofChicago. Simulation visualizations were created with theyt toolkit (Turk et al. 2010). We acknowledge support fromthe David and Lucile Packard Foundation, NSF grant: AST-0847563, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (M.M.),and the NESSF graduate fellowship (J.F.G.).

REFERENCES

Alexander, T. 2005, Physics Reports, 419, 65Alexander, T., & Hopman, C. 2003, ApJ, 590, L29Alexander, T., & Kumar, P. 2001, ApJ, 549, 948Alexander, T., & Morris, M. 2003, ApJ, 590, L25Antonini, F., Lombardi, J. C. J., & Merritt, D. 2011, ApJ, 731, 128Antonini, F., & Merritt, D. 2013, ApJ, 763, L10Armitage, P. J., Zurek, W. H., & Davies, M. B. 1996, ApJ, 470, 237Baganoff, F. K., et al. 2003, ApJ, 591, 891Bailey, V. C., & Davies, M. B. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 257Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition

(Princeton University Press)Blandford, R. D., & Begelman, M. C. 1999, MNRAS, 303, L1Bogdanovic, T., Eracleous, M., Mahadevan, S., Sigurdsson, S., & Laguna, P.

2004, ApJ, 610, 707Cannizzo, J. K., Lee, H. M., & Goodman, J. 1990, ApJ, 351, 38Cheng, R. M., & Evans, C. R. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 104010Coker, R. F., & Melia, F. 1997, ApJ, 488, L149Cuadra, J., Nayakshin, S., & Martins, F. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 458Cuadra, J., Nayakshin, S., Springel, V., & Di Matteo, T. 2005, MNRAS,

360, L55Cuadra, J., Nayakshin, S., Springel, V., & Matteo, T. D. 2006, MNRAS, 366,

358Dai, L., & Blandford, R. D. 2011, eprint arXiv:1110.2614Dai, L., Blandford, R. D., & Eggleton, P. P. 2011, eprint arXiv:1110.2582Dai, L., Escala, A., & Coppi, P. 2013, eprint arXiv:1303.4837Dai, L. J., Fuerst, S. V., & Blandford, R. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1614Dale, J. E., Davies, M. B., Church, R. P., & Freitag, M. 2009, MNRAS, 393,

1016Davies, M. B., Blackwell, R., Bailey, V. C., & Sigurdsson, S.1998,

MNRAS, 301, 745Davis, P. J., Siess, L., & Deschamps, R. 2013, eprint arXiv:1305.6092De Colle, F., Guillochon, J., Naiman, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E.2012, ApJ,

760, 103East, W., Pretorius, F., & Stephens, B. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 124009East, W. E., & Pretorius, F. 2012, ApJ, 760, L4Evans, C. R., & Kochanek, C. S. 1989, ApJ, 346, L13Faber, J. A., Rasio, F. A., & Willems, B. 2005, Icarus, 175, 248Faber, S. M., et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771Fabian, A. C., & Rees, M. J. 1995, MNRAS, 277, L55Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJ, 539, L9Frank, J., & Rees, M. J. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 633Freitag, M., & Benz, W. 2002, A&A, 394, 345Fryxell, B., et al. 2000, ApJS, 131, 273Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L13Guillochon, J., Manukian, H., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, eprint

arXiv:1304.6397Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2013, ApJ, 767, 25Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Lin, D. 2011, ApJ, 732, 74Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Rosswog, S., & Kasen, D. 2009, ApJ, 705,

844Gültekin, K., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 198Hayasaki, K., Stone, N., & Loeb, A. 2012, EPJ Web of Conferences, 39,

01004Hills, J. G. 1975, Nature, 254, 295Hjellming, M. S., & Webbink, R. F. 1987, ApJ, 318, 794Ho, L. C. 2009, ApJ, 699, 626Holzer, T. E., & Axford, W. I. 1970, ARA&A, 8, 31Kalirai, J. S., Hansen, B. M. S., Kelson, D. D., Reitzel, D. B., Rich, R. M., &

Richer, H. B. 2008, ApJ, 676, 594Khokhlov, A., Novikov, I. D., & Pethick, C. J. 1993, ApJ, 418,163

12

Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, eprint arXiv:1304.7762Lajoie, C.-P., & Sills, A. 2010, ApJ, 726, 67Lee, W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & van de Ven, G. 2010, ApJ, 720, 953Li, G., & Loeb, A. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3040Lightman, A. P., & Shapiro, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 211, 244Liu, S.-F., Guillochon, J., Lin, D. N. C., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E.2012, ApJ, 762,

37Lodato, G., King, A. R., & Pringle, J. E. 2009, MNRAS, 392, 332Loeb, A. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 725MacLeod, M., Guillochon, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2012, ApJ, 757, 134Madigan, A.-M., Hopman, C., & Levin, Y. 2011, ApJ, 738, 99Madigan, A.-M., Levin, Y., & Hopman, C. 2009, ApJ, 697, L44Magorrian, J., & Tremaine, S. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 447Manukian, H., Guillochon, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & O’Leary,R. M. 2013,

ApJ, 771, L28McMillan, S. L. W., McDermott, P. N., & Taam, R. E. 1987, ApJ, 318, 261Merritt, D., Alexander, T., Mikkola, S., & Will, C. M. 2011, Phys. Rev. D,

84, 044024Merritt, D., & Vasiliev, E. 2010, ApJ, 726, 61Miller, B., Gallo, E., Treu, T., & Woo, J.-H. 2012, ApJ, 747, 57Milosavljevic, M., Merritt, D., & Ho, L. C. 2006, ApJ, 652, 120Montesinos Armijo, M., & de Freitas Pacheco, J. A. 2011, ApJ,736, 126Narayan, R., Mahadevan, R., Grindlay, J. E., Popham, R. G., &Gammie, C.

1998, ApJ, 492, 554Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., Herwig, F., Lesaffre,P., & Timmes, F.

2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 192, 3Paxton, B., et al. 2013, ApJSPodsiadlowski, P. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1104Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1977, ApJ, 213, 183Quataert, E. 2004, ApJ, 613, 322Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 1999, ApJ, 520, 298

Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & Rosswog, S. 2009, ApJ, 697, L77Rauch, K. P., & Ingalls, B. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 1231Rees, M. J. 1988, Nature, 333, 523Regös, E., Bailey, V. C., & Mardling, R. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 544Rockefeller, G., Fryer, C. L., Melia, F., & Warren, M. S. 2004, ApJ, 604, 662Rubin, D., & Loeb, A. 2011, Advances in Astronomy, 2011, 1Schödel, R., et al. 2007, A&A, 469, 125Sepinsky, J. F., Kalogera, B. W. V., & Rasio, F. A. 2007, ApJ, 667, 1170Sepinsky, J. F., Willems, B., Kalogera, V., & Rasio, F. A. 2009, ApJ, 702,

1387—. 2010, ApJ, 724, 546Seth, A. C. 2010, ApJ, 725, 670Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337Shcherbakov, R. V., & Baganoff, F. K. 2010, ApJ, 716, 504Shcherbakov, R. V., Baganoff, F. K., Wong, K.-W., & Irwin, J.2013, Proc.

IAU, 8, 74Shen, R.-F., & Matzner, C. D. 2013, eprint arXiv:1305.5570Soltan, A. 1982, ApJS, 200, 115Soria, R., Fabbiano, G., Graham, A. W., Baldi, A., Elvis, M.,Jerjen, H.,

Pellegrini, S., & Siemiginowska, A. 2006, ApJ, 640, 126Strubbe, L. E., & Quataert, E. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 2070—. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 168Syer, D., & Ulmer, A. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 35Tremaine, S., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 740Turk, M. J., Smith, B. D., Oishi, J. S., Skory, S., Skillman, S. W., Abel, T., &

Norman, M. L. 2010, ApJS, 192, 9Vasiliev, E., & Merritt, D. 2013, eprint arXiv:1301.3150Volonteri, M., Dotti, M., Campbell, D., & Mateo, M. 2011, ApJ, 730, 145Wang, J., & Merritt, D. 2004, ApJ, 600, 149Zalamea, I., Menou, K., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2010, MNRAS, 409, L25