# X-ray View of Little Red Dots:
Do They Host Supermassive Black Holes?

Tonima Tasnim Ananna11affiliationmark:  , Ákos Bogdán22affiliationmark:  ,
Orsolya E. Kovács33affiliationmark:  , Priyamvada Natarajan44affiliationmark:
55affiliationmark:  66affiliationmark:  , Ryan C. Hickox77affiliationmark:
11affiliationmark:  Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA  22affiliationmark:  Center for
Astrophysics ❘ Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138,
USA  33affiliationmark:  Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics,
Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Kotlářská 2, Brno, 611 37, Czech
Republic  44affiliationmark:  Department of Astronomy, Yale University, New
Haven, CT 06511, USA  55affiliationmark:  Department of Physics, Yale
University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA  66affiliationmark:  Black Hole
Initiative, Harvard University, 20 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
77affiliationmark:  Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College,
6127 Wilder Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755, USA

###### Abstract

The discovery of Little Red Dots (LRDs) – a population of compact, high-
redshift, dust-reddened galaxies – is one of the most surprising results from
JWST. However, the nature of LRDs is still debated: some studies suggest that
these galaxies host accreting supermassive black holes (SMBHs), while others
conclude that the near-infrared emission primarily originates from intense
star formation. In this work, we utilize ultra-deep Chandra observations and
study LRDs residing behind the lensing galaxy cluster, Abell 2744. We probe
the X-ray emission from individual galaxies but find that they remain
undetected and provide SMBH mass upper limits of $\lesssim(1.5-16)\times
10^{6}~{}\rm{M_{\odot}}$ assuming Eddington limited accretion. To increase the
signal-to-noise ratios, we conduct a stacking analysis of the full sample with
a total lensed exposure time of $\approx 87$ Ms. We also bin the galaxies
based on their stellar mass, lensing magnification, and detected broad-line
H$\alpha$ emission. All but one stacked sample remains undetected with SMBH
mass upper limits of $\lesssim 2.5\times 10^{6}~{}\rm{M_{\odot}}$. We obtain a
tentative, $\approx 2.6\sigma$ detection for LRDs exhibiting broad-line
H$\alpha$ emission. Taking this detection at face value, the inferred mean
SMBH mass is $\approx 3.2\times 10^{6}~{}\rm{M_{\odot}}$ assuming Eddington-
limited accretion, about 1.5 orders of magnitude lower than that inferred from
JWST data. Our results imply that LRDs do not host over-massive SMBHs and/or
accrete at a few percent of their Eddington limit. The significant discrepancy
between the JWST and Chandra data hints that the scaling relations used to
infer the SMBH mass from the H$\alpha$ line and virial relations may not be
applicable for high-redshift LRDs.

##  1\. Introduction

Since its launch, JWST has revolutionized the picture of the early universe on
multiple forefronts. In particular, JWST has discovered an unexpectedly large
sample of high-redshift galaxies in multiple wide fields and behind lensing
galaxy clusters (e.g. Robertson et al., 2023; Castellano et al., 2022a, b;
Atek et al., 2023). JWST has also brought into view high-redshift ($z>8$)
accreting SMBHs that shed new light on our understanding of early seeding and
growth (Bogdán et al., 2024; Natarajan et al., 2024; Kokorev et al., 2023;
Kovacs et al., 2024; Maiolino et al., 2024). In addition, thanks to its near-
infrared sensitivity, JWST unveiled a previously unknown, dust-reddened,
galaxy population at high ($3<z<9$) redshifts (Labbé et al., 2023; Labbe et
al., 2023; Matthee et al., 2023; Akins et al., 2023; Barro et al., 2024).
These galaxies, dubbed as Little Red Dots (LRDs), are red, which suggests
heavy obscuration, are compact ($r_{\rm e}\sim 50\ \rm{pc}$), and many of them
have high stellar masses ($M_{\rm\star}\gtrsim 10^{10}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$).

The discovery of LRDs has triggered a debate about their nature. The emission
in LRDs could be either dominated by flux from active galactic nuclei (AGN) or
from a population of young stars associated with vigorous star formation.
Alternatively, LRDs could be a heterogeneous galaxy population, in which both
AGN and star formation contribute to their fluxes to different degrees. To
constrain the origin of LRDs, several systems were followed up with JWST,
revealing evidence for both of these possibilities. For example, Kocevski et
al. (2023) studied the JWST spectrum of two LRDs and found broad H$\alpha$
emission, indicating the presence of SMBHs with $M_{\rm BH}\sim 10^{7}\
\rm{M_{\odot}}$. Similar spectroscopic follow-up studies were performed for
several other LRDs, which also suggest that they could host SMBHs with $M_{\rm
BH}\sim 10^{7}-10^{9}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$ (Greene et al., 2023; Killi et al.,
2023; Matthee et al., 2023). The high SMBH masses imply that the black hole-
to-stellar mass ratio of LRDs is much higher than that in the local universe
(Magorrian et al., 1998; Häring & Rix, 2004; Kormendy & Ho, 2013; Reines &
Volonteri, 2015) or for AGN observed up to $z\sim 2.5$ (Suh et al., 2020).
This result is hardly unexpected: previous Chandra/JWST studies found several
high-redshift galaxies that host extremely massive SMBHs with some of them
reaching black hole-to-stellar mass ratios of $\sim 10\%-100\%$ (e.g. Bogdán
et al., 2024; Goulding et al., 2023; Übler et al., 2023; Harikane et al.,
2023; Kovacs et al., 2024). However, other studies, based on JWST MIRI
spectra, suggest that the emission in several LRDs is dominated by young
stellar populations. Specifically, modeling the spectral energy distribution
of 31 LRDs indicates that their characteristics can be described by intense
and compact starbursts and young stellar ages, where the energy output is
dominated by the emission from OB stars (Pérez-González et al., 2024).

Figure 1.— Merged Chandra ACIS-I image of the lensing cluster, Abell 2744, in
the $2-7$ keV band. The total exposure time of the merged data is $\approx
2.07$ Ms. We focus on a sample of 23 LRDs (see Table LABEL:tab:sample) in the
redshift range of $z=3-8.5$ that were identified by JWST NIRCAM data (Labbe et
al., 2023). The location of the galaxies is highlighted with small white
circles. The Chandra X-ray data provides data for all galaxies.

Although JWST carried out several follow-up observations with the NIRSpec and
MIRI instruments to better understand the nature of these galaxies,
interpreting the near-infrared data is often not trivial because AGN and star-
forming processes could produce very similar spectral signatures. X-ray data,
in contrast, can provide important clues about the nature of LRDs for several
reasons. First, the X-ray emission originating from dust-obscured AGN emission
is much less impacted by obscuration, particularly at high redshifts (Bogdán
et al., 2022, 2024; Kovacs et al., 2024). Second, the level of expected X-ray
emission from AGN and star-forming processes is significantly different with
the latter being several orders of magnitude fainter. Therefore, given the
typical exposure times of deep X-ray observations and the sensitivity of
present-day X-ray telescopes, emission from star-forming processes will likely
remain undetected, while accreting SMBHs could be detected even at large
cosmic distances. Finally, the ultra-deep Chandra observations of Abell 2744,
combined with the lensing magnification of the galaxy cluster, allow the
detection of accreting SMBHs with $10^{7}-10^{8}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$ even at
$z\approx 10$ (Bogdán et al., 2024; Kovacs et al., 2024). These SMBH masses
are within the range of those predicted by JWST spectroscopic studies of LRDs
(Greene et al., 2023; Matthee et al., 2023). Therefore, the Chandra X-ray
observations of Abell 2744 are ideally suited to independently probe AGN in
LRDs.

Despite the advantages of the X-ray waveband, searching for AGN in high-
redshift galaxies remains challenging due to the relatively small collecting
area of present-day X-ray observatories. To alleviate this problem, we utilize
ultra-deep X-ray observations and boost the sensitivity of X-ray telescopes by
gravitational lensing. In this work, we rely on Chandra X-ray observations of
the lensing galaxy cluster, Abell 2744, to probe the population of JWST-
detected LRDs behind this cluster (Labbe et al., 2023). Our goal is to search
for X-ray emission from AGN in individual LRDs and to also probe the
collective X-ray emission from this galaxy population by stacking their X-ray
photons. The deep Chandra observations, combined with the lensing
magnification, allow us to investigate whether LRDs host massive BHs,
constrain the black hole-to-galaxy mass ratio, and assess the sample-averaged
X-ray properties of LRDs.

Our paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the analyzed sample of
LRDs. The analysis of the Chandra X-ray data is outlined in Section 3. The
results on the X-ray emission from individual galaxies and on the collective
X-ray emission from LRDs are presented in Section 4. We conclude and place our
results in a broader context in Section 5. In this paper, the following
cosmological parameters are assumed: $H_{0}=71\ \rm{km\ s^{-1}\ Mpc^{-1}}$,
$\Omega_{M}=0.27$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$.

Table 1Analyzed sample of Little Red Dots.

ID | RA | Dec | z | $\mu$ | $\log(M_{\rm\star})$ | $\log(L_{\rm 2-10keV})$ | $\log(L_{\rm bol})$ | $\log(M_{\rm BH})$ | $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm\star}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10)
571‡ | 3.592423 |  $-$30.432824 | 6.74⋆ | 1.69 | 9.0$\pm$0.1 | $<43.68$ | $<44.91$ | $<6.81$ | $<6.48\times 10^{-3}$
1967 | 3.619200 |  $-$30.423270 | 5.84⋆ | 1.63 | 10.9$\pm$0.1 | $<43.39$ | $<44.61$ | $<6.51$ | $<4.03\times 10^{-5}$
2476 | 3.610205 |  $-$30.421001 | 4.56 | 1.92 | 10.0$\pm$0.1 | $<43.13$ | $<44.34$ | $<6.24$ | $<1.74\times 10^{-4}$
2940‡ | 3.575989 |  $-$30.419030 | 4.47 | 1.81 | 9.0$\pm$0.1 | $<43.35$ | $<44.57$ | $<6.47$ | $<2.92\times 10^{-3}$
5957‡ | 3.556703 |  $-$30.408192 | 3.52 | 1.57 | 10.4$\pm$0.1 | $<43.25$ | $<44.46$ | $<6.36$ | $<9.05\times 10^{-5}$
6151 | 3.567758 |  $-$30.407272 | 4.45 | 1.86 | 8.7$\pm$0.1 | $<43.46$ | $<44.68$ | $<6.58$ | $<7.66\times 10^{-3}$
6430‡ | 3.550837 |  $-$30.406598 | 5.05⋆ | 1.54 | 10.1$\pm$0.1 | $<43.57$ | $<44.80$ | $<6.70$ | $<3.96\times 10^{-4}$
8296†‡ | 3.579829 |  $-$30.401569 | 7.04⋆ | 6.94 | 8.8$\pm$0.1 | $<43.47$ | $<44.69$ | $<6.59$ | $<6.17\times 10^{-3}$
8798‡ | 3.620605 |  $-$30.399950 | 6.34⋆ | 1.58 | 9.6$\pm$0.1 | $<43.49$ | $<44.71$ | $<6.61$ | $<1.03\times 10^{-3}$
9992†‡ | 3.583536 |  $-$30.396676 | 7.04⋆ | 8.55 | 8.9$\pm$0.1 | $<43.38$ | $<44.59$ | $<6.49$ | $<3.92\times 10^{-3}$
10148‡ | 3.545794 |  $-$30.395724 | 4.96 | 1.69 | 9.8$\pm$0.1 | $<43.58$ | $<44.81$ | $<6.71$ | $<8.05\times 10^{-4}$
10712†‡ | 3.597201 |  $-$30.394328 | 7.04⋆ | 4.12 | 9.1$\pm$0.1 | $<43.68$ | $<44.92$ | $<6.82$ | $<5.23\times 10^{-3}$
13556‡ | 3.640410 |  $-$30.386436 | 8.50⋆ | 1.32 | 9.0$\pm$0.1 | $<44.03$ | $<45.30$ | $<7.20$ | $<1.58\times 10^{-2}$
15798 | 3.535308 |  $-$30.381010 | 6.44 | 2.54 | 8.0$\pm$0.2 | $<43.74$ | $<44.98$ | $<6.88$ | $<7.63\times 10^{-2}$
16561‡ | 3.567022 |  $-$30.379719 | 6.34 | 3.56 | 8.9$\pm$0.1 | $<43.63$ | $<44.86$ | $<6.76$ | $<7.32\times 10^{-3}$
20080‡ | 3.569595 |  $-$30.373224 | 7.04⋆ | 2.71 | 9.2$\pm$0.1 | $<43.81$ | $<45.05$ | $<6.95$ | $<5.65\times 10^{-3}$
28343‡ | 3.530008 |  $-$30.358013 | 4.96⋆ | 1.87 | 9.8$\pm$0.1 | $<43.71$ | $<44.94$ | $<6.84$ | $<1.11\times 10^{-3}$
30782‡ | 3.533997 |  $-$30.353311 | 6.76⋆ | 1.75 | 9.4$\pm$0.1 | $<43.77$ | $<45.01$ | $<6.91$ | $<3.26\times 10^{-3}$
31142 | 3.498841 |  $-$30.352945 | 4.81 | 1.00 | 10.2$\pm$0.1 | $<43.71$ | $<44.95$ | $<6.85$ | $<4.46\times 10^{-4}$
31298 | 3.472870 |  $-$30.352132 | 4.82 | 1.00 | 11.0$\pm$0.2 | $<43.76$ | $<45.01$ | $<6.91$ | $<8.07\times 10^{-5}$
35771 | 3.525296 |  $-$30.342213 | 4.30 | 1.44 | 10.1$\pm$0.2 | $<43.45$ | $<44.67$ | $<6.57$ | $<2.93\times 10^{-4}$
35819 | 3.473941 |  $-$30.342061 | 4.59 | 1.00 | 8.9$\pm$0.1 | $<43.50$ | $<44.72$ | $<6.62$ | $<5.27\times 10^{-3}$
37108 | 3.569464 |  $-$30.339305 | 3.01 | 1.53 | 9.1$\pm$0.1 | $<43.08$ | $<44.28$ | $<6.18$ | $<1.53\times 10^{-3}$

† Triple-lensed quasar discussed in Furtak et al. (2024). Only ID8296 was
included in the stacking analysis.
‡ AGN subset including 12 galaxies as identified by Labbe et al. (2023).
Columns are as follows: (1) UNCOVER ID; (2) and (3): R.A. and Dec. (4)
Redshift of the galaxies, where $z^{\rm\star}$ are spectroscopic redshifts
adopted from Greene et al. (2023)); (5) Lensing magnification; (6) Stellar
mass adopted from Labbe et al. (2023) from SED fitting using ALMA data; (7)
$2-10$ keV band X-ray luminosity; (8) Bolometric luminosity inferred from
column (7) and the X-ray-to-bolometric correction of Duras et al. (2020); (9)
BH mass inferred from the column (9) assuming Eddington limited accretion; and
(10) BH-to-galaxy stellar mass ratio.

##  2\. Sample of Little Red Dots

We study a sample of high-redshift LRDs in the Abell 2744 field that were
detected by JWST (Labbe et al., 2023). From the parent sample of 35 red and
compact galaxies, Labbe et al. (2023) identified 26 objects that exhibit red
colors ($\rm{F200W-F444W}=1-4$), a compact nature with a median size of
$r_{\rm eff}\sim 50$ pc, and a light profile that is dominated by a central
point source-like component. Follow-up spectroscopic studies of these 26
systems demonstrated that three of them are nearby brown dwarfs(Burgasser et
al., 2024) and three of them are associated with a triply imaged lensed galaxy
at $z=7.045$ (Furtak et al., 2024). This leaves us with 21 individual LRDs
that represent our main sample. Within this sample, Labbe et al. (2023)
identified an AGN subset of 12 galaxies whose broadband SED modeling required
an AGN component. A sub-sample of LRDs was followed up by JWST spectroscopy
(Greene et al., 2023), which indicated that nine LRDs in the Abell 2744 field
host AGN with masses of $M_{\rm BH}=(0.2-8)\times 10^{8}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$.

The redshifts of the 21 individual LRDs are in the range of $z=3.0-8.5$ with a
median of $z=4.96$. Of the 21 galaxies, 11 have precise spectroscopic
redshifts (Greene et al., 2023; Burgasser et al., 2024; Furtak et al., 2024).
The stellar masses of the galaxies span three orders of magnitude and are in
the range of $M_{\star}=10^{8}-10^{11}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$ with a median of
$M_{\star}=2.5\times 10^{9}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$. Thanks to the lensing
magnification of Abell 2744, the light from these galaxies is amplified by
factors of $\mu=1-8.55$. The main properties of the galaxies are listed in
Table LABEL:tab:sample and for details we refer to previous works (Labbe et
al., 2023; Greene et al., 2023).

##  3\. Data analysis

###  3.1. The Chandra data

We analyzed 101 Chandra ACIS-I observations of Abell 2744. Each of the
observations was centered on the core of Abell 2744. Thanks to the large field
of view of the ACIS-I array, the X-ray data covers all LRDs that were
identified by JWST. The total exposure time of the Chandra data is $2.07$ Ms
(for details see Table LABEL:tab:data). The data was processed with CIAO
(version 4.15) and CALDB version 4.11 (Fruscione et al., 2006).

The main steps of the data analysis are identical to those outlined in Kovacs
et al. (2024). We first reprocessed all observations with the chandra_repro
tool, which assures that uniform calibration is applied to all observations.
When running this task, we applied the vfaint filtering. The high background
periods were excluded, which decreased the exposure time by $\approx 3\%$. For
each observation, we generated exposure maps assuming a power law model with a
slope of $\Gamma=1.9$ and Galactic column density ($N_{\rm H}=1.35\times
10^{20}\ \rm{cm^{-2}}$) (HI4PI Collaboration et al., 2016).

Figure 2.— Stacked $2-7$ keV band Chandra X-ray images of LRD galaxies using
different samples. The solid circular region represents a $1\arcsec$ region
and the dashed annulus shows a $3\arcsec-6\arcsec$ annulus. These regions are
for illustration, the source and background regions were calculated using the
local PSF for each observation (Section 3.2). The stacked samples are as
follows. Top left: The 21 individual LRDs in our sample; Top right: 9 LRDs
from the Greene et al. (2023) sample with broad-line H$\alpha$ emission and an
inferred SMBH mass. We obtain a tentative $2.6\sigma$ detection for this
subset.; Bottom left: 11 massive galaxies with stellar mass $\geq 2.5\times
10^{9}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$; Bottom right: 10 low-mass galaxies with stellar
masses $<2.5\times 10^{9}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$.

###  3.2. Analysis with StackFast

To analyze the individual observations and stack the X-ray photons associated
with LRDs, we used the StackFast package (Ananna, 2024, in prep.). StackFast
is a publicly available software that takes in positional data of sources,
locates all the observations where these sources appear and stacks photons
based on user-specified aperture and background sizes. The input aperture and
background sizes are multiples of $90\%$ energy encircling radius around each
source (henceforth, $R_{\rm 90}$). This radius depends on the distance of the
source from the pointing center of the observation on which it falls. The
$R_{\rm 90}$ for Chandra is calculated as follows111Further details are
provided in the Chandra proposer’s guide.:

$R_{\rm 90}=1.5+9\times\left(\frac{{\rm Angular~{}Distance}}{10}\right)^{1.9}$
(1)

For the analysis, the source apertures were fixed at $R_{\rm 90}$ and the
background annuli have radii of $(1.3-2)R_{\rm 90}$. The background radius is
small because of the substantial variation associated with the ICM of Abell
2744, implying that a more localized background will produce accurate
estimates of background/foreground values.

Table 2Upper limits on the SMBH masses of stacked samples

Bin | # | $z$ | $\log(M_{\rm\star})$ | $\log(L_{\rm 2-10keV})$ | $\log(L_{\rm bol})$ | $\log(M_{\rm BH})$ | $M_{\rm BH}/M_{\rm\star}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8)
All | 21 | 4.96 | 9.4 | $<42.91$ | $<44.11$ | $<6.01$ | $<4.07\times 10^{-4}$
AGN subset | 12 | 6.34 | 9.3 | $<43.28$ | $<44.49$ | $<6.39$ | $<1.23\times 10^{-3}$
$M_{\rm\star}<$ $2.5\times 10^{9}$ | 10 | 6.44 | 9.0 | $<43.32$ | $<44.54$ | $<6.44$ | $<2.75\times 10^{-3}$
$M_{\rm\star}\geq$ $2.5\times 10^{9}$ | 11 | 4.89 | 10.1 | $<43.08$ | $<44.28$ | $<6.18$ | $<1.20\times 10^{-4}$
$\mu<$ $1.69$ | 10 | 4.81 | 10.1 | $<43.07$ | $<44.27$ | $<6.17$ | $<1.17\times 10^{-4}$
$\mu\geq$ $1.69$ | 11 | 6.34 | $9.0$ | $<43.29$ | $<44.50$ | $<6.40$ | $<2.50\times 10^{-3}$
Broad H$\alpha$ line | 9 | 6.26 | 9.5 | $43.38^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ | $44.60^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ | $6.50^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ | $1.00\times 10^{-3}$

Columns are as follows: (1) Binning method of the LRDs for the stacking
analysis; (2) Number of galaxies in the stack; (3) and (4) Median redshift and
stellar mass of the galaxies in the bin, respectively; (5) $2-10$ keV band
X-ray luminosity; (6) Bolometric luminosity inferred from column (5) and the
X-ray-to-bolometric correction of Duras et al. (2020); (6) SMBH mass inferred
from the column (6) assuming Eddington limited accretion; and (8) Black hole-
to-galaxy stellar mass ratio.

StackFast also accounts for sudden fluctuations or the presence of other
sources in the background region by dividing up the background annulus into
twelve sectors of equal size and excluding regions with fewer than two counts
and regions with counts 2$\sigma$ above the median of the twelve sectors. The
exposure time is calculated by taking vignetting, bad pixels, and any areas
within the extraction region that fall outside the ACIS-I detectors. In
addition, StackFast takes a list of positions of known resolved sources within
Abell 2744, and for each source-observation pair, if a source of interest
(e.g., an LRD) fell within $1.5\times R_{\rm 90}$ of a previously known X-ray
source, that source-observation pair was excluded from our analysis.

##  4\. Results

###  4.1. Individual galaxies

The LRDs in our sample were identified as potential AGN host galaxies (Labbe
et al., 2023; Greene et al., 2023). Since SMBHs with masses of $10^{7}-10^{8}\
\rm{M_{\odot}}$ accreting at their Eddington limit could be detectable in the
Abell 2744 field with the deep Chandra observations, we first carry out X-ray
photometry at the position of individual LRDs.

To perform the photometry, we utilize the coordinates of the galaxies as
determined by JWST and rely on the Chandra ACIS-I images in the $0.5-2$ keV,
$2-7$ keV, and $0.5-7$ keV bands and use the StackFast as described in Section
3. None of the LRDs are detected at a significance $\geq 2\sigma$ in the
studied energy ranges. In the absence of detections, we place upper limits on
the X-ray luminosity of these galaxies and derive upper limits on their SMBH
masses, which are presented in Table LABEL:tab:sample and further discussed in
Section 4.3.

###  4.2. Stacking the sample of LRDs

Because the individual LRDs remain undetected, we boost the sensitivity of the
Chandra data by co-adding the X-ray photons from the individual galaxies. To
perform the stacking analysis, we utilize the X-ray data of the 21 individual
LRDs as discussed in Section 3.2. We note that the triply lensed galaxy is
included only once in our sample (ID 8296), which represents the brightest
JWST detection.

The top left panel of Figure 2 shows the stacked image of the 21 individual
LRDs in the $2-7$ keV band and reveals a non-detection. We also report non-
detections in the $0.5-2$ keV and $0.5-7$ keV bands. We note that the total
stacked, lensed exposure time of the Chandra X-ray data is $\approx 8.7\times
10^{7}$ s. Given these non-detections, we can place robust upper limits on the
mean X-ray luminosity and SMBH mass of the LRDs, which are presented in Table
LABEL:tab:limits and in Section 4.3.

While the full sample of LRDs does not reveal a statistically significant
detection, we split our sample based on their stellar mass and lensing
magnification to obtain potential detections. In the low-redshift universe,
the mass of SMBHs correlates with the stellar mass of galaxies/bulges (e.g.
Magorrian et al., 1998; Häring & Rix, 2004; Kormendy & Ho, 2013; Reines et
al., 2013). Assuming that a similar correlation exists at high redshifts, and
more massive LRDs host SMBHs with higher masses, we split the 21 LRDs into two
bins using the median stellar mass ($M_{\rm\star}=1.25\times 10^{10}\
\rm{M_{\odot}}$) of the sample. Stacking the 10/11 low-mass and high-mass
galaxies did not result in a statistically significant detection in either of
the stellar mass bins. The bottom panels of Figure 2 show the stacked images
for high-mass and low-mass sub-samples.

Next, we split the LRD galaxies based on their lensing magnification. Because
gravitational lensing boosts the X-ray photons associated with the high-
redshift galaxies but does not increase the level of ICM emission, stacking
galaxies with higher lensing magnification could result in significant
detection. To this end, we split the 21 LRDs based on the median lensing
magnification ($\mu=1.69$) of the sample, and co-add the X-ray photons from
the low-magnification and high-magnification samples. Yet again, we do not
detect a statistically significant detection for the sub-samples.

Finally, we co-add the sample of nine galaxies from the spectroscopic follow-
up of Greene et al. (2023), which galaxies exhibit broad-line $H\alpha$
emission, indicative of AGN activity. For this sub-sample, we obtained a
tentative, $2.6\sigma$, detection, shown in the top right panel of Figure 2.
To verify that the signal is not due to background fluctuations, we tested
different source and background apertures, which resulted in consistent
detections at the $\sim 2.5\sigma$ significance level.

These observed values and the limits on the X-ray luminosity and the SMBH
masses are further discussed in Section 4.3 and are collated in Table
LABEL:tab:limits.

Figure 3.— The relationship between the SMBH mass and the stellar masses of
galaxies. The yellow data points represent the upper limits obtained for the
individual LRDs. The thick dark green data point corresponds to the upper
limit measured for the stacked sample of 21 LRDs assuming Eddington-limited
accretion. The uncertainty in stellar mass corresponds to the standard
deviation. For reference, we also show the SMBH mass upper limits for the full
stacked sample assuming accretion at $10\%$ and $1\%$ of the Eddington limit
(green thin dashed). The tentative $2.6\sigma$ detection for the sample of
nine LRDs with broad H$\alpha$ line is shown with the solid dark green data
point. We also over-plot the scaling relations observed for local early-type
galaxies using the relation observed by Kormendy & Ho (2013) that was scaled
following Reines & Volonteri (2015), the best-fit relation for local AGN
(Reines & Volonteri, 2015), and for AGN up to $z<2.5$ (Suh et al., 2020). We
also plot the $z=10.07$ galaxy, UHZ 1, which hosts an over-massive SMBH
(Bogdán et al., 2024).

###  4.3. SMBH masses

In Tables LABEL:tab:sample and LABEL:tab:limits, we provide the observed
values and the $2\sigma$ upper limits on the X-ray luminosities and inferred
SMBH masses on the individual galaxies and the stacked samples, respectively.
Here, we outline the steps that were used to compute these values.

For the individual galaxies, we computed their $2\sigma$ upper limits using
the observed counts in the $2-7$ keV band by applying the Gehrels
approximation (Gehrels, 1986). To convert these values to $2-10$ keV band
X-ray luminosity, we utilized the exposure maps, assumed a power law model
with a slope of $\Gamma=1.9$ and Galactic column density, and used the
redshift of each galaxy. We also corrected the observed values by the lensing
magnification from the publicly available mass model of Abell 2744 Labbe et
al. (2023). From the $2-10$ keV band X-ray luminosity upper limits, we then
calculated the bolometric X-ray luminosities using the X-ray-to-bolometric
correction (Duras et al., 2020). We note that in these calculations we do not
include the substantial intrinsic scatter associated with the X-ray-to-
bolometric correction. The limits on the bolometric luminosities are in the
range of $L_{\rm bol}<(0.2-2)\times 10^{45}\ \rm{erg\ s^{-1}}$. To derive the
upper limits on the SMBH mass, we assumed Eddington-limited accretion. We
thereby obtain upper limits on the mass of SMBHs in the range of $M_{\rm
BH}<(1.5-15.8)\times 10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$.

For the stacked sample of 21 LRDs and the sub-samples (Section 4.2), we co-
added the X-ray counts associated with the individual galaxies and computed
observed value and the $2\sigma$ upper limits on the observed counts following
a similar approach as for individual galaxies. The SMBH mass value and limits
were calculated using a similar approach and, for the full sample, we place a
limit of $M_{\rm BH}<10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$ assuming Eddington-limited
accretion. We note that this upper limit is $\approx 1.5-2$ orders of
magnitude lower than the SMBH mass detected for the $z\approx 10$ sources, UHZ
1 and GHZ 9 (Bogdán et al., 2024; Kovacs et al., 2024). For the sub-samples,
we get fairly similar limits; the SMBHs cannot be more massive than a few
times $10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$ assuming Eddington-limited accretion. Taking
the tentative detection at face value for the subset of nine galaxies with
broad-line H$\alpha$ emission, we obtain a SMBH mass of $(3.2\pm 1.2)\times
10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$.

##  5\. Discussion

The main finding of our analysis is the non-detection of AGN in individual
LRDs and the weak/non-detection of stacked galaxy samples in the Chandra X-ray
data. Given the deep Chandra observations, the lensing magnification of
galaxies, and the stacking approach, we obtain upper limits of the order of
$M_{\rm BH}\sim 10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$ for typical SMBH masses (Tables
LABEL:tab:sample and LABEL:tab:limits). Using these highly constraining
limits, we place the population of LRDs on the $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm\star}$
relation. In Figure 3, we present this relation for the individual and the
stacked sample of LRDs. In the plot, we only highlight the limit for all
stacked galaxies but the limits on other stacked sub-samples are comparable
(Table LABEL:tab:limits). We note that the X-ray upper limits do not show a
dependence on the stellar mass of the galaxies, since the limits are primarily
driven by the number of counts in the source region, which, in turn, is
determined by the depth of the Chandra exposure time and the brightness of the
ICM of Abell 2744 at that spatial location.

Comparing the SMBH mass upper limits with the scaling relation for local
early-type galaxies (Kormendy & Ho, 2013), we find that all but one upper
limit lies either below the relations or is consistent within the scatter.
While the $M_{\rm BH}-M_{\rm\star}$ scaling relations for local and moderate
redshift ($z\lesssim 2.5$) AGN have a somewhat lower normalization (Reines &
Volonteri, 2015; Suh et al., 2020), most individual upper limits are
consistent with these relations. These constraints already suggest that most
LRDs are unlikely to host over-massive SMBHs. Similarly, the upper limit for
the stacked sample lies about an order of magnitude below the value determined
for local early-type galaxies, and is roughly consistent with scaling
relations obtained for AGN. We derive a black hole-to-galaxy stellar mass
ratio of only $\lesssim 0.04\%$ based on the stacked X-ray upper limits. This
conclusion is in stark contrast with that observed for many high-redshift
galaxies, which suggests that their SMBHs are over-massive relative to their
host galaxies and can reach black hole-to-galaxy stellar mass ratios as high
as $\sim 10\%-100\%$ (e.g. Bogdán et al., 2024; Kovacs et al., 2024; Furtak et
al., 2024; Li et al., 2024). As a caveat, we note that the upper limits on the
SMBH masses were calculated assuming Eddington-limited accretion. If, however,
we assume that the AGN accrete at $10\%$ of their Eddington-limit, a value
lower than what is inferred by Greene et al. (2023), the black hole-to-galaxy
stellar mass ratio is then $\lesssim 0.4\%$. This value would be comparable to
what is obtained from the scaling relations but falls significantly short of
the ratios observed for several high-redshift AGN. Thus, our X-ray
observations suggest that the population of LRDs do not host over-massive
SMBHs. Instead, LRDs may host SMBHs, whose masses are consistent with the
scaling relations established for local and moderate redshift AGN or they
accrete at a small fraction of their Eddington limit.

Surprisingly, the tentative $2.6\sigma$ X-ray detection of LRDs with broad-
line H$\alpha$ emission contradicts the NIRSpec spectroscopic results obtained
by Greene et al. (2023). Indeed, the weak X-ray detection implies a SMBH mass
of $3.2\times 10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$, which is 1.5 orders of magnitude lower
than the median SMBH mass ($10^{8}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$) inferred based on the
JWST data. The difference between our findings and that of Greene et al.
(2023) is that we assume Eddington-limited accretion, while they infer the
mean Eddington limit as $\sim 22\%$. Assuming their Eddington limit for our
sample, our SMBH mass upper limit would increase to $\approx 1.6\times 10^{7}\
\rm{M_{\odot}}$, which is still $\approx 6$ times lower than the estimate
obtained by Greene et al. (2023). To reconcile the SMBH masses between the
JWST near-infrared and the Chandra X-ray observations, an Eddington rate of
$\approx 3\%$ would be required, which, however, would be inconsistent with
the JWST measurements. The lack of X-ray emission could also be explained if
the accretion disks of the AGN were heavily obscured. However, to hide the
$2-7$ keV band X-ray photons observed by Chandra, extremely high $N_{\rm
H}\gtrsim 10^{25}\ \rm{cm^{-2}}$ columns would be required. This high required
column density is inconsistent with those inferred from JWST data, which
estimate columns of a few times $10^{21}\ \rm{cm^{-2}}$. Alternatively, the
difference between the X-ray and near-infrared measurements may stem from
systematic uncertainties associated with the determination of SMBH masses from
the NIRSpec data. Specifically, Greene et al. (2023) employed scaling
relations between the broad-line region size and the luminosity of the
H$\alpha$ lines established for local galaxies (Greene & Ho, 2005; Reines et
al., 2013). However, this relation may not be applicable for high-redshift,
high-accretion rate sources, and in these galaxies, the SMBH mass may
therefore be significantly overestimated (Du et al., 2015; Linzer et al.,
2022). Recently, Bertemes et al. (2024) investigated virial black hole mass
estimators and found that numerous factors, such as measurement uncertainties,
spectral blending, non-virial conditions, and dust obscuration, can lead to
orders of magnitude variations in the inferred SMBH mass. Thus, the
contradiction between X-ray and near-infrared data hints that the virial
relations to infer SMBH masses may not applicable for high-redshift AGN.

The discovery of SMBHs in the high-redshift ($z\sim 10$) universe suggests
that some of these SMBHs likely originated from heavy seeds, i.e. from the
direct collapse of massive gas clouds (Natarajan et al., 2024). However, LRDs
reside at lower redshifts and their mean inferred SMBH mass does not exceed
$\lesssim 10^{6}\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$. Therefore, when placing these galaxies on
BH growth tracks (e.g. Kovacs et al., 2024), we conclude that SMBHs of LRDs
could have originated from light seeds, i.e. from the collapse of the first
generation of stars, with initial masses of $10-100\ \rm{M_{\odot}}$. Our
results support the earlier theoretical suggestion that multiple seeding
mechanisms likely operate simultaneously in the early universe and that
offsets from the local BH mass stellar mass relation at higher redshifts may,
in fact, hold important clues to the nature of early BH seeds Natarajan
(2012). Models tracing the assembly history of black holes over cosmic time,
in which seeding ceases by $z\sim 10$ typically report that even then some
seeding signatures may persist to late times Ricarte & Natarajan (2018). While
LRDs appear to be consistent with originating from low mass seeds, however, if
seed formation does not cease and continues to later cosmic epochs, as
proposed by Natarajan (2021), then they could also have originated from late-
forming heavy seeds and we could be witnessing extended seeding. At the
highest redshifts $z\sim 9-12$, massive seeding is predicted to result in the
production of a transient class of galaxies, the over-massive black hole
galaxies (OBGs) that are offset in the BH mass - stellar mass scaling relation
compared to the local one Agarwal et al. (2013) reflecting initial conditions.
At later times, if seeding persists, then where BHs end up on the scaling
relations may well be determined primarily once again by seeding rather than
their accretion history. The prospects for addressing these important open
questions looks bright with more detailed follow-up studies of the extended
environment of LRDs.

Acknowledgements. TTA acknowledges support from ADAP grant 80NSSC24K0692. Á.B.
acknowledges support from the Smithsonian Institution and the Chandra Project
through NASA contract NAS8-03060. O.E.K is supported by the GAČR EXPRO grant
No. 21-13491X. P.N. acknowledges support from the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation that fund the Black Hole
Initiative (BHI) at Harvard University where she serves as one of the PIs.

## References

  * Agarwal et al. (2013) Agarwal, B., Davis, A. J., Khochfar, S., Natarajan, P., & Dunlop, J. S. 2013, MNRAS, 432, 3438, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt696
  * Akins et al. (2023) Akins, H. B., Casey, C. M., Allen, N., et al. 2023, ApJ, 956, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acef21
  * Ananna (2024, in prep.) Ananna, T. T. 2024, in prep., ApJ
  * Atek et al. (2023) Atek, H., Chemerynska, I., Wang, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 5486, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1998
  * Barro et al. (2024) Barro, G., Pérez-González, P. G., Kocevski, D. D., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, 128, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad167e
  * Bertemes et al. (2024) Bertemes, C., Wylezalek, D., Rupke, D. S. N., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14475, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14475
  * Bogdán et al. (2022) Bogdán, Á., Kovács, O. E., Jones, C., et al. 2022, ApJ, 927, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac4ae5
  * Bogdán et al. (2024) Bogdán, Á., Goulding, A. D., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 126, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-02111-9
  * Burgasser et al. (2024) Burgasser, A. J., Bezanson, R., Labbe, I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 962, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad206f
  * Castellano et al. (2022a) Castellano, M., Fontana, A., Treu, T., et al. 2022a, ApJ, 938, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac94d0
  * Castellano et al. (2022b) —. 2022b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.06666.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06666
  * Du et al. (2015) Du, P., Hu, C., Lu, K.-X., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 22, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/22
  * Duras et al. (2020) Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817
  * Fruscione et al. (2006) Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6270, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V, doi: 10.1117/12.671760
  * Furtak et al. (2024) Furtak, L. J., Labbé, I., Zitrin, A., et al. 2024, Nature, 628, 57, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07184-8
  * Gehrels (1986) Gehrels, N. 1986, ApJ, 303, 336, doi: 10.1086/164079
  * Goulding et al. (2023) Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., Setton, D. J., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf7c5
  * Greene & Ho (2005) Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122, doi: 10.1086/431897
  * Greene et al. (2023) Greene, J. E., Labbe, I., Goulding, A. D., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2309.05714, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2309.05714
  * Harikane et al. (2023) Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 959, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad029e
  * Häring & Rix (2004) Häring, N., & Rix, H.-W. 2004, ApJ, 604, L89, doi: 10.1086/383567
  * HI4PI Collaboration et al. (2016) HI4PI Collaboration, Ben Bekhti, N., Flöer, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A116, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629178
  * Killi et al. (2023) Killi, M., Watson, D., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.03065, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.03065
  * Kocevski et al. (2023) Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, ApJ, 954, L4, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace5a0
  * Kokorev et al. (2023) Kokorev, V., Fujimoto, S., Labbe, I., et al. 2023, ApJ, 957, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad037a
  * Kormendy & Ho (2013) Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, ARA&A, 51, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811
  * Kovacs et al. (2024) Kovacs, O. E., Bogdan, A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.14745.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14745
  * Labbé et al. (2023) Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E., et al. 2023, Nature, 616, 266, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2
  * Labbe et al. (2023) Labbe, I., Greene, J. E., Bezanson, R., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.07320, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.07320
  * Li et al. (2024) Li, J., Silverman, J. D., Shen, Y., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.00074, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.00074
  * Linzer et al. (2022) Linzer, N. B., Goulding, A. D., Greene, J. E., & Hickox, R. C. 2022, ApJ, 937, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d5c
  * Magorrian et al. (1998) Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353
  * Maiolino et al. (2024) Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2024, Nature, 627, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07052-5
  * Matthee et al. (2023) Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.05448, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05448
  * Natarajan (2012) Natarajan, P. 2012, in 39th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Vol. 39, 1340
  * Natarajan (2021) Natarajan, P. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 1413, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3724
  * Natarajan et al. (2024) Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 960, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0e76
  * Pérez-González et al. (2024) Pérez-González, P. G., Barro, G., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.08782, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.08782
  * Reines et al. (2013) Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775, 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116
  * Reines & Volonteri (2015) Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813, 82, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82
  * Ricarte & Natarajan (2018) Ricarte, A., & Natarajan, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 1995, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2851
  * Robertson et al. (2023) Robertson, B. E., Tacchella, S., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 611, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01921-1
  * Suh et al. (2020) Suh, H., Civano, F., Trakhtenbrot, B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 889, 32, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5f5f
  * Übler et al. (2023) Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A145, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346137

The analyzed set of Chandra ACIS-I observations is listed in LABEL:tab:data.

Table 3Analyzed Chandra ACIS-I observations of Abell 2744. Observation ID | $t_{\rm exp}^{\rm clean}\ \rm{(ks)}$ | Detector | Observation Date | Observation ID | $t_{\rm exp}^{\rm clean}\ \rm{(ks)}$ | Detector | Observation Date
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
7915 | 18.11 | ACIS-I | 2006-11-08 | 25278 | 9.78 | ACIS-I | 2022-12-02
8477 | 44.63 | ACIS-I | 2007-06-10 | 27575 | 19.65 | ACIS-I | 2022-12-02
8557 | 27.30 | ACIS-I | 2007-06-14 | 25936 | 12.92 | ACIS-I | 2023-01-26
7712 | 8.07 | ACIS-I | 2007-09-10 | 27678 | 12.42 | ACIS-I | 2023-01-27
26280 | 11.39 | ACIS-I | 2022-01-18 | 25939 | 14.32 | ACIS-I | 2023-01-28
25912 | 15.10 | ACIS-I | 2022-04-18 | 27679 | 11.93 | ACIS-I | 2023-01-28
25911 | 16.59 | ACIS-I | 2022-04-19 | 27680 | 13.21 | ACIS-I | 2023-01-28
25934 | 18.96 | ACIS-I | 2022-04-21 | 27681 | 9.78 | ACIS-I | 2023-01-29
25931 | 14.55 | ACIS-I | 2022-04-23 | 25909 | 19.33 | ACIS-I | 2023-05-24
25954 | 13.39 | ACIS-I | 2022-04-24 | 27856 | 15.88 | ACIS-I | 2023-05-25
25928 | 15.36 | ACIS-I | 2022-05-03 | 27857 | 12.92 | ACIS-I | 2023-05-26
25942 | 15.18 | ACIS-I | 2022-05-04 | 27563 | 11.70 | ACIS-I | 2023-06-08
25958 | 11.81 | ACIS-I | 2022-05-04 | 25941 | 32.65 | ACIS-I | 2023-06-09
25971 | 12.62 | ACIS-I | 2022-05-04 | 27896 | 13.73 | ACIS-I | 2023-06-10
25932 | 14.08 | ACIS-I | 2022-05-05 | 25917 | 35.62 | ACIS-I | 2023-06-22
25972 | 31.14 | ACIS-I | 2022-05-18 | 25950 | 29.69 | ACIS-I | 2023-06-30
25970 | 23.99 | ACIS-I | 2022-06-12 | 25946 | 29.69 | ACIS-I | 2023-07-01
25919 | 25.03 | ACIS-I | 2022-06-13 | 25965 | 35.63 | ACIS-I | 2023-07-07
25920 | 29.67 | ACIS-I | 2022-06-13 | 25960 | 24.76 | ACIS-I | 2023-07-08
25922 | 31.11 | ACIS-I | 2022-06-14 | 25926 | 61.18 | ACIS-I | 2023-07-12
25968 | 26.92 | ACIS-I | 2022-07-12 | 25955 | 43.42 | ACIS-I | 2023-07-20
25967 | 33.12 | ACIS-I | 2022-08-01 | 25921 | 16.87 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-04
25929 | 26.42 | ACIS-I | 2022-08-26 | 25959 | 15.39 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-05
25925 | 23.41 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-02 | 27974 | 28.71 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-05
25956 | 13.90 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-02 | 25940 | 27.72 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-10
25913 | 19.64 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-03 | 25966 | 18.84 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-13
25915 | 20.31 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-03 | 28370 | 20.73 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-13
25923 | 10.64 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-04 | 25933 | 23.88 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-15
25279 | 23.69 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-06 | 28483 | 20.22 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-19
25924 | 21.54 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-07 | 25935 | 24.08 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-20
25944 | 20.85 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-08 | 27780 | 14.90 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-21
25957 | 21.29 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-08 | 25943 | 16.69 | ACIS-I | 2023-08-31
27347 | 21.45 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-09 | 28872 | 13.09 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-01
25918 | 20.38 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-13 | 25916 | 22.20 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-03
25953 | 24.24 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-17 | 25964 | 20.32 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-05
25908 | 21.83 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-23 | 25961 | 18.84 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-09
27449 | 9.78 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-24 | 28886 | 9.96 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-10
25910 | 19.31 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-25 | 28887 | 19.85 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-10
27450 | 9.78 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-26 | 25962 | 21.81 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-11
25945 | 16.77 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-27 | 25927 | 20.53 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-16
25948 | 26.80 | ACIS-I | 2022-09-30 | 25947 | 14.90 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-24
25969 | 26.92 | ACIS-I | 2022-10-09 | 28920 | 15.28 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-25
25914 | 27.77 | ACIS-I | 2022-10-15 | 25952 | 10.84 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-27
25907 | 36.80 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-08 | 28934 | 19.83 | ACIS-I | 2023-09-29
25973 | 18.15 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-11 | 27739 | 21.31 | ACIS-I | 2023-10-01
25930 | 19.16 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-15 | 25277 | 18.68 | ACIS-I | 2023-10-02
27556 | 24.64 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-15 | 28951 | 12.90 | ACIS-I | 2023-10-05
25951 | 28.45 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-18 | 28952 | 13.79 | ACIS-I | 2023-10-08
25938 | 18.12 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-26 | 28910 | 25.75 | ACIS-I | 2023-10-25
25963 | 37.08 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-26 | 25949 | 20.82 | ACIS-I | 2023-10-27
25937 | 29.73 | ACIS-I | 2022-11-27 |  |  |  |