Fabio Pacucci Bao Nguyen Stefano Carniani Roberto Maiolino Xiaohui Fan
Fabio Pacucci Bao Nguyen Stefano Carniani Roberto Maiolino Xiaohui Fan
JWST CEERS & JADES Active Galaxies at z = 4 − 7 Violate the Local M• − M⋆ Relation at > 3σ:
Implications for Low-Mass Black Holes and Seeding Models
Fabio Pacucci ,1, 2 Bao Nguyen ,3, 4 Stefano Carniani ,5 Roberto Maiolino ,6, 7, 8 and Xiaohui Fan 3
4 Department of Physics, University of Arizona, 1118 East Fourth Street, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
5 Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy
6 Kavli Institute for Cosmology, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK
7 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 19 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
8 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
ABSTRACT
JWST is revolutionizing our understanding of the high-z Universe by expanding the black hole
horizon, looking farther and to smaller masses, and revealing the stellar light of their hosts. New
detections of high-z systems offer unprecedented insights into the formation of the first black holes
and their early co-evolution with galaxies. By examining JWST galaxies at z = 4 − 7 that host
Hα-detected black holes, we investigate (i) the high-z M• − M⋆ relation and (ii) the black hole mass
distribution, especially in its low-mass range (M• ≲ 106.5 M⊙ ). With a detailed statistical analysis,
our findings conclusively reveal a high-z M• − M⋆ relation that deviates at > 3σ confidence level from
the local relation: log(M• / M⊙ ) = −2.38+0.82 +0.09
−0.83 + 1.06−0.09 log(M⋆ / M⊙ ). Black holes are overmassive
by ∼ 10 − 100× compared to their local counterparts in similar galactic hosts. This fact is not due
to a selection effect in surveys. Moreover, our analysis predicts the possibility of detecting in high-z
JWST surveys 5 − 18× more black holes with M• ≲ 106.5 M⊙ , and 10 − 30× more with M• ≲ 108.5 M⊙ ,
compared to local relation’s predictions. The lighter black holes preferentially occupy galaxies with
a stellar mass of ∼ 107.5 − 108 M⊙ . We have yet to detect these sources because (i) they may be
inactive (duty cycles 1% − 10%), (ii) the host overshines the AGN, or (iii) the AGN is obscured and
not immediately recognizable by line diagnostics. A search of low-mass black holes in existing JWST
surveys will further test the M• − M⋆ relation. Current JWST fields represent a treasure trove of black
hole systems at z = 4 − 7; their detection will provide crucial insights into their early evolution and
co-evolution with their galactic hosts.
Keywords: Active galaxies (17) — Supermassive black holes (1663) — Galaxy evolution (594) —
Scaling relations (2031) — Surveys (1671)
(i.e., where the Hα line is effective in measuring masses) et al. 2023; Kocevski et al. 2023). Crucially, Volon-
that is filling the 106 − 108 M⊙ black hole mass range teri et al. (2023) posed the timely question of whether
(Harikane et al. 2023a; Kocevski et al. 2023; Onoue et al. z > 9 galaxies recently discovered by JWST host a cen-
2023; Carnall et al. 2023; Übler et al. 2023). This red- tral black hole and what their masses might be. At these
shift range is now filled with many galaxies hosting black redshifts, the validity of the M• − M⋆ is uncertain.
holes, also of small mass, that allow some statistical in- The aforementioned fundamental unknowns of the
ference. early cosmic epochs are connected. Several studies have
The JWST is also revolutionizing the field in another shown that, in the high-z Universe, offsets from the local
aspect: revealing the starlight emitted by the hosts of relations may favor specific flavors of black hole seeds
SMBHs. Although we detected more than 200 quasars (see, e.g., Hirschmann et al. 2010; Visbal & Haiman
at z > 6 (Fan et al. 2022), these SMBHs are very mas- 2018; Pacucci et al. 2018; Nguyen et al. 2019; Greene
sive, accrete at or near the Eddington luminosity, and et al. 2020; King & Nealon 2021; Hu et al. 2022; Koud-
typically outshine their host galaxy, with typical lumi- mani et al. 2022; Schneider et al. 2023). Hence, con-
nosities of > 1046 erg s−1 . Thus, detecting the host’s straining the shape of the M• − M⋆ relation at high-z,
starlight of SMBHs during the reionization epoch has especially its low-mass end (i.e., with sources that are
been elusive (Ding et al. 2022). With the photon- more common than quasars), will enlighten us on the
collecting power of JWST, we can now detect SMBHs seeding mechanisms during earlier epochs.
that are smaller in mass, farther out, and characterized Using new JWST observations of galaxies hosting
by lower luminosities (∼ 1044 − 1045 erg s−1 ). As they SMBHs at z = 4 − 7, we pose two fundamental ques-
do not outshine their hosts, making estimates of their tions: (i) What do current JWST observations imply
stellar mass is now achievable in this redshift range. regarding the high-z scaling relations? (ii) How many
What is the astrophysical picture that these obser- SMBHs do we expect to observe with JWST in current
vations provide us? Expanding the black hole horizon and future surveys, especially in the lower end of the
in redshift and decreasing the detected black hole mass mass distribution?
enlighten us regarding two crucial astrophysical topics:
2. DATA
1. The formation of the first population of black
We examine the following data set of SMBHs and their
holes, referred to as black hole seeds.
host galaxies:
2. The early co-evolution of black holes and their
galactic hosts. • 8 sources reported by Harikane et al. (2023a), ob-
tained from the Early Release Observations (Pon-
Black hole seeds formed at z ∼ 20 − 30, or ∼ 200 toppidan et al. 2022), which targeted the SMACS
Myr after the Big Bang, (Barkana & Loeb 2001), when 0723 field, the Early Release Science observations
the first population of stars (Pop III) were born. Seeds of GLASS (Treu et al. 2022), and the Cosmic
are typically categorized into light (M• ∼ 102 M⊙ ) and Evolution Early Release Science Survey (CEERS,
heavy (M• ∼ 105 M⊙ ) seeds (see, e.g., the reviews Finkelstein et al. 2023). From this sample, we in-
Woods et al. 2019; Inayoshi et al. 2020; Fan et al. 2022). cluded only sources that are not gravitationally
By detecting black holes at progressively higher redshift, lensed because lensed objects follow different de-
we automatically shrink the time frame between detec- tection limits.
tion and formation, thus constraining more tightly the
properties of early seeds (Pacucci & Loeb 2022). • 2 sources reported by Kocevski et al. (2023) from
The existence of a clear correlation, at least in the lo- the CEERS survey.
cal Universe, between the mass of the central SMBH and • 12 sources reported by Maiolino et al. (2023b) from
some properties of its host indicates that these two cru- the JWST Advanced Deep Extragalactic Survey
cial cosmic players co-evolved (Magorrian et al. 1998; (JADES, Eisenstein et al. 2023). Three of these
Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000; Kor- 12 sources are indicated as candidate dual AGN,
mendy & Ho 2013; Reines & Volonteri 2015; Shankar and the mass of the secondary SMBH is also pro-
et al. 2019). These correlations (e.g., the M• − M⋆ be- vided. As these secondary SMBHs are candidates,
tween the SMBH mass and the host’s stellar mass) have we decided not to include them in this analysis.
been tested at low redshift and also scrutinized at higher
redshift, although with more uncertain and scarce data • 1 source reported by Übler et al. (2023) from the
(see, e.g., Volonteri & Reines 2016 and more recently Galaxy Assembly with NIRSpec IFS survey (GA-
with JWST data, e.g., Maiolino et al. 2023a; Larson NIFS).
3
We chose these sources because of two critical com- JWST era (see, e.g., Wang et al. 2010), and even more
monalities: they are all spectroscopically confirmed with locally (see, e.g., Mezcua et al. 2023, up to z = 0.9).
NIRSpec, and their black hole masses are estimated with
3.2. JWST Sensitivity in Hα and Mass Limits
the Hα line (Greene & Ho 2005). Note that NIRSpec
provides near-IR spectroscopy up to 5.3 µm; hence this All SMBHs in our sample were detected, and their
method can be applied to estimate SMBH masses up mass estimated, using the Hα line emission (see Sec.
to z ∼ 7. All the sources investigated here are in the 2). To compare our analysis with the local M• − M⋆
redshift range 4 < z < 7 and are characterized by an relation derived by Reines & Volonteri (2015), we use
estimate of the hosts’ stellar mass. the formula derived by Reines et al. (2013) to estimate
As this work analyzes the possible bias introduced by the black hole mass:
observations, we exclude the two black holes at z > 8 M• LHα
log = 6.60 + 0.47 log +
(Maiolino et al. 2023a; Larson et al. 2023) whose masses M⊙ 1042 erg s−1
are estimated with other optical lines and require a dif-
(2)
FWHMHα
ferent analysis. + 2.06 log .
103 km s−1
3. METHODS We recalculate the black hole masses in our sample that
are not estimated by Eq. 2 according to this relation
In this Section, we describe the analytical and statis-
for consistency. This procedure was also followed by
tical tools used to analyze the data and infer the prop-
Maiolino et al. (2023b). Note that LHα and the full-
erties of the population of z = 4 − 7 galactic systems.
width at half maximum (FWHM) refer to the compo-
3.1. Local Scaling Relation nent associated with the broad line region (BLR) of the
AGN.
We consider the relation derived by Reines & Volonteri To determine the sensitivity limit of JWST, we re-
(2015) as our benchmark for the M• − M⋆ correlation in quire NIRSpec to perform a 3σ detection, or better,
the local Universe. We adopted this relation because it to positively identify a BLR and, thus, a black hole at
was empirically estimated from a sample of bright AGN the center of its host. For a medium JWST program
hosted in galaxies with stellar masses comparable with (e.g., CEERS and JADES), the sensitivity for a resolu-
those of our sample and because it also uses the broad tion element of the spectrum is ∼ 10−19 erg s−1 cm−2 .
Hα line to estimate black hole masses. On the other Considering a resolution element of ∼ 300 km s−1 , and
hand, the standard relation Kormendy & Ho (2013) was an FWHM of 1000 km s−1 (the minimum FWHM for a
determined from local, massive, and quiescent galaxies BLR identified in Harikane et al. 2023a), the sensitivity
hosting non-accreting black holes at their centers. The on an integrated line is ≈ 1.8 × 10−19 erg s−1 cm−2 , or
Reines & Volonteri (2015) relation is the following: ≈ 5.5 × 10−19 erg s−1 cm−2 for a 3σ detection.
M•
M⋆
From this limiting flux, we compute the LHα luminos-
log = α + β log , (1) ity (at different redshifts) and thus estimate the mini-
M⊙ 1011 M⊙
mum black hole mass for which NIRSpec can execute a
where α = 7.45±0.08 and β = 1.05±0.11. This relation 3σ detection. We adopt the standard ΛCDM cosmol-
indicates that, at z ∼ 0, the black hole mass is typically ogy from Planck Collaboration et al. (2020) to find the
0.1% of the stellar mass contained in the bulge of its luminosity distance dL (z). Additionally, NIRSpec must
host. discern the Hα FWHM from the host’s emission to ac-
Recent studies (e.g., Kocevski et al. 2023; Harikane curately estimate the black hole mass. Considering typ-
et al. 2023a; Übler et al. 2023; Maiolino et al. 2023a,b) ical radii of z = 4 − 7 galaxies discovered by JWST and
have also used the relation in Reines & Volonteri (2015) estimating their velocity dispersion from local galaxies,
to compare the behavior of their high-z systems with we calculated that the host’s dispersion does not affect
z ∼ 0 ones. They find indications that the black holes the Hα sensitivity thus far calculated for galaxies with
grow faster than their host galaxy at z > 4. Interest- a stellar mass M⋆ < 1011 M⊙ . Hence, our sensitivity
ingly, Bogdan et al. (2023) reported the discovery of a estimates based on the Hα luminosity are correct in the
gravitationally-lensed quasar at z = 10.3, with an esti- mass range we consider.
mated black hole mass comparable to its stellar mass, Figure 1 shows the data set used, along with the limit-
and Natarajan et al. (2023) suggested its origin as a ing sensitivities for NIRSpec, calculated at z = 4, 5, 6, 7.
heavy black hole seed. However, the detection of over- All data points are above the limiting sensitivities at
massive black holes is not new, as it was already sug- their respective detection redshift. The figure also high-
gested by sporadic observations at z ∼ 6 in the pre- lights the difference between the M• − M⋆ relation by
4
the 1σ uncertainty in the stellar and black hole masses. As Hence, the surface density of sources with M• < M̃• , at
a comparison, the dotted, brown line displays the M• − M⋆ redshift z, is:
relation by Greene et al. (2020).
Ψ(M⋆ , z) = P(M• < M̃• |M⋆ ) × V (z) × ϕ(M⋆ , z) . (6)
Reines & Volonteri (2015) and by Greene et al. (2020).
The latter is even more in tension with JWST data than Thus, the expected number of sources with M• < M̃•
the former. observable by JWST with the Hα line, at redshift z, is:
Z M⋆max
3.3. High-z Galaxy Stellar Mass Function Ψ(M⋆ , z) dM⋆ , (7)
M⋆min
Galaxies are not equally distributed in stellar mass.
To estimate the likelihood of JWST detecting hosts at where M⋆min and M⋆max represent the minimum and
different stellar masses, we use the galaxy stellar mass maximum stellar mass, respectively, in our considered
function (SMF) in the range z = 4 − 8 by Song et al. sample. We limit our analysis within this stellar mass
(2016): range to avoid overestimation bias from the lower stel-
α lar mass end. While more galaxies are distributed at
ϕ ∗ M⋆
M⋆
ϕ(M⋆ , z) = ∗ exp − ∗ , (3) lower stellar masses, they are dimmer and less likely to
M M∗ M
be observed by JWST, so it is reasonable to keep our
where the parameters M ∗ , ϕ∗ , and α are calibrated for estimates within the stellar mass range observed so far.
the different redshifts considered. This SMF is derived
from the ultraviolet luminosity function based on obser- 3.5. Likelihood Function and Estimate of the High-z
vations in the CANDELS/GOODS and Hubble Ultra M• − M⋆ Relation
Deep fields (Song et al. 2016). The SMF is expressed in To model the likelihood of the parameters of the high-
units of Mpc−3 dex−1 ; hence, to convert into a surface z M• − M⋆ relation, given JWST data, we consider the
density (arcmin−2 dex−1 ) for different redshift bins of following factors:
5
Figure 2. Left panel: in red, the high-z M• − M⋆ relation derived from JWST data at z = 4 − 7. The dark-shaded 1σ
uncertainty region is derived from sampling n = 1000 M• − M⋆ relations randomly chosen within the 1σ three-dimensional
contour of the fit parameters. The red dotted lines and light-shaded region represent the best-fit intrinsic scatter of 0.62 dex
√
(defined as ν sec θ, see Sec. 3.5). Right panel: the posterior distribution of the parameters defining the M• − M⋆ . The
solid blue line and black dashed lines of the one-dimensional distributions denote the median and 1σ uncertainties of the fit
parameters. The solid contour lines in the two-dimensional distributions denote the 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ joint uncertainties.
standard deviations. To perform this test, we use the (i) Even considering all the continuum emission in these
statistics: systems to be produced by stars, they are still located
many sigmas above the local M• −M⋆ relation (Maiolino
M•z (M⋆ ) − M•loc (M⋆ ) et al. 2023b); (ii) Significant deviations are not seen if
t(M⋆ ) = , (12)
s∆ these systems are compared with other local relations,
where M•z is the black hole mass inferred in the high-z such as the M• − σ relation with the central stellar ve-
relation, M•loc is the black p
hole mass for the local re- locity dispersion, and the M• − Mdyn relation with the
lation. Furthermore, s∆ = s2z /nz + s2L /nL , where sz dynamical mass of the host: observational biases should
and sL are the corrected standard deviations computed not play a significant role.
for the high-z and the local relation, respectively. The Hence, we conclude that the departure from the local
error sampling for the local and the high-z relations are M• − M⋆ relation in the high-z Universe is real, i.e., not
obtained with sample numbers of nL = 244 and nz = 23, due to a selection effect in flux-limited surveys. In other
respectively. words, the high-z galactic systems that JWST is detect-
Backed by this test, we conclude that the high-z re- ing belong to a population of sources statistically differ-
lation is statistically different from the local re- ent from the population from which the local M• − M⋆
lation at > 3σ. Such a substantial deviation from the relation was derived. Black holes are significantly
local M• − M⋆ relation is not due to the JWST sensi- overmassive with respect to their host galaxies
tivity limit. In fact, the MCMC relations inferred by in the high-z Universe.
taking or not taking the JWST sensitivity limit into ac-
count are only shifted by ∼ 0.2 dex vertically from each 4.2. Exploring the Low-mass Range of the Black Hole
other. Distribution at z = 4 − 7 with JWST
As pointed out by Maiolino et al. (2023b), this offset JWST’s strength resides not only in expanding the
may partly be due to an underestimation of the stellar redshift horizon of black holes but also in peering below
masses of the hosts. A significant underestimation, suf- the tip of their mass distribution, discovering a poten-
ficient to bring the systems back on the local relation, tially numerous population of lower-mass objects. How
is, nonetheless, excluded for the following two reasons: low in black hole mass can we reach with JWST, given
8
Figure 3. Left panel: expected surface density of sources with a mass M• ≲ 106.5 M⊙ , i.e., lighter than the smallest SMBH
in our dataset: JADES 62309 (Maiolino et al. 2023b), assuming the local M• − M⋆ relation. The shaded regions account for
uncertainties in the black hole mass measurement using the Hα line (Eq. 2) and the SMF (Eq. 3). The expected surface density
is provided for different redshifts z ∼ 4, 5, 6, with a redshift binning of ∆z = 1. Right panel: same as the left panel, but
using our inferred high-z relation. The peaks of the distributions are shifted to hosts with lower stellar masses, and the surface
density of observable light-mass black holes is higher.
• Accretion at a lower Eddington ratio, which makes the peak of the observable stellar mass distribution is
these AGN not easily detectable. The inferred ac- lower: 107.5 − 108 M⊙ .
cretion duty cycle would be 1% − 10% (see, e.g.,
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Maiolino et al. 2023b where they estimate it as
10%). We used 23 galaxies discovered at z = 4 − 7 by JWST
in the JADES, CEERS, and GA-NIFS fields, hosting
• An host galaxy that overshines the AGN, which central SMBHs with Hα-determined masses, to investi-
makes them more challenging to detect (Schneider gate, with an MCMC approach, the high-z M• − M⋆
et al. 2023). relation and the mass distribution of black holes, espe-
cially its low-mass end.
• Obscuration of the central AGN, which makes Our main findings are summarized as follows:
them hard to identify with standard narrow-line
diagnostics. In fact, high-z AGN diagnostics over- • The inferred high-z M• − M⋆ relation deviates sig-
lap with the local ones. nificantly (> 3σ) from the local relation. This fact
is not due to selection effects in a flux-limited sur-
Our predictions can also be compared with results vey. We showed that the low-z and the high-z
from semi-analytical models. For example, Trinca et al. galactic populations are statistically different.
(2023) estimates the number of black holes detectable in
• Black holes are overmassive, by a factor ∼ 10−100,
JADES and CEERS within the mass range 104 −108 M⊙ .
when compared to z ∼ 0 systems of similar stellar
In particular, that study predicts that the black hole
mass.
mass peaks in the mass range 106 −108 M⊙ , which agrees
with our general mass distribution using both the local • Our inferred high-z relation predicts, at z = 4 − 6,
and the inferred high-z relation. However, Trinca et al. 5 − 18× more black holes of mass ≲ 106.5 M⊙ , and
(2023) predicts that the galaxy stellar mass distribution 10 − 30× more with ≲ 108.5 M⊙ , compared to the
of observable sources peaks in the mass range 108 −1010 , local relation. The low-mass black holes will be
which is similar to what we predict assuming the local preferentially found in hosts of ∼ 107.5 − 108 M⊙
relation. If our inferred high-z relation is valid, however, in stellar mass.
10
Figure 4. Left panel: expected surface density of sources with a mass < M• , for z = 4, 5, 6, assuming the local M• − M⋆
relation. The two vertical lines indicate the lightest (JADES 62309, Maiolino et al. 2023b) and heaviest (GS 3073, Übler et al.
2023) black holes included in the data set. The horizontal line indicates the surface density of sources identified by Harikane
et al. (2023a) in CEERS (8 sources in ≈ 72 arcmin−2 ). The 1σ error bars account for uncertainties in the black hole mass
measurement using the Hα line (Eq. 2) and the SMF (Eq. 3). Right panel: same as the left panel, but using the inferred
high-z relation. Again, the surface density of observable black holes is higher for all redshifts.
• Searching for low-mass (≲ 106.5 M⊙ ) black holes Figure 5 offers a pictorial representation of the cur-
in existing JWST fields can be a robust test of our rent black hole horizon, defined as the farthest redshift
M• − M⋆ relation. at which JWST can detect a black hole of a given mass,
Discoveries of single, high-z sources containing black using the Hα broad emission line. For this qualitative
holes, such as GN-z11 (Maiolino et al. 2023a), are out- estimate, we use a bolometric correction for the broad
standing and prove the power of JWST in uncovering component of the Hα of 1/130 (Stern & Laor 2012;
the early Universe. The uncovering of populations of Maiolino et al. 2023b). The blue points represent the
high-z systems with black holes is now starting to allow sources we used in this study, together with GN-z11 (in
more thorough investigations into their general proper- red), the farthest black hole with a spectroscopic confir-
ties and to compare them with the reality of the local mation (Maiolino et al. 2023a).
Universe. While the general population of quasars stacks up on
In the local Universe, past the cosmic noon, galactic the “southeast” of this chart (i.e., large black holes at
systems follow, with some scatter, all the standard rela- lower redshift), JWST allows us to reach farther in red-
tions: the M• − M⋆ , the M• − σ, and the M• − Mdyn . shift and lower in mass than ever. Because the SMBHs
The high-z Universe offers a different view. JWST is observed by JWST are less massive, they do not out-
discovering galactic systems that follow the M• − σ and shine their host galaxy. Hence, we can estimate most of
the M• − Mdyn relations, but whose black holes are very these systems’ stellar mass.
overmassive and depart significantly from the M• − M⋆ Figure 5 also shows a qualitative representation of the
relation. Velocity dispersion and dynamical mass are, mass-redshift distribution of light and heavy seeds (see,
thus, better tracers of black hole growth because they e.g., Volonteri 2010; Ferrara et al. 2014). GN-z11 can
directly depend on the central gravitational well. Black be interpreted as the evolution at a constant Eddington
hole growth outpaces stellar growth at first. Then, pos- accretion rate of a typical heavy seed (Maiolino et al.
sibly with the help of galactic mergers, the stellar mass 2023a). Additionally, the current population of JWST
catches up, and the systems end up on the M• − M⋆ sources analyzed in this work can result from the evolu-
relation at low redshift. The only way to test this hy- tion, at a rate between 50% Eddington and Eddington,
pothesis is to further expand the black hole horizon.
11
Figure 5. Qualitative representation of the current horizon within which black holes are detectable with JWST/NIRSpec. The
galaxy + black hole systems used in this work are shown in blue. The farthest galaxy hosting a SMBH detected, GN-z11, is
shown in red. The contours indicate typical heavy and light seeding distributions at z > 10. Some growth lines are also shown
from the center of the heavy seed distribution and assume several Eddington ratios (as indicated). The general distribution of
lower-redshift quasars is displayed as a reference (Lyke et al. 2020; Fan et al. 2022).
of the population of heavy seeds formed at z ∼ 15 − 20 tions at high-z. Hence, JWST is not only expanding the
(Barkana & Loeb 2000). horizon at which we can detect black holes but, in doing
Unfortunately, observations at even higher redshifts so, it is also enlarging our knowledge of the very early
of massive black holes will be needed to pinpoint the Universe.
mass distribution of the early seeds (Pacucci & Loeb Acknowledgments: F.P. acknowledges support from a
2022). Alternatively, the shape of the high-z M• − M⋆ Clay Fellowship administered by the Smithsonian Astro-
relation can inform us of the main formation channel physical Observatory. This work was also supported by
of seeds (Visbal & Haiman 2018; Pacucci et al. 2018; the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University, which is
Greene et al. 2020; King & Nealon 2021; Hu et al. 2022; funded by grants from the John Templeton Foundation
Koudmani et al. 2022; Schneider et al. 2023). For ex- and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. B.N. ac-
ample, recent simulations have shown that heavy seeds, knowledges support from an NSF Partnerships for Inter-
with a typical mass of 105 M⊙ , can initially have a national Research and Education (PIRE) grant OISE-
mass similar to or even larger than their hosts (Scog- 1743747 and the Institute for Theory and Computation
gins et al. 2023). These systems remain overmassive, at the Harvard College Observatory. S.C. is funded by
i.e., M• /M⋆ ≫ 10−4 , until they merge with significantly the European Union (ERC, WINGS, 101040227). Views
more massive halos at z ≈ 8. In the redshift range and opinions expressed are, however, those of the au-
z = 4 − 7 investigated in this study, we might be thor(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the
witnessing the slow but steady progress of these European Union or the European Research Council Ex-
initially overmassive systems, formed from heavy ecutive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the
seeds, towards the local M• − M⋆ relation. granting authority can be held responsible for them.
We argued that the search in already existing JWST
fields for low-mass black holes with M• ∼ 106 M⊙ pro- Software: Astropy (Astropy Collaboration et al. 2013,
vides crucial insights into the shape of the scaling rela- 2018, 2022); emcee (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013).
REFERENCES
Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sipőcz, B. M.,
et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068
12
Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., King, A., & Nealon, R. 2021, MNRAS, 502, L1,
et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa200
Barkana, R., & Loeb, A. 2000, ApJ, 531, 613, Kocevski, D. D., Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., et al. 2023, arXiv
doi: 10.1086/308503 e-prints, arXiv:2302.00012,
—. 2001, PhR, 349, 125, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00012
doi: 10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00019-9 Kormendy, J., & Ho, L. C. 2013, Annual Review of
Bogdan, A., Goulding, A., Natarajan, P., et al. 2023, arXiv Astronomy and Astrophysics, 51, 511,
e-prints, arXiv:2305.15458, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101811
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.15458 Koudmani, S., Sijacki, D., & Smith, M. C. 2022, MNRAS,
Carnall, A. C., McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2023, 516, 2112, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2252
Nature, 619, 716, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6 Larson, R. L., Finkelstein, S. L., Kocevski, D. D., et al.
Ding, X., Onoue, M., Silverman, J. D., et al. 2022, arXiv 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.08918,
e-prints, arXiv:2211.14329, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.08918
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.14329 Lauer, T. R., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., & Faber, S. M.
Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv 2007, ApJ, 670, 249, doi: 10.1086/522083
e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465, Lyke, B. W., Higley, A. N., McLane, J. N., et al. 2020,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.02465 ApJS, 250, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aba623
Fan, X., Banados, E., & Simcoe, R. A. 2022, arXiv e-prints,
Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, AJ,
arXiv:2212.06907, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2212.06907
115, 2285, doi: 10.1086/300353
Ferrara, A., Salvadori, S., Yue, B., & Schleicher, D. 2014,
Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Witstok, J., et al. 2023a, arXiv
MNRAS, 443, 2410, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1280
e-prints, arXiv:2305.12492,
Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, ApJL, 539, L9,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12492
doi: 10.1086/312838
Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023b,
Finkelstein, S. L., Bagley, M. B., Ferguson, H. C., et al.
arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230.
2023, ApJL, 946, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acade4
https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01230
Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman,
Matthee, J., Naidu, R. P., Brammer, G., et al. 2023, arXiv
J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067
e-prints, arXiv:2306.05448,
Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., et al. 2000, ApJL,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.05448
539, L13, doi: 10.1086/312840
Mezcua, M., Siudek, M., Suh, H., et al. 2023, ApJL, 943,
Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, Communications in
L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acae25
Applied Mathematics and Computational Science, 5, 65,
Natarajan, P., Pacucci, F., Ricarte, A., et al. 2023, arXiv
doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65
e-prints, arXiv:2308.02654,
Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2005, ApJ, 630, 122,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.02654
doi: 10.1086/431897
Greene, J. E., Strader, J., & Ho, L. C. 2020, ARA&A, 58, Nguyen, D. D., Seth, A. C., Neumayer, N., et al. 2019, ApJ,
257, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-032620-021835 872, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aafe7a
Harikane, Y., Zhang, Y., Nakajima, K., et al. 2023a, arXiv Onoue, M., Inayoshi, K., Ding, X., et al. 2023, ApJL, 942,
e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca9d3
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946 Pacucci, F., & Loeb, A. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 1885,
—. 2023b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.11946, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3071
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.11946 Pacucci, F., Loeb, A., Mezcua, M., & Martı́n-Navarro, I.
Hirschmann, M., Khochfar, S., Burkert, A., et al. 2010, 2018, ApJ, 864, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad8b2
MNRAS, 407, 1016, Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17006.x 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
Hogg, D. W., Bovy, J., & Lang, D. 2010, arXiv e-prints, Pontoppidan, K. M., Barrientes, J., Blome, C., et al. 2022,
arXiv:1008.4686, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1008.4686 ApJL, 936, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8a4e
Hu, H., Inayoshi, K., Haiman, Z., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, Reines, A. E., Greene, J. E., & Geha, M. 2013, ApJ, 775,
140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7daa 116, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/116
Inayoshi, K., Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2020, ARA&A, 58, Reines, A. E., & Volonteri, M. 2015, ApJ, 813,
27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-120419-014455 doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/82
13
Schneider, R., Valiante, R., Trinca, A., Graziani, L., & Visbal, E., & Haiman, Z. 2018, ApJL, 865, L9,
Volonteri, M. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2305.12504, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aadf3a
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2305.12504
Volonteri, M. 2010, Astronomy and Astrophysics Review,
Scoggins, M. T., Haiman, Z., & Wise, J. H. 2023, MNRAS,
18, 279, doi: 10.1007/s00159-010-0029-x
519, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3715
Shankar, F., Bernardi, M., Richardson, K., et al. 2019, Volonteri, M., Habouzit, M., & Colpi, M. 2023, MNRAS,
MNRAS, 485, 1278, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz376 521, 241, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad499
Song, M., Finkelstein, S. L., Ashby, M. L. N., et al. 2016,
Volonteri, M., & Reines, A. E. 2016, ApJ, 820,
ApJ, 825, 5, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/5
doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/820/1/L6
Stern, J., & Laor, A. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 600,
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x Wang, F., Yang, J., Fan, X., et al. 2021, ApJL, 907, L1,
Treu, T., Roberts-Borsani, G., Bradac, M., et al. 2022, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abd8c6
ApJ, 935, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8158 Wang, R., Carilli, C. L., Neri, R., et al. 2010, ApJ, 714,
Trinca, A., Schneider, R., Maiolino, R., et al. 2023,
699, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/714/1/699
MNRAS, 519, 4753, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3768
Übler, H., Maiolino, R., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv Woods, T. E., Agarwal, B., Bromm, V., et al. 2019, PASA,
e-prints, arXiv:2302.06647, 36, e027, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.14
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.06647