We analyzed the contributions of different energy components, ΔE +;<9 , ΔE =& , and ΔE >+? , to the redshift of the dimer fluorescence energy. These contributions can be estimated by comparing the dimer eigenstate energies computed with different methods, including the full exciton model with the 10 LE states (5 states for each monomer) and two CT states, the "LE only" exciton model considering only the 10 LE states, and the dimer TDDFT calculation. The insignificant energy difference between "LE only" (Figure green line) and monomer LE states (Figure grey and cyan line) reveals the marginal contributions of the ΔE +;<9 to the fluorescence redshift. However, when including the CT states, the eigenstate energy evaluated by the exciton model and dimer TDDFT has a satisfying agreement with the only difference from the ΔE >+? . Several adiabatic energies computed by "LE only" are slightly higher than the lowest monomer E 5% due to considerable positive ΔE 7829: , but the superexchange effect lowers the dimer S1 energy thus meeting our expectations. We also considered the influence of stacking configuration on dimer E 5% by performing similar calculations on the perpendicularly stacked C22-X and PC113-X series (Figure ). Results show that although having some influence on dimer E 5% , dimer's stacking conformation does not change the relationship between monomer and dimer E 5% and the dominance of superexchange. In summary, the inequalities between monomer and dimer fluorescence energies deduced from Eq. ( ), together with the substantial contribution of superexchange, hold for both the C22-X and PC113-X series despite the structural diversity of asphaltene X.