Toward a complete understanding of the properties of GW190521
Abstract
Interpreting GW190521 remains challenging due to its exceptionally high total mass and correspondingly small number of observable gravitational-wave cycles, which gives rise to degeneracies between different physical interpretations. Motivated by the outstanding questions surrounding the event, we present a comprehensive reanalysis of GW190521 using waveform models drawn from multiple families, including a model that includes both eccentricity and spin-precession. We find evidence that the source was highly eccentric, with an inferred eccentricity of 0.81+0.05−0.01 at 5 Hz, and show that non-eccentric interpretations arise from failing to probe the high-likelihood region at large eccentricities. We further demonstrate that when eccentricity is included in the analysis, there is no indication of spin precession, suggesting that the apparent precession in quasicircular analyses is at least partially driven by an eccentricity--spin-precession degeneracy. While all waveform models favor a comparable-mass binary, one model admits a secondary mode at more asymmetric masses. We find a robust probability (≥97%) that the primary black hole lies within the pair-instability supernova mass gap (∼60−130 M⊙), whereas the probability that the secondary lies in the gap depends on the waveform model. Through inference of GW190521-like injections, we show that the waveform systematics observed in the analysis of GW190521 could arise from the response of models to unmodeled eccentricity, rather than from intrinsic differences between waveform models. When analyzing a quasicircular spin-precessing injection similar to GW190521, we find no significant model dependence in the inferred parameters. Finally, because the inferred eccentricity lies beyond the calibration regime of current models, we test its robustness by recovering highly eccentric numerical-relativity waveforms.
Related
- Understanding how Coronal Heating and Magnetic Field Scaling Affect Global Properties of the Low and Middle Corona
- Improved Understanding of Lunar Surface Hydration Signatures through Comparison of Thermally Corrected Spectra from the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M 3)
- Understanding Pulsar Magnetospheres with the SKAO
- Understanding cosmic explosions
- Understanding the Complex Morphology of a Coronal Mass Ejection. III: How to Create a Severe Geomagnetic Storm
BibTeX
@misc{jan2026toward,
title = {{Toward a complete understanding of the properties of GW190521}},
author = {Aasim Jan and Sophia Nicolella and Aaron Zimmerman and Deirdre Shoemaker and Katerina Chatziioannou and Richard O'Shaughnessy and Muhammed Saleem},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.09199},
eprint = {2610.09199},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09199},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Toward a complete understanding of the properties of GW190521
AU - Aasim Jan
AU - Sophia Nicolella
AU - Aaron Zimmerman
AU - Deirdre Shoemaker
AU - Katerina Chatziioannou
AU - Richard O'Shaughnessy
AU - Muhammed Saleem
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/06
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.09199
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.09199
AB - Interpreting GW190521 remains challenging due to its exceptionally high total mass and correspondingly small number of observable gravitational-wave cycles, which gives rise to degeneracies between different physical interpretations. Motivated by the outstanding questions surrounding the event, we present a comprehensive reanalysis of GW190521 using waveform models drawn from multiple families, including a model that includes both eccentricity and spin-precession. We find evidence that the source was highly eccentric, with an inferred eccentricity of 0.81^+0.05_−0.01 at 5 Hz, and show that non-eccentric interpretations arise from failing to probe the high-likelihood region at large eccentricities. We further demonstrate that when eccentricity is included in the analysis, there is no indication of spin precession, suggesting that the apparent precession in quasicircular analyses is at least partially driven by an eccentricity--spin-precession degeneracy. While all waveform models favor a comparable-mass binary, one model admits a secondary mode at more asymmetric masses. We find a robust probability (≥97%) that the primary black hole lies within the pair-instability supernova mass gap (∼60−130 M_⊙), whereas the probability that the secondary lies in the gap depends on the waveform model. Through inference of GW190521-like injections, we show that the waveform systematics observed in the analysis of GW190521 could arise from the response of models to unmodeled eccentricity, rather than from intrinsic differences between waveform models. When analyzing a quasicircular spin-precessing injection similar to GW190521, we find no significant model dependence in the inferred parameters. Finally, because the inferred eccentricity lies beyond the calibration regime of current models, we test its robustness by recovering highly eccentric numerical-relativity waveforms.
ER -