Should Zeros Count? Modeling the Galaxy–Globular Cluster Scaling Relation with(out) Zero-inflated Count Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The scaling relation between the size of a galaxy’s globular cluster (GC) population (N GC) and the galaxy’s stellar mass (M *) is usually described with a continuous, linear model, but in reality it is a count relationship that should be modeled as such. For massive galaxies, a negative binomial (NB) model has been shown to describe the data well, but it is unclear how the scaling relation behaves at low galaxy masses where a substantial portion of galaxies have N GC = 0. In this work, we test the utility of Poisson and NB models for describing the low-mass end of the N GC−M * scaling relation. We introduce the use of zero-inflated versions of these models, which allow for larger zero populations (e.g., galaxies without GCs) than would otherwise be predicted. We evaluate our models with a variety of predictive model comparison methods, including predictive intervals, the leave-one-out cross-validation criterion, and posterior predictive comparisons. We find that the NB model is consistent with our data, but the naive Poisson is not. Moreover, we find that zero inflation of the models is not necessary to describe the population of low-mass galaxies that lack GCs, suggesting that a single formation and evolutionary process acts over all galaxy masses. Under the NB model, there does not appear to be anything unique about the lack of GCs in many low-mass galaxies; they are simply the low-mass extension of the larger N GC−M * scaling relation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".