LSST:UK has been running a successful software development programme in preparation for the Legacy Survey of Space and Time for more than five years, through the “DEV” strand of the STFC-funded LSST:UK Science Centre (LUSC) project. LUSC Phase A (July 2015 - March 2019) funding was awarded on the basis of UK science priorities, but greater UK involvement in the Science Collaborations over time led these activities to become more closely aligned with SC priorities and to the realisation of impact within them. Phase B DEV funding (for July 2019-March 2023) was awarded on the basis of competitive proposals developed by UK groups in conjunction with Science Collaborations and assessed by a panel in an LSST:UK Board instigated process. Two of the six members of this panel (Melissa Graham and Phil Marshall) provided input to ensure that the funded effort supported and complemented existing work underway in the US and elsewhere, leading to the high rankings awarded to these contributions in the CEC feedback to our LoI. The Phase B work package selection process hence balanced UK priorities and strengths with requirements and value from the Rubin Project. A similar process will run for the selection of STFC PPRP funded work packages for Phase C.
The LSST:UK proposal to PPRP in April 2022 will contain 7 FTE of staff effort over the Phase C period 2023 - 2027. As described in the UK’s Rubin LSST In-Kind Contributions proposal (Deliverables : Sect 12.4), effort can be either directable or non-directable, with these two terms defined in two Rubin Observatory documents: the Handbook for Proposal Teams (see Section 2.2.1 on p. 24) and the Manual for In-kind Contributors and Recipients (Section 4, p. 24). Every contribution must have one or more Recipient Groups - typically a Science Collaboration or Rubin Observatory team - which endorse the proposed contribution and monitor its progress. The distinction between directable and non-directable effort relates to the way that the work is planned, but, in all cases, the UK DEV staff effort must be embedded within the relevant Recipient Group. Since PPRP will want to see staff effort justified in terms of UK leadership and impact as well as its contribution to the UK in-kind package, proposals to contribute to the general pool of fully-directable effort (see p. 31 of the Handbook or p. 24 of the Manual) should not be made.
The Handbook and the Manual should be read in some detail by those developing proposals, but here are some UK-specific points for PPRP funding considerations :
The work packages must meet the STFC PPRP general criteria – scientific excellence, unique UK contribution, likely global impact and aspects of UK leadership
They should provide infrastructure, data access, and/or useful science ready data products to the UK consortium of LSST scientists and be of value to the broader Rubin community - either the project or Science Collaborations. Projects that provide science ready data or analysis mostly to a well defined topic are deemed more suitable for STFC Astronomy Grants Panel (AGP) proposals and not PPRP. Projects that provide proprietary data products only or exclusively to the proposing UK team are not eligible. Projects that provide a fairly narrow range of openly accessible data, or aimed at early science are also better suited to AGP. Cross-cutting proposals that support multiple science goals and areas are encouraged.
The proposing team should have a credible plan to deliver the software work packages in the proposed area (as required in the Rubin Manual). This could be a track record of delivering science ready data to a large community or demonstrate the team’s ability to deliver such data. The review panel may consider merging projects or work packages that have modest requirements and may be better delivered within one well-defined work package.
Each bid should describe what functional support would be required from the UK DAC - e.g. likely computational resources for storage of data and/or execution of software, plus support in interfacing to standard LSST pipelines or data products – and include a statement agreed with the Recipient Group(s) as to where responsibility will lie for the maintenance of software or data delivered for the lifetime of LSST survey operations
Requirements for the proposal submission
It should be self contained on 2 pages maximum. Using the template provided, including all citations and any figures. Any proposals over 2 pages will be rejected and not considered further.
We highly recommend approximately 0.5 page of context and summary and 0.5 page from the Rubin recipient group
This leaves approximately 1 page for the project description and justification
Letters of support are neither required nor submittable - recipient group support should be articulated in the 2 page case.
Evaluation panel, process and criteria
An evaluation panel will be defined, which will have authority from the Board to make a recommendation and produce a prioritised list of work packages for consideration for inclusion in the Phase C proposal. The panel should be nominated by the Board and have representation from the LUSC Exec, the Rubin Observatory, and the UK community. The LSST Exec propose an 8 member panel made up of 2 Exec members, 2 LSST Project representatives, 2 from the UK community and the Project Scientist and Project Lead. The members will be chosen to minimise conflicts of interest. As for Phase B, the Project Scientist and Project Lead will sit on the panel to offer advice, guidance and opinion, but will not have a vote on the ranking of the proposals, while the representatives of the Exec and the UK community will be chosen so as not to include in any teams proposing work packages
This balance should allow the panel to judge the general interest in the work packages being put forward (LUSC-Exec and UK community representation) and to judge how these work packages align with the project effort (Rubin reps). The panel has the remit to recommend merging of proposals into coherent, deliverable work packages, rather than rejecting (if they consider such a process viable).
The panel will be chosen to have a diversity and balance in subject area, and care should be taken to ensure appropriate gender representation.
The panel will be given a fairly specific remit of reviewing the work package proposals with the following evaluation criteria
Impact, importance and excellence of the science which will be enabled by the data products provided by the work package
Relevance to the LSST:UK’s In-kind proposal and/or relevance to the UK community’s scientific exploitation of LSST data.
The potential of the proposing team to be able to successfully deliver the data products, infrastructure proposed
Submission process
Email this completed template (in doc or docx format) to s.smartt@qub.ac.uk and rgm@roe.ac.uk by 16:00 on XX XXXXXX 2021.
You will get an acknowledgement of receipt by end of the day XXXXXX XX XXXXXX 2021. If you do not, phone or message Stephen Smartt 07876014103.