The Call for Phase C DEV Work Packages

Background

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 (SCs) 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 Phase C DEV programme and the UK in-kind package

The LSST:UK proposal to PPRP in April 2022 will contain 7 FTE of DEV staff effort over the Phase C period 2023 - 2027, to undertake projects that will be proposed for inclusion in the UK in-kind contribution to Rubin operations; indeed, a placeholder for these contributions was included in the UK’s Rubin LSST In-Kind Contributions proposal (see Section 12), so the Phase C DEV WP selection process is filling in the details of the programme that we will undertake.

Every in-kind 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. Each selected DEV project will be formally assessed by the Rubin Observatory and the Contribution Evaluation Committee (CEC) for inclusion in the UK in-kind package as part of a procedure that will run in parallel with the PPRP process. To aid their acceptance, every DEV proposal must include an endorsement from the relevant Recipient Group(s); these must be sought via the relevant Recipient Group contact, as listed in Appendix A of the Rubin Manual for In-kind Contributors and Recipients. All those considering proposing a DEV WP are strongly recommended to get in touch with the relevant Recipient Group contact as soon as possible, and to develop their proposal in consultation with them and using relevant documents, such as Science Collaboration roadmaps.

As described in the Section 12.4 of the UK’s Rubin LSST In-Kind Contributions proposal, this DEV 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). 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 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

The proposal 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 for endorsement by the Rubin Recipient Group
This leaves approximately 1 page for the project description and justification
The template linked here must be used
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. Its composition is TBC, but the LSST:UK Exec Group propose an 8-member panel made up of 2 Exec Group members, 2 Rubin representatives, 2 from the UK community and the Project Scientist and Project Leader. The members will be chosen to minimise conflicts of interest. As for Phase B, the Project Scientist and Project Leader 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 Group 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 resulting from 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 or 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 Thursday, 20 January 2022.
You will get an acknowledgement of receipt by end of Friday, 21 January 2022. If you do not, phone or message Stephen Smartt 07876014103.

Post-submission procedures

Successful DEV WP teams will be informed as soon as the selection panel has met. The date of that meeting is TBC, but it is expected to take place by the end of January. That leaves a little over a month before the Phase C proposal deadline of March 7th, so successful DEV WP teams will have have to respond quickly during February to requests to provide input to the Phase C case and to prepare their individual JeS forms. DEV WP proposers should forewarn their institutional research finance teams of this compressed timescale.