Interaction between SWG and SGS-OUs Fabio Pasian & Marc Sauvage (EC SGS Project Office)

1. Interaction between SWG and SGS-OUs Fabio Pasian & Marc Sauvage(EC SGS Project Office) The presented document is Proprietary information of the Euclid Consortium. This document shall be used and disclosed by the receiving Party and its related entities (e.g. contractors and subcontractors) only for the purposes of fulfilling the receiving Party's responsibilities under the Euclid Project and that identified and marked technical data shall not be disclosed or retransferred to any other entity without prior written permission of the document preparer.

2. Rationale • The SWG and the SGS will constantly interact throughout the mission phases. • During the development of the SGS, the SWGs set requirements on the algorithmic objectives and defines the validation testing of the pipeline module. • During operations, the SGS systems produce the data products that form the basis of the SWG work. • The science objectives of Euclid are quite ambitious, and require a complex data processing system. • The interface between the SGS and the SWGs must be clearly defined to avoid biasing the SGS products, or overlap and/or duplication of work between the SGS and the SWGs.

3. Documentation flow-down Science Management Plan (SMP) Science Requirements Document (SciRD) input from EC SWGs Science Operations Concept (SOCD) Science ImplementationRequirements (SIRD) Data Processing Requirements (GDPRD) Mission Requirements Document (MRD) Payload Elements Requirements (PERD) Legacy Data Processing Requirements (LDPR) SOC Science ImplementationPlan (SOC SIP) EC Science ImplementationPlan (EC SIP) EC SGS WP Breakdown and Description (WPBD) Science Analysis Implementation (SAID) EC SWGs EC SGS Documentation Tree EC SGS SWGs-SGS Interface Control Doc

4. Requirements flow-down Science Management Plan (SMP) Science Requirements Document (SciRD) Science Operations Concept (SOCD) Science ImplementationRequirements (SIRD) Data Processing Requirements (GDPRD) Mission Requirements Document (MRD) Payload Elements Requirements (PERD) Legacy Data Processing Requirements (LDPR) SOC Science ImplementationPlan (SOC SIP) EC Science ImplementationPlan (EC SIP) EC SGS WP Breakdown and Description (WPBD) Science Analysis Implementation (SAID) EC SGS Documentation Tree SWGs-SGS Interface Control Doc

5. SWG Development SUR phase - Definition of the science user requirements OU Development CV phase – Concept validation TR phase - Transfer of the software to operations Science Inputs SUR Proof of concept GDPRD LDPRD CV Next Cycle Method Publication OU Inputs Software System TR SPMP SCMP SVVP/Reviews, UR OM PO Standard Document SR/AD URD STD SVVP/ST Plan/IT Plan AT plan SSD DD SVVP/ST spec CODE SUM SDC Development UR phase - Definition of the user requirements SR phase - Definition of the software requirements AD phase - Definition of the architectural design DD phase - Detailed design and production of the code OM phase - Operations and maintenance SPMP - Software Project Management Plan SCMP - Software configuration management procedures SVVP - Software Verification and Validation Plan AT Plan - Acceptance Test ST Plan - System Test Plan IT Plan - Integration Test Plan URD - User Requirements Document DPRD - Data Processing Requirements Document SSD - Software Specification Document SUM - Software User Manual STD - Software Transfer Document from the EC SIP 2.2 draft

6. SWGs-SGS ICD Science Management Plan (SMP) Science Requirements Document (SciRD) Science Operations Concept (SOCD) Science ImplementationRequirements (SIRD) Data Processing Requirements (GDPRD) Mission Requirements Document (MRD) Payload Elements Requirements (PERD) Legacy Data Processing Requirements (LDPR) SOC Science ImplementationPlan (SOC SIP) EC Science ImplementationPlan (EC SIP) EC SGS WP Breakdown and Description (WPBD) Science Analysis Implementation (SAID) EC SGS Documentation Tree SWGs-SGS Interface Control Doc

7. The SWGs-SGS ICD • The ICD originates from discussions between OU-LE3 and the SWGs. • Draft 0.5, distributed to the OU+SDC leads, and SWG coords was iterated inside the SGS PO. • Comments are expected and welcome. It's short (only 7 pages of meaningful text)!

8. The interface entities • The ground segment Organization Group: • The SGS PO (manager, scientist, system team lead + support team). • The OU leads. • The SDC managers. • The Science Working Groups coordinators • The leads of the two primary cosmology probes SWGs (4 persons). • 2 rotating representatives for leads of the legacy, theory and simulation SWGs. • These two representative bodies are in charge of taking care of the interface issues. See the EC Management Plan for names (wiki).

9. EC SGS Management

10. A key concept: avoid confirmation bias • How? try to maintain cosmology "independence" and/or "blindness" in the SGS pipeline. • SGS codes should refrain from relying on cosmology assumptions ("independence"), and their validation should not be done against a given cosmology ("blindness"). • Requests to depart from that, (e.g. use or produce absolute quantities) should be made known to the Organization Group, to be discussed with the SWG coords, and use the reference cosmology maintained by the SWG coords. • This is/will be a highly debated item in discussions between the SGS and the SWG. • Is it enough to avoid a confirmation bias? likely not.

11. Requirement driven development • General principle for SGS data processing pipeline development: • SWG formulates requirement for the production of data with specified properties, as well as tests that have to be run to validate that part of the SGS pipeline. • OU researches algorithms that fulfill the requirement, and once the SWG has accepted that the algorithm is an acceptable candidate, passes to the SDC-Dev the algorithm description and a test "plan" for verification and validation. • OU algorithms suggestions can only be refused by SWG because they do not meet the requirement. • Each SGS WP should be connected, directly or through other WPs to a requirement on the SGS. • "Free-floating" SGS WP could be a worry and should be tracked down. However. WPs are management tools. Management WPs, or finer-grained subdivision of work (e.g. acrosscountries) are a matter of SGS decision.

12. Code practice • No coding standards at OU level • OUs are not required to produce code at all (algorithms, prototypes + test data) • Coding standards/uniformity required at SDC level • codes need to be scalable, maintainable, moveable. • codes will adhere to some form of GPL, but intellectual "property" should be maintained by applying to the codes rules similar to publications (policy to be set). • Request by SWG to use the SDC to run their codes should be handled by the SGS organization group. • The primary mission of the SDCs is to develop and run the SGS pipeline. • SWG SAID is a good read for SGS to anticipate these demands.

13. Data access • Question: is it always harmless to use Euclid data to develop SGS modules? • Data access should stay compatible with the primary missions of the SGS. Some issues remain to be cleared out, e.g. regarding simulated data produced by the SGS.

14. Conclusions • Currently, the SWGs-SGS ICD is a living document. Feedback is needed. • SWGs-SGS interrelations are important, key to the success of the mission. • ICDs are built to define the interfaces between groups. • Interrelations ≠ Interfaces IMPORTANT: let’s not build useless/harmful fences between (virtual) groups!