pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.09027 · v1 · pith:FRIM22XLnew · submitted 2019-07-21 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

Better support for collaborations preparing for large-scale projects: the case study of the LSST Science Collaborations Astro2020 APC White Paper

Federica B. Bianco (University of Delaware , LSST SCs Coordinator , LSST Transients & Variable Stars SC co-chair) , Manda Banerji (University of Cambridge , LSST Galaxies SC co-chair) , John Bochanski (Rider University , LSST Stars , Milky Way
show 31 more authors
Local Volume SC co-chair) William N. Brandt (Penn State University LSST AGN SC chair) Patricia Burchat (Stanford University LSST Dark Energy SC Deputy Spokesperson) John Gizis (University of Delaware Zeljko Ivezi\'c (LSST Project Scientist) Charles Keaton (Rutgers University outgoing LSST Strong Lensing SC co-chair) Sugata Kaviraj (University of Hertfordshire Tom Loredo (Cornell University LSST Informatics Statistics co-chair) Rachel Mandelbaum (Carnegie Mellon University LSST Dark Energy SC Spokesperson) Phil Marshall (SLAC LSST Past Dark Energy SC Spokesperson) Peregrine McGehee (College of the Canyons Chad Schafer (Carnegie Mellon University Statistics SC co-chair) Megan E. Schwamb (Gemini Observatory LSST Solar System SC co-chair) Jennifer L Sokoloski (LSST Corporation Director for Science) Michael A. Strauss (Princeton LSST Science Advisory Committee) Rachel Street (Las Cumbres Observatory David Trilling (Northern Arizona University Aprajita Verma (University of Oxford UK LSST Strong Lensing SC co-chair)
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 18:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM
keywords LSSTScience Collaborationslarge-scale projectsfunding programsastrophysicsdata scienceinfrastructure developmentAstro2020
0
0 comments X

The pith

LSST Science Collaborations advocate for dedicated funding programs to support both research and infrastructure for large-scale astrophysics projects.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper draws on the LSST Science Collaborations' experiences to identify shortcomings in current funding for complex, multi-institution work at the data science and astrophysics interface. It argues that new programs are needed to cover both the scientific research and the supporting infrastructure required for peta-scale surveys. A sympathetic reader would care because these collaborations are central to extracting science from major observatory investments, and gaps in support could reduce the overall return. The authors treat LSST preparation as a representative example of challenges that will recur in future large projects.

Core claim

Through the lens of the LSST Science Collaborations' experience, this paper advocates for new and improved ways to fund large, complex collaborations at the interface of data science and astrophysics as they work in preparation for and on peta-scale, complex surveys, of which LSST is a prime example. We advocate for the establishment of programs to support both research and infrastructure development that enables innovative collaborative research on such scales.

What carries the argument

The LSST Science Collaborations' reported experiences and challenges, used as a case study to demonstrate gaps in support for collaborative research on large projects.

If this is right

  • Dedicated programs would fund both research activities and infrastructure development for large collaborations.
  • Such support would enable innovative collaborative research at the scale of peta-scale surveys.
  • Improved mechanisms would better address the intersection of data science and astrophysics.
  • Collaborations preparing for surveys like LSST would gain capacity for coordinated, multi-institution work.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar dedicated programs might improve outcomes in other big-data scientific domains that rely on distributed collaborations.
  • Early adoption could help with retention of researchers who otherwise face coordination barriers in large projects.
  • Pilot implementations on smaller surveys could provide data on whether the proposed programs deliver measurable gains in research output.

Load-bearing premise

The challenges reported by the LSST Science Collaborations are representative of needs across other large-scale projects, and new dedicated funding programs would effectively resolve the identified gaps.

What would settle it

A survey of multiple other large astrophysics collaborations that shows their support needs differ substantially from those reported for LSST, or direct evidence that existing funding streams have already enabled full preparation without additional programs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.09027 by Aprajita Verma (University of Oxford, Chad Schafer (Carnegie Mellon University, Charles Keaton (Rutgers University, David Trilling (Northern Arizona University, Federica B. Bianco (University of Delaware, Jennifer L Sokoloski (LSST Corporation Director for Science), John Bochanski (Rider University, John Gizis (University of Delaware, Local Volume SC co-chair), LSST, LSST AGN SC chair), LSST Dark Energy SC Deputy Spokesperson), LSST Dark Energy SC Spokesperson), LSST Galaxies SC co-chair), LSST Informatics, LSST Science Advisory Committee), LSST SCs Coordinator, LSST Solar System SC co-chair), LSST Stars, LSST Strong Lensing SC co-chair), LSST Transients & Variable Stars SC co-chair), Manda Banerji (University of Cambridge, Megan E. Schwamb (Gemini Observatory, Michael A. Strauss (Princeton, Milky Way, outgoing LSST Strong Lensing SC co-chair), Past Dark Energy SC Spokesperson), Patricia Burchat (Stanford University, Peregrine McGehee (College of the Canyons, Phil Marshall (SLAC, Rachel Mandelbaum (Carnegie Mellon University, Rachel Street (Las Cumbres Observatory, Statistics co-chair), Statistics SC co-chair), Sugata Kaviraj (University of Hertfordshire, Tom Loredo (Cornell University, UK, William N. Brandt (Penn State University, Zeljko Ivezi\'c (LSST Project Scientist).

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The breakdown of 2019 Cadence White Paper (WP) submissions by the Science Collaboration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top: choropleth of the LSST SC membership. The color intensity is proportional to the number of members. The US is divided by States, with membership indicated by the intensity of orange, all other countries’ membership is indicated by the intensity of blue. Bottom: the geographical network structure of the LSST is shown with links connecting members of the same SC across the world. 2.5 Inclusion and diver… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Through the lens of the LSST Science Collaborations' experience, this paper advocates for new and improved ways to fund large, complex collaborations at the interface of data science and astrophysics as they work in preparation for and on peta-scale, complex surveys, of which LSST is a prime example. We advocate for the establishment of programs to support both research and infrastructure development that enables innovative collaborative research on such scales.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper uses the experiences of the LSST Science Collaborations to advocate for the establishment of new funding programs that support both research and infrastructure development for large, complex collaborations in astrophysics and data science preparing for peta-scale surveys such as LSST.

Significance. If implemented, the proposed funding programs could address gaps in supporting collaborative research on large-scale projects, potentially enhancing innovation and efficiency in the field. The paper contributes by drawing on direct experience from a major upcoming survey, providing practical insights for policy makers.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: the central recommendation for new dedicated programs to support research and infrastructure is grounded solely in reported collective experience without quantitative data, systematic surveys of other projects, or comparisons to existing mechanisms; this assumption that the LSST case is representative and that new programs would resolve the gaps is load-bearing for the policy claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and the opportunity to respond. The manuscript is an Astro2020 APC White Paper whose purpose is to convey practical recommendations drawn from the direct experience of the LSST Science Collaborations. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the central recommendation for new dedicated programs to support research and infrastructure is grounded solely in reported collective experience without quantitative data, systematic surveys of other projects, or comparisons to existing mechanisms; this assumption that the LSST case is representative and that new programs would resolve the gaps is load-bearing for the policy claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the recommendations rest on the reported collective experience of the LSST Science Collaborations rather than on new quantitative surveys or systematic comparisons. This is intentional: the document is an advocacy white paper, not a research study, and its value lies in distilling lessons from teams actively preparing for a peta-scale survey. The LSST case is presented as illustrative of challenges that recur across large, data-intensive astrophysics projects; we do not assert it is statistically representative. Adding formal comparisons or quantitative metrics would require a different scope and resources. We maintain that experiential insight from practitioners is a legitimate and load-bearing input for policy recommendations of this type, though we recognize that some readers may prefer additional supporting analyses. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: advocacy white paper with no derivations or fitted claims

full rationale

This is a policy advocacy document recommending new funding mechanisms for large collaborations, grounded directly in the authors' stated experiences with LSST Science Collaborations. It advances no equations, empirical measurements, predictions, or derivations whose correctness depends on internal consistency or self-reference. The central recommendation is a normative policy judgment rather than a technical result that could reduce to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatzes, or renamings are present. The representativeness assumption is an external policy premise, not a self-definitional step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central recommendation rests on the domain assumption that current funding mechanisms are inadequate for the infrastructure needs of large collaborations and that new programs would improve outcomes.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Current funding structures are insufficient for supporting the preparation of large-scale collaborations like LSST.
    This premise drives the call for new programs and is presented as learned from the authors' experiences.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5890 in / 990 out tokens · 26022 ms · 2026-05-24T18:07:23.949695+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    (2018) First data release of the Hyper Suprime -Cam Subaru Strategic Program , PASJ, 70S, 8 link

    Aihara et al. (2018) First data release of the Hyper Suprime -Cam Subaru Strategic Program , PASJ, 70S, 8 link

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T. M. C. et al. (2018) The Dark Energy Survey: Data Rel ease 1 The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Volume 239, Issue 2, article id. 18. link

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    (2019) The fourth data release of the Kilo-Degree Survey: ugri imaging and nine-band optical-IR photometry over 1000 square degrees

    Kuijken, K et al. (2019) The fourth data release of the Kilo-Degree Survey: ugri imaging and nine-band optical-IR photometry over 1000 square degrees. Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 625, id.A2. link

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    K. C. Chambers, et al. (2016) The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys arXiv:1612.05560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    https://www.ztf.caltech.edu/news/public-data-release-1

    work page

  6. [6]

    (2019) LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 873, Number 2 link

    Ivezić et al. (2019) LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 873, Number 2 link

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    (2019) A Software Roadmap for Solar System Science with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

    Schwamb et al. (2019) A Software Roadmap for Solar System Science with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. Research Notes of the AAS, Volume 3, Number 3 link

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Mandelbaum, R. et al. (2019) The LSST Dark Energy Science Coll aboration (DESC) Science Requirements Document arXiv:1809.01669

    work page arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    LSST Science Collaborations (2017) https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/ObservingStrategy

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Call for White Papers on LSST Cadence Optimization https://www.lsst.org/call-whitepaper-2018

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    LSST Science Book 2009 https://www.lsst.org/scientists/scibook

    work page 2009

  12. [12]

    https://www.lsstcorporation.org/

    work page

  13. [13]

    https://www.kaggle.com/c/PLAsTiCC-2018

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    (2019) Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST

    Chisari et al. (2019) Core Cosmology Library: Precision Cosmological Predictions for LSST. The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, Volume 242, Issue 1, article id. 2, 30 pp. link

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    LSST Science Advisory Committee (2019). Recommendations for Operations Simulator Experiments Based on Submitted Cadence Optimization White Papers https://project.lsst.org/groups/sac/sites/lsst.org.groups.sac/files/OpSim_experiments.pdf

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    https://www.lsst.org/scientists/simulations/opsim

    work page

  17. [17]

    Jones, R. L. et al. (2014) The LSST metrics analysis framework (MAF). Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 9149, id. 91490B 18 pp

    work page 2014

  18. [18]

    The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. E. Page (2007) Princeton University Press DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt7sp9c https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sp9c

    work page doi:10.2307/j.ctt7sp9c 2007

  19. [19]

    Schmader, T., & Hall, W. M. (2014). Stereotype Threat in School and at Work: Putting Science Into Practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 1(1), 30 –37. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548861

    work page doi:10.1177/2372732214548861 2014

  20. [20]

    Organizational Psychology: A Scientist-Practitioner Approach. Steve M. Jex, Thomas W. Britt (2008) John Wiley & Sons

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    https://www.higheredtoday.org/2018/04/23/addressing-stem-culture-climate-increase-diversity-stem-disciplines

    work page 2018