added v3.5 to fig 12

PSTN-056.tex

@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 
 \defcitealias{PSTN-055}{PSTN-055}
 \defcitealias{PSTN-053}{PSTN-053}
+\defcitealias{PSTN-056}{PSTN-056}
 \defcitealias{LPM-17}{SRD}
 
 \newcommand{\tbd}[1]{{\color{red} #1}}

answers.tex

@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ \subsection{Filter Balance}\label{sec:filterbalance}
 
 
 However, the SCOC understands that the throughput loss in $u$-band ($\sim30\%$  loss in coadded depth) would negatively impact science cases including Photo-z, studies of the Milky Way halo, Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs, identified as $u$-band dropouts at redshift $z\sim3$), and more. While the overwhelming majority of the MAF metrics available to the SCOC responded positively to the updated throughput, we are aware, as always, that these may not provide an exhaustive picture of the science outcomes. Therefore, guided by experts in the community, we explored ways to reduce the $u$ band magnitude decrease while preserving the benefit of increased throughput in redder bands. 
-We tracked the performance of Photo-z, as characterized in \citealt{Graham_2017}, by assessing the variance and bias in \pz\ at redshifts $z\lesssim{3}$ (\autoref{fig:pz}). \pz\ is sensitive to $u$ band depth at redshift $z\geq 2$ due to decrease power to identify Lyman break galaxies photometrically. We expect that recovering \pz\ performance is a good indicator of recovering performance for other science cases sensitive to $u$ band depth for which we do not have detailed metrics. \pz\ performance, along with a large set of MAFs, were run against a set of \opsim s  that progressively changed the exposure time and the number of exposures in $u$-band (see \autoref{fig:uband})\footnote{\url{https://community.lsst.org/t/release-of-v3-4-simulations/8548}}. 
+We tracked the performance of Photo-z, as characterized in \citealt{Graham_2017}, by assessing the variance and bias in \pz\ at redshifts $z\lesssim{3}$ (\autoref{fig:pz}). \pz\ is sensitive to $u$ band depth at redshift $z\geq 2$ due to decreased power to identify Lyman break galaxies photometrically. We expect that recovering \pz\ performance is a good indicator of recovering performance for other science cases sensitive to $u$ band depth for which we do not have detailed metrics. \pz\ performance, along with a large set of MAFs, were run against a set of \opsim s  that progressively changed the exposure time and the number of exposures in $u$-band (see \autoref{fig:uband})\footnote{\url{https://community.lsst.org/t/release-of-v3-4-simulations/8548}}. 
 
 {\bf The SCOC recommends:} 
 
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ \subsection{Filter Balance}\label{sec:filterbalance}
 \end{itemize}
 
 
-This roughly restores the $u$ band depth of LSST in \baseline{3.0} with minimal impact on LSST science metrics. As a science case that is representative of those sensitive to $u$-band depth, these changes recover performance on \pz\ at redshift $z\sim2$, where the impact of the $u$-band throughput loss was most significant, while maintaining the performance improvement on \pz\ at low redshift afforded by the increased depth of LSST in all other bands. Furthermore, these changes minimally impact other science cases tracked by MAFs. 
+This roughly restores the $u$ band depth of LSST in \baseline{3.0} with minimal impact on LSST science metrics. As a science case that is representative of those sensitive to $u$-band depth, these changes recover performance on \pz\ at redshift $z\sim2$, where the impact of the $u$-band throughput loss was most significant while maintaining the performance improvement on \pz\ at low redshift afforded by the increased depth of LSST in all other bands. Furthermore, these changes minimally impact other science cases tracked by MAFs. 
 
 Because more science cases generally respond better to increasing the number of images, over increasing the exposure time to achieve the same depth, the added $u$-band time should be obtained by decreasing (minimally) the exposure time in other bands, rather than decreasing the number of images.
 
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ \subsection{Filter Balance}\label{sec:filterbalance}
         	\put(50,30){\color{lsstblue}\huge DRAFT}
     \end{overpic}
 %\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{figures/u_band_scoc_heatmap.png}
-\caption{ A standard set of science and system MAFs metrics as a function of changing exposure time ($27\leq u_{expt}\leq 45$ seconds) and fraction of exposures in $u$ band ($0.9\times ns\leq N_u \leq1.2\times ns$). The metrics are normalized with respect to a simulation with $u_{expt}$= 30 seconds and $N_u = 1.0\times ns$. Three additional columns on the left show: \texttt{v\_3.2} (\baseline{3.2}, pre-filter-throughput update, notably generally worse) and \texttt{v3.3} (\baseline{3.3}, which follows the same observing strategy as to \baseline{3.2} but includes throughput updates) and $u~38s~1*$ where the exposure time of all other bands is adjusted to compensate for extra time spent in $u$ (whereas in all other simulations shown in this plot the exposure time is kept at 30 seconds). The SCOC indeeds recommends an adjustment of the exposure in all bands (29.2 seconds instead of 30 seconds) and this is implemented in all simulations starting with \texttt{v3.5}.}
+\caption{ A standard set of science and system MAFs metrics as a function of changing exposure time ($27\leq u_{expt}\leq 45$ seconds) and fraction of exposures in $u$ band ($0.9\times ns\leq N_u \leq1.2\times ns$). The metrics are normalized with respect to a simulation with $u_{expt}$= 30 seconds and $N_u = 1.0\times ns$. Three additional columns on the left show: \texttt{v\_3.2} (\baseline{3.2}, pre-filter-throughput update, notably generally worse) and \texttt{v3.3} (\baseline{3.3}, which follows the same observing strategy as to \baseline{3.2} but includes throughput updates) and $u~38s~1*$ where the exposure time of all other bands is adjusted to compensate for extra time spent in $u$ (whereas in all other simulations shown in this plot the exposure time is kept at 30 seconds). The SCOC indeed recommends an adjustment of the exposure in all bands (29.2 seconds instead of 30 seconds) and this is implemented in all simulations starting with \texttt{v3.5}.}
 \label{fig:uband}
 \end{figure}
 \FloatBarrier

intro.tex

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ \section{Introduction}
 
 As part of this process, the Survey Cadence Optimization Committee (SCOC) was set up by Rubin's Science Advisory Committee in 2018 to solicit, review, and integrate community feedback at large and make recommendations for the implementation of the LSST survey strategy to the Director of Operations. This document constitutes the third SCOC recommendation, resulting from the phase 3 process of survey design which started in January 2023, after the delivery of the Phase 2 recommendation  (\citealt{PSTN-055} ---hereafter \citetalias{PSTN-055}--- and the baseline simulation \texttt{baseline\_v3.0}. \cite{PSTN-056} (this document) is planned to be the last recommendation for the LSST as a whole before the start of LSST. However, the SCOC will refine the plan for Y1 in particular and the LSST in general in the light of commissioning outcomes and reviews of the survey strategy will continue throughout the 10-years survey with the SCOC evaluating the survey throughput and community feedback and renewing its recommendation on an annual basis. 
 
-The Phase 3 recommendation (\citetalias{PSTN-056}) responds directly to the questions left open in Phase 2 (\citetalias{PSTN-055}) and updates and refines previous recommendations (\citetalias{PSTN-055} and  \citetalias{PSTN-053}) The present document generally does not reiterate previous recommendations that have not changed.
+The Phase 3 recommendation (this documents) responds directly to the questions left open in Phase 2 (\citetalias{PSTN-055}) and updates and refines previous recommendations (\citetalias{PSTN-055} and  \citetalias{PSTN-053}) The present document generally does not reiterate previous recommendations that have not changed.
 
 
 

summaryrecommendation.tex

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ \section{Summary of SCOC Phase 3 recommendations}\label{sec:summary}
 
 \item The SCOC recommends that the baseline translational dithering scale of DDF observations should be reduced from 0.7 degrees to 0.2 degrees (with exploration of even smaller translational dithers compatible with instrumental signature removal and calibration needs). (\autoref{sec:DDF}).
 
-\item The SCOC recommends that the baseline survey strategy should accommodate varying the nightly depth, filters, or cadence of different DDFs throughout the course of LSST, while maintaining the Phase 2 (\citep{PSTN-055}) recommendations for the 10-year depth of each field (including the enhanced COSMOS observations to reach 10-year depth in the first 3 years) (\autoref{sec:DDF}).
+\item The SCOC recommends that the baseline survey strategy should accommodate varying the nightly depth, filters, or cadence of different DDFs throughout the course of LSST, while maintaining the Phase 2 (\citetalias{PSTN-055}) recommendations for the 10-year depth of each field (including the enhanced COSMOS observations to reach 10-year depth in the first 3 years) (\autoref{sec:DDF}).
 
 \item The SCOC urges the Data Management and Alert Production teams to assess the feasibility of, and resources needed for, enabling nightly co-adds of sequential DDF visits and recommends that a path is developed to enable the creation of these co-adds, subtraction with deep templates, and faint alert generation (with higher latency as needed, \eg , after sunrise) (\autoref{sec:DDF}). 
 
@@ -50,12 +50,12 @@ \section{Summary of SCOC Phase 3 recommendations}\label{sec:summary}
 
 These recommendations will be implemented in the \baseline{4.0} simulations. A set of simulations tagged \texttt{v3.6} is made available for the community to assess the impact of different aspects of the recommendation. Note that all of these simulations include the updated, more realistic downtime and effects of slew jerk. 
 
- \autoref{fig:summary} shows the performance of the survey strategy on a set of core LSST science and system metrics. Significant improvements were obtained on most metrics through v3.0. Those are to be attributed to changes of the survey strategy through community input and SCOC recommendations. The visible improvement on nearly all metrics between \baseline{3.2} and \baseline{3.3} is attributed to the updated filter transmission curves. The survey strategy is largely unchanged between \baseline{3.3} and \baseline{3.4}; the small changes in performance are to be attributed to  \texttt{rubin\_scheduler} code updates.\footnote{See \url{https://survey-strategy.lsst.io/baseline/changes.html}}. \baseline{3.6} reflects the recommendations described in this document. The overall apparent drop in performance between \baseline{3.4} and \baseline{3.6} is primarily due to the inclusion of slew time jerk effects and more realistic estimates of downtime in Y1 (\autoref{sec:opsimchanges}). While \baseline{3.6} has three rolling cycles, we also make available a variation of \baseline{3.6} with four cycles of rolling to enable the investigations of different rolling implementations. While our recommendation is to implement the ToO program as described in \autoref{sec:ToO}, we provide an \opsim\ consistent with \baseline{3.6}, but without the ToO program to allow the community, to see the small effects that the introduction of ToOs has on the LSST. Finally we provide an implementation of \baseline{3.6} with single exposure visits (instead of 2x15 second snaps, \autoref{sec:snaps}) which, pending commissioning outcomes, is the expected observing mode. In this \opsim, the survey time gained by dropping snaps (decreased readtime per visit) is allocated evenly across all all-sky observing modes: this includes the WFD, NES, SCP and Galactic Plane. In the future, with better knowledge of the system as built, the SCOC will consider how the additional time may be allocated, including to special programs (\eg, microsurveys), DDFs, WFD, etc., either to compensate for unexpected performance loss or to increase science throughput.
+ \autoref{fig:summary} shows the performance of the survey strategy on a set of core LSST science and system metrics. Significant improvements were obtained on most metrics through v3.0. Those are to be attributed to changes of the survey strategy through community input and SCOC recommendations. The visible improvement on nearly all metrics between \baseline{3.2} and \baseline{3.3} is attributed to the updated filter transmission curves. The survey strategy is largely unchanged between \baseline{3.3} and \baseline{3.4}; the small changes in performance are to be attributed to  \texttt{rubin\_scheduler} code updates.\footnote{See \url{https://survey-strategy.lsst.io/baseline/changes.html}}. The \baseline{3.5} \opsim\ (labeled \texttt{v3.5} in \autoref{fig:summary}) represents an early implementation of the current SCOC recommendations: it includes the new filter balance ($u_{exp}=38$ seconds, $N_u \leq1.1\times ns$, \autoref{sec:filterbalance}), a slightly extended fraction of time spent on DDFs (still within 7\% as recommended in \citetalias{PSTN-055}, \autoref{sec:DDF}), 3-cycle uniform rolling (but note that while implemented the SCOC has not committed to this recommendations, \autoref{sec:rolling}), but does not include snaps or ToOs, and the Galactic Plane footprint is not yet finalized to our current recommendations. Most metrics are stable or improved, except for some time domain metrics (\eg, KNe metrics and SNIa) due to the rolling in three, instead of four cycles and to the new filter balance. \baseline{3.6} reflects the recommendations described in this document. The overall apparent drop in performance between \baseline{3.5} and \baseline{3.6} is primarily due to the inclusion of slew time jerk effects and more realistic estimates of downtime in Y1 (\autoref{sec:opsimchanges}). While \baseline{3.6} has three rolling cycles, we also make available a variation of \baseline{3.6} with four cycles of rolling to enable the investigations of different rolling implementations. While our recommendation is to implement the ToO program as described in \autoref{sec:ToO}, we provide an \opsim\ consistent with \baseline{3.6}, but without the ToO program to allow the community, to see the small effects that the introduction of ToOs has on the LSST. Finally we provide an implementation of \baseline{3.6} with single exposure visits (instead of 2x15 second snaps, \autoref{sec:snaps}) which, pending commissioning outcomes, is the expected observing mode. In this \opsim, the survey time gained by dropping snaps (decreased readtime per visit) is allocated evenly across all all-sky observing modes: this includes the WFD, NES, SCP and Galactic Plane. In the future, with better knowledge of the system as built, the SCOC will consider how the additional time may be allocated, including to special programs (\eg, microsurveys), DDFs, WFD, etc., either to compensate for unexpected performance loss or to increase science throughput.
 
 
 \begin{figure}
     \centering
-    \begin{overpic}[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/scoc_heatmap.png}
+    \begin{overpic}[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/heatmap_3_6.png}
         	\put(50,50){\color{lsstblue}\huge DRAFT}
     \end{overpic}
     %\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{figures/scoc_heatmap.png}

texmf/bibtex/bib/lsst.bib

@@ -7351,7 +7351,7 @@ @Misc{PSTN-055
 }
 
 @Misc{PSTN-056,
-    author = "Federica Bianco and the Survey Cadence Optimization Committee",
+    author = "{F. Bianco and The Rubin Observatory Survey Cadence Optimization Committee}",
     title = "{Survey Cadence Optimization Committee’s Phase 3 Recommendations}",
     publisher = "{Vera C. Rubin Observatory}",
     year = "2024",