Summary	  of	  ALMA	  Cycle	  0	  	  Lars-­‐Ake	  Nyman	  (JAO	  Head	  of	  Science	  Operations),	  John	  Hibbard	  (NA	  ARC	  Manager),	  Paola	  Andreani	  (EU	  ARC	  Manager),	  Ken	  Tatematsu	  (EA	  ARC	  Manager)	  Observing	  Progress	  The	  Cycle	  0	  Call	  for	  Proposals	  (CfP)	  was	  issued	  on	  March	  30	  of	  2011,	  with	  a	  proposal	  submission	  period	  from	  June	  1	  –	  30,	  2011.	  It	  was	  anticipated	  that	  500	  –	  700	  hrs	  of	  observing	  time	  would	  be	  available	  over	  a	  9-­‐month	  period.	  From	  the	  919	  submitted	  proposals,	  113	  “High	  Priority”	  (HP)	  and	  51	  “Filler”	  projects	  were	  accepted,	  with	  an	  estimated	  execution	  time	  of	  ~800	  hrs.	  	  Cycle	  0	  observations	  started	  on	  September	  30,	  2011.	  Observations	  were	  done	  in	  “observing	  sessions”	  of	  5-­‐7	  days,	  every	  two	  weeks,	  with	  12-­‐16	  hour	  shifts	  from	  late	  afternoon	  until	  morning.	  During	  each	  observing	  session	  a	  number	  of	  activities	  took	  place	  besides	  science	  observations,	  such	  as	  observatory	  calibrations	  and	  calibrator	  surveys.	  Cycle	  0	  was	  originally	  planned	  to	  span	  22	  observing	  sessions	  and	  to	  end	  on	  August	  31,	  2012,	  with	  no	  science	  observing	  in	  February	  2012.	  At	  the	  time	  of	  the	  CfP,	  it	  was	  anticipated	  that	  the	  array	  would	  begin	  in	  the	  extended	  configuration	  (maximum	  baselines	  of	  ~	  400m).	  However,	  due	  to	  challenging	  weather	  conditions	  it	  was	  necessary	  to	  begin	  instead	  in	  the	  compact	  configuration	  (maximum	  baselines	  of	  ~125m).	  This	  change	  was	  announced	  to	  ALMA	  observers	  through	  email	  notifications	  and	  a	  news	  item	  on	  the	  Science	  Portal	  (Aug	  11,	  2011).	  
After	  three	  months	  of	  observations,	  it	  was	  realized	  that	  while	  the	  quality	  of	  the	  data	  collected	  was	  excellent,	  the	  completion	  rate	  of	  projects	  was	  lower	  than	  planned.	  This	  was	  due	  to	  a	  number	  of	  factors	  including	  a	  lower	  than	  expected	  execution	  efficiency	  (see	  Figure	  1)	  and	  the	  complete	  loss	  of	  two	  out	  of	  the	  first	  ten	  observing	  sessions	  due	  to	  poor	  weather	  and	  technical	  problems.	  Therefore	  the	  Cycle	  0	  observing	  period	  was	  extended	  until	  January	  1,	  2013,	  with	  a	  planned	  shutdown	  in	  September	  2012	  for	  a	  correlator	  upgrade,	  as	  announced	  in	  a	  news	  item	  in	  February	  13,	  2012.	  Near	  the	  end	  of	  the	  observing	  season,	  some	  daytime	  observing	  was	  made	  available	  to	  increase	  the	  completion	  rate	  of	  High	  Priority	  projects.	  	  In	  the	  end,	  Cycle	  0	  consisted	  of	  29	  observing	  sessions,	  out	  of	  which	  three	  sessions	  were	  lost	  due	  to	  weather	  and	  technical	  problems.	  The	  dates	  of	  each	  observing	  session	  are	  given	  in	  Table	  1	  along	  with	  the	  number	  of	  hours	  of	  observations	  that	  passed	  the	  original	  phase	  of	  quality	  assurance,	  QA0,	  separately	  for	  each	  frequency	  band.	  Shaded	  cells	  indicate	  observing	  sessions	  that	  were	  completely	  lost	  or	  for	  which	  the	  weather	  was	  too	  poor	  to	  allow	  high	  frequency	  observations.	  	  	  	  	  	  	  Table	  1	  Band usage (hours) (High Priority & Filler "QA0 pass")
Observing
Session
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29	  Start
Date
9/30/11
10/17/11
11/2/11
11/14/11
11/26/11
12/12/11
12/24/11
1/9/12
1/23/12
3/12/12
3/26/12
4/6/12
4/19/12
5/3/12
5/17/12
5/31/12
6/14/12
6/30/12
7/12/12
1/1/04
8/8/12
8/23/12
10/3/12
10/18/12
11/1/12
11/15/12
11/28/12
12/13/12
12/29/12

End Date
10/3/11
10/21/11
11/5/11
11/19/11
11/28/11
12/16/11
12/30/11
1/13/12
1/26/12
3/18/12
3/27/12
4/10/12
4/24/12
5/8/12
5/22/12
6/5/12
6/17/12
7/3/12
7/17/12
7/31/12
8/15/12
8/31/12
10/9/12
10/23/12
11/6/12
11/20/12
12/1/1212/18/12
12/31/12
Total (h)Percent of Total

B3(h)
2.4
0.0
3.5
17.5
2.4
0.0
10.6
20.9
10.5
0.0
9.8
17.2
8.4
23.3
1.2
6.2
2.7
10.3
2.0
26.7
4.5
8.8
0.0
1.5
0.4
8.8
1.4
14.3
0.9
216.2
21%

B6(h)
2.8
2.5
4.7
0.9
11.0
0.0
6.6
19.2
8.6
0.0
2.3
19.3
21.1
3.1
1.1
2.7
16.2
16.4
15.2
9.7
22.4
10.9
0.0
4.7
7.1
12.8
4.7
1.2
6.2
233.4
23%

B7(h)
9.6
37.3
28.0
18.8
12.2
0.0
0.0
3.5
3.1
0.0
7.4
13.3
26.4
30.5
33.3
34.9
17.1
13.6
10.8
21.2
19.2
37.7
0.0
29.1
19.2
27.6
1.2
6.3
5.9
467.2
45%

B9(h)
0.0
2.9
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.1
16.5
0.0
0.0
26.8
0.0
6.9
17.5
0.0
2.1
12.7
0.0
2.8
0.0
12.2
117.3
11%

Sum
(h)
14.8
42.7
39.1
37.2
25.6
0.0
17.2
43.6
22.2
0.0
19.5
49.8
55.9
56.9
49.7
60.3
36.0
40.3
54.8
57.6
52.9
75.0
0.0
37.4
39.4
49.2
10.1
21.8
25.1
1034.0100%

Figure	  1	  shows	  the	  observing	  efficiency	  of	  each	  session	  (time	  used	  for	  successful	  executions	  –	  including	  calibration	  source	  surveys	  –	  divided	  by	  the	  total	  time	  scheduled)	  as	  well	  as	  the	  downtime	  due	  to	  weather	  or	  technical	  reasons.	  Note	  that	  the	  observing	  efficiency	  and	  downtime	  does	  not	  normally	  sum	  to	  100%,	  because	  of	  other	  overheads	  during	  the	  observations,	  such	  as	  calibrations,	  reintegration	  of	  antennas,	  time	  between	  executions	  and	  system	  tests.	  Out	  of	  a	  total	  of	  2724	  hrs	  allocated	  for	  Cycle	  0	  observing,	  a	  total	  of	  1034	  hrs	  (38%)	  were	  used	  for	  successful	  executions.	  	  	  	  Figure	  1:	  Execution	  efficiency	  (red)	  and	  total	  downtime	  for	  weather	  and	  technical	  problems	  (green)	  for	  the	  Cycle0	  observing	  sessions	  (see	  text	  for	  details).	  	  Each	  project	  was	  comprised	  of	  one	  or	  more	  scheduling	  blocks	  (SBs).	  In	  order	  to	  fulfill	  the	  sensitivity	  requirements	  of	  each	  SB	  and	  due	  to	  their	  limited	  duration	  (usually	  under	  1	  hour),	  each	  SB	  was	  assigned	  a	  given	  number	  of	  executions	  (or	  execution	  blocks).	  	  	  During	  each	  observing	  session,	  a	  list	  of	  SBs	  were	  made	  available	  to	  the	  Astronomer	  on	  Duty	  (AoD)	  who	  selected	  them	  for	  execution	  taking	  into	  account	  (in	  rough	  order	  of	  priority):	  project	  priority	  group	  ("High	  Priority"	  or	  "Filler"),	  the	  weather	  conditions	  and	  array	  configuration,	  source	  constraints	  (e.g.	  
availability	  of	  target	  and	  calibrators),	  number	  of	  remaining	  executions	  needed	  to	  complete	  a	  SB	  and	  parter	  share.	  Within	  a	  given	  priority	  group	  (i.e.	  High	  Priority	  or	  Filler)	  the	  highest	  frequency	  band	  available	  for	  any	  given	  weather	  condition	  was	  given	  priority.	  This	  was	  determined	  by	  the	  amount	  of	  precipitable	  water	  vapour	  (PWV)	  in	  the	  air	  and	  the	  phase	  stability.	  The	  conditions	  for	  Band	  9	  observing	  and	  Band	  7	  around	  374GHz	  were	  PWV	  <	  0.5mm	  and	  good	  phase	  stability;	  for	  Band7	  outside	  of	  the	  water	  lines	  it	  was	  PWV	  <	  1.2mm	  and	  good	  phase	  stability;	  in	  Band	  6	  <	  3mm,	  and	  Band	  3	  for	  everything	  else.	  In	  Cycle	  0,	  observations	  in	  Band	  9	  accounted	  for	  11%	  of	  the	  total	  observing	  time,	  and	  in	  Band	  7	  for	  45%	  of	  the	  time	  (see	  Table	  1).	  All	  other	  things	  being	  equal,	  the	  project	  with	  the	  highest	  scientific	  rank	  was	  observed.	  As	  Cycle	  0	  progressed,	  the	  “partner	  share”	  was	  also	  considered	  for	  project	  execution.	  The	  goal	  was	  that	  the	  on-­‐sky	  time	  for	  HP	  projects	  for	  each	  of	  the	  four	  ALMA	  primary	  regional	  partners	  (Chile,	  East	  Asia,	  Europe	  and	  North	  America)	  roughly	  achieved	  the	  agreed-­‐upon	  observing	  fractions	  or	  “partner	  share”	  between	  the	  regions.	  The	  regional	  distribution	  of	  observing	  time	  on	  HP	  projects	  at	  the	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0	  is	  listed	  in	  Table	  2,	  along	  with	  the	  resulting	  time	  fractions	  and	  targeted	  partner	  shares. 	  	  Table	  2	  Distribution	  of	  hours	  dedicated	  to	  high	  priority	  projects	  during	  Cycle	  0	  among	  the	  ALMA	  partners.	  	  CL,	  EA,	  EU	  and	  NA	  represent	  the	  ALMA	  partners	  Chile,	  East	  Asia,	  Europe	  and	  North	  America,	  respectively.	  “Other”	  includes	  PIs	  from	  outside	  these	  regions.	  

Numberof hours
Total	  Percent ofTotal
Partner
Share

CL(h)
107.0

EA(h)
214.8

EU(h)
326.6

NA(h)
326.0

Other(h)12.9

Sum(h)
987.3

10.8%

21.8%

33.1%

33.0%

1.3%

100.0%

10.0%

22.5%

33.8%

33.8%

After	  each	  SB	  execution,	  QA0	  was	  performed	  by	  the	  AoD.	  A	  positive	  assessment	  meant	  that	  the	  SB	  executed	  completely,	  was	  successfully	  exported	  to	  CASA,	  and	  appeared	  to	  have	  sufficient	  calibration	  and	  target	  data	  for	  data	  processing.	  	  During	  Cycle	  0	  ALMA	  construction	  continued	  with	  highest	  priority.	  The	  CfP	  specified	  16	  antennas	  and	  initial	  time	  estimates	  were	  based	  on	  this.	  In	  reality	  the	  number	  of	  antennas	  increased	  throughout	  Cycle	  0.	  The	  array	  was	  in	  the	  Compact	  configuration	  from	  September	  2011	  until	  March	  2012,	  after	  which	  it	  was	  rearranged	  into	  the	  Extended	  configuration.	  After	  session	  21	  (August	  2012)	  there	  were	  enough	  antennas	  on	  pads	  with	  short	  baselines	  that	  Compact	  configuration	  observations	  could	  once	  again	  resume.	  At	  this	  time,	  the	  number	  of	  executions	  for	  the	  remaining	  SBs	  was	  re-­‐estimated	  assuming	  23	  antennas.	  This	  situation	  was	  described	  in	  a	  Science	  Portal	  news	  item	  from	  October	  8,	  2012,	  which	  also	  included	  a	  summary	  of	  Cycle	  0	  observing	  progress	  and	  remaining	  executions.	  
The	  final	  observing	  progress	  is	  depicted	  in	  Figure	  2,	  which	  shows	  the	  number	  of	  SB	  executions	  that	  were	  considered	  successful	  at	  the	  telescope	  (i.e.,	  passed	  QA0)	  both	  for	  HP	  and	  HP+Filler	  projects,	  compared	  to	  the	  observing	  success	  rate	  	  needed	  for	  HP	  projects	  if	  Cycle	  0	  were	  only	  to	  span	  the	  originally	  planned	  22	  observing	  sessions.	  As	  can	  be	  seen,	  the	  extension	  of	  Cycle	  0	  to	  29	  sessions	  was	  sufficient	  to	  make	  up	  for	  the	  lost	  observing	  sessions,	  longer	  execution	  times,	  and	  lower	  SB	  and	  execution	  efficiency	  that	  were	  experienced	  in	  Cycle	  0.	  	  	  Figure	  2:	  Progress	  for	  Cycle0	  observing	  in	  terms	  of	  the	  number	  of	  successful	  SB	  executions	  (“passed	  QA0”),	  compared	  to	  the	  observing	  rate	  necessary	  if	  all	  High	  Priority	  (HP)	  projects	  were	  observed	  by	  the	  original	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (originally	  session	  22).	  	  	  	  LST	  Distribution	  Figure	  3	  shows	  the	  LST	  distribution	  of	  the	  number	  of	  required	  SB	  executions	  at	  the	  start	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (upper	  plot)	  and	  remaining	  SB	  executions	  at	  the	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (lower	  plot)	  for	  High	  Priority	  projects	  color-­‐coded	  by	  frequency	  band.	  The	  lower	  plot	  shows	  also	  the	  LST	  distribution	  for	  all	  prepared	  but	  unexecuted	  Filler	  projects.	  	  There	  were	  peaks	  at	  ~4-­‐5hrs,	  11-­‐12hrs	  and	  16-­‐18	  hrs.	  At	  the	  end	  of	  the	  season,	  a	  peak	  at	  11-­‐12hr	  remained,	  due	  mostly	  to	  the	  low	  efficiency	  of	  observing	  (especially	  at	  high	  frequency	  bands)	  at	  the	  end	  of	  2011	  and	  again	  at	  the	  end	  of	  2012.	  	  	  	  Figure	  3:	  Number	  of	  required	  executions	  as	  a	  function	  of	  LST	  at	  the	  start	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (upper	  panel)	  and	  at	  the	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (lower	  panel),	  Different	  colors	  represent	  the	  different	  observing	  bands.	  In	  the	  upper	  panel,	  only	  high	  priority	  projects	  are	  represented,	  as	  no	  filler	  projects	  were	  originally	  prepared.	  In	  the	  lower	  panel,	  the	  remaining	  filler	  projects	  are	  all	  shown	  in	  as	  a	  single	  color.	  Filler	  projects	  were	  only	  prepared	  for	  the	  lower	  frequency	  bands	  (Band	  3,	  6,	  7).	  	  	  The	  LST	  distribution	  is	  presented	  separately	  for	  each	  band	  in	  Figure	  4.	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  4:	  Number	  of	  required	  executions	  as	  a	  function	  of	  LST	  at	  the	  start	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (left)	  and	  at	  the	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0	  (right),	  as	  a	  function	  of	  observing	  band.	  Executions	  of	  High	  Priority/Filler	  projects	  are	  dark/light	  shaded.	  Filler	  projects	  were	  only	  prepared	  for	  the	  lower	  frequency	  bands	  (3,	  6	  and	  7).	  	  	  Data	  Processing	  &	  Delivery	  After	  an	  SB	  was	  observed	  for	  the	  originally	  estimated	  number	  of	  executions,	  it	  was	  assigned	  to	  an	  ALMA	  scientist	  for	  data	  reduction	  using	  CASA	  and	  python.	  	  The	  data	  processing	  procedure	  was	  first	  established	  using	  Science	  Verification	  data,	  for	  which	  sets	  of	  CASA	  guides	  were	  written	  (http://casaguides.nrao.edu/index.php?title=ALMAguides).	  These	  guides	  are	  intended	  to	  help	  the	  user	  understanding	  the	  various	  stages	  in	  ALMA	  data	  reduction.	  The	  final	  step	  of	  data	  reduction	  involved	  imaging	  and	  “cleaning”	  the	  final	  cubes,	  which	  were	  compared	  to	  the	  science	  goals	  specified	  by	  the	  PI.	  If	  the	  data	  calibration	  (including	  bandpass,	  amplitude	  and	  gain	  calibration)	  was	  successful,	  the	  images	  were	  not	  affected	  by	  instrumental	  artifacts,	  and	  the	  measured	  noise	  was	  within	  a	  factor	  of	  1.4	  of	  that	  requested	  by	  the	  PI,	  the	  data	  were	  judged	  to	  pass	  the	  second	  phase	  of	  quality	  assurance,	  QA2,	  and	  delivered	  to	  PIs.	  During	  the	  data	  reduction	  process,	  some	  of	  the	  initial	  “QA0	  pass”	  SB	  executions	  were	  found	  to	  not	  be	  useful	  for	  inclusion	  in	  the	  final	  imaging	  products.	  	  If	  the	  remaining	  set	  of	  useful	  executions	  were	  sufficient	  for	  the	  SB	  to	  pass	  QA2,	  the	  non-­‐useful	  executions	  were	  included	  in	  the	  data	  package	  and	  the	  reason	  for	  not	  using	  them	  in	  the	  calibration/imaging	  noted	  for	  the	  PI.	  	  If	  a	  dataset	  was	  determined	  not	  to	  meet	  the	  PIs	  specifications,	  the	  project	  was	  marked	  as	  “QA2	  fail”	  and	  the	  SB	  marked	  for	  additional	  executions.	  	  If	  this	  occurred	  after	  the	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0	  observing,	  then	  the	  data	  were	  delivered	  to	  the	  PI	  with	  a	  description	  of	  why	  they	  failed	  QA2.	  In	  the	  end,	  771	  executions	  passed	  QA0,	  while	  659	  (85%)	  were	  used	  in	  the	  final	  imaging	  products	  that	  passed	  QA2.	  	  After	  packaging,	  the	  data	  were	  made	  available	  to	  the	  PI	  and	  ingested	  into	  the	  archive.	  A	  total	  of	  20	  TB	  of	  data	  were	  processed	  and	  archived.	  The	  archive	  query	  tool	  is	  now	  available	  through	  the	  science	  portal	  and	  can	  be	  used	  to	  search	  for	  all	  Cycle	  0	  datasets	  that	  passed	  QA0,	  along	  with	  their	  public	  release	  date.	  	  The	  original	  goal	  was	  to	  reduce	  data	  within	  three	  workweeks	  and	  achieve	  a	  total	  delivery	  time	  of	  six	  weeks.	  In	  the	  end,	  there	  were	  many	  issues	  that	  prevented	  us	  from	  reaching	  this	  goal,	  including	  a	  long	  delay	  to	  establish	  the	  calibration	  procedure	  for	  Band	  9	  data,	  a	  problem	  with	  Tsys	  that	  held	  up	  data	  reduction	  for	  six	  weeks	  during	  the	  summer,	  issues	  with	  data	  transfer	  to	  the	  ARCs,	  and	  individually	  challenging	  or	  problematic	  projects.	  Table	  3	  shows	  the	  different	  steps	  of	  data	  processing	  and	  delivery	  together	  with	  the	  associated	  timescales.	  	  Table	  3:	  Median	  data	  delivery	  timescales.	  	  Data Processing & Delivery timescales
Days between last SB execution and SB posted for
assignmentDays between "available for assignment" and QA2Days between QA2 and Delivery
Total time (days)	  	  Median(days)
745.5
1184

While	  the	  observing	  season	  ended	  on	  January	  1,	  2013,	  the	  Cycle	  0	  data	  delivery	  effort	  continued	  into	  Cycle	  1.	  Figure	  5	  shows	  the	  rate	  of	  data	  reduction	  and	  delivery	  during	  Cycle	  0.	  	  	  	  	  	  Figure	  5:	  ALMA cycle 0 processing status. The red curve shows the number of SBs thathave been observed the requisite number of times, while the other curves show the numberof datasets that have been processed through QA2 (blue) and delivered to PI’s (green).	  	  Project	  Completion	  Cycle	  0	  initially	  consisted	  of	  113	  high	  priority	  projects.	  Two	  projects	  were	  cancelled,	  leaving	  111	  high	  priority	  projects	  to	  be	  observed.	  	  	  Tables	  4	  and	  5	  show	  the	  completion	  statistics	  of	  “High	  Priority”	  and	  “Filler”	  projects,	  respectively,	  along	  with	  the	  corresponding	  number	  of	  SBs	  and	  SB	  Executions.	  	  	  	  In	  summary,	  108	  “High	  Priority”	  PI	  projects	  (97%)	  received	  some	  data,	  98	  (88%)	  completed	  some	  of	  the	  individual	  science	  goals,	  and	  77	  (69%)	  completed	  all	  of	  the	  individual	  science	  goals.	  	  	  Table	  4.	  	  Completion	  of	  high	  priority	  projects,	  SBs	  and	  executions	  at	  the	  end	  of	  Cycle	  0.	  ‘Passed’	  or	  ‘failed’	  refers	  to	  QA2	  status	  for	  SBs	  and	  to	  QA0	  status	  for	  executions.	  A	  project	  is	  complete	  when	  all	  the	  SBs	  have	  been	  completed.	  “Completely	  delivered”	  means	  all	  executions	  of	  all	  SBs	  were	  delivered	  (regardless	  of	  QA2	  status).	  “Completely	  passed/failed”	  means	  that	  all	  SBs	  associated	  with	  the	  project	  had	  that	  QA2	  status.	  

Priority=Highest
Total Number (non-canceled)StartedWith SBs that passed QA2Completely delivered
Completely passed & delivered

Projects
111
108
98
96
77

SBs
374
327
302
327302

Executions
754
738
633
684
633

Completely failed & delivered

102551No Executions

347

0105
19121912

Executions
182332633
26

1. ‘Started’	  refers	  here	  to	  executions	  that	  passed	  QA0	  	  Table	  5.As	  table	  4,	  but	  for	  Filler	  projects.	  	  Priority=Filler
Total Number (non-canceled)StartedWith SBs that passed QA2Completely delivered
Completely passed & delivered	  	  	  Projects
441310117

SBs

Completely failed & delivered

377

No Executions

31860