ALMA Early Science Cycle 3: Outcomeof the Proposal Review Process
Proposal Review Process

In response to the Call for Proposals for Early Science Cycle 3, ALMA received 1578
valid proposals by the 23 April 2015 submission deadline. These proposals, referredto hereafter as “submitted proposals”, were reviewed by 12 ALMA Review Panels(ARPs), each comprising eight Science Assessors. To ensure a fairly even workload
between the different ARPs, the proposals were distributed across the 5 ALMA
scientific categories as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Cosmology and the high redshift universe (3 panels);
Galaxies and galactic nuclei (3 panels);
ISM, star formation and astrochemistry (3 panels);
Circumstellar disks, exoplanets and the solar system (2 panels);
Stellar evolution and the Sun (1 panel).

Science Assessors were selected on the basis of scientific specialization, taking into
account regional balance. As can be seen in Figure 1, the regional distribution of the
ARP members closely matches the nominal ALMA regional shares of the observing
time. The 12 ARP Chairs served on the ALMA Proposal Review Committee (APRC),
together with an ARP member acting as the Chile representative, and the APRC
Chair, Anneila Sargent, who did not belong to any ARP. The full list of Cycle 3 Science
Assessors is given in Table 1.

Figure 1. Regional distribution of the Science Assessors.

1

Table 1. Cycle 3 APRC and ARP members

APRC chair:
Anneila Sargent

California Institute of Technology (USA)APRC and ARP members:
Susanne Aalto

Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden)

Jose AfonsoInstituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço (Portugal)

Hector Arce

Yale University (USA)

Maarten Baes

Ghent University (Belgium)

Beatriz Barbuy

Sao Paolo, University of (Brazil)

Felipe Barrientos

Catolica of Chile, Pontifica University (Chile)Franz Bauer

Catolica of Chile, Pontifica University (Chile)

Amelia Bayo

Valparaiso, University of (Chile)

Henrik Beuther

Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (Germany)

Michael Bietenholz

York University (Canada)

Elias Brinks

Hertfordshire, University of (United Kingdom)Simon Casassus

Chile, University of (Chile)

Paola Caselli

Max-Planck-Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (Germany)

Caitlin Casey

California at Irvine, Univ of (USA)

Cecilia Ceccarelli

Grenoble Observatory (France)

Claire Chandler

National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro (USA)

Ranga Chary

California Institute of Technology (USA)Isabelle Cherchneff

Basel, University of (Switzerland)

Se-Hyung Cho

Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (South Korea)

Lucas Cieza

Universidad Diego Portales (Chile)

Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky

Geneva, University of (Switzerland)

Ana Duarte Cabral

Exeter, University of (United Kingdom)

Anne Dutrey

Bordeaux Observatory (France)

Jayanne English

Manitoba, University of (Canada)

Barbara Ercolano

Munich, University of (Germany)

Catherine Espaillat

Boston University (USA)

Duncan Farrah

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (USA)Yanga Fernandez

Central Florida, University of (USA)Jacqueline Fischer

Naval Research Laboratory (USA)Mark Gurwell

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (USA)Tomoya Hirota

National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (Japan)

Martin Houde

Western Ontario, University of (Canada)

Annie Hughes

Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (Germany)

Masatoshi Imanishi

National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (Japan)

Kelsey Johnson

Virginia, University of (USA)Jes Jorgensen

Copenhagen, University of (Denmark)Sheila Kannappan

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of (USA)Stefan Kimeswenger

Catolica of the North, University (Chile)

Gillian Knapp

Princeton University (USA)2

Tadayuki Kodama

National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (Japan)

Kotaro Kohno

The University of Tokyo (Japan)

Nario Kuno

University of Tsukuba (Japan)

Guilaine Lagache

Paris-Sud University (France)

Chang Won Lee

Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute (South Korea)

Emmanuel Lellouch

Paris Observatory (France)

Paulina Lira

Chile, University of (Chile)

Ute Lisenfeld

Granada University (Spain)

Lori Lubin

California, Davis, University of (USA)Sangeeta Malhotra

Arizona State University (USA)Claudia Maraston

Portsmouth, University of (United Kingdom)

Diego Mardones

Chile, University of (Chile)

Dan Marrone

Arizona, University of (USA)Satoki Matsushita

Academia Sinica (Taiwan)

Karin Menendez-Delmestre

Rio de Janeiro, Federal University of (Brazil)

Stefanie MilamNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)Kentaro Motohara

University of Tokyo (Japan)

Lee Mundy

Maryland, University of (USA)

Takayuki Muto

Kogakuin University (Japan)

Fumitaka Nakamura

National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (Japan)

Hiroyuki Nakanishi

Kagoshima University (Japan)

Hideko Nomura

Tokyo Institute of Technology (Japan)

Karin Oberg

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (USA)Nagayoshi Ohashi

Academia Sinica (Taiwan)

Masatoshi Ohishi

National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (Japan)

Tomoharu Oka

Keio University (Japan)

Masami Ouchi

The University of Tokyo (Japan)

Deborah Padgett

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)

Jenny Patience

Arizona State University (USA)Ismael Perez-Fournon

Astrophysical Institute of Canarias (Spain)

Ylva Pihlstrom

New Mexico, University of (USA)Thomas Puzia

Pontifical Catholic University of Chile (Chile)

Jill Rathborne

Astronomy and Space Science (Australia)

Giulia Rodighiero

Padova, University of (Italy)

Erik Rosolowsky

Alberta, University of (Canada)

Huub Rottgering

Leiden University (Netherlands)

Joachim Saur

University of Cologne (Germany)

Marc Sauvage

CEA Saclay (France)

Claudia Scarlata

Minnesota, University of (USA)Eva Schinnerer

Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (Germany)

Yoshiaki Taniguchi

Ehime University (Japan)

Nial Tanvir

Leicester, University of (United Kingdom)

Kim-Vy Tran

Texas A&M University (USA)

Ezequiel Treister

Concepcion, University of (Chile)

Esko Valtaoja

Turku, University of (Finland)

Hans Van Winckel

Leuven, Catholic University (Belgium)

Liese van Zee

Indiana University (USA)3

Geronimo Villanueva

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)

Serena Viti

London, University of (United Kingdom)

Keiichi Wada

Kagoshima University (Japan)

Natalie Webb

Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (France)

Gillian Wilson

California at Riverside, University of (USA)Sebastian Wolf

Kiel University (Germany)

Toru Yamada

Tohoku University (Japan)

Satoshi Yamamoto

The University of Tokyo (Japan)

Lisa Young

New Mexico Tech (USA)Lucy Ziurys

Arizona, University of (USA)The proposal review process was carried out as described in the ALMA Cycle 3
Proposer's Guide. At Stage 1, each proposal was evaluated by four Science
Assessors. A ranked list of all proposals was built on the basis of the scores that they
assigned. The top ~70% of this ranking proceeded to Stage 2, as did those proposals
with a large dispersion of the Stage 1 scores. At Stage 2, the ARPs met face-to-face inOsaka, Japan, on June 22-25, to discuss and rank all proposals assigned to them thatwere still under consideration, taking into account the technical assessments
performed by ALMA staff members. On June 26, the APRC reviewed the single
ranked list resulting from the merging of the individual ARP rankings, paying
particular attention to the handling of proposals involving duplicated observations. It
identified a set of 104 scientifically outstanding proposals to be assigned Grade A,
which makes them eligible for carry-over to Cycle 4 if they cannot be successfullycompleted by end of Cycle 3. Selection of those 104 Grade A projects was based
exclusively on their scientific merits. Going down the APRC ranked list, and factoringin the regional shares, the Joint ALMA Observatory (JAO) built a list of 298 Grade B
proposals such that the estimated 12-m Array time allocated to both Grade A & B
proposals summed to ~2100 hours. It also established a list of 236 Grade C
proposals, to be used as “fillers”, to be scheduled when there are no Grade A or
Grade B projects available that are appropriate for the prevailing conditions. The
Grade C were assigned based on science rank and regional share, but considering
also the observing pressure (number of hours requested vs. available, as a functionof LST, 12-m Array configuration, and observing band; see below). The Directors'
Council and the Chilean representative endorsed this scientific program, which issummarized in the present document. Notifications on individual proposals wereemailed to the Principal Investigators (PI) on August 11.

Proposal statistics and regional distributions

The estimated 12-m Array time for all 1578 proposals summed to 8854 hours. The
estimated execution time of the 402 Grade A and B projects amounts to 2133 hoursof 12-m Array usage. The Grade C projects account for an additional 1360 hours of
estimated execution time. Both groups of projects are proportioned between the
ALMA partners by the agreed shares, with a small fraction assigned to highly ranked
proposals from outside the ALMA partnership.
Among the 402 Grade A and B projects, 54 include observations with the Atacama
Compact Array (ACA); such observations are also part of 42 of the 236 Grade C
4projects. According to current estimates, their execution should require respectively
699 hours (for Grade A and B projects) and 687 hours (for Grade C) of ACA time.
Three proposals that would have qualified for Grade A or B based on their scientificrank were rejected on technical grounds.
Figure 2 shows the distribution across the ALMA regions of the estimated amount of
12-m Array time required for execution (i) of all the submitted proposals, (ii) of theGrade A projects, (iii) of the Grade A and B projects, and (iv) of the Grade C projects.
Figure 3 is similar, but with respect to ACA time.
The estimated total amount of 12-m Array time that would be required for executionof all submitted proposals exceeds the 12-m Array execution time of the Grade A
and B proposals by a factor of 4.1. This is similar to the ratio of the number ofsubmitted proposals to that of Grade A and B proposals, 3.9.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the similarity between the oversubscription factor interms of number of proposals, on the one hand, and in terms of execution time, on
the other hand, also stands when one considers the proposals region-by-region.
The distribution of the 12-m Array execution time of the Grade A and B proposals(see Figure 6) is similar to that of all submitted proposals (Figure 5). In particular,
both distributions have essentially the same median value: respectively, 4.5 and 4.6
hours, as per the Observing Tool (OT) estimate.

Figure 2. Regional share of 12-m Array time for all submitted proposals, and for the proposals recommended forscheduling with Grade A, Grades A and B, and Grade C.

5

Figure 3. Regional share of ACA time for all submitted proposals, and for the proposals recommended forscheduling with Grade A, Grades A and B, and Grade C.

Figure 4. Blue: Ratio of the number of submitted proposals to the number of proposals assigned Grades A and B,
by region. Red: Ratio of the estimated amount of 12-m Array time required for execution of all submitted
proposals to that required for execution of the Grade A and B projects.

6Figure 5. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array observing time per proposal (as per the OT estimate), for the1578 Cycle 3 proposals considered in the review process. The maximum amount of requested 12-m Arrayobserving time was 62.9 hrs.

Figure 6. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array observing time per proposal (as per the OT estimate), for the
402 Cycle 3 proposals assigned Grades A and B. The maximum amount of requested 12-m Array observing timewas 44.4 hrs.

7

Table 2 summarizes the main elements of information on the distribution of the
proposals across the ALMA regions.

Table 2. Regional distribution of all submitted proposals, of the Grade A and B projects, and of the Grade C
projects.

User statistics

A total of 3605 unique users participated in the Cycle 3 Call, as either PI or CoInvestigator (Co-I) on a proposal. The 402 Grade A and B proposals involve 1749
unique users and 345 unique PIs. Of the 331 users who were PIs on more than one
proposal, 51 had more than one project assigned Grade A or B.
The project codes, titles, investigators, and abstracts of the Grade A and B projects
are available from the ALMA Science Portal (under the Observing – High Priority
Projects menu item).
The composition of the proposing teams of both the submitted proposals and of
Grade A and B selected projects ranged from one single PI to 68 proposers (seeFigures 7 and 8, respectively). The mean number of proposers per submitted project
was 9.2 and per Grade A or B project was 10.1.
Table 3 shows the distribution of the country or region of affiliation of PIs and Co-Isof submitted, Grade A and B, and Grade C proposals. Note that the total number of
unique PIs is lower than the sum of the number of unique PIs per country or region
because PIs from Taiwan could be affiliated with either EA and NA. For the statistics
of all unique proposers (PIs and Co-Is), a 50/50 region split between EA and NA wasadopted for Taiwan Co-Is (since Co-Is do not have the option to select their proposal
submission region).

8

Figure 7. Distribution of the total number of proposers (PI + Co-Is) per proposal, for all submitted Cycle 3
proposals. The maximum number of proposers was 68.

Figure 8. Distribution of the total number of proposers (PI + Co-Is) per proposal, for the Cycle 3 proposals
assigned Grade A or B,. The maximum number of proposers was 68.

9Table 3. Distribution of the country or region of affiliation of PIs and Co-Is of submitted, Grade A and B, andGrade C proposals.

Science categories

Figures 9 and 10 show the distribution of the number of proposals per science
category, respectively for all submitted proposals, and for Grade A, B, and C
proposals.
Although the overall proposal ranked list was built in such a way that the fraction of
proposals per category in any (large enough) range of ranks is proportional to thefraction of proposals per category for the full set of submitted proposals, departuresfrom this proportionality are introduced when this ranked list is folded with theregional time shares so as to define the groups of proposals assigned different
grades. Their origin can be understood from consideration of Figure 11, which
illustrates the differences between the scientific interests of the ALMA communitiesof the different regions, as reflected by their Cycle 3 proposals.
Both for all submitted proposals, and for those assigned Grade A, B or C, thedistribution of the estimated 12-m Array time per category somewhat differs fromtheir distributions in number (compare Figure 13 and Figure 14 with, respectively,
Figure 9 and Figure 10). This is primarily due to differences in the mean 12-m Array
time per proposal between the different categories, and especially, the greater
amount of observing time per Category 1 and 2 proposal, compared to Categories 3,
4 and 5 (see Figure 12).

10

Figure 9. Distribution of the number of submitted proposals per science category (1=Cosmology & high redshift,
2=Galaxies & galactic nuclei, 3=ISM, star formation and astrochemistry, 4=Circumstellar disks, exoplanets & solar
system, 5=Stellar evolution and the Sun).

Figure 10. Distribution of the number of proposals per science category for Grade A, B and C projects.

11Figure 11. Distribution of submitted proposals across science categories, for each ALMA region.

Figure 12. Distribution of the average proposal length of 12-m Array time per science category for all submitted
proposals. The science categories are: 1=Cosmology & high redshift, 2=Galaxies & galactic nuclei, 3=ISM, starformation and astrochemistry, 4=Circumstellar disks, exoplanets & solar system, 5=Stellar evolution and the Sun.

12

Figure 13. Total requested 12-m Array time for each scientific category (1=Cosmology & high redshift, 2=Galaxies& galactic nuclei, 3=ISM, star formation and astrochemistry, 4=Circumstellar disks, exoplanets & solar system,
5=Stellar evolution and the Sun).

Figure 14. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array time per science category for Grade A, B and C projects.

13Figure 15. Breakdown of the Grade A and B projects by scientific keyword, across all ALMA scientific categories.
For each science keyword, the number of proposals in which it is selected is indicated.

Figure 15 illustrates the wide range of scientific topics covered by the Grade A and B
projects. It is based on the ALMA scientific keywords specified in the proposals,counting the number of occurrences of each in the Grade A and B proposals. Of the
402 Grade A and B projects, 208 include a single scientific keyword, and 194 include
two. The latter are counted twice (once for each keyword) in Figure 15. Keywords
that are specified in less than 6 Grade A and B proposals appear under “Others”. Of
the 58 scientific keywords available for Cycle 3, 3 do not feature in any Grade A or B
proposal. Table 4 gives a list of the scientific keywords most frequently occurring in
the Grade A and B proposals.

14

Table 4. Scientific keywords occurring in more than 9 Grade A or B proposals

Observing Pressure

Comparison of Figure 17 with Figure 16 shows that the distribution of the 12-m
Array time between the available observing frequency bands as part of Grade A or B
projects is roughly similar to its distribution in all submitted proposals. In particular,
Grade A and B Bands 8, 9 and 10 projects require close to 10% of the total available
12-m Array time: this represents a good match with the fraction of the time whenobserving conditions are suitable for science observations in these bands (see Figure
1 of the ALMA Cycle 3 Proposer's Guide). Projects proposing observations in Bands 3,
4, 6 and, to a lesser extent, Band 7 have by design been privileged in the selection ofGrade C projects, so as to ensure that they can be executed as “fillers” when theconditions are too poor for any Grade A or B observation. The Band 7 projects wereassigned Grade C only if there was a deficit of Grade A or B projects at thecorresponding right ascension for a given 12-m Array configuration. High-frequency
Grade C observations stand a low probability of being prepared and executed.

15

Figure 16. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array time per receiver band for all submitted proposals.

Figure 17. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array time per receiver band for Grade A, B and C projects.

16Figure 18. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array time as a function of right ascension (RA), for each of thearray configurations offered in Cycle 3. The green part of the histograms corresponds to the Grade A and B
proposals, and the red part, to Grade C. The dotted line in each panel shows the expected amount of available
observing time in the considered configuration, according to the planned configuration schedule and adopting anobserving efficiency of 60 %.

17

Figure 19. Distribution of the amount of 12-m Array time for the Grade A and B proposals as a function of rightascension (RA), for each of the array configurations offered in Cycle 3. The colors used in the histograms
distinguish the various receiver bands. The dotted line in each panel shows the expected amount of available
observing time in the considered configuration, according to the planned configuration schedule and adopting anobserving efficiency of 60%.

18

Observing pressure plots (number of hours requested compared to the number
available, as a function of required LST, observing frequency band, and inferred array
configuration) were produced based on the individual Science Goals (SGs) of theGrade A, B, and C proposals. The number of available hours for each configuration
was taken based on a slightly revised version of the 12-m Array configuration
schedule published in the Cycle 3 Proposers Guide, and adopting an observing
efficiency of 60%. The RA of the target and observing frequency were taken directlyfrom each SG, and the required configuration was inferred from the requested
observing frequency, desired angular resolution, and source declination. The
resulting observing pressure plots are presented in Figure 18 (color coded by overall
proposal grade) and Figure 19 (for Grade A and B proposals only, color coded byfrequency band). Figure 19 shows that the most scientific demand for observationsin the 2-6 h and 12-19 h LST ranges for most configurations, with low demand forobservations in the 7-9 h and 22-1 h LST ranges. Note that A and B grades wereassigned primarily on the basis of the scientific ranking of proposals and executive
share, rather than on observing pressure.
As mentioned earlier, the assignment of Grade C to proposals was made inconsideration of the distribution of the Grade A and B proposals (green histogramsin Figure 18). However, no fillers were assigned for proposal requesting observationsin the long baseline configurations (C36-7 and C36-8, maximum baselines > 5 km),because a long baseline campaign will happen in parallel in order to turn long
baselines into a standard observing mode and to further test high frequency
observations in long baselines.

19