Paper detail

The design strategy of scientific data quality control software for Euclid mission

The most valuable asset of a space mission like Euclid are the data. Due to their huge volume, the automatic quality control becomes a crucial aspect over the entire lifetime of the experiment. Here we focus on the design strategy for the Science Ground Segment (SGS) Data Quality Common Tools (DQCT), which has the main role to provide software solutions to gather, evaluate, and record quality information about the raw and derived data products from a primarily scientific perspective. The SGS DQCT will provide a quantitative basis for evaluating the application of reduction and calibration reference data, as well as diagnostic tools for quality parameters, flags, trend analysis diagrams and any other metadata parameter produced by the pipeline. In a large programme like Euclid, it is prohibitively expensive to process large amount of data at the pixel level just for the purpose of quality evaluation. Thus, all measures of quality at the pixel level are implemented in the individual pipeline stages, and passed along as metadata in the production. In this sense most of the tasks related to science data quality are delegated to the pipeline stages, even though the responsibility for science data quality is managed at a higher level. The DQCT subsystem of the SGS is currently under development, but its path to full realization will likely be different than that of other subsystems. Primarily because, due to a high level of parallelism and to the wide pipeline processing redundancy, for instance the mechanism of double Science Data Center for each processing function, the data quality tools have not only to be widely spread over all pipeline segments and data levels, but also to minimize the occurrences of potential diversity of solutions implemented for similar functions, ensuring the maximum of coherency and standardization for quality evaluation and reporting in the SGS.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access10 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.