Highlights of the Developing Heliophysics Standards and Cross-science Collaborations Workshop

Highlights of the Developing Heliophysics Standards and Cross-science Collaborations Workshop Rebecca Ringuette1,2, Heather Cronk5, Julie Barnum5, Michael Wiltberger6, Dan Welling7, Jeff Carver8, Brian A. Thomas1, Jon Vandegriff9, Jonathan T. Niehof10 1Heliophysics Digital Resource Library, 2ADNET Systems, Inc., 5Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics /University of Colorado Boulder, 6NCAR, 7University of Michigan, 8University of Alabama, 9Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, 10University of New Hampshire. Defining Communities of Practice for Software The 2024 Software for NASA SMD Workshop Report called for communities of practice for software, both specific to the software functionality and specific to the science domain. Attendees of the workshop unanimously agreed on the importance of those communities and outlined what those would look like for the two software categories represented. (10.5281/zenodo.14047904) Mission Software The community of practice envisioned for mission software was described as a broader version of the PyHC, extended to all Heliophysics software regardless of funding agency. The basic components included: •A web presence with resources on standards and best practices; •Mentorship opportunities for RSEs; •Leadership of sessions at relevant workshops and conferences, such as DASH, US-RSE, AGU, and the like; •Advertising of high quality and reusable software, such as on the HSSI, and inclusion in software summer school sessions; and •Regular virtual meetings with in-person meetings at a longer cadence, ideally with travel funding available. This community of practice was seen by the attendees as the open network of idea exchange currently missing for Heliophysics mission software outside of Python. Model Software Important components of a community of practice for model software in Heliophysics included: •A virtual, searchable, and permanent space for people to come together and share experiences on what does or does not work, supported by a thoughtful set of rules, guidelines and policies. •Structured peer mentoring where experienced users or developers are paired with newer ones, including publication reviewers, supported by routinely held hackathon-style workshops where newcomers learn from more experienced users how to perform various tasks. •A central body of shared knowledge, including frequently asked questions, links to relevant resources, educational opportunities, and the like. •Good advertisement, incentives to join, and proper support and incentives for more experienced users and developers to stay involved. Development of one such structure from the University of Michigan’s Center for Space Environment Modeling is underway and could be driven in useful ways to fit this purpose. Software Standards and Best Practices Attendees drafted concepts of best practices and standards which where then voted on, ranked, and discussed. The results below are split by software category - mission software and model software. A New Funding Model for Heliophysics Model Software The most pressing challenge was funding. The most important components of the proposed “digital mission” funding model included: •Funding calls designed for long-term (e.g., 5 years) support with priority placed on the model software capabilities, maintenance, and community support to be accomplished rather than the science. •Designated support of Research Software Engineers (RSEs) for at least 25% of their time, with their expertise evaluated based on their ability to meet software standards and best practices (e.g., PyHC’s). •Tiered funding levels determined by a matrix of characteristics developed by the model developer community (e.g., 10.5281/zenodo.15776392 as a starting point), including usage, impact, and citation metrics; software standards compliance; model and execution complexity; alignment with FAIR; community involvement; and other indicators of transparency, quality, and openness. Attendees were also especially concerned with balancing support for mature modeling groups with innovative approaches by new groups to maintain a healthy modeling community. Full workshop report coming to Zenodo late 2025. Science Data Systems 3 The Science Data Systems 3 (SDS3) workshop is the third in a series of workshops focused on science data systems for missions in Heliophysics and related sciences. This workshop focused on producing a final template for Science Data System Papers for an upcoming special issue. Template: 10.5281/zenodo.17316943 More info at the “A Call for Science Data System Papers” poster! Sign up: https://tinyurl.com/ SDS-paper-listserv Mission Software The implementation step considered of highest priority for all of the best practices and standards discussed was the inclusion and prioritization of research software engineers early in the decision making and design processes, even before proposals are submitted to increase the success of the mission and the interoperability of the software to be developed. Figure 4: Impact (y) and ease (x) of drafted best practices and standards voted as applicable to all types of mission software. Labels indicate the item numbers with lead lines where needed. The top four items in quadrant A are the most impactful and easiest items – listed in the table (left). 0000-0003-0875-2023 Workshop Structure The Developing Heliophysics Standards and Cross-science Collaborations Workshop aimed to provide a space where the modeling and mission software development communities could discuss potential software standards in Heliophysics, improve Open Science practices, and discover new collaborations to overcome current technical challenges. Nearly two-thirds of those who completed the post-workshop survey indicated at least one new or enhanced collaboration, with nearly all being with a group at another institution. Figure 2: Affiliations of the registrants and attendees across several types of institutions. Model Software The high rating for items 18 and 14 signifies a shift in Heliophysics modeling culture from the previous closed code paradigm to an open one, where the software is open for everyone to access, study and run themselves - a turning point in Heliophysics modeling culture worth celebrating! Figure 6: Impact (y) and ease (x) of drafted best practices and standards voted as applicable to all types of model software. Labels indicate the item numbers with lead lines where needed. The top four items in quadrant A are the most impactful and easiest items – listed in the table at left. Conversations to continue at next year’s DASH. Are these two envisioned communities simply different perspectives of the same structure? •Structured, funded mentoring •Wider, deeper scope of resources •Tiered standards and best practices •More summer schools, hackathons •Software advertising for high tiers