abstract: This paper describes an approach that uses flat-spacetime estimators to estimate the manifold dimension of causal sets that can be faithfully embedded into curved spacetimes. The approach is invariant under coarse-graining and can be implemented independently of any specific curved spacetime. Results are given based on causal sets generated by random sprinklings into conformally flat spacetimes in 2, 3, and 4 dimensions, as well as one generated by a percolation dynamics. PACS: 02.90+p, 04.60-m
address: Department of Physics and Astronomy, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti,
  MI 48197
author: David D. Reid[^1]
title: The Manifold Dimension of a Causal Set: tests in conformally flat spacetimes

# Introduction

Since the time of Einstein, the prospect that spacetime might be discrete on microscopic scales has been considered as one possible avenue to help solve the problem of quantum gravity. The causal set program proposes one approach to discrete quantum gravity \[1-2\]. A causal set is a set $C$ of elements $%
x_i\in C,$ and an order relation $\prec$, such that the set $C=\{x_i,\prec
\}$ obeys properties which make it a good discrete counterpart for continuum spacetime. These properties are that (a) the set is transitive: $x_i\prec
x_j\prec x_k\Rightarrow x_i\prec x_k$; (b) it is noncircular, $x_i\prec x_j$ and $x_j\prec x_i\Rightarrow x_i=x_j$; (c) it is locally finite such that the number of elements between any two ordered elements $x_i\prec x_j$ is finite, i.e., $\left| [x_i,x_j]\right| <\infty$; and (d) it is reflexive, $%
x_i\prec x_i$ $\forall$ $x\in C$. The action of the order relation is to mimic the causal ordering of events in macroscopic spacetime. Since all events in spacetime are not causally related, then not all pairs of elements in the set are ordered by the order relation. Hence a causal set is a partially ordered set.

If the microscopic structure of spacetime is that of a causal set, then in appropriate macroscopic limits, causal sets must be consistent with the properties of general relativity which describes spacetime as a Lorentzian manifold. Therefore, it must be established that causal sets can possess manifold-like properties. A necessary (but not sufficient) requirement for a causal set to be like a manifold is that it can be embedded into a manifold uniformly with respect to the metric. Finding ways to embed a causal set has proven to be very difficult thus far. However, the properties of a causal set can be compared to the properties that a uniformly embedded causal set are expected to have. The kinds of tests that can check for manifold-like behavior generally require knowledge of the dimension of the manifold into which the causal set might embed. In fact, consistency between different ways to estimate the dimension of the manifold is itself a stringent test of manifold-like behavior. It is worth noting that within the mathematics of partial orders there are several types of dimensions. However, the dimensions traditionally studied by mathematicians do not correspond to what is meant here. Therefore, everywhere in this paper the phrase "dimension of a causal set" refers to the *manifold dimension,* i.e.*,* the dimension of the Lorentzian manifold into which the causal set might be uniformly embedded.

The most useful methods for estimating the dimension of a causal set are the Myrheim-Meyer dimension \[3-4\] and the midpoint scaling dimension \[5\]. By design, both of these methods work best in Minkowski space. The approach used to derive the Myrheim-Meyer dimension has been extended to curved spacetimes \[4\], but implementation of this more general *Hausdorff dimension* is specific to the particular spacetime against which the causal set is being checked. Since there are infinitely many curved spacetimes, this method is less useful in more generic cases. Therefore, there is a continuing need to find ways to estimate the dimension of a causal set for curved spacetimes that (a) are independent of the specific properties of the curved spacetime, (b) do not require very large causal sets to achieve useful results, and (c) are invariant under coarse-graining of the causal set. This last requirement is desired because, on the microscopic scale, the causal sets that might describe quantum gravity will not display manifold-like properties in the sense described above. Only in the macroscopic limit, after an appropriate change-of-scale, do we expect to see such properties; this change-of-scale is called coarse-graining.

In what follows, I first present the background theory and terminology needed to understand the dimension estimation methods described in this paper; then, the different approaches to dimension estimation are described. The extent to which the methods work are illustrated using causal sets generated by uniform sprinklings into flat and conformally flat spacetimes. I then illustrate the methods using a causal set generated by a percolation dynamics.

# Theory

As alluded to previously, in the causal set program we are interested in those causal sets that can be uniformly embedded into a manifold. An embedding of a causal set is a mapping of the set onto points in a Lorentzian manifold such that the lightcone structure of the manifold preserves the ordering of the set. With high probability, an embedding will be uniform if the mapping corresponds to selecting points in the manifold via a Poisson process (as described below). Two important results for understanding the dimension estimators to be discussed are (a) the correspondence between the volume of a region in a manifold and the number of causal set elements and, (b) the correspondence between geodesic length and the number of links in a chain of causal set elements. These topics are discussed in the next two subsections.

## Random Sprinklings

One way to generate a causal set that can be uniformly embedded into a manifold is to perform a random sprinkling of points in a manifold. If the set $X$ consists of points $\{x_i\}$ randomly distributed (sprinkled) in a manifold $M$ of finite volume $V_M$, we can define a discrete random variable $\chi _A$ on a region $A$ of $M$ such that $\chi _A(x_i)=1$ if $%
x_i\in A$ and $0$ otherwise. In terms of the random variable $\chi _A$ we can define another discrete random variable $N_n$ that counts the number of $%
x_i\in A$ up to a possible number $n$ equal to the size of $A$, where $%
N_n=\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\chi _A(x_i)$. Random variables such as $N_n$ are described by the binomial distribution which, for our case, can be written as \[4\] $$F_k(N_n)=%
%TCIMACRO{\binom nk }
%BeginExpansion
{n \choose k}%
%EndExpansion
\left( \frac{V_A}{V_M}\right) ^k\left( 1-\frac{V_A}{V_M}\right) ^{n-k},
\label{1}$$ where $F_k$ is the probability of outcome $k$.

If we define the density of the sprinkled points as $\rho =n/V_M$, the expectation value of $N_n$ in region $A$ is given by $\left\langle
N_n\right\rangle =\rho V_A$. To generalize this description to manifolds of infinite volume, we take the limit of eq. (1) as $V_M\rightarrow \infty$ while holding the density of the sprinkling uniform, $\rho =const$. This procedure is a standard approach for deriving the Poisson distribution \[6\] $$P_k(N_n)=\lim\limits_{%
%TCIMACRO{\QATOP{V_M\rightarrow \infty }{\rho =const} }
%BeginExpansion
{V_M\rightarrow \infty  \atop \rho =const}%
%EndExpansion
}F_k(N)=\frac{\rho V_A}{k!}e^{-\rho V_A},  \label{Poisson}$$ where the equivalence $V_A/V_M=\rho V_A/n$ has been used. From this distribution, we find that the average value of the number of points sprinkled into regions of volume $V_A$ is given by $$\left\langle N_n\right\rangle _A=\rho V_A.  \label{num and vol}$$ While it is customary to scale the sprinkling to unit density, $\rho =1$, this scaling is not done in the present cases. Thus, we see that a random sprinkling of points in a manifold at uniform density is described by a Poisson distribution. Therefore, the interesting causal sets are from among those that will admit an embedding consistent with a Poisson sprinkling into a manifold (perhaps only after coarse-graining). Such an embedding is referred to as a *faithful* *embedding*.

## Geodesic Length

Recall that the length of the geodesic between two causally related events corresponds to the longest proper time between those events. To see what the most natural analog to geodesic length is for causal sets we must first define a few terms. A *link,* $\preceq$, in a causal set is an irreducible relation; so, $x_i\preceq x_k$ iff $\nexists$ $x_j\ni x_i\prec
x_j\prec x_k$. A *chain* in a causal set is a set of elements for which each pair is related; for example, $x_a\prec x_b\prec \cdots \prec
x_{z-1}\prec x_z$ is a chain from $x_a$ to $x_z$. A *maximal chain* is a chain consisting only of links, such as $x_a\preceq x_b\preceq \cdots
\preceq x_{z-1}\preceq x_z$.

As explained by Myrheim \[3\], the length of the longest maximal chain between two related elements in a causal set is the most natural analog for the geodesic length between two causally connected events in spacetime. (Myrheim did not use the term "causal set" which was coined by Rafael Sorkin and used in \[1\]). The length of a maximal chain is defined to be the number of links in that chain. Brightwell and coworkers have proven that this correspondence between the geodesic length in a Lorentzian manifold and the number of links in the longest maximal chain is, in fact, valid in Minkowski space \[7\]. Therefore, Myrheim's expectation that this correspondence should be valid in the general case seems well founded. In this work, I shall assume the validity of what I will refer to as the *Myrheim length conjecture*:

> Let $C=\{x_i,\prec \}$ be a causal set that can be faithfully embedded, with density $\rho$, into a Lorentzian manifold $M$ by a map $g:C\rightarrow M$. Then, in the limit $\rho \rightarrow \infty$, the expected length of the longest maximal chain between any ordered pair $(x_i,x_j)\in C$ is directly proportional to the geodesic length between their images $[g(x_i),g(x_j)]\in
> M$.

# Dimension Estimators

A dimension estimator for a causal set is a method that only uses properties of the set to determine the dimension of the manifold into which the causal set might be faithfully embeddable. Ideally, we hope to have a scheme for estimating the dimension of a causal set that (a) works well for curved spacetime manifolds, (b) is invariant under coarse-grainings of the causal set, and (c) does not require very large causal sets in order to see useful results. As alluded to previously, one difficulty in finding a useful dimension estimator for curved spacetimes is that implementation of the estimators tend to depend on the properties of the particular spacetime against which the causal set is being compared. This circumstance is problematic for causal sets generated by a process that does not directly suggest a class of candidate spacetimes.

However, one property that all physical spacetimes share is that locally, they are approximately Minkowskian. From the standpoint of causal sets, this implies that if a causal set $C$, of size $N$, is faithfully embeddable into a $d$-dimensional curved manifold $M^d$, then there ought to be subsets $%
{\tt c}_i\subset C$, of size $n_i<N$ that are faithfully embeddable (approximately) into $d$-dimensional Minkowski space ${\Bbb M}^d$. Studying how these subsets behave under dimension estimators that work reliably for $%
{\Bbb M}^d$ should allow us to identify which, if any, $d$-dimensional Minkowski space is most closely approximated by these subsets. I will refer to dimensions found in the above manner as the *local Minkowski dimension* of the causal set. An approach similar to this was independently suggested by Sorkin \[8\].

The dimension estimators that will be used to determine the local Minkowski dimension in curved spacetimes are the Myrheim-Meyer dimension and the midpoint-scaling dimension mentioned in the introduction and described below. Both of these dimension estimators are defined in terms of causal set intervals. A causal set interval between two related elements $I[y,z]$ is the inclusive subset $I[y,z]=\{x_i|y\prec x_i\prec z\}$. Taking $\prec$ as a causal order, $I[y,z]$ is the intersection of the future of $y$ with the past of $z$.

The Myrheim-Meyer dimension is based on the fact that for a causal set faithfully embeddable into an interval $I$ of ${\Bbb M}^d$, the expected number of chains that consists of $k$ elements, $k$-chains ($S_k$), is given by \[4\] $$<S_k>=\frac{\left( \rho V_I\right) ^k\Gamma \left( \delta \right) \Gamma
(2\delta )\Gamma \left( 2\delta +1\right) ^{k-1}}{2^{k-1}k\Gamma \left(
k\delta \right) \Gamma \left( (k+1)\delta \right) },  \label{4}$$ where $\delta \equiv (d+1)/2$. The easiest chains to count are 2-chains which count the relations between elements. Specializing to 2-chains, eq. (4) becomes $$f(d)\equiv \frac{<S_2>}{<N>^2}=\frac{\Gamma \left( d+1\right) \Gamma \left(
d/2\right) }{4\Gamma \left( 3d/2\right) },  \label{ordering fraction}$$ where I have used eq. (3) to relate number and volume. Therefore, for a given causal set, we can divide the number of relations $S_2\approx <S_2>$ by the square of the number of elements $N\approx <N>$ to approximate the value of $f(d)$ for the interval. This function is monotonically decreasing with $d$ and can be numerically inverted to give a value for the dimension.

The midpoint-scaling dimension relies on the correspondence between number and volume, and on the relationship between the volume of an interval in $%
{\Bbb M}^d$ and the length of the geodesic $\tau$ between its defining events \[5\] $$V_I=\frac{\pi ^{(d-1)/2}}{2^{d-2}d(d-1)\Gamma \left[ (d-1)/2\right] }\tau ^d.
\label{6}$$ An interval $I[y,z]$ of size $N$ can be divided into two sub-intervals $%
I_1[y,x]$ and $I_2[x,z]$ of sizes $N_1$ and $N_2$, respectively. Let $%
N_{small}$ be the smaller of $N_1$ and $N_2$, then the element $x$ is the midpoint of $I$ when $N_{small}$ is as large as possible. This process corresponds to a rescaling of lengths by a factor of $1/2$; therefore, in the manifold $\tau /\tau _{small}=2$, which implies that $V/V_{small}=2^d$. For the causal set interval, assuming the Myrheim length conjecture, this translates to $N/N_{small}\approx 2^d$ so that $$d\approx \log _2\left( N/N_{small}\right)  \label{midpoint_d}$$ estimates the dimension.

# Results

The dimension estimators were applied to causal set intervals generated by random sprinklings into flat and conformally flat spacetimes given by the metric $$ds^2=\Omega ^2\eta _{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta ,
\label{conformal metric}$$ where $\Omega ^2$ is the conformal factor (a smooth, strictly positive function of the spacetime coordinates) and $\eta _{\alpha \beta }$ is the Minkowski tensor. The sprinklings were performed by two different methods. The more efficient approach for sprinkling $N$ points into an interval $I$ of volume $V_I$ was to divide the interval into several little regions of volume $v_i$. The number of points sprinkled into a region $n_i$ was determined by the ratio $n_i/N=v_i/V_I$. The coordinates for the $n_i$ points were then determined randomly within the region of volume $v_i$. The less efficient approach, which was much easier to implement, used a (double) rejection method similiar to the method described in \[9\]. In this second approach, the interval was enclosed in a box and spacetime coordinates were randomly selected within this box; if the selected point was outside the interval it was rejected, otherwise, it was kept – this was the first rejection. In Minkowski space, this first rejection provides a uniform distribution of points.

In curved spacetimes, points that fell within the interval faced a second rejection designed to ensure that the points were distributed uniformly with respect to the volume form $\Omega ^d$. Each point in the interval was associated with a random number $w$ selected within the range $0<w<\Omega
_{\max }^d$, where $\Omega _{\max }^d$ is the maximum value of the volume form within the interval $I$. If $w$ was greater than the value of the volume form evaluated at the point in question, the point was rejected; otherwise, it was kept. This process continued until $N$ points were sprinkled into the interval. The sprinklings in 1+1 dimensions used the first method; all others used the rejection method. In a few cases the two methods were compared, and produced completely consistent results. That these methods produced causal sets that correspond to Poisson sprinklings were verified, in 1+1 dimensions, by chi-squared tests. In all sprinklings, random numbers were generated using the subroutine "ran2" from \[9\].

Since the main result of this work comes from comparing the behavior of small sub-intervals between flat and curved spacetimes, we must determine the pertinent range of sub-interval sizes. This range can be determined from sprinklings into Minkowski space. Figure 1 shows the results for random sprinklings of points into intervals of 2-, 3-, and 4-dimensional Minkowski space. Both the Myrheim-Meyer ($d_{MM}$) and midpoint-scaling ($d_{mid}$) dimensions were calculated for every closed sub-interval of size $n_i\geq 3$ . The average value of $d$ was calculated for sub-intervals of a given size. To decrease the statistical fluctuations, each curve in the figure represents an average of 15 different sprinklings.

While there are a number of interesting features in this figure, two things are most relevant to this study. First, we can see that for the midpoint-scaling dimension the three different Minkowski spaces are effectively indistinguishable for sub-intervals smaller than $n_i=10$. Therefore, since all three Minkowski results agree within this size region, any curved spacetime that behaves like one of these three should also be in agreement in this region. This fact sets the lower limit for the pertinent range of comparison with curved spacetimes at $n_i=3$. Second, the general trends displayed by these curves are typical for all of the results. The curves for both $d_{MM}$ and $d_{mid}$ rise steeply producing a "shoulder" beyond which the curves level off. The locations of the shoulder are clearly different for the three different spacetimes; therefore, the degree to which the analogous results for the curved spacetimes match these flat-spacetime results around this shoulder will be used to determine the local Minkowski dimension. The broadest shoulder occurs for $d=4$ for which a value of $%
n_i=100$ is sufficient to incorporate. Therefore, a good size range for seeking local Minkowski behavior for the curved spacetimes studied here is $%
3\leq n_i\leq 100$. I will call this size range the *local Minkowski region*.

The quantitative measure of how well the results for a curved spacetime matches those of a particular flat spacetime is a relative goodness-of-fit test using a chi-squared statistic that compares values of $d$ for sub-intervals of the same size within the local Minkowski region. This relative measure requires knowledge of how well the different flat-spacetime results fit each other according to this method. The statistic is calculated as $$\chi _{a,b}^2=\frac 1B\sum\limits_{j=1}^B\frac{\left( O_{ja}-E_{jb}\right) ^2%
}{E_{jb}},  \label{chi-squared}$$ where the subscript ($a,b$) means that $a$-dimensional Minkowski space is being compared against $b$-dimensional Minkowski space. The quantity $B$ is the number of bins into which the data was divided (either 22 or 30); this number depends on the bin size (either 4 or 3) which was chosen such that each "expected" value $E_{jb}$ was greater than 5. The $O_{ja}$ are the "observed" values. The results of these calculations for the Myrheim-Meyer dimension are the following: $\chi _{2,3}^2=0.662$, $\chi _{3,2}^2=1.25$, $%
\chi _{2,4}^2=1.77$, $\chi _{4,2}^2=4.20$, $\chi _{3,4}^2=0.365$, and $\chi
_{4,3}^2=0.457$. For the midpoint dimension we also have the following results: $\chi _{2,3}^2=0.823$, $\chi _{3,2}^2=1.62$, $\chi _{2,4}^2=2.19$, $%
\chi _{4,2}^2=5.51$, $\chi _{3,4}^2=0.459$, and $\chi _{4,3}^2=0.588$. For both dimension estimators, the best (smallest) result comes from the comparison of three-dimensional Minkowski space against 4-dimensional Minkowski space. Therefore, these values will be used to determine the relative goodness-of-fit of the results for curved spacetimes, 0.365 for the Myrheim-Meyer calculations and 0.459 for the midpoint calculations.

## 1+1 dimensions

Figure 2 shows a uniform sprinkling of 512 points into an interval of a conformally flat spacetime in 1+1 dimensions with conformal factor $\Omega
^2=(xt)^2$. Both the midpoint and Myrheim-Meyer dimension estimators fail for the full interval giving values of $2.77$ and $2.65$, respectively. The conformal factor for this spacetime causes the points to be more spread out in space which is consistent with the overestimates of the dimension. Figure 3 shows a plot of the average midpoint dimension for sub-intervals of different size averaged over 15 sprinklings of the spacetime shown in Fig. 2. This curve is compared against the results for Minkowski space. Despite the fact that the full interval values of the dimension estimators are closer to 3, the behavior for small sub-intervals clearly follows that of two-dimensional Minkowki space suggesting a local Minkowski dimension of two. What appears to be happening here is that the small sub-intervals are, in fact, behaving like causal sets that are embeddable in two-dimensional Minkowski space; then, as you look at sub-intervals of larger size the effects of curvature become more important and the flat-spacetime dimension estimators become less reliable. (A similar plot using the Mryheim-Meyer dimension shows identical features).

To quantify this result, a goodness-of-fit test is made, using an equation very similar to Eq. (), which compares the average dimension of sub-intervals in the curved spacetime with those in each dimension of Minkowski space within the local Minkowski region. The curved spacetime values are taken as the observed and Minkowski space values as the expected. These results are then compared to the best chi-squared results from the mutual comparisons of the different dimensions of Minkowski space. For the curved spacetime shown in Fig. 2, we obtain relative goodness-of-fit values $\widetilde{\chi }^2\equiv \chi ^2/\chi _{3,4}^2$ of $$\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,MM}^2=0.00181,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }%
_{2D,mid}^2=0.00119,$ \\
$\widetilde{\chi }_{3D,MM}^2=1.88,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }_{3D,mid}^2=1.84,$
\\
$\widetilde{\chi }_{4D,MM}^2=4.95,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }_{4D,mid}^2=4.84,$%
\end{tabular}$$ where the notation $\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,MM}^2$ means that the curved spacetime result was compared against two-dimensional Minkowski space using the average Mryheim-Meyer dimension values relative to the value of $\chi
_{3,4}^2$ for the Mryheim-Meyer dimension; and correspondingly for the values labeled with the subscript "mid." As defined, this statistic means that values of $\widetilde{\chi }^2\gtrsim 1$ represents a poor fit signifying that the two data sets being compared could certainly be Minkowski spaces differing in dimension by at least 1. Whereas, values of $%
\widetilde{\chi }^2\ll 1$ indicates a good fit with the spacetime in question. Clearly, the results displayed in Eq. (10) show that the small sub-intervals offer an excellent fit to those of two-dimensional Minkowski space. Furthermore, the fits with three- and four-dimensional Minkowski space are no better, or much worse, than what can be expected between Minkowski spaces of different dimensions. The conformally flat spacetime for which the above results are given represents only one of several 1+1 dimensional spacetimes studied. In all cases, the results are similiar to those given here.

## 2+1 dimensions

Figure 4 shows a uniform sprinkling of 512 points into an interval of a conformally flat spacetime in 2+1 dimensions with conformal factor $\Omega
^2=\left( x^2+y^2\right) /t^6$. This example was chosen because it produced the worse full interval results for all of the 2+1 dimensional spacetimes studied. It is easier to see what this interval is like from the projections. The $y-t$ plane shows that more points are located at larger values of the $y$ coordinate and smaller values of $t$; the $x-t$ plane shows similar behavior. The projection onto the $x-y$ plane shows that the points are more crowded in the middle of the interval. This crowding is due to the preference for small $t$ where the spatial extent of the region is centralized.

Figure 5 shows a plot of the average Myrheim-Meyer dimension for sub-intervals of different size averaged over 15 sprinklings of the spacetime shown in Fig. 4. This curve is compared against the results for Minkowski space. For this spacetime, the effects of the curvature become apparent around $n_i=40$. Nevertheless, the result for the curved spacetime maintains a good approximation to the flat spacetime result within the designated locally flat region. To verify that the local Minkowski dimension of this spacetime should be taken to be three, the relative goodness-of-fit results are $$\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,MM}^2=3.03,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,mid}^2=3.15,$
\\
$\widetilde{\chi }_{3D,MM}^2=0.00807,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }%
_{3D,mid}^2=0.00697,$ \\
$\widetilde{\chi }_{4D,MM}^2=1.15,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }_{4D,mid}^2=1.14.$%
\end{tabular}$$ Here we see clearly that in the locally flat region this spacetime provides results that give an excellent fit to the results for three-dimensional Minkowski space. Several other spacetimes in 2+1 dimensions were studied giving similar results.

## 3+1 dimensions

Figure 6 shows projections of a uniform sprinkling of 512 points into an interval of a conformally flat spacetime in 3+1 dimensions with conformal factor $\Omega ^2=(x^4+y^4+z^4)/t^6$. Figure 7 is the corresponding plot for the average dimension per size of sub-interval. As with the other cases, the figure clearly shows that within the locally flat region the curved spacetime result gives a much better fit to the Minkowski space having the same dimension. The relative goodness-of-fit results for this case are $$\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,MM}^2=9.62,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,mid}^2=10.4,$
\\
$\widetilde{\chi }_{3D,MM}^2=0.825,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }_{3D,mid}^2=0.919,$
\\
$\widetilde{\chi }_{4D,MM}^2=0.0382,$ & $\widetilde{\chi }%
_{4D,mid}^2=0.0252. $%
\end{tabular}$$ Several other spacetimes in 3+1 dimensions were studied giving similar results.

## A causal set generated by transitive percolation

So far, all of the causal sets used were guaranteed to be faithful because they were generated by sprinklings into known manifolds. Having established the approach, it is instructive to apply this method to a causal set generated by some other means. Ultimately, there will be a quantum dynamics for generating causal sets, and it will be these causal sets (or coarse-grained versions of them) whose manifold dimensions we would like to estimate. Although a quantum dynamics for causal sets does not yet exist, there is a classical dynamics, due to Rideout and Sorkin \[10\], which is proving to be very useful in helping to determine the extent to which causal sets can encode physical information. So, this classical dynamics provides an excellent avenue to illustrate how the suggestions presented here might be used in a more general case when we cannot be sure that the causal set is faithfully embeddable.

Perhaps the simplest model within the class of models proposed by Rideout and Sorkin is the one that they have called transitive percolation. The procedure followed here for generating a random causal set of $N$ elements via percolation is as follows: (a) assign labels to the $N$ elements; (b) impose the partial ordering relation $\prec$ onto each pair of elements with probability $p$. That is, if $i<k$, the probability that element $%
i\prec$ element $k$ is $p$; and (c) enforce the transitivity requirement on the set. It has been shown that despite the labeling, causal sets generated in this way are label invariant in that the probability of getting a particular causal set is independent of how the elements were initially labeled \[10\].

For this example, a causal set with $N=512$ and $p=0.0261$ was generated; these values produce a causal set that has a Myrheim-Meyer dimension of 2.0 when applied to the full causal set \[11\]. This causal set, however, is not a causal set interval. Therefore, the largest sub-interval of this 512-element causal set was used; this sub-interval contained 298 elements. Figure 8 is a plot of the average Myrheim-Meyer dimensions for the sub-intervals of the 298-element causal set interval taken from the causal set generated by transitive percolation, compared against 298-element causal sets generated by random sprinklings in Minkowski space. What stands out in this figure is that the percolation curve does not closely follow any of the Minkowski curves in the local Minkowski region. Therefore, not even the small sub-intervals of this causal set behave as sub-intervals in Minkowski space do. This suggests that the percolated causal set should not be embeddable into any (flat or curved) spacetime.

Looking at the Fig. 8 shows that the percolation curve is a closer fit to the three-dimensional Minkowski curve than it is to the other curves. The relative goodness-of-fit test yields $$\widetilde{\chi }_{2D,MM}^2=1.82,\quad \widetilde{\chi }_{3D,MM}^2=0.308,%
\quad \widetilde{\chi }_{4D,MM}^2=1.952.$$ While these results confirm that the percolation curve is a better fit to the three-dimensional Minkowski result, we can also see that the $\widetilde{%
\chi }_{3D}^2$ value is nearly two orders-of-magnitude worse than what would be expected based on our study of the random sprinklings. This fact gives some quantitative weight to the conclusion reached by studying Fig. 8.

# Conclusions

In this paper, I have suggested a method for estimating the manifold dimension of a causal set that can be faithfully embedded into curved spacetimes and tested this method for several conformally flat spacetimes. The method uses flat-spacetime dimension estimators to search for local Minkowski behavior within the causal set. This approach can be applied to any causal set, and works independent of the specific properties of a particular curved spacetime. Very large causal sets are not required. Furthermore, this approach is invariant under coarse-graining since both the Myrheim-Meyer and midpoint-scaling dimensions are invariant under coarse-graining.

Implementation of this procedure can be summarized as follows: (a) form an interval of size $N$ of the causal set, larger intervals give better statistics, but they don't need to be extremely large; (b) average the Myrheim-Meyer (or midpoint-scaling) dimension for sub-intervals of a given size; (c) perform ramdom sprinklings of size $N$ or greater in 2-, 3-, and 4-dimensional Minkowski space and determine average dimension values for their sub-intervals; (d) a comparision of the results for the causal set being checked against the results for the three Minkowski sprinklings for small sub-intervals, $3<n_i<100$, should reveal whether or not the causal set in question displays the local Minkowski behavior that would be required of causal sets that are faithfully embeddable into physically relevant spacetimes.

It is worth noting that instead of calculating the dimension values for closed sub-intervals, open sub-intervals can also be used. However, the statistical fluctuations are greater for open sub-intervals and this fact becomes somewhat problematic in 2+1 and especially in 3+1 dimensions. What now remains is to apply this method to generically curved spacetimes. The basic principle behind the local Minkowski dimension certainly applies in the generic case, but the extent to which this behavior can be extracted from the causal sets is yet unknown. If this approach proves useful in that case as well, it would be an important step toward the goal of a more comprehensive manifold test for causal sets.

# Acknowledgments

I'd like to acknowledge the help of Mr. Jason Ruiz for writing the computer code to conduct the chi-squared tests used to test the faithfulness of some of the sprinklings. I also wish to thank Dr. Rafael D. Sorkin for providing information on the percolation dynamics and further motivation to work on problems in causal set quantum gravity. This work was supported by the Graduate Research Fund and a Faculty Research Fellowship both from Eastern Michigan University. Additional support from the National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

# References

# Figure Captions

FIG 1. The average value of the Myrheim-Meyer and midpoint dimensions for sub-intervals of a given size in 1+1, 2+1, and 3+1 dimensional Minkowski space. The sprinklings in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions are of 512 points while, for better statistics, the 3+1 sprinklings were of 1024 points. Each curve is an average of 15 different sprinklings. To clearly see the behavior of the small sub-intervals results for sub-interval containing only $n_i\leq
200$ are shown here. For $n_i>200$ the results for the Myrheim-Meyer and midpoint dimensions, for the 2+1 and 3+1 sprinklings, also merge to the appropriate interger values.

FIG 2. A uniform sprinkling of 512 points into an interval of a conformally flat spacetime in 1+1 dimensions. The conformal factor is shown in the figure.

FIG 3. Comparison of the average value of the midpoint-scaling dimension for sub-intervals of a given size for the set of points shown in Fig. 2 (2D curved) against the similar results for 2-, 3-, and 4-dimensional Minkowski space. The results for small sub-intervals suggests a local Minkowski dimension of two.

FIG 4**.** A uniform sprinkling of 512 points into an interval of a conformally flat spacetime in 2+1 dimensions with conformal factor $\Omega
^2=(x^4+y^4)/t^6$. The figure also shows projections of the points onto the $%
x-t$, $y-t$, and $x-y$ planes.

FIG 5. Comparison of the average value of the Mryheim-Meyer dimension for sub-intervals of the set shown in Fig. 4 (3D curved) against similar results for Minkowski space. The results for small sub-intervals suggests a local Minkowski dimension of three.

FIG 6**.** Projections of a uniform sprinkling of 512 points into an interval of a conformally flat spacetime in 3+1 dimensions with conformal factor $\Omega ^2=(x^4+y^4+z^4)/t^6$. Panel (a) shows the projection onto the $x-t$ plane, panel (b) shows the projection onto the $y-t$ plane, panel (c) shows the projection onto the $z-t$ plane, and panel (d) shows the projection onto the $x-y$ plane.

FIG 7. Comparison of the average value of the midpoint-scaling dimension for sub-intervals of the set represented in Fig. 6 (4D curved) against similar results for Minkowski space. The results for small sub-intervals suggests a local Minkowski dimension of four.

FIG 8. Comparison of the average value of the Mryheim-Meyer dimension for the largest sub-interval of a 512-element causal set generated by transitive percolation. The results for small sub-intervals do not match any of the three Minkowski space results suggesting that this percolated causal set is not faithfully embeddable into any spacetime manifold.

[^1]: Email address: email@example.com


author: Tim de Zeeuw
title: Concluding Remarks

It is a pleasure to thank the organizers for putting together such an interesting and enjoyable Joint Discussion on exploiting ongoing and future large surveys for galactic astronomy. The program covered a little over one day, and concluded with a wide-ranging discussion session, involving many of the speakers and other participants. It was good, but also slightly nerve-wrecking, to hear many of the points I had planned to mention coming up naturally in the past hour. For this reason I will restrict myself here to a brief overview of the key science goals and some highlights, and then give my personal view on the challenges and opportunities for the future.

# Galaxy formation & the Milky Way

Much world-wide observational effort concentrates on understanding galaxy formation. It uses the principle that 'far away $=$ long ago', which is sometimes referred to as the fundamental equation of astronomy. Numerical simulations of structure formation by now have the resolution to model individual galaxies. The motions and properties of old stars contain much of the 'fossil record' of the formation history. This fossil record can be read in detail in the Milky Way and its nearest neighbors, because of our ability to resolve the individual stars, and measure their properties. The Milky Way is an average galaxy, in a representative Local Group, so understanding how it formed is central to the entire field of Galaxy formation. This 'near-field' cosmology provides a key test of the paradigm of formation through hierarchical merging of many small building blocks, as summarized by Wyse, Bland–Hawthorn, and Helmi. Specifically, we need to determine i) When the stars in the Milky Way formed, ii) When and how the Milky Way was assembled, and iii) How dark matter in the Milky Way is distributed. It is no coincidence that these are exactly the top three science goals for the stereoscopic census of the Milky Way to be provided by Gaia , and indeed for many ongoing and planned surveys.

# Surveys from ground and space

Many exciting photometric surveys are being carried out, including 2MASS and SDSS/SEGUE (Newberg, Ivezić). They reveal many coherent structures in the Galactic halo which include tidal tails of globular clusters and debris from accreted satellites. Akari is carrying out a mid-infrared all-sky survey (Ishihara), and both VST/VISTA and Pan-Starrs 1 (Kaiser) are about to come on line. Ambitious plans for massive follow-up with Pan-Starrs 4 and LSST are in place, but these are not yet funded.

Many thousands to multiple millions of radial velocities are being provided by the Geneva/Copenhagen survey (Holmberg), SDSS/SEGUE (Ivezić), the RAVE project (Steinmetz) and, in the future, by Gaia. The tremendous scientific impact of the HIPPARCOS proper motions and parallaxes for the brightest 120000 stars has stimulated much astrometric work from the ground, using digitized old photographic plates and new surveys with large-area CCD detectors (Turon). A major jump in accuracy will come when ESA launches Gaia in 2011, which will provide proper motions and parallaxes for a billion stars to magnitude 20. Institutions in Japan and the US have plans for other space astrometry missions as well.

Many of the photometric and kinematic surveys also measure (or at least estimate) stellar parameters including $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$, the extinction $A_V$, \[Fe/H\], and \[$\alpha$/Fe\]. High-resolution spectroscopy for subsets of survey stars has already provided more accurate values, as well as specific elemental abundances (Feltzing).

I was impressed by the mounting evidence for different kinematic groups with very homogeneous elemental abundances within the group, but distinct differences between groups. Such evidence is found not only in the stellar halo, but now also in the thick disk (Feltzing, Helmi), and is very suggestive of successive merging of separate building blocks. Helmi demonstrated convincingly that these building blocks are not the same as the precursors of the dwarf spheroidals that we observe around the Milky Way today.

All of this shows that systematic kinematic selection from unbiased large-scale samples, in particular the dataset to be provided by Gaia, and follow-up high-resolution spectroscopy, holds much promise for unraveling at least part of the formation history of the Local Group. This can be done in unprecedented detail in the Milky Way, and is also becoming possible for the nearest galaxies with instruments such as `FLAMES` on the VLT (Helmi).

# Challenges

It became clear during the presentations that the ongoing and future large survey projects pose some significant challenges. It is critical to calibrate the various groundbased photometric surveys (Glass), and to be very careful about the derivation of stellar parameters from photometry or spectroscopy (Gray). Methods that have been developed for some class of stars should not be applied blindly to all types.

The importance of correcting for extinction was stressed by some speakers, and ignored by others. It may not be an issue for halo stars at substantial galactic latitudes, but correcting for extinction will be crucial for planned studies of the disk and the Bulge. Galaxy models can help (Robin), as do surveys of the atomic and molecular gas, and studies in the infrared (2MASS, VISTA), but there is little substitute for measuring the distances independently, via the parallax. Gaia will provide the major step forward here, but it is critical that ESA now holds firm on the astrometric specifications.

Variable stars, including eclipsing binaries, can provide much additional physical information on stellar properties and distances, but this requires special attention, including a well-planned cadence of multi-epoch observations (Cook). There is little freedom to do this with Gaia, as it will spin at a fixed rate, but ample opportunity for the groundbased surveys.

Much general preparation is needed to extract the key scientific results from the large databases generated by surveys. For example, it will be very interesting to go beyond star counts in cells, and to connect them with the observed kinematics by use of Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. When applied to the full Gaia data, this will provide massive discriminating power between models and formation scenarios. A number of approaches are known for carrying out the required dynamical modeling, but the existing machinery needs to be developed significantly before it can deal with the large data sets of the future. Work on this should start now. Much experience is available in various institutes in Europe, and support by the national funding agencies, or by an EU RTN, would be very helpful.

# Opportunities

There is much complementarity between the various ground-based surveys and the data to be expected from the Gaia all-sky survey (Bailer-Jones). The RAVE effort is an excellent example. It gives exciting scientific results for the brighter stars, and also provides pilot experience with precisely the kind of spectroscopic data to be expected from Gaia for perhaps a 100 million objects fainter than magnitude 12.

The Gaia photometry will result in accurate and homogeneous color information for a billion objects to magnitude 20 over the entire sky. SDSS already extends this a few magnitudes fainter, over a large sky area, and the plan is that VST/VISTA, Pan-Starrs 4 and LSST would go fainter still (Kaiser), and even provide some modest accuracy proper motions beyond the Gaia limit. The Gaia space photometry will be very helpful to calibrate all the groundbased measurements, so that they can be used with confidence at these faint magnitudes.

The Japanese space astrometry plans are exciting as they focus on an infrared study of the Bulge, which cannot be reached by Gaia other than in low-extinction windows. NASA's SIM will focus on exoplanets, as it should, but may provide extremely accurate parallaxes and proper motions for a modest set of pre-selected stars. I am puzzled by the OBSS mission proposed by the US Naval Observatory. The science aims appear copied from Gaia, but would be achieved through a different technical solution. It might be good to have a backup in case of a mishap with Gaia, but the scope of the space science ambitions of NASA and ESA relative to their budgets does not seem to favor trans-atlantic duplication. Surely a better way forward could be explored.

Finally, the proposed `WFMOS` for Subaru with funding from the International Gemini Observatory would provide a marvellous opportunity for the needed high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up. It was not clear from the talks whether even more ambitious instruments or dedicated telescopes would be required. If so, then development better start soon.

# Conclusions

The next decade will see tremendous progress in our understanding of the formation of the Milky Way and the Local Group. Homogeneous large scale photometric, radial velocity and astrometric surveys, dedicated high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up, and theoretical preparation are critical. The talks and the discussion showed that the complementarity of surveys from ground and from space can probably be exploited further with the Gaia mission as the centerpiece, and that plans for this are underway. There is much to look forward to.


abstract: Timely, creditable, and fine-granular case information is vital for local communities and individual citizens to make rational and data-driven responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper presents **CovidNet**, a COVID-19 tracking project associated with a large scale epidemic dataset, which was initiated by 1Point3Acres. To the best of our knowledge, the project is the only platform providing real-time global case information of more than 4,124 sub-divisions from over 27 countries worldwide with multi-language supports. The platform also offers interactive visualization tools to analyze the full historical case curves in each region. Initially launched as a voluntary project to bridge the data transparency gap in North America in January 2020, this project by far has become one of the major independent sources worldwide and has been consumed by many other tracking platforms . The accuracy and freshness of the dataset is a result of the painstaking efforts from our voluntary teamwork, crowd-sourcing channels, and automated data pipelines. As of May 18, 2020, the project website has been visited more than 200 million times and the CovidNet dataset has empowered over 522 institutions and organizations worldwide in policy-making and academic researches. All datasets are openly accessible for non-commercial purposes at <https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com> via a formal request through our APIs.
author: Kai Shen; Tong Yang; Sixuan He; Enyu Li; Peter Sun; Pingying Chen; Lin Zuo; Jiayue Hu; Yiwen Mo; Weiwei Zhang; Haonan Zhang; Jingxue Chen; Yu Guo
bibliography: main.bib
title: CovidNet: To Bring Data Transparency in the Era of COVID-19

# Introduction

Starting from December 2019 or earlier, the outbreak initially detected and reported in Wuhan (Hubei, China) due to a novel type of coronavirus, the *severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2* (SARS-CoV-2), has been rapidly spreading firstly across regions in China and other east-Asian countries, and then, since late February, to nearly all the continents in the world. As of May 15, there have been more than 4.42 million cases confirmed across 225 countries and regions, associated with 302 thousands deaths. Declared as a pandemic by World Health Organization on March 11, the coronavirus outbreak has brought severe challenges to not only local medical systems (especially in underdeveloped areas) but our society as a whole.

Governments across the world have been taking various measures at different levels in response to the pandemic. To be able to make scientific and data-driven decisions, local communities rely on timely and accurate epidemic data to understand the spread and the trend of the COVID-19 outbreak. Case information in cities and/or provinces is especially valuable to promptly adjust local policies in response to the rapid change of the pandemic situation. At the same time, nearly every individual's daily life has been severally affected by the crisis. To minimize the ramification of community spread, it is of extreme importance to provide the public with transparent and accurate local information to guide their daily life decisions. Overall, there is a huge need for *timely, creditable, and fine-granular* data which can be easily accessed via a single platform.

On January 31, our team initiated a project as a data website in response to the ongoing COVID-19 emergency. The original purpose of the project was to provide real-time case information in North America to compensate the delayed official reporting at the time. In less than three months, the platform has grown into a Global COVID-19 tracker which includes geographic information of COVID-19 spread with sub-division level breakdown for more than 27 countries and territories. Up to now, we have become one of the very few completely independent reporting sources of COVID-19 case data integration. As the United States has become the epidemic center of the world since late March where a real-time data collection across the country was unavailable from most official channels, we have been the *original data provider* to the platforms like and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) since March 2020. To provide a full picture about COVID-19, we have also collaborated with another project team to integrate testing and hospitalization statistics in the U.S., and delivered a richer visualization of local pandemic status combined with our real-time case data.

Our COVID-19 dataset, named as **CovidNet**, offers the full historical case trends with a fine-granular regional breakdown. The name addresses the hierarchical structure of the geographical network the data is embedded in. CovidNet is constantly been updated to include the most up-to-date case information in real-time. To achieve data accuracy, real-time update, and worldwide coverage, the CovidNet features:

-   The data is collected from only reliable sources. Various quality control assurances have been applied;

-   The data is updated in real-time with the effort of crowd-sourcing and automated data collection;

-   The data is collected with fine geographical granularity worldwide.

We have been providing data both to the public and academic institutes for pure research purposes. As of May 18, 2020, the project website has been visited more than 200 million times and has empowered over 522 institutions and organizations. We have built a convenient application programming interface to access the CovidNet dataset. And, to assist the worldwide battle against COVID-19, we would like to encourage more users, with both governmental and academic backgrounds, to take advantage of our data collection.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section  provides an overview of the 1Point3Acres CovidNet project on both datasets and visualization. We discuss our data collection practice in details in Section  (North America data) and Section  (global data). We elaborate our quality control mechanism in Section  , and introduce the rich set of interactive visualization tools in Section  . In Section  , we explain briefly about how to access our datasets; related projects and platforms are mentioned in Section . We summarize our work in Section and discuss various ways that CovidNet could aid the battle against COVID-19. A disclaimer is highlighted in the end emphasizing the role of the CovidNet Project and associated contents.

# Project Overview

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, there has been overwhelming related information from numerous resources. A major challenge, therefore, is to integrate the scattered information on a single platform with consistent quality and credibility. The 1Point3Acres project focuses on the following three aspects in collecting and presenting the CovidNet data:

-   **Data Accuracy and Consistency.** We extract information from local health authorities and trustful media reports. Media reports are used when official data is significantly delayed, and are cross-checked with official data afterwords. No data from other tracking platforms is used in CovidNet to eliminate loops of references.

-   **Timely Update.** Since the launch of our project, CovidNet data has been updated in nearly real-time. Crowd-sourcing has been implemented to ensure timely updates. This sets us apart from official channels like WHO and U.S. CDC whose updates are delayed by days. To our best knowledge, most other non-governmental platforms have also experienced a 1 - 2 days delay by far.

-   **Worldwide Data with Regional Breakdown.** CovidNet provides case information with finer geographical granularity in over 27 countries and we are still expanding the coverage. After the initial launch with county-level case data in the U.S. and Canada, we have received numerous feedback from local authorities and residents on how it helped local communities in decision making, which motivated us to bring the finer data granularity to more countries impacted by COVID-19.

## CovidNet Dataset

Our CovidNet dataset provides real-time epidemic information in three major categories: confirmed, deceased, and recovered cases when they are publicly available[^1]. The complete history since the outbreak in each local region is available in the CovidNet dataset. Table  summarizes granularity, information source, and update frequency of the current dataset[^2].

|  | U.S./Canada | Hardest Hits\* | Others |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| Granularity | county/city | province/state | country |
| Number of regions | 3169 | 974 | 161 |
| Original sources | health dept. & local media | health dept. & state institution | WHO |
| Update frequency | 1 hr | 1 hr | 2 hrs |
| Number of source | 1064 | 974 | 1 |
| Cumulative cases | 1.5M | 1.9M | 1M |
| Total Deaths | 92K | 161K | 49K |

Summary of CovidNet dataset. \*We now have included 27 countries, with more to come.

## Interactive Tools on 1Point3Acres Tracker

With a flood of available COVID-19 data, we offer a suite of interactive analysis and visualization tools to provide the general public more insights about the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. We focus on presenting both the **temporal trends** (i.e., epidemic curves) as well as the **geographical distribution** of the case spread. (See Section for details.) The interactive tools are available in four different languages.

-   **Geographical Distribution.** The COVID-19 case distribution is presented in various ways, including *epidemic maps*, *doughnut charts* and *tabular views*. Figure  showcases a few examples of visualization. World, State, and county level epidemic maps are provided for user exploration. The tabular view can be customized to rank by different case dimensions, such as the infection rate, the death rate, etc.

-   **Temporal Epidemic Curves.** Temporal trends of the outbreak are captured in various epidemic curves, including basic *time-series lines* and *burn down charts*. Users can choose and compare curves of different regions with our interactive tools. One such example is shown in Figure .

# North America data collection

The United States has been the epidemic center since March, 2020, and the most challenging area to integrate creditable case information in real-time due to data inconsistency at different levels of the public health system. Our platform was initially launched to confront this challenge and the severe delay by official authorities. This section describes our data collection and validation practice during different stages of the outbreak amid a timely, reliable, and county-level COVID-19 dataset.

Before discussing the data collection practice in detail, we highlight the specific features of the CovidNet dataset in the U.S. and Canada in addition to Section . The tracking in North America started on January 21, 2020 when the first case was officially confirmed in the U.S. The data covers 3169 sub-country-level regions across the North America[^3]. All data is collected from publicly available sources, including both local health official announcements and reliable media reports, and is integrated from 1064 distinct websites. In addition to case information in the CovidNet, our project also includes testing locations and statistics thanks to the COVID Tracking Project .

## A Change Log of Data Collection Practice

The epidemic situation underwent several stages in North America since January 2020, each with unique challenges in data collection and validation. We now elaborate different stages of the data collection practice along with the evolution of the COVID-19 outbreak.

### **Initial stage: January to Late February**

The first North America COVID-19 case was officially reported on Jan 21 and the total cases had remained at a low level until late February[^4]. During this period, both federal and local official health departments had not developed a systematic reporting schedule. Each individual case, however, received plenty of media coverage with both geographic and demographic details. The most timely data source had been local media reports.

The CovidNet project was initially launched in Jan 31, 2020 as a platform for real-time case data aggregation of related media report[^5]. Since active crowed-sourcing was the most effective way to track the sparsely emerging cases, we organized a volunteer team working 24/7 for real time updates and focused on data accuracy. We recorded each single confirmed case with all accessible data features including geo-location, demographic information, infection cause, and a summary of news report. In additional to per-case information, the reference links to original news were also attached to each record in our dataset and were visible to all users on the website. This helped us account for double counting and to cross validate against later official reports.

### **Expanding stage: Late February to End of March**

The epidemic outbreak in North America started expanding geographically since late February. While numbers were still closely tracked by local media, the task of integrating all available sources manually by volunteers had become more and more challenging. Health official departments also started to actively release case information but yet to provide a real-time data. With limited capacity, in addition to active searching for media reports by volunteers, we offer an issue report submission form to all users, through which anyone can provide useful information back to us. The submission form categorizes information reports into 9 different classes: *"New Case", "Recover Case", "Death Case", "Error Report", "Feature Request", "Breaking News", "Further Details", "Testing Location",* and *"Question"*. Whenever a delay of our data or an error was noticed, a user could directly report the issue to us with trustful links. The reputation we built up during the initial stage has rewarded us with a large number of visits and users, which in turn provides us informative feedback frequently. As of May 14, 2020, we have received and resolved 16240 issue reports from our users, which have been a significant part of the data source. After an issue gets reported by users, a volunteer would be assigned to manually check the provided information (via media or official sites), and compare the report with all currently recorded cases (within the same county). [^6]

### **Rapid Increasing Stage: Since April**

The total number in the U.S. surpassed 10,000 on March 27, 2020, which significantly elevated the difficulty for data collection and validation. While local media remained to be a valuable data source, in regions with large increasing numbers, there appeared to be also a delay even in media reports. On the other hand, more local health departments started to develop official announcement schedules (generally from 1 to 3 times per day). Therefore, while still accumulating local media reported data in real-time, we attempted to adapt our collection process to include most up-to-date official health reports, which would prevent a possible delay in the data integration procedure. We now give a brief introduction about the construction of this pipeline by using U.S. health systems as an example.

There is a three-level hierarchy structure of the official public health system: the overall country-level CDC, the state-level health departments, and local county-level health departments. With a bottom-to-up data flow, the CDC database has experienced the most delay, which, is also the exact reason to launch a project like ours. As for state-level and county-level reports, the situation has been mixed: some state health departments have tracked local cases closely and hence provided a trustful source for update checking, while others are in general behind county-level statistics. There are in total 3,243 counties in the United States. To monitor all local reports manually is impossible for the volunteer team. We, therefore, initiated an automated data fetching pipeline, which enables a 24/7 checking for updates from local health department sites. Any fetched data update would be assigned to the volunteer team for a second-round check, as official reports potentially contain several types of noise which we discuss in detail in Section 5. Only verified updates would be finally recorded in the database.

We want to address the three important facts below about our automated official-data checking pipeline:

1.  We collect both official health authority reports and media report to stay close to real-time.

2.  While most official health authority provide case data to public, it remains of significant importance to integrate all local data into a complete dataset.

3.  We account for potential noise in data from local health officials and implement various quality assurance steps before adding into our database.

This automation pipeline has been integrated into our workflow since April, 2020, and has become one of the dominant components of our data collection process.

## The Structural Evolution of the Data Format

We used the cloud collaboration service provided by Airtable. Our team members can simultaneously work on the same tabular data. There are three major tabular formats we have used:

-   **Expanded Tabular (ET) format:** we document every case (sometimes a small cluster of cases) into a single row to provide a per-case view to our user. We also provide a summary of the original report for each case-cluster. In this ET format, all information including the reference link to the source is presented directly to users for the full transparency.

-   **Compact Tabular (CT) format:** given a table content topic (e.g. recovered case table) and a fixed (geographic) granularity, we assign each row with a region, and each column with a date. The number in a cell therefore indicates the accumulative counting in the row-labeled region on the column-labeled date. And each row represents a time series of data in a specific region. While CT is easy to consume compared to ET, the CT format cannot easily summarize the full set of references and losses certain demographics information. We keep such dimensions only internally visible for quality control purpose.

-   **Statistic Assistant (SA) format:** this type of table is used to present statistics of currently collected data. We usually assign each row a region, which could be of country-equivalence level, state-equivalence level, or county-equivalence level. Different columns are used to represent different information categories associated with each region like *region name, total confirmed number, fatality rate, contact of the local health official*. SA is mostly used for tabulated presentation and other interactive maps on our project web-page.

During initial stage (section 3.1.1) , we used a single database to record all cases in the ET format. It was later divided into two separate ones in early March: one for U.S. cases and the other for Canada cases. Corresponding SA tables have also been updated automatically since then.

The ET format continued to be the dominant one until the end of the Expanding stage (section 3.1.2). Maintaining ET format when U.S. official only reports aggregated statistics became impossible and we have transformed our data table into the CT format in late March. We kept deceased case table and recovered case table in ET format until mid-April and transformed into CT format then.

# World Wide Data Collection

Most mainstream COVID-19 data platforms offer case information at country-level, with only exceptions for China by and North America (e.g. by our project and subsequent platforms that aggregate our data ). International organizations like WHO and ECDC aggregate worldwide data but are often delayed without sub-division regional breakdown. Creating a platform with consistent freshness, credibility, and granularity for worldwide data is the key to present the full picture of the COVID-19 spread, which, however, poses a great challenge.

Determined to confront this challenge, we have exploited a combination of manual data collection, crowd-sourcing channels, and automated data pipelines to solve the problem. As of May 18, 2020, the CovidNet dataset has covered data in 1055 state-level regions and 3169 county-level regions of more than 27 countries and territories. While collecting the most updated data in a timely fashion, we also retrieved all the case history since the outbreak within each region.

We choose to only present daily aggregated numbers in CovidNet in each region for consistency. We note that some health departments have provided richer information than a daily aggregated number. A full list of countries can be found in Appendix. We prioritize countries with the most confirmed cases and attempt to cover major countries in all continents of the world. We highlight that this is an ongoing effort to expand to as many countries as our resource permits.

**Subdivision Naming Convention.** We adopt the ISO-3166 standard [^7] to normalize provinces or states names in CovidNet. Official names in English and local languages are both available.

## Case Reporting Paradigms in Different Countries

Local health authorities reports are used as data source for consistent credibility[^8]. While the data reporting systems differ across countries, they mostly fall into the following two categories.

The first class of countries offers open access to the full historical data starting from the outbreak. Within this paradigm, case information is provided in either the per-patient level or per-region daily statistic level. Examples are the public repository of Italy [^9] and the open data API of Colombia [^10]. We transform all data into *per-region-day* statistics and discard detailed demographics. While this simplifies the full history retrieval, it requires systematical quality control, due to the modification of historical data and changes of reporting criteria. For instance, the official data repository of Spain changed confirmed case definition and data fields in late April, which led to mismatches in our time-series within a short time window. [^11] We apply alarms whenever a suspicious decrease in the curve gets observed, which is then assigned to manual check by volunteers.

The second class of countries reports only the most recent case data, through a data-accessing interface. In most locales, the historical data is collectively archived and stored in various formats (pdf, csv, json), or retrievable from official daily reports. Examples include the official COVID report by Korean CDC[^12] and the South Africa COVID news portal[^13]. We collect all archived information and create an integrated dataset. As in such data-accessing systems, there lacks a consistent way to track edits in historical data, we hence only retrieve the historical data once. Occasionally, we failed to trace back all the historical data archive. We resort to local non-official data platforms to back fill the earlier case data[^14].

## Data Collection Pipeline

We check all the official data sources every 2 hours and update the most recent data in our database accordingly. For countries that provide open access to the full case history, we also implement scheduled (daily) checking for modifications of official historical data. The timestamp associated with each record is in agreement with the local time of the publishing authority[^15].

Given different stages of the outbreak, the data accessibility and publishing channels are constantly evolving in each country. For instance, official data is provided in per-patient level in the initial stage in most countries, and slowly evolves into an aggregated format during the outbreak stage. We combine our data pipeline along with the volunteer's manual effort to ensure the data quality and consistency. Section  highlights this issue in the North America as an example.

# Data Quality Control

The data quality control (QC) is always the first priority of the CovidNet project, as both local communities and researchers might make critical decisions based on the data. Note that we only have access to the case information released by health officials and/or media reports, and the quality of the original case data is beyond our capability. We control the CovidNet dataset to accurately reflect the information provided by local health authorities. This section focuses on specific quality control challenges in a rapidly evolving pandemic and the practices we adopted in the voluntary teamwork.

## Quality Control with different Reporting Paradigms Worldwide

As discussed in Section , our data comes from distinct reporting systems in different countries. While each paradigm requires a specific quality model, the general principle is to start with the data with the finest granularity and/or with the full history. For instance, when per-case data are provided (e.g. open data projects in Columbia [^16] and Philippine [^17] health ministries), the pipeline would aggregate from such per-case dataset to get daily case statistics and geographical distributions. Following the same principle, when health officials release and update the entire aggregated daily history (e.g., Italy and Spain), we update the entire time series whenever edits are made officially.

We dedicated our effort mostly in health reporting systems with a federated administration structure. The key challenge presented with such a system is the *asynchronized* natural of data from different levels. Taking the United State as an example: county health departments release case statistics following their own schedules while state officials may update at a lower frequency, typically 1-3 times a day. At any given time, aggregated county-level data may differ from state-level ones. In extreme cases, state-level reports could be delayed by days. This asynchronized nature has brought difficulty for QC. The situation gets further complicated when an *unassigned* category is presented.

**Quality Control practice in federated systems**: As discussed in section , our database records the finest granularity, and has included the full set of references either publicly visible (in the early stage) or internally traceable (in the current stage). All volunteers follow the same protocol to determine whether an inconsistency is due to human mistakes or not, by investigating data from different levels of health departments and also internal comments. On the website, a note would be left to users when presented numbers differ from official statistics. We also created an **Inconsistency Diary** (maintained by the volunteer team) as an internal reference to track discrepancies, and periodically revisit issues that persist.

## Timely Updates with Potential Noise in Official Data

We acknowledge that any case data is subject to edit and change in a rapidly growing pandemic situation, and have assumed potential noise in the official data collected. While most of noise would be corrected eventually, to present timely update, we have categorized several noise mechanisms and implemented quality assurance accordingly.

-   *Suspicious jump in case number:* an issue would be created when a large jump in case numbers appears[^18], and updates in the sub-region would be temporarily suspended (typically for 2 to 6 hours) to allow for potential subsequent corrections in official data.

-   *Decrease in accumulated numbers:* most number decreases would be considered as history corrections[^19]. When this happens, if the full official historical data is accessible, we update the dataset according to the most recent official time series. In systems where only the current statistics is available, we adjust the most recent historical case data to maintain the non-decreasing property of each time series[^20].

In a nutshell, continuous update mechanism is instrumental in reducing noise in the CovidNet dataset. We also implemented daily-scheduled checks and cross validations with official and other independent platforms. Many of the noises have been identified and corrected thanks to the manual efforts of our volunteer team.

## Quality Control in a Decentralized Volunteer Team

Unlike many other platforms, the CovidNet project has been conducted by a fully decentralized volunteer team. This presents a unique challenge to the data control quality.

**Repeated entry of the same data** In the decentralized team, multiple volunteers might be working on the same update (*overlapping work*), or failing to recognize existing duplicated records (*duplicated records*).

To prevent overlapping work, our volunteers will first check potentially related open updates before their own updates. Duplicated records was prominent in the early stage of CovidNet project when we used ET format. If accumulated numbers were available in the reports, the volunteer would directly check the total number in the specific area, and prevent duplicated cases. If accumulated numbers were unavailable, the volunteer would check within all existing records, especially case-clusters sharing the similar attributes as described in the report, and leave out duplicated reports.

**Uncoordinated Deployment** All volunteers can deploy data updates to the front-end website. This was designed earlier to avoid delayed data presentation to the public. However, when one attempts to deploy a correctly completed number change, other members might be in the middle of updating and validating case information in a different region. For instance, on April 15, 2020, when a volunteer attempted to modify the confirmed number in Okaloosa, Texas from $102$ to $103$, the data entry experienced a transit state as "$102103$", which was quickly corrected by the volunteer. However, during the short transit stage, there happened to be a website deployment, which resulted in an abrupt number jump by more than $100000$, and then got corrected within minutes after the subsequent deployment. [^21]

These type of issues are not typical "data errors", but due to the decentralized deployment setup, which is, however, necessary to prevent delayed website presentations. To minimize disadvantages associated with, we gradually constructed a list of rules that would be automatically checked before each deployment. Any deployment would be forbidden (unless being manually interfered), if one of the following criteria is triggered:

1.  the number is smaller than the one from the previous day;

2.  the number of a county-level region increases more than $4000$ in a single day;

3.  the daily increase is more than $300\%$, while the previous day's number is larger than $10$;

4.  the daily increase is more than $200\%$, while the previous day's number is larger than $50$;

5.  the daily increase is more than $50\%$, while the previous day's number is larger than $1000$;

where all thresholds applied above are deduced empirically.

# Interactive Tools for visualization

The CovidNet project offers a rich set of data visualization tools for all users visiting our website. As outlined in Section , these interacted tools are integrated for better presenting both the temporal trends and the geographical distribution about the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss the details in this section.

## Geographical Distribution of Current Cases

The geographical distribution of the COVID-19 spread is important for communities and individuals to make decisions. We visualize the current case statistics via two visualization modules: *epidemic maps* and *doughnut charts* as showcased in Figure . For both the whole world and each single country, we present a detailed epidemic map which shows the statistics[^22] in each state-level region, where darker colors indicate a larger number in the area. We also implement doughnut chart representation mostly to spot areas associated with largest proportion of the cases.

## Temporal Epidemic Curves

The time series of case data, often referred to as epidemic curve, helps general public to understand the full history and the current stage of the COVID-19 spread. Our project includes both basic trends charts with plain numbers and burn-down charts which provide further insights into the varying condition. Users can explore these epidemic curves for all sub-divisions in our dataset.

We provide basic trend charts at daily resolution for the following type of statistics: confirmed cases, deceased cases, positive/negative testing cases, positive testing rates, and hospitalized cases. For both confirmed and deceased curves, users can choose to view them in either linear or logarithm scale. For example, Figure  shows the cumulative and daily new confirmed cases worldwide.

We have implemented the *burn down chart* to show simultaneously the trends of active cases and recovered/ deceased cases, which provides a clearer picture about the local progress over time (see Figure  ).

## Cross Region Comparison

We offer several ways for users to compare the COVID-19 trends across different countries and sub-divisions over the whole period. One such example were shown in Figure . User can choose the set of countries or sub-divisions they are interested in. In addition to static plots, we make available several animations on our project website to show the evolution of the comparative statistics across different regions.

# Accessing CovidNet Dataset

We would grant open access to CovidNet for any non-commercial data usage. Our dataset is accessible by filling a data request form at <https://airtable.com/shrMqS4C6wjpZLCP0>, before which the user should have read carefully about terms of data usage at <https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en/data>. We do prohibit crawling, scraping, caching or otherwise accessing any content on the platform via any automated means, due to the expensive bandwidth consumption which has brought a huge financial burden on the project. To continue providing timely information to the general public, we welcome only fair access to our dataset and other contents.

# related work

We briefly discuss some other platforms which are also taking efforts in serving COVID-19 related epidemic information to the general public.

### Dingxiangyuan

Initiated in early January, 2020, the Dingxiangyuan (DXY) project has been among the most popular dashboards for COVID-19 information in China. They provide daily update by collecting data from all levels of official health departments, which has been quite trustful, and we have adopted their data as our source in China. Compared with the case in U.S., the data collection in China has been relatively easy and well-organized, as official channels have started a formal reporting schedule since the early stage and no extra media reports were required. We have seen the success and the impact brought by DXY's integrated data platform, which helped local communities in China to response effectively to the outbreak. This inspired us to start our own project for North America and eventually as a global tracker. We also studied their data presentations which helped us build our own system. While their focus has been the condition in China, data in the rest part of the world is collected and presented only in country level, with a delayed update for data in U.S. due to the reason we explained earlier.

### John Hopkins COVID-19 Dashboard

A previous paper described the effort of a team from John Hopkins University in a global COVID-19 data platform which consumes dataset provided by DXY in China and later ours in U.S for a global visualization. As a completely independent data-collection source, our North America dataset has been continuously used by as one of their sources in the county-level breakdown data in the U.S. area. Unlike our close to real-time update, there has been a delay of U.S. data on the JHU Dashboard (1 or more days) since the end of April[^23]. Last but not least, similar as DXY, worldwide data is only provided at country level on the JHU Dashboard.

### Worldmeter COVID-19 Tracker

This is another COVID-19 tracker which offers partial regional breakdown in U.S. while providing country-level numbers in the rest of the world. For several states in U.S.[^24], Worldmeter updates information in real-time which has been more up-to-date than the JHU Dashboard.

### Other related projects

The COVID Tracking Project has collected and provided data in testing, hospitalization, and, very recently, the demographic distribution in different states in U.S.. We have been using their data for both testing and hospitalization visualizations, which provide an enriched description about local epidemic conditions especially when the testing does not widely cover the local community. The DriveThruLocation is another valuable project which collects detailed information on locations providing drive-through COVID-19 testing services in U.S.. While not closely related to the pure data practice, we have collaborated with this project team as testing information is vital for local communities, which fits our purpose of serving the public in general.

# Discussion

This paper delivers a detailed introduction about the 1Point3Acres CovidNet project, elaborating both the data collection process and the quality control mechanism.

We would like to share some lessons we have learnt from the project. The real time nature and the exhaustive geographical distribution of CovidNet have attracted a large number of users on the platform. While we have been trying our best to provide a creditable data integration, our practice has also suggested the necessity of constructing an official information integration pipeline to confront potential public health challenges, especially in the current era when human interaction has become an essential component of the modern society. At the same time, as inter-national connections have been much stronger than any previous time, global level pandemic information sharing would be of vital importance in both learning from experiences of other countries and assessing a local public health risk level according to interactions among different countries and regions. On the other hand, when more public challenges have upgraded to the global level, we have also seen the strength of data driven approaches in tackling large scale problems.

With real time update of sub-division level COVID-19 information across more than 27 countries, the CovidNet dataset could benefit everyone in various ways. For general public, the analytic trend charts have provided more intuitive descriptions about the local epidemic situation, and would help local communities to make decisions about working and traveling. For local governors, a comparison with situations and trends in other states/counties would be instructive for evaluating different policy scenarios, including restrictive orders and economy reopening. For academic community, the CovidNet dataset could lead to researches in diverse potential directions: time series data could be combined with conventional epidemiological models to make prediction about the near future; the sub-division breakdown has provided detailed geographical distribution of COVID-19 outbreaks and may be used to analyze the impact of different external factors associated with each local region, e.g. weather, economy, population, industries, races, restrictive-order levels, and so on; the worldwide dataset together with information on inter-national activities offers the potential to study the global spreading behavior of the disease.

We welcome and encourage users from all industries utilizing the CovidNet to assist the battle against COVID-19. We especially look forward to more insights offered from academic researches by investigating the rich dataset provided by CovidNet project.

# Disclaimer

The CovidNet project, including all data, mapping, analysis, copyright 2020 1Point3Acres, LLC, all rights reserved, is provided for the public with general information purpose only. All information is collected from multiple publicly available sources that do not always agree. While we will try our best to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, with respect to the website or the information. We do not bear any legal responsibility for any consequence caused by the use of the information provided. We strictly prohibit unauthorized use of the information in commerce or reliance on the information for medical guidance. 1Point3Acres disclaims any and all representations or warranties with respect to the project, including accuracy, fitness of use, and merchantability. Screenshots of the website are permissible so long as appropriate credit is provided.

# Acknowledgement

We would like to thank all contributors to the CovidNet projects who have not been directly listed in authors, including all engineers and volunteers: Yixin Wan, Maggie Hou, Lily Wang, Daisy Fang, Mark Lee, Yao Xu, Vivian Jiang, Chenyang Wu, Mingtian Zhou, Zhenzhuo Lan, Hongmin Li, Yun Han, Jie Zong, Clara Zhang, Gretchen Zhang, Huijie Tao, Huihui Shang, Zhenyu Jiang, Minchen Wang, Chuya Guo, Krystal Zhang, Konka Shi, Jonathon Jing, Xuan Chen, Ziyi Yan, Junrui Zhao, Yi Chen, Allison Li, Liyan Tian, Jiuyue Cai, Ning Cao. Besides, we want to thank all our users, who have continued provided us with data source associated with excellent advice, which helps us keep improving the project.

At the same time, the whole project would not be possible without help from other teams and organizations. We would like to thank other project teams who have shared rich data and information to us, including The COVID Tracking Project and the DriveThruLocation Project. We also want to give special thanks to Airtable, who granted us a package with 5000 free credits for the usage of upgraded plan which make the collaboration possible with a large volunteer team. We claim no conflict of interests.

```latex
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{List of official worldwide data source}
\begin{tabular}{|p{2.4cm}|p{3.7cm}|p{4.4cm}|p{4cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Country} & \textbf{subdivision} & \textbf{Information Source} &  \textbf{Available Data} \\ \hline
Austria & Bundesland & \href{https://www.sozialministerium.at/Informationen-zum-Coronavirus/Neuartiges-Coronavirus-(2019-nCov).html}{Bundesministerium für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz} &  confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Belgium & Region/ Province & Sciensano, the Belgian Institute for Health & confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Switzerland & Conton (States) & Zurich Statistisches Amt & confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
Chile & Region (Province) & Ministerio de Salud &  recovered at country level \\ \hline
Germany & Stadtstaaten/ Flächenländer  & Robert Koch Institute  & recovered info not available \\ \hline
Spain & Autonomous Communities  &Instituto de Salud Carlos III   & confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
United Kingdom & Upper Tier Local Authorities & National Health Service    & confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
India & States/ Territories & Ministry of Health &  confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
Italy & Region & Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri &  confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Japan & To/ Dō/ Ken/ Fu & Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare  & confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
South Korean & Do/ Jachido & Korean CDC, \& Ministry of Health and Welfare & confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
Malaysia & States/ Territories & Director General of Health Malaysia &   confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
Netherland & Province & Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport &  deceased and recovered reported at country level \\ \hline
South Africa & Province & Nation Institute for Communicable Diseases  & confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Russian Federation & Federal Subjects & Federal Service Human Well Being &  confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
Saudi Arabia & Governorates & King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center &  confirmed, deceased, recovered \\ \hline
Sweden & Landsting  & Folkhälsomyndigheten &  confirmed and recovered  \\ \hline
Mexico & State & Gobierno De Mexico & confirmed and deceased  \\ \hline
Peru & Departamentos & Ministerio de Salud  & confirmed and recovered    \\ \hline
Brazil & State/ Federal District & Ministério da Saúde &  confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Portugal & Região & Ministério da Saúde &  confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Pakistan & Province & Ministry of National Health Services & confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
France & Région/ Régions d'outre-mer & Saute Publique France & confirmed, deceased, recovered   \\ \hline
Ecuador  & Region & Ministerio de Salud & confirmed, deceased, recovered   \\ \hline
Indonesia  & Provinsi & Graha Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana &  confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
Philippine  & Region & Department of Health Datadrop &  confirmed, deceased, recovered   \\ \hline
Liechtenstein & Country & Zurich Statistisches Amt  & confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
China & Province/ SARs & DXY tracker & confirmed, deceased, recovered  \\ \hline
United States & States  & 1point3acres tracker & confirmed, deceased, recovered    \\ \hline
Canada & States & 1point3acres  tracker & confirmed, deceased, recovered    \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
```

[^1]: We follow the definition of different categories provided by health authorities in each country.

[^2]: The geographical granularity differs in different countries, although one shall *not* interpreter that the official US/Canada data has a better granularity than ones in other countries. While city level and per-case level case data are accessible in many regions outside U.S./Canada, systematically aggregating such information worldwide, however, is beyond the capability of our voluntary team.

[^3]: This includes all counties/districts in U.S./Canada, U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons system, U.S. Military and Veteran Affairs systems, and U.S. territories. Cases from cruises have been separately presented.

[^4]: As of Feb 29, 2020, a total of 72 cases were officially reported in U.S. and 20 in Canada.

[^5]: Our searching had traced media sources including *CBSN (U.S.), Seattle Times (U.S.), Global News (Canada), National Post (Canada)*, etc.

[^6]: We have also used the help from several twitter alarm accounts at the beginning of this stage.

[^7]: <https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html#2012_iso3166-2>

[^8]: The only exception is North America discussed in Section .

[^9]: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri official github repository: <https://github.com/pcm-dpc/COVID-19>

[^10]: El portal web de Datos Abiertos del Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones: <https://www.datos.gov.co/en/Salud-y-Protecci-n-Social/Casos-positivos-de-COVID-19-en-Colombia/gt2j-8ykr/data>

[^11]: <https://cnecovid.isciii.es/covid19/#documentaci%C3%B3n-y-datos>

[^12]: Press Release Archive of Korean Center of Disease Control: <https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030>

[^13]: <https://sacoronavirus.co.za/category/press-releases-and-notices/>

[^14]: We specifically acknowledge the effort from for their endeavor.

[^15]: We notice that a subset of countries provides official data with a 1-day delay, which is annotated accordingly on the web page.

[^16]: El portal web de Datos Abiertos del Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones: <https://www.datos.gov.co/en/Salud-y-Protecci-n-Social/Casos-positivos-de-COVID-19-en-Colombia/gt2j-8ykr/data>

[^17]: Department of Health Data Drop <https://ncovtracker.doh.gov.ph/>

[^18]: The definition of jump is determined empirically in practice. For example, a number change larger than 3 times would be defined as a jump, given that the initial value is larger than 100.

[^19]: A large decrease might be an error, and falls into the *jump* category described earlier.

[^20]: A longer time-series may requires modification in practice. This may not be optimal but the ideal solution requires data we have no access to.

[^21]: This accidental jump then appeared rapidly also on other platforms and media reports.

[^22]: Statistics includes local populations, confirmed numbers and density (per million), deceased numbers, deceased density (per million population), testing numbers (if available), and testing density (per million population).

[^23]: This had urged us to enhance our own data quality to prevent errors when serving as the most up-to-date independent data platform in U.S. to the public.

[^24]: As of May 8, 2020, the county-level breakdown is provided for 8 states in U.S. by , including NJ, CA, PA, FL, TX, LA, OH, and WA.