constrained by rare decays like $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$, but at lower energy
scales, these constraints are no longer valid [179]. Therefore, searching for
non-unitary neutrino mixing provides a way to extend the search for sterile
neutrinos to mass scales typically believed to be inaccessible for neutrino
oscillation experiments, and one in which $\nu_{\tau}$ appearance can make
great strides toward.

Beyond the non-unitarity hypothesis, measuring $\nu_{\mu}\to\nu_{\tau}$
oscillations in a beam- or atmospheric neutrino context can allow for improved
limits (or discovery potential) in searches for sterile neutrinos [184, 185],
non-standard neutrino interactions [184, 185], and neutrino decays [194].
Beyond these, one could learn even more with a clean, well-understood,
$\nu_{\tau}$-enriched source: measurements of $\nu_{\tau}$ disappearance, like
those performed for $\nu_{\mu}$ disappearance currently, would provide
exciting complementary information to the broader neutrino program. While no
such source is currently planned, it it nevertheless useful for the community
to consider what can be learned from such experiments.

While there exist obvious challenges in the regime of measuring and
identifying $\nu_{\tau}$ interactions in a neutrino oscillation experiment,
the benefits are plenty. Given that new physics is required to explain non-
zero neutrino masses, the community should exploit upcoming and future
experiments in as many ways as possible to learn about neutrinos, especially
those of the $\nu_{\tau}$ variety. It is quite possible that $\nu_{\tau}$ are
a unique entry point to uncovering new physics which may be difficult to
elucidate in any other way.

The potential for creating a large sample of oscillated $\nu_{\tau}$ is a
unique feature of LBNF/DUNE among accelerator-based neutrino experiments.
Although most of the $\nu_{\mu}$ neutrinos from LBNF that oscillate will
oscillate to $\nu_{\tau}$, most of these are unobservable because they are
created below the 2.5 GeV threshold for charged-current $\nu_{\tau}$
interactions, or in the 2.5-5 GeV region where the charged-current cross
section is very small. With the CP-optimized LBNF beam, there will be of order
100 $\nu_{\tau}$ charged current interactions per year161616Assuming 1.2 MW
proton beam and a 40 kTon detector.

Increasing the LBNF neutrino flux above 5 GeV can improve $\nu_{\tau}$
appearance rates. Preliminary studies by the DUNE collaboration indicate that
NuMI-style horns can be used to increase the rate to approximately 1000
$\nu_{t}au$ charged-current interactions per year. In addition to improving
prospects for tau appearance, this high-energy beam extends the L/E range that
DUNE can measure, opening a range of phase space that is completely
inaccessible to Hyper-Kamiokande, including searches for sterile neutrinos in
a detector with excellent $\nu_{e}$ appearance capabilities, and increased
ability to disentangle CP violation and Non-Standard Interaction (NSI)
signals.

###  17.2 Accelerator Requirements

##### Accelerated particles:

protons

##### Beam Energy:

All studies so far have assumed 120 GeV protons; $\nu_{\tau}$ production at
other energies is possible, and higher energies may be preferable, since
neutrino energies about 5 GeV are optimal for $\nu_{\tau}$ appearance.

##### Beam intensity:

as high as possible.

##### Beam time structure:

Either pulsed or CW is possible in principle; pulsed is necessary to preserve
non-DUNE physics (e.g. supernovae searches).

##### Target requirements:

LBNF-like target, requirements likely driven by beam intensity. Short ( less
than 1.5 m) targets are preferable for tau appearance.

##### Other requirements:

Tau appearance rates at DUNE are higher with NuMI-style parabolic horns than
the CP-optimized LBNF horns; so either NuMI-style or new horns optimized for
tau appearance will be needed.

##### Timescales, R&D needs, and similar facilities:

A tau-optimized LBNF beam would only be needed after the ’standard’ DUNE
program, so this is a long-term opportunity. The ability to tune to higher
energies is unique to LBNF, so there is no currently planned direct
competition, although many experiments will continue to exploit atmospheric
$nu\tau$ measurements, as described above.

##  18 Proton Irradiation Facility

##### Authors and proponents:

Maral Alyari, Artur Apresyan, Doug Berry, Zoltan Gecse, Mandy Kiburg, Thomas
Kobilarcik, Ron Lipton, Petra Merkel, Evan Niner, Eduard Pozdeyev (Fermilab)
171717corresponding author<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
##### Related sections:

Section 19.

###  18.1 Physics Goals, Motivation, and Setup

The goal is to create a high-intensity proton irradiation facility at the
Fermilab Booster Replacement to benefit future collider detector development.
The current Fermilab Irradiation Test Area (ITA), which is under construction
right now at the end of the LINAC, is designed for fluences needed for the HL-
LHC detector upgrades. However, for future collider detectors doses up to two
orders of magnitude higher are expected. It is paramount that detector
elements under development can be tested for radiation hardness to these
levels. Currently, there is no facility in the world, that would allow such
tests at a reasonable timescale. It would be desirable to reach on the order
of 1018 protons within a few hours. The exact beam energy is less critical.
The DOE program manager for detectors has expressed interest in Fermilab
creating such a facility. The Fermilab Booster Replacement seems like an ideal
candidate with its high intensity proton beam. The proposal is to build a
tangential arm to set up an experimental hall where devices under test can be
placed for irradiation under controlled conditions.

###  18.2 Accelerator Requirements

It would be desirable to reach on the order of 1018 protons within a few
hours. The exact beam energy is less critical. The beamsize at the device
under test (DUT) should be on the order of a few millimeters to two
centimeters. A pulsed beam would be preferable for cooling and readout
reasons.

##### Accelerated particles:

The main particle type that is needed would be protons, but being able to
switch to electrons, or even ions at times, would be beneficial.

##### Beam Energy:

We would take the maximum achievable beam energy. The absolute value is not so
relevant, as long as it is stable and known.

##### Beam intensity:

It would be desirable to reach on the order of 1018 protons within a few
hours.

##### Beam time structure:

A pulsed beam would be preferable, or even necessary. A continuous beam would
likely overheat the DUT and make cooling very challenging. Even with a pulsed
beam, cooling of the DUT will be one of the main challenges. A similar time
structure to the current LINAC could be suitable.

##### Target requirements:

No target is needed. We would need a stripping station to strip off the
electrons from the beam, but the target would be the user provided DUTs.

##### Other requirements:

It would be good to have an adjacent, shielded counting room, where users
could sit and operate and monitor their DUTs. This would also require some
user infrastructure, such as cables, power supplies, cooling, to be placed
either in the experimental hall or the adjacent counting room. Cables would
need to run between the two. There should be a cold, dark box for the DUTs
available that can be moved in and out of the beam, including beam scans. Beam
monitoring data need to be made available to the users as well. The irradiated
DUTs would be handled by rad techs. and stored cold until they can be
retrieved by the users.

##### Timescales, R&D needs, and similar facilities:

Likely, cooling of the DUTs is the main challenge and some R&D needs to go
into finding a solution for this. Similarly, having robotic control of
handling the box that contains the DUTs and that needs to move in and out of
the beam would be highly desirable. This could be either addressed by a
commercial solution or by in-house development. The timescale by which such a
facility is needed would realistically be somewhere in the second half of the
2020s. Before then, detector components aimed to sustain these kinds of
radiation levels will likely not be ready for testing.

##  19 Test-beam Facility

##### Authors and proponents:

Mandy Kiburg, Thomas Kobilarcik, Petra Merkel, Evan Niner, (all Fermilab)
181818corresponding author<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
##### Related sections:

Section 18.

###  19.1 Physics Goals, Motivation, and Setup

The goal is to create a multi-purpose facility at the Fermilab Booster
Replacement to benefit future detector development. The current Fermilab Test
Beam Facility (FTBF) is built at a terminus of the switchyard beam line and
has two lines that range from 120 GeV primary protons down to a few hundred
MeV mixed tertiary beam. The facility services several hundred users and about
20 dedicated experiments each year from around the world. These experiments
cover the breadth of collider, muon, and neutrino physics and general detector
prototyping. The switchyard beam lines are very old and take a long, $\approx$
mile, path to the facility which is not needed. The Test Beam program would
also benefit from a purpose-built experimental area to accommodate a broad
experimental program. There are increased requests in the user community for
clean low-energy beams of a variety of particles which is not easily achieved
in the existing facility. The proposal is to build a tangential arm to setup
an experimental hall with at least two independent beam lines and
infrastructure to support short and long term experimental setups. This would
bring the FTBF operations closer to the main campus, reduce maintenance on the
beam line length, and establish a set of beam lines suited to the future needs
of the R&D community. This facility would be ideally located in the same area
or building as the proposed proton irradiation facility.

###  19.2 Accelerator Requirements

At least two beam lines should be available in the Test Beam area. These lines
should be capable of operating simultaneously and at independent energies and
intensities. It is important at any energy that the beam focus to a manageable
size, typically several centimeters or less, and have understood backgrounds
and particle composition. It is desirable to have at least one beamline
dedicated to low energy muons if possible.

##### Accelerated particles:

Protons, muons, electrons, pions are all useful at a variety of energies. It
is desirable to have relatively pure beam compositions or the particle
identification capacity to ID events in the devices under test.

##### Beam Energy:

A range of energies is desired, from 120 GeV protons down to a few hundred
MeV. High energy 120 GeV proton beams are desired for many collider studies.
At low energies electrons, muons, pions, protons are of interest for a variety
of applications including neutrino detector and calorimeter development. The
energy of the beam should be well understood.

##### Beam intensity:

It varies by experiment. Most detectors are looking at intensities on the
testing apparatus in the range of 10 to 100 kHz although higher is desirable
in some cases.

##### Beam time structure:

A pulsed beam would be preferable. The current FTBF program operates with a
four second spill once per minute. A higher frequency pulse would increase the
experimental yield.

##### Target requirements:

The option to insert a target material to produce a secondary or tertiary
beam.

##### Other requirements:

The experimental space should have space for dedicated staff and staging
equipment as well as electronics and mechanical work spaces. There should be a
control room for monitoring by users. The facility should have multiple beam
enclosures capable of supporting several experiments simultaneously. The
facility should be instrumented to support beam monitoring, particle tracking
and identification, gas systems, a DAQ, motion controls, and experiment space
accessible by crane. There should be space to support experiments both on the
scale of weeks and months. The floor plan should have the flexibility to
accommodate installations of varying size and have a high bay. There should be
video conferencing spaces available. .

##### Timescales, R&D needs, and similar facilities:

There is strong international demand for increased test beam resources. FTBF,
CERN, DESY, and other test beams are heavily subscribed and subject to various
operational limitations. A new facility at Fermilab would enable robust
detector $R\&D$ across all frontiers looking forward. This project needs
community driven input to identify the beam capabilities with the highest
impact. Having facility planning begin now to come online in the later part of
the 2020s would establish a clear course for detector development.

##  20 Appendix: DUNE Physics Performance Versus LBNF Proton Energy

##### Author:

Laura<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Fermilab)

The LBNF neutrino beam is being designed to use a proton beam tunable between
60 - 120 GeV. This energy range is driven by a balance between the need of the
experiment to have a somewhat flexible energy spectrum and by the projected
PIP-II capabilities of Fermilab’s Main Injector (MI). The MI cannot provide
protons above 130 GeV, and while it can provide protons below 60 GeV, beam
power drops sharply below 60 GeV, where the MI cycle time reaches its lower
limit (0.7 microseconds) and cannot be further reduced to compensate for lower
proton momentum. However, MI power is relatively constant between 60 and 120
GeV, making this an optimum range for DUNE physics. This note describes a
GLoBES-based study of various DUNE physics metrics versus proton momentum.

###  20.1 Power Assumptions

All results are shown for two different power scenarios:

  1. 1.

PIP-II power power projections of 1.1e21 protons per year at 120 GeV (1.2 MW),
1.47e21 protons per year at 80 GeV (1.07 MW), and 1.89 protons per year at 60
GeV (1.03 MW). Between 120 GeV and 60 GeV, the number of protons per year is
estimated using a linear interpolation between the above values. Below 60 GeV,
a fixed 1.89 protons per year is assumed.

  2. 2.

Flat power: 1.2 MW, regardless of proton momentum.

These estimates of protons on target per year take into account estimated
downtime due to mainetence and annual shutdowns. Plot labels referring to
’years’ should therefore be considered to be calendar years (at 1.2 MW and 40
kTon) rather than continuous years of running.

###  20.2 Software Configurations

The beam simulation used here is g4lbnf [195] version v3r5p7, which implements
the optimized beam design [196], with small changes to the horn A to reflect
engineering changes made during preliminary, and with a 1.5 m cantilevered
cylindrical target.

All studies use a configuration of GLoBES [197, 198] that approximately
reproduces physics studies reported in the DUNE technical design report [154].
Unless otherwise noted, metrics quoted for a single exposure correspond to 7
years of running at 1.2 MW with a 40 kTon detector with the exposure split
evenly between neutrino and antineutrino enriched beams.

###  20.3 Results

Figure 15:  Neutrino flux versus energy for muon neutrinos in neutrino mode
(1st row), muon antineutrinos in antineutrino mode (2nd row), electron
neutrinos in neutrino mode (3rd row) and muon neutrinos in antineutrino modes
(4th row).

Figure 16:  CP sensitivity versus $\delta_{CP}$ (first row), the minimum CP
sensitivity to 75% of $\delta_{CP}$ phase space (second row), and the maximum
CP sensitivity over all of $\delta_{CP}$ phase space, with a 7 year exposure
and a 40 kTon detector.

Figure 17:  Mass hierarchy sensitivity versus $\delta_{CP}$ (first row), the
minimum mass hierarchy sensitivity to 75% of $\delta_{CP}$ phase space (second
row), and the maximum mass hierarchy sensitivity over all of $\delta_{CP}$
phase space, with a 7 year exposure and a 40 kTon detector.

Neutrino fluxes for several key neutrino mode/flavor combinations are shown in
Figure 15 for the two power scenarios. The most critical neutrino fluxes for
long-baseline measurements are the so-called ”right-sign” fluxes – muon
neutrinos in neutrino mode and muon antineutrinos in antineutrino mode. In
general, the peak neutrino flux is similar for these fluxes in a flat power
scenario across many proton momenta, but the focusing peak shifts to lower
energy and becomes narrower as proton momentum decreases. In the PIP-II power
scenario, fluxes are similar between 120 GeV and 60 GeV, although peak flux
reduces modestly with proton momentum, and flux at lower energies (below 2
GeV) increases slightly as proton momentum decreases. These fluxes reduce
dramatically below 60 GeV in the PIP-II power scenario. Electron neutrino
backgrounds follow similar trends, which is expected given that they arise
from the same hadrons as the right-sign fluxes. Wrong-sign muon neutrino
backgrounds (muon antineutrinos in neutrino mode and muon neutrinos in
antineutrino mode) decrease substantially with proton momentum, and
measurements sensitive to these channels would benefit significantly from
lower proton momenta.

Sensitivity to $\delta_{CP}$ and the mass hierarchy for the various momenta
and for the two power scenarios was studied using the GLoBES configuration
described in Section 20.2. Results assuming a 7 year exposure are shown in
Figures 16 and 17. In the PIP-II power scenario, sensitivities are relatively
constant between 60 and 120 GeV, with the optimal value being generally near
or slightly below 120 GeV. In that scenario, physics performance falls sharply
below 60 GeV. In the flat power scenario, sensitivities are more strongly
dependant on proton momentum, peaking between 40-60 GeV depending on the
metric.

These Trends in physics performance continue when longer exposures are
considered. Tables 4 and 3 show the exposures in kTon MW years required to
reach several milestones related to CP sensitivity. In the PIP-II (flat) power
scenario, the smallest exposures are required for proton momenta of 110 GeV
(40 GeV).

Table 3: Exposure in kTon MW years required to reach four CP-sensitivity goals in the PIP-II power scenario.  | 3$\sigma$ 50 % | 5$\sigma$ 50% | 3$\sigma$ 75% | 5$\sigma$ 75%
---|---|---|---|---
20 | 661 | 2570 | 3372 | 8283
30 | 342 | 1356 | 1921 | 6292
40 | 259 | 986 | 1489 | 5604
50 | 223 | 855 | 1284 | 5232
60 | 203 | 776 | 1174 | 5006
70 | 202 | 776 | 1175 | 5043
80 | 205 | 794 | 1205 | 5146
90 | 201 | 776 | 1181 | 5099
100 | 201 | 778 | 1187 | 5132
110 | 199 | 771 | 1180 | 5117
120 | 200 | 776 | 1188 | 5150
Table 4: Exposure in kTon MW years required to reach four CP-sensitivity goals in the flat power scenario.  | 3$\sigma$ 50 % | 5$\sigma$ 50% | 3$\sigma$ 75% | 5$\sigma$ 75%
---|---|---|---|---
20 | 240 | 932 | 1290 | 4910
30 | 177 | 701 | 994 | 4448
40 | 168 | 644 | 959 | 4397
50 | 169 | 648 | 971 | 4444
60 | 172 | 660 | 995 | 4552
70 | 175 | 673 | 1022 | 4656
80 | 181 | 697 | 1066 | 4795
90 | 185 | 712 | 1088 | 4863
100 | 191 | 737 | 1127 | 4982
110 | 195 | 755 | 1157 | 5060
120 | 200 | 776 | 1188 | 5150

###  20.4 Summary

DUNE neutrino fluxes and projected physics performance were compared for
various LBNF primary beam proton momenta assuming the expected PIP-II power-
versus-momentum profile and assuming flat power versus proton momentum. For
the PIP-II power profile, DUNE physics performance is optimized with a primary
proton beam momentum of around 110 GeV, but performance is very similar for
proton momenta between 60-120 GeV. In the flat power scenario, physics
performance is a stronger function of proton momentum, with proton momenta
near 40 GeV providing the optimal neutrino flux and physics performance.

## Acknowledgements

Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-
AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy. The work is
supported by the US Department of Energy through the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory is operated by Triad National
Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of U.S.
Department of Energy (Contract No. 89233218CNA000001).

## References

  * [1] Steve Ritz et al.  Building for Discovery: Strategic Plan for U.S. Particle Physics in the Global Context.  5 2014.
  * [2] Usama Al-Binni et al.  Project X: Physics Opportunities.  6 2013.
  * [3] Robert Ainsworth et al.  An Upgrade Path for the Fermilab Accelerator Complex.  6 2021.
  * [4] Rouven Essig et al.  Working Group Report: New Light Weakly Coupled Particles.  In Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10 2013.
  * [5] Jim Alexander et al.  Dark Sectors 2016 Workshop: Community Report.  8 2016.
  * [6] Summary of the High Energy Physics Workshop on Basic Research Needs for Dark Matter Small Projects New Initiatives.  In Basic Research Needs For Dark Matter Small Projects New Initiatives, 10 2018.
  * [7] Marco Battaglieri et al.  US Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter 2017: Community Report.  In U.S. Cosmic Visions: New Ideas in Dark Matter, 7 2017.
  * [8] Benjamin W. Lee and Steven Weinberg.  Cosmological Lower Bound on Heavy Neutrino Masses.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 39:165–168, 1977.
  * [9] C. Boehm and Pierre Fayet.  Scalar dark matter candidates.  Nucl. Phys. B, 683:219–263, 2004.
  * [10] Tracy R. Slatyer, Nikhil Padmanabhan, and Douglas P. Finkbeiner.  CMB Constraints on WIMP Annihilation: Energy Absorption During the Recombination Epoch.  Phys. Rev. D, 80:043526, 2009.
  * [11] Asher Berlin, Nikita Blinov, Gordan Krnjaic, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro.  Dark Matter, Millicharges, Axion and Scalar Particles, Gauge Bosons, and Other New Physics with LDMX.  Phys. Rev. D, 99(7):075001, 2019.
  * [12] Yonit Hochberg, Eric Kuflik, Tomer Volansky, and Jay G. Wacker.  Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 113:171301, 2014.
  * [13] Patrick J. Fitzpatrick, Hongwan Liu, Tracy R. Slatyer, and Yu-Dai Tsai.  New Pathways to the Relic Abundance of Vector-Portal Dark Matter.  11 2020.
  * [14] Yonit Hochberg, Eric Kuflik, Hitoshi Murayama, Tomer Volansky, and Jay G. Wacker.  Model for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 115(2):021301, 2015.
  * [15] Asher Berlin, Nikita Blinov, Stefania Gori, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro.  Cosmology and Accelerator Tests of Strongly Interacting Dark Matter.  Phys. Rev., D97(5):055033, 2018.
  * [16] B. Abi et al.  Measurement of the positive muon anomalous magnetic moment to 0.46 ppm.  Physical Review Letters, 126(14), April 2021.
  * [17] Yoshitaka Kuno and Yasuhiro Okada.  Muon decay and physics beyond the standard model.  Rev. Mod. Phys., 73:151–202, 2001.
  * [18] M. Raidal et al.  Flavour physics of leptons and dipole moments.  Eur. Phys. J. C, 57:13–182, 2008.
  * [19] Andre de Gouvea and Petr Vogel.  Lepton Flavor and Number Conservation, and Physics Beyond the Standard Model.  Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 71:75–92, 2013.
  * [20] Lorenzo Calibbi and Giovanni Signorelli.  Charged Lepton Flavour Violation: An Experimental and Theoretical Introduction.  Riv. Nuovo Cim., 41(2):71–174, 2018.
  * [21] Yonatan Kahn, Gordan Krnjaic, Nhan Tran, and Andrew Whitbeck.  M3: a new muon missing momentum experiment to probe $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and dark matter at Fermilab.  JHEP, 09:153, 2018.
  * [22] Hind Al Ali, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Ian Banta, Sean Benevedes, Dario Buttazzo, Tianji Cai, Junyi Cheng, Timothy Cohen, Nathaniel Craig, Majid Ekhterachian, JiJi Fan, Matthew Forslund, Isabel Garcia Garcia, Samuel Homiller, Seth Koren, Giacomo Koszegi, Zhen Liu, Qianshu Lu, Kun-Feng Lyu, Alberto Mariotti, Amara McCune, Patrick Meade, Isobel Ojalvo, Umut Oktem, Diego Redigolo, Matthew Reece, Filippo Sala, Raman Sundrum, Dave Sutherland, Andrea Tesi, Timothy Trott, Chris Tully, Lian-Tao Wang, and Menghang Wang.  The muon smasher’s guide, 2021.
  * [23] D. Neuffer and V. Shiltsev.  On the feasibility of a pulsed 14 TeV c.m.e. muon collider in the LHC tunnel.  JINST, 13(10):T10003, 2018.
  * [24] Jean Pierre Delahaye, Marcella Diemoz, Ken Long, Bruno Mansoulié, Nadia Pastrone, Lenny Rivkin, Daniel Schulte, Alexander Skrinsky, and Andrea Wulzer.  Muon Colliders.  1 2019.
  * [25] Tao Han, Zhen Liu, Lian-Tao Wang, and Xing Wang.  WIMPs at High Energy Muon Colliders.  Phys. Rev. D, 103(7):075004, 2021.
  * [26] Rodolfo Capdevilla, David Curtin, Yonatan Kahn, and Gordan Krnjaic.  No-lose theorem for discovering the new physics of at muon colliders.  Physical Review D, 105(1), Jan 2022.
  * [27] Dario Buttazzo and Paride Paradisi.  Probing the muon $g-2$ anomaly with the Higgs boson at a muon collider.  Phys. Rev. D, 104(7):075021, 2021.
  * [28] Guo-yuan Huang, Sudip Jana, Farinaldo S. Queiroz, and Werner Rodejohann.  Probing the rk(*) anomaly at a muon collider.  Physical Review D, 105(1), Jan 2022.
  * [29] Roberto Franceschini and Mario Greco.  Higgs and bsm physics at the future muon collider, 2021.
  * [30] Antonio Costantini, Federico De Lillo, Fabio Maltoni, Luca Mantani, Olivier Mattelaer, Richard Ruiz, and Xiaoran Zhao.  Vector boson fusion at multi-tev muon colliders.  Journal of High Energy Physics, 2020(9), Sep 2020.
  * [31] F. Abusalma et al.  Expression of Interest for Evolution of the Mu2e Experiment.  2 2018.
  * [32] R.J. Barlow.  The PRISM/PRIME project.  Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., 218:44–49, 2011.
  * [33] A. Alekou et al.  Accelerator system for the PRISM based muon to electron conversion experiment.  In Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 10 2013.
  * [34] Y. Kuno.  Lepton flavor violating rare muon decays and future prospects.  AIP Conf. Proc., 435(1):261–273, 1998.
  * [35] Y. Kuno.  PRISM.  AIP Conf. Proc., 542(1):220–225, 2000.
  * [36] PRISM working group.  The PRISM project. A letter of intent to the J-PARC 50 GeV proton synchrotron experiments, 2003.  (LOI-24).
  * [37] KEK Science Advisory Committee.  Report: the first meeting of the KEK science advisory committee. March 23-24, 2019.
  * [38] A.M. Baldini et al.  MEG Upgrade Proposal.  1 2013.
  * [39] A. Blondel et al.  Research Proposal for an Experiment to Search for the Decay $\mu\to eee$.  1 2013.
  * [40] G. Cavoto, A. Papa, F. Renga, E. Ripiccini, and C. Voena.  The quest for $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ and its experimental limiting factors at future high intensity muon beams.  Eur. Phys. J. C, 78(1):37, 2018.
  * [41] Ryoto Iwai et al.  Development of next generation muon beams at the Paul Scherrer Institute.  PoS, NuFact2019:125, 2020.
  * [42] D. Z. Freedman.  Coherent Neutrino Nucleus Scattering as a Probe of the Weak Neutral Current.  Phys. Rev., D9:1389–1392, 1974.
  * [43] V. B. Kopeliovich and L. L. Frankfurt.  Isotopic and chiral structure of neutral current.  JETP Lett., 19:145–147, 1974.  [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.19,236(1974)].
  * [44] D. Akimov et al.  Observation of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering.  Science, 357(6356):1123–1126, 2017.
  * [45] Patrick deNiverville, Maxim Pospelov, and Adam Ritz.  Light new physics in coherent neutrino-nucleus scattering experiments.  Phys. Rev. D, 92(9):095005, 2015.
  * [46] A.J. Anderson, J.M. Conrad, E. Figueroa-Feliciano, C. Ignarra, G. Karagiorgi, K. Scholberg, M.H. Shaevitz, and J. Spitz.  Measuring Active-to-Sterile Neutrino Oscillations with Neutral Current Coherent Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering.  Phys. Rev. D, 86:013004, 2012.
  * [47] William Pellico et al.  FNAL Booster Storage Ring.  In Snowmass 2021 LOI AF-40, 8 2020.
  * [48] Brian Batell, Ayres Freitas, Ahmed Ismail, and David Mckeen.  Probing Light Dark Matter with a Hadrophilic Scalar Mediator.  Phys. Rev. D, 100(9):095020, 2019.
  * [49] Brian Batell, Maxim Pospelov, and Adam Ritz.  Exploring Portals to a Hidden Sector Through Fixed Targets.  Phys. Rev. D, 80:095024, 2009.
  * [50] Patrick deNiverville, Maxim Pospelov, and Adam Ritz.  Observing a light dark matter beam with neutrino experiments.  Phys. Rev. D, 84:075020, 2011.
  * [51] Yonatan Kahn, Gordan Krnjaic, Jesse Thaler, and Matthew Toups.  DAE$\delta$ALUS and dark matter detection.  Phys. Rev. D, 91(5):055006, 2015.
  * [52] L.B. Auerbach et al.  Measurement of electron - neutrino - electron elastic scattering.  Phys. Rev. D, 63:112001, 2001.
  * [53] Johnathon R. Jordan, Yonatan Kahn, Gordan Krnjaic, Matthew Moschella, and Joshua Spitz.  Signatures of Pseudo-Dirac Dark Matter at High-Intensity Neutrino Experiments.  Phys. Rev. D, 98(7):075020, 2018.
  * [54] D. Akimov et al.  First Detection of Coherent Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering on Argon.  3 2020.
  * [55] D. Akimov et al.  Sensitivity of the COHERENT Experiment to Accelerator-Produced Dark Matter.  11 2019.
  * [56] Patrick deNiverville, Chien-Yi Chen, Maxim Pospelov, and Adam Ritz.  Light dark matter in neutrino beams: production modelling and scattering signatures at MiniBooNE, T2K and SHiP.  Phys. Rev. D, 95(3):035006, 2017.
  * [57] M.G. Aartsen et al.  An eV-scale sterile neutrino search using eight years of atmospheric muon neutrino data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.  5 2020.
  * [58] A. Diaz, C.A. Argüelles, G.H. Collin, J.M. Conrad, and M.H. Shaevitz.  Where Are We With Light Sterile Neutrinos?  5 2019.
  * [59] A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al.  Evidence for neutrino oscillations from the observation of $\bar{\nu}_{e}$ appearance in a $\bar{\nu}_{\mu}$ beam.  Phys. Rev. D, 64:112007, 2001.
  * [60] M. Elnimr et al.  The OscSNS White Paper.  In Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi, 7 2013.
  * [61] A.A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al.  Dark Matter Search in Nucleon, Pion, and Electron Channels from a Proton Beam Dump with MiniBooNE.  Phys. Rev. D, 98(11):112004, 2018.
  * [62] Pedro AN Machado, Ornella Palamara, and David W Schmitz.  The Short-Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab.  Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69:363–387, 2019.
  * [63] S. Gardner, R. J. Holt, and A. S. Tadepalli.  New Prospects in Fixed Target Searches for Dark Forces with the SeaQuest Experiment at Fermilab.  Phys. Rev. D, 93(11):115015, 2016.
  * [64] Asher Berlin, Stefania Gori, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro.  Dark Sectors at the Fermilab SeaQuest Experiment.  Phys. Rev., D98(3):035011, 2018.
  * [65] Yu-Dai Tsai, Patrick deNiverville, and Ming Xiong Liu.  Dark Photon and Muon $g-2$ Inspired Inelastic Dark Matter Models at the High-Energy Intensity Frontier.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(18):181801, 2021.
  * [66] Brian Batell, Jared A. Evans, Stefania Gori, and Mudit Rai.  Dark Scalars and Heavy Neutral Leptons at DarkQuest.  JHEP, 05:049, 2021.
  * [67] Nikita Blinov, Elizabeth Kowalczyk, and Margaret Wynne.  Axion-like particle searches at DarkQuest.  JHEP, 02:036, 2022.
  * [68] Torsten Åkesson et al.  Light Dark Matter eXperiment (LDMX).  8 2018.
  * [69] Eder Izaguirre, Gordan Krnjaic, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro.  Testing GeV-Scale Dark Matter with Fixed-Target Missing Momentum Experiments.  Phys. Rev. D, 91(9):094026, 2015.
  * [70] Artur M. Ankowski, Alexander Friedland, Shirley Weishi Li, Omar Moreno, Philip Schuster, Natalia Toro, and Nhan Tran.  Lepton-nucleus cross section measurements for dune with the ldmx detector.  Physical Review D, 101(5), Mar 2020.
  * [71] J.C. Bernauer et al.  Electric and magnetic form factors of the proton.  Phys. Rev. C, 90(1):015206, 2014.
  * [72] Gabriel Lee, John R. Arrington, and Richard J. Hill.  Extraction of the proton radius from electron-proton scattering data.  Phys. Rev. D, 92(1):013013, 2015.
  * [73] Ingo Sick.  Problems with proton radii.  Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., 67:473–478, 2012.
  * [74] Alvarez-Ruso Luis et al.  Neutrino Scattering Measurements on Hydrogen and Deuterium.  In Snowmass 2021 LOI: Neutrino Scattering Measurements on Hydrogen and Deuterium, 8 2020.
  * [75] R. Gilman et al.  Technical Design Report for the Paul Scherrer Institute Experiment R-12-01.1: Studying the Proton ”Radius” Puzzle with $\mu p$ Elastic Scattering.  9 2017.
  * [76] Randolf Pohl.  Laser Spectroscopy of Muonic Hydrogen and the Puzzling Proton.  J. Phys. Soc. Jap., 85(9):091003, 2016.
  * [77] Arnaud Dupays, Alberto Beswick, Bruno Lepetit, Carlo Rizzo, and Dimitar Bakalov.  Proton Zemach radius from measurements of the hyperfine splitting of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen.  Phys. Rev. A, 68:052503, 2003.
  * [78] A. Adamczak et al.  Steps towards the hyperfine splitting measurement of the muonic hydrogen ground state: pulsed muon beam and detection system characterization.  JINST, 11(05):P05007, 2016.
  * [79] Y. Ma et al.  New Precision Measurement for Proton Zemach Radius with Laser Spectroscopy.  Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser., 40:1660046, 2016.
  * [80] Oleksandr Tomalak.  Two-photon exchange correction to the hyperfine splitting in muonic hydrogen.  Eur. Phys. J. C, 77(12):858, 2017.
  * [81] Randolf Pohl et al.  The size of the proton.  Nature, 466:213–216, 2010.
  * [82] Aldo Antognini et al.  Proton Structure from the Measurement of $2S-2P$ Transition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen.  Science, 339:417–420, 2013.
  * [83] Carl E. Carlson and Marc Vanderhaeghen.  Higher order proton structure corrections to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen.  Phys. Rev. A, 84:020102, 2011.
  * [84] Christian G. Parthey, Arthur Matveev, Janis Alnis, Randolf Pohl, Thomas Udem, Ulrich D. Jentschura, Nikolai Kolachevsky, and Theodor W. Hänsch.  Precision Measurement of the Hydrogen-Deuterium 1$S$-2$S$ Isotope Shift.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 104:233001, 2010.
  * [85] Christian G. Parthey et al.  Improved Measurement of the Hydrogen 1S - 2S Transition Frequency.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:203001, 2011.
  * [86] Oleksandr Tomalak.  Two-Photon Exchange Correction to the Lamb Shift and Hyperfine Splitting of S Levels.  Eur. Phys. J. A, 55(5):64, 2019.
  * [87] Zhihong Ye, John Arrington, Richard J. Hill, and Gabriel Lee.  Proton and Neutron Electromagnetic Form Factors and Uncertainties.  Phys. Lett. B, 777:8–15, 2018.
  * [88] Kaushik Borah, Richard J. Hill, Gabriel Lee, and Oleksandr Tomalak.  Parameterization and applications of the low-$Q^{2}$ nucleon vector form factors.  3 2020.
  * [89] V. Punjabi, C.F. Perdrisat, M.K. Jones, E.J. Brash, and C.E. Carlson.  The Structure of the Nucleon: Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors.  Eur. Phys. J. A, 51:79, 2015.
  * [90] Vladyslav Pauk and Marc Vanderhaeghen.  Lepton universality test in the photoproduction of $e^{-}e^{+}$ versus $\mu^{-}\mu^{+}$ pairs on a proton target.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 115(22):221804, 2015.
  * [91] Carl E. Carlson, Vladyslav Pauk, and Marc Vanderhaeghen.  Dilepton photoproduction on a deuteron target.  Phys. Lett. B, 797:134872, 2019.
  * [92] S. Grieser, Daniel Bonaventura, Philipp Brand, Catharina Hargens, Benjamin Hetz, Lukas Leßmann, Christina Westphälinger, and Alfons Khoukaz.  A Cryogenic Supersonic Jet Target for Electron Scattering Experiments at MAGIX@MESA and MAMI.  Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A, 906:120–126, 2018.
  * [93] S.S. Caiazza et al.  The MAGIX focal plane time projection chamber.  J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1498(1):012022, 2020.
  * [94] S1 project of sfb 1044.  https://sfb1044.uni-mainz.de/s1-baryon-form-factors/.  Accessed: 2020-06-21.
  * [95] W. Xiong et al.  A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering experiment.  Nature, 575(7781):147–150, 2019.
  * [96] Angeles Faus-Golfe, Bowen Bai, Patricia Duchesne, Yanliang Han, Denis Marchand, Cynthia Vallerand, and Eric Voutier.  The PRORAD Beam Line Design for PRAE.  In 10th International Particle Accelerator Conference, page THPMP003, 2019.
  * [97] I.A. Rachek et al.  Measurement of the two-photon exchange contribution to the elastic $e^{\pm}p$ scattering cross sections at the VEPP-3 storage ring.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(6):062005, 2015.
  * [98] D. Adikaram et al.  Towards a resolution of the proton form factor problem: new electron and positron scattering data.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 114:062003, 2015.
  * [99] D. Rimal et al.  Measurement of two-photon exchange effect by comparing elastic $e^{\pm}p$ cross sections.  Phys. Rev. C, 95(6):065201, 2017.
  * [100] B.S. Henderson et al.  Hard Two-Photon Contribution to Elastic Lepton-Proton Scattering: Determined by the OLYMPUS Experiment.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 118(9):092501, 2017.
  * [101] B. Adams et al.  Letter of Intent: A New QCD facility at the M2 beam line of the CERN SPS (COMPASS++/AMBER).  8 2018.
  * [102] X. Zhan et al.  High-Precision Measurement of the Proton Elastic Form Factor Ratio $\mu_{p}G_{E}/G_{M}$ at low $Q^{2}$.  Phys. Lett. B, 705:59–64, 2011.
  * [103] Brian Batell, Rouven Essig, and Ze’ev Surujon.  Strong Constraints on Sub-GeV Dark Sectors from SLAC Beam Dump E137.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 113(17):171802, 2014.
  * [104] Jozef Dudek et al.  Physics Opportunities with the 12 GeV Upgrade at Jefferson Lab.  Eur. Phys. J. A, 48:187, 2012.
  * [105] Andrew A. Dalesandro, Joshua Kaluzny, and Arkadiy Klebaner.  Thermodynamic Analyses of the LCLS-II Cryogenic Distribution System.  IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 27(4):0500804, 2017.
  * [106] Tor Raubenheimer, Anthony Beukers, Alan Fry, Carsten Hast, Thomas Markiewicz, Yuri Nosochkov, Nan Phinney, Philip Schuster, and Natalia Toro.  DASEL: Dark Sector Experiments at LCLS-II.  1 2018.
  * [107] D. Banerjee et al.  Dark matter search in missing energy events with NA64.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 123(12):121801, 2019.
  * [108] Patrick Achenbach.  The Physics Program at MAMI-C.  2 2008.
  * [109] Mauro Raggi and Venelin Kozhuharov.  Proposal to search for a dark photon in positron on target collisions at da$\upphi$ne linac.  Advances in High Energy Physics, 2014:1–14, 2014.
  * [110] M. Battaglieri et al.  Dark Matter Search in a Beam-Dump eXperiment (BDX) at Jefferson Lab.  7 2016.
  * [111] Andre Frankenthal.  Searching for dark photons with padme, 2019.
  * [112] A. Accardi, A. Afanasev, I. Albayrak, S. F. Ali, M. Amaryan, J. R. M. Annand, J. Arrington, A. Asaturyan, H. Avakian, T. Averett, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, L. Barion, M. Battaglieri, V. Bellini, F. Benmokhtar, V. Berdnikov, J. C. Bernauer, A. Bianconi, A. Biselli, M. Boer, M. Bondì, K. T. Brinkmann, W. J. Briscoe, V. Burkert, T. Cao, A. Camsonne, R. Capobianco, L. Cardman, M. Carmignotto, M. Caudron, L. Causse, A. Celentano, P. Chatagnon, T. Chetry, G. Ciullo, E. Cline, P. L. Cole, M. Contalbrigo, G. Costantini, A. D’Angelo, D. Day, M. Defurne, M. De Napoli, A. Deur, R. De Vita, N. D’Hose, S. Diehl, M. Diefenthaler, B. Dongwi, R. Dupré, D. Dutta, M. Ehrhart, L. El-Fassi, L. Elouadrhiri, R. Ent, J. Erler, I. P. Fernando, A. Filippi, D. Flay, T. Forest, E. Fuchey, S. Fucini, Y. Furletova, H. Gao, D. Gaskell, A. Gasparian, T. Gautam, F. X. Girod, J. Grames, P. Gueye, M. Guidal, S. Habet, D. J. Hamilton, O. Hansen, D. Hasell, M. Hattawy, D. W. Higinbotham, A. Hobart, T. Horn, C. E. Hyde, H. Ibrahim, A. Italiano, K. Joo, S. J. Joosten, N. Kalantarians, G. Kalicy, D. Keller, C. Keppel, M. Kerver, A. Kim, J. Kim, P. M. King, E. Kinney, V. Klimenko, H. S. Ko, M. Kohl, V. Kozhuharov, V. Kubarovsky, T. Kutz, L. Lanza, M. Leali, P. Lenisa, N. Liyanage, Q. Liu, S. Liuti, J. Mammei, S. Mantry, D. Marchand, P. Markowitz, L. Marsicano, V. Mascagna, M. Mazouz, M. McCaughan, B. McKinnon, D. McNulty, W. Melnitchouk, Z. E. Meziani, M. Mihovilovič, R. Milner, A. Mkrtchyan, H. Mkrtchyan, A. Movsisyan, M. Muhoza, C. Muñoz Camacho, J. Murphy, P. Nadel-Turoński, J. Nazeer, S. Niccolai, G. Niculescu, R. Novotny, M. Paolone, L. Pappalardo, R. Paremuzyan, E. Pasyuk, T. Patel, I. Pegg, C. Peng, D. Perera, M. Poelker, K. Price, A. J. R. Puckett, M. Raggi, N. Randazzo, M. N. H. Rashad, M. Rathnayake, B. Raue, P. E. Reimer, M. Rinaldi, A. Rizzo, J. Roche, O. Rondon-Aramayo, G. Salmè, E. Santopinto, R. Santos Estrada, B. Sawatzky, A. Schmidt, P. Schweitzer, S. Scopetta, V. Sergeyeva, M. Shabestari, A. Shahinyan, Y. Sharabian, S. Širca, E. Smith, D. Sokhan, A. Somov, N. Sparveris, M. Spata, S. Stepanyan, P. Stoler, I. Strakovsky, R. Suleiman, M. Suresh, H. Szumila-Vance, V. Tadevosyan, A. S. Tadepalli, M. Tiefenback, R. Trotta, M. Ungaro, P. Valente, L. Venturelli, H. Voskanyan, E. Voutier, B. Wojtsekhowski, S. Wood, J. Xie, Z. Ye, M. Yurov, H. G. Zaunick, S. Zhamkochyan, J. Zhang, S. Zhang, S. Zhao, Z. W. Zhao, X. Zheng, and C. Zorn.  e+@jlab white paper: An experimental program with positron beams at jefferson lab, 2020.
  * [113] A. Accardi et al.  Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier: Understanding the glue that binds us all.  Eur. Phys. J. A, 52(9):268, 2016.
  * [114] Yasuhito Sakaki and Daiki Ueda.  Search for new light particles at ILC main beam dump.  9 2020.
  * [115] Chien-Yi Chen, Maxim Pospelov, and Yi-Ming Zhong.  Muon Beam Experiments to Probe the Dark Sector.  Phys. Rev. D, 95(11):115005, 2017.
  * [116] Antoine Chapelain.  The Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab.  EPJ Web Conf., 137:08001, 2017.
  * [117] T.P. Gorringe and D.W. Hertzog.  Precision muon physics.  Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 84:73 – 123, 2015.
  * [118] Sohtaro Kanda.  Muonium production target for the muon g-2/edm experiment at j-parc.  Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, 253-255:212 – 213, 2014.  The Twelfth International Workshop on Tau-Lepton Physics (TAU2012).
  * [119] Aldo Antognini, Daniel M. Kaplan, Klaus Kirch, Andreas Knecht, Derrick C. Mancini, James D. Phillips, Thomas J. Phillips, Robert D. Reasenberg, Thomas J. Roberts, and Anna Soter.  Studying Antimatter Gravity with Muonium.  Atoms, 6(2):17, 2018.
  * [120] D. Taqqu.  Ultraslow muonium for a muon beam of ultra high quality.  Physics Procedia, 17:216 – 223, 2011.  2nd International Workshop on the Physics of fundamental Symmetries and Interactions - PSI2010.
  * [121] Adriana Bungau, Robert Cywinski, Cristian Bungau, Philip King, and James Lord.  Simulations of surface muon production in graphite targets.  Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, 16(1):014701, 2013.
  * [122] A. Antognini et al.  Demonstration of Muon-Beam Transverse Phase-Space Compression.  3 2020.
  * [123] D. Taqqu.  Compression and extraction of stopped muons.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 97:194801, Nov 2006.
  * [124] Robert H. Bernstein et al.  Letter of Interest for an Upgraded Low-Energy Muon Facility at Fermilab.  https://www.snowmass21.org/docs/files/summaries/RF/SNOWMASS21-RF0-AF0-007.pdf, 2020\.  Submitted to Snowmass 2021 Workshop.
  * [125] Susan Gardner and Jun Shi.  Patterns of CP violation from mirror symmetry breaking in the $\eta\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ Dalitz plot.  Physical Review D, 101(11), Jun 2020.
  * [126] Susan Gardner and Jun Shi.  Leading-Dimension Operators with CP and C or P Violation in Standard Model Effective Field Theory.  (In preparation).
  * [127] Liping Gan, Bastian Kubis, Emilie Passemar, and Sean Tulin.  Precision tests of fundamental physics with $\eta$ and $\eta^{\prime}$ mesons.  arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2007.00664, July 2020.
  * [128] J. Beacham et al.  Physics Beyond Colliders at CERN: Beyond the Standard Model Working Group Report.  J. Phys., G47(1):010501, 2020.
  * [129] Corrado Gatto.  The REDTOP experiment.  arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1910.08505, October 2019.
  * [130] Corrado Gatto.  The GenieHad Event Generation Framework.  https://redtop.fnal.gov/the-geniehadevent-generation-framework/.
  * [131] N.V. Mokhov and C.C. James.  The MARS Code System User’s Guide, Version 15 (2016).  https://lss.fnal.gov/archive/test-fn/1000/fermilab-fn-1058-apc.pdf.
  * [132] N.V. Mokhov et al.  The MARS Code System and The MARS Code System User’s Guide, Version 15 (2016).  https://mars.fnal.gov.
  * [133] Eric Oberla and Henry J. Frisch.  The design and performance of a prototype water Cherenkov optical time-projection chamber.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 814:19–32, Apr 2016.
  * [134] X. Shi, M.K. Ayoub, J. Barreiro Guimarães da Costa, H. Cui, R. Kiuchi, Y. Fan, S. Han, Y. Huang, M. Jing, Z. Liang, B. Liu, J. Liu, F. Lyu, B. Qi, K. Ran, L. Shan, L. Shi, Y. Tan, K. Wu, S. Xiao, T. Yang, Y. Yang, C. Yu, M. Zhao, X. Zhuang, L. Castillo García, E.L. Gkougkousis, C. Grieco, S. Grinstein, M. Leite, G.T. Saito, A. Howard, V. Cindro, G. Kramberger, I. Mandić, M. Mikuž, G. d’Amen, G. Giacomini, E. Rossi, A. Tricoli, H. Chen, J. Ge, C. Li, H. Liang, X. Yang, L. Zhao, Z. Zhao, X. Zheng, N. Atanov, Y. Davydov, J. Grosse-Knetter, J. Lange, A. Quadt, M. Schwickardi, S. Alderweireldt, A.S.C. Ferreira, S. Guindon, E. Kuwertz, C. Rizzi, S. Christie, Z. Galloway, C. Gee, Y. Jin, C. Labitan, M. Lockerby, S.M. Mazza, F. Martinez-Mckinney, R. Padilla, H. Ren, H.F.-W. Sadrozinski, B. Schumm, A. Seiden, M. Wilder, W. Wyatt, Y. Zhao, D. Han, and X. Zhang.  Radiation campaign of HPK prototype LGAD sensors for the High-Granularity Timing Detector (HGTD).  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 979:164382, 2020\.
  * [135] Moritz Kiehn, Francesco Armando Di Bello, Mathieu Benoit, Raimon Mohr, Hucheng Chen, Kai Chen, Sultan D.M.S., Felix Ehrler, Didier Ferrere, Dylan Frizell, and Jessica Metcalfe.  Performance of CMOS pixel sensor prototypes in ams H35 and aH18 technology for the ATLAS ITk upgrade.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 924:104 – 107, Apr 2019.  10.1016/j.nima.2018.07.061.
  * [136] Corrado Gatto et al.  Dual Readout Calorimetry with Glasses.  https://web.fnal.gov/experiment/FTBF/TSW%20Library/T1015_mou.pdf.
  * [137] Corrado Gatto, Vito Di Benedetto, Anna Mazzacane, and T1015 Collaboration.  Status of ADRIANO $R\&D$ in T1015 collaboration.  Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 587, 02 2015.
  * [138] Corrado Gatto, Vito Di Benedetto, Eileen Hahn, and Anna Mazzacane.  Status of Dual-readout R&D for a Linear Collider in T1015 Collaboration.  In International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders, 3 2016.
  * [139] G. Blazey, D. Chakraborty, A. Dyshkant, K. Francis, D. Hedin, J. Hill, G. Lima, J. Powell, P. Salcido, V. Zutshi, M. Demarteau, P. Rubinov, and N. Pohlman.  Directly coupled tiles as elements of a scintillator calorimeter with MPPC readout.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 605(3):277 – 281, 2009.
  * [140] William Lemaire, Frédéric Nolet, Frédérik Dubois, Audrey C. Therrien, Jean-François Pratte, and Réjean Fontaine.  Embedded time of arrival estimation for digital silicon photomultipliers with in-pixel TDCs.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 959:163538, 2020\.
  * [141] Frédéric Nolet, Frédérik Dubois, Nicolas Roy, Samuel Parent, William Lemaire, Alexandre Massie-Godon, Serge A. Charlebois, Réjean Fontaine, and Jean-Francois Pratte.  Digital SiPM channel integrated in CMOS 65 nm with 17.5 ps FWHM single photon timing resolution.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 912:29 – 32, 2018.  New Developments In Photodetection 2017.
  * [142] Frédéric Nolet, William Lemaire, Frédérik Dubois, Nicolas Roy, Simon Carrier, Arnaud Samson, Serge A. Charlebois, Réjean Fontaine, and Jean-Francois Pratte.  A 256 Pixelated SPAD readout ASIC with in-Pixel TDC and embedded digital signal processing for uniformity and skew correction.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 949:162891, 2020\.
  * [143] F. Nolet, N. Roy, S. Carrier, J. Bouchard, R. Fontaine, S. A. Charlebois, and J. Pratte.  22 $\mu$W, 5.1 ps LSB, 5.5 ps RMS jitter Vernier time-to-digital converter in CMOS 65 nm for single photon avalanche diode array.  Electronics Letters, 56(9):424–426, 2020.
  * [144] Frederic Nolet, Samuel Parent, Nicolas Roy, Marc-Olivier Mercier, Serge Charlebois, Rejean Fontaine, and Jean-Francois Pratte.  Quenching Circuit and SPAD Integrated in CMOS 65 nm with 7.8 ps FWHM Single Photon Timing Resolution.  Instruments, 2:19, 09 2018.
  * [145] Paul Lecoq, Christian Morel, John Prior, Dimitris Visvikis, Stefan Gundacker, Etiennette Auffray, Peter Krizan, Rosana Martinez Turtos, Dominique Thers, Edoardo Charbon, Joao Varela, Christophe de La Taille, Angelo Rivetti, Dominique Breton, Jean-Francois Pratte, Johan Nuyts, Suleman Surti, Stefaan Vandenberghe, Paul K Marsden, Katia Parodi, José Maria Benlloch, and Mathieu Benoit.  Roadmap toward the 10 ps time-of-flight PET challenge.  Physics in Medicine $\&$ Biology, 2020.
  * [146] The CALICE collaboration, J Repond, J Yu, C M Hawkes, Y Mikami, O Miller, N K Watson, J A Wilson, G Mavromanolakis, M A Thomson, and et al.  Design and electronics commissioning of the physics prototype of a Si-W electromagnetic calorimeter for the International Linear Collider.  Journal of Instrumentation, 3(08):P08001–P08001, Aug 2008.
  * [147] K. Kawagoe, Y. Miura, I. Sekiya, T. Suehara, T. Yoshioka, S. Bilokin, J. Bonis, P. Cornebise, A. Gallas, and A. et al. Irles.  Beam test performance of the highly granular SiW-ECAL technological prototype for the ILC.  Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 950:162969, Jan 2020.
  * [148] REDTOP Collaboration.  The REDTOP experiment: an Eta/Eta’ factory.  https://www.snowmass21.org/docs/files/summaries/RF/SNOWMASS21-RF2_RF6-IF6_IF3_REDTOP_Collaboration_-_new-083.pdf.
  * [149] REDTOP Collaboration.  The REDTOP experiment: Rare Eta/Eta’ Decays To Observe Physics Beyond the Standard Model.  TBP.
  * [150] A. D. Sakharov.  Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe.  Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 5:32–35, 1967.  [Usp. Fiz. Nauk161,no.5,61(1991)].
  * [151] V. Cirigliano and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf.  Low energy probes of physics beyond the standard model.  Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 71:2–20, 2013.
  * [152] K. S. Babu et al.  $\left|\Delta B\right|=2$: A State of the Field, and Looking Forward.  10 2020.
  * [153] K. Abe et al.  The Search for $n-\bar{n}$ oscillation in Super-Kamiokande I.  Phys. Rev., D91:072006, 2015.
  * [154] Babak Abi et al.  Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE), Far Detector Technical Design Report, Volume II DUNE Physics.  2 2020.
  * [155] B. Abi et al.  Prospects for Beyond the Standard Model Physics Searches at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment.  8 2020.
  * [156] Joshua L. Barrow, Elena S. Golubeva, Eduard Paryev, and Jean-Marc Richard.  Progress and simulations for intranuclear neutron-antineutron transformations in ${}^{40}_{18}Ar$.  Phys. Rev. D, 101(3):036008, 2020.
  * [157] D. G. Phillips, II et al.  Neutron-Antineutron Oscillations: Theoretical Status and Experimental Prospects.  Phys. Rept., 612:1–45, 2016.
  * [158] A. Addazi et al.  New high-sensitivity searches for neutrons converting into antineutrons and/or sterile neutrons at the European Spallation Source.  6 2020.
  * [159] V. A. Kuzmin.  Cp violation and baryon asymmetry of the universe.  Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., 12:335–337, 1970.
  * [160] V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov.  On the Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe.  Phys. Lett., 155B:36, 1985.
  * [161] V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov.  Anomalous Electroweak Baryon Number Nonconservation and GUT Mechanism for Baryogenesis.  Phys. Lett., B191:171–173, 1987.
  * [162] Rabindra N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak.  Phenomenology of neutron oscillations.  Phys. Lett., 94B:183, 1980.  [Erratum: Phys. Lett.96B,444(1980)].
  * [163] Rabindra N. Mohapatra and R.E. Marshak.  Local $B-L$ Symmetry of Electroweak Interactions, Majorana Neutrinos and Neutron Oscillations.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 44:1316–1319, 1980.  [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 44, 1643 (1980)].
  * [164] Zurab Berezhiani, Matthew Frost, Yuri Kamyshkov, Ben Rybolt, and Louis Varriano.  Neutron Disappearance and Regeneration from Mirror State.  Phys. Rev., D96(3):035039, 2017.
  * [165] R. Golub, D. Richardson, and S. K. Lamoreaux.  Ultra-Cold Neutrons.  Taylor & Francis, New York, NY, 1991.
  * [166] K. K. H. Leung, G. Muhrer, T. Hügle, T. M. Ito, E. M. Lutz, M. Makela, C. L. Morris, R. W. Pattie, A. Saunders, and A. R. Young.  A next-generation inverse-geometry spallation-driven ultracold neutron source.  Journal of Applied Physics, 126(22):224901, 2019.
  * [167] P. LeBrun.  Superfluid Helium Cryogenics for the Large Hadron Collider Project at CERN.  in Proceedings of the 15th International Cryogenic Engineering Conference, ICEC 15, June 7-10, Genova, Italy, 1994.
  * [168] William M. Morse and Yannis K. Semertzidis.  The proton storage ring edm experiment (sredm).  https://www.snowmass21.org/docs/files/summaries/RF/SNOWMASS21-RF3_RF0-AF5_AF0_Yannis_K._Semertzidis-032.pdf.
  * [169] Zhanibek Omarov, Hooman Davoudiasl, Selcuk Haciomeroglu, Valeri Lebedev, William M. Morse, Yannis K. Semertzidis, Alexander J. Silenko, Edward J. Stephenson, and Riad Suleiman.  Comprehensive symmetric-hybrid ring design for a proton EDM experiment at below 10-29e·cm.  Phys. Rev. D, 105(3):032001, 2022.
  * [170] K. Kodama et al.  Phys. Lett., B504:218, 2001.
  * [171] K. Kodama et al.  Phys. Rev., D78:052002, 2008.
  * [172] M. Guler et al.  Opera: An appearance experiment to search for $\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow\nu_{\tau}$ oscillations in the cngs beam. experimental proposal.  Technical Report CERN-SPSC-2000-028, CERN, 2000.
  * [173] N. Agafonova et al.  Discovery of tau neutrino appearance in the cngs neutrino beam with the opera experiment.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 115:121802, 2015.
  * [174] N. Agafonova et al.  Final results of the opera experiment on $\nu_{\tau}$ appearance in the cngs neutrino beam.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:211801, 2018.
  * [175] K. Abe et al.  Evidence for the appearance of atmospheric tau neutrinos in super-kamiokande.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 110:181802, 2013.
  * [176] Z. Li et al.  Measurement of the tau neutrino cross section in atmospheric neutrino oscillations with super-kamiokande.  Phys. Rev. D, 98:052006, 2018.
  * [177] M. G. Aartsen et al.  Measurement of atmospheric tau neutrino appearance with icecube deepcore.  Phys. Rev. D, 99:032007, 2019.
  * [178] Y. Amhis et al.  Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and $\tau$-lepton properties as of summer 2016.  Eur. Phys. J. C, 77:895, 2017.
  * [179] Stephen Parke and Mark Ross-Lonergan.  Unitarity and the three flavor neutrino mixing matrix.  Phys. Rev. D, 93:113009, 2016.
  * [180] Sebastian Alfonso Richard Ellis, Kevin James Kelly, and Shirley Weishi Li.  Current and Future Neutrino Oscillation Constraints on Leptonic Unitarity.  8 2020.
  * [181] Summer Blot.  Neutrino oscillation measurements with IceCube, June 2020.
  * [182] Shigeki Aoki et al.  DsTau: Study of tau neutrino production with 400 GeV protons from the CERN-SPS.  JHEP, 01:033, 2020.
  * [183] Henso Abreu et al.  Technical Proposal: FASERnu.  1 2020.
  * [184] A. de Gouvêa, K. J. Kelly, G. V. Stenico, and P. Pasquini.  Physics with Beam Tau-Neutrino Appearance at DUNE.  Phys. Rev. D, 100:016004, 2019.
  * [185] Anish Ghoshal, Alessio Giarnetti, and Davide Meloni.  On the role of the $\nu_{\tau}$ appearance in DUNE in constraining standard neutrino physics and beyond.  JHEP, 12:126, 2019.
  * [186] Janet Conrad, André de Gouvêa, Shashank Shalgar, and Joshua Spitz.  Atmospheric tau neutrinos in a multi-kiloton liquid argon detector.  Phys. Rev. D, 82:093012, 2010.
  * [187] B. Abi et al.  Deep underground neutrino experiment (dune), far detector technical design report, volume ii, dune physics, 2020.
  * [188] Pedro Machado, Holger Schulz, and Jessica Turner.  Tau neutrinos at DUNE: new strategies, new opportunities.  6 2020.
  * [189] Sergey Alekhin et al.  A facility to search for hidden particles at the cern sps: the ship physics case.  Rep. Prog. Phys, 79:124201, 2016.
  * [190] P Minkowski.  $\mu\rightarrow e\gamma$ at a rate of one out of $10^{9}$ muon decays?  Phys. Lett. B, 67:421, 1977.
  * [191] Rabindra N. Mohapatra and Goran Senjanovic.  Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation.  Phys. Rev. Lett., 44:912, 1980.
  * [192] F. J. Escrihuela, D. V. Forero, O. G. Miranda, M. Tórtola, and J. W. F. Valle.  On the description of nonunitary neutrino mixing.  Phys. Rev. D, 92:053009, 2015.  Erratum Phys. Rev. D 93, 119905 (2016).
  * [193] M. Blennow, P. Coloma, E. Fernandez-Martinez, et al.  Non-unitarity, sterile neutrinos, and non-standard neutrino interactions.  J. High Energy. Phys., 2017:153, 2017.
  * [194] A. Ghoshal, A. Giarnetti, and D. Meloni.  Neutrino Invisible Decay at DUNE: a multi-channel analysis.  3 2020.
  * [195] https://cdcvs.fnal.gov/redmine/projects/lbne-beamsim/wiki.
  * [196] https://docs.dunescience.org/cgi-bin/ShowDocument?docid=4559.
  * [197] Patrick Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter.  Simulation of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES (General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator).  Comput. Phys. Commun., 167:195, 2005.
  * [198] Patrick Huber, Joachim Kopp, Manfred Lindner, Mark Rolinec, and Walter Winter.  New features in the simulation of neutrino oscillation experiments with GLoBES 3.0: General Long Baseline Experiment Simulator.  Comput. Phys. Commun., 177:432–438, 2007.


# Use of Available Data To Inform The COVID-19 Outbreak in South Africa: A
Case Study

Vukosi Marivate
University of Pretoria, South Africa
CSIR, South Africa
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Herkulaas MvE Combrink
University of Pretoria, South Africa
University of the Free State, South Africa
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

###### Abstract

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, was
declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in February 2020.
Currently, there are no vaccines or treatments that have been approved after
clinical trials. Social distancing measures, including travel bans, school
closure, and quarantine applied to countries or regions are being used to
limit the spread of the disease, and the demand on the healthcare
infrastructure. The seclusion of groups and individuals has led to limited
access to accurate information. To update the public, especially in South
Africa, announcements are made by the minister of health daily. These
announcements narrate the confirmed COVID-19 cases and include the age,
gender, and travel history of people who have tested positive for the disease.
Additionally, the South African National Institute for Communicable Diseases
updates a daily infographic summarising the number of tests performed,
confirmed cases, mortality rate, and the regions affected. However, the age of
the patient and other nuanced data regarding the transmission is only shared
in the daily announcements and not on the updated infographic. To disseminate
this information, the Data Science for Social Impact research group at the
University of Pretoria, South Africa, has worked on curating and applying
publicly available data in a way that is computer readable so that information
can be shared to the public - using both a data repository and a dashboard..
Through collaborative practices, a variety of challenges related to publicly
available data in South Africa came to the fore. These include shortcomings in
the accessibility, integrity, and data management practices between
governmental departments and the South African public. In this paper,
solutions to these problems will be shared by using a publicly available data
repository and dashboard as a case study.

Dashboard: https://bitly.com/covid19za-dash
Data repository: https://github.com/dsfsi/covid19za

##  1 Introduction

Accurate data are at the centre of mitigating risk, preventing widespread
panic and sensationalism during a natural disaster. Evidence-based information
obtained from accurate data is an asset, and one of the only strategic
resources the public have during a crisis. The practice of sharing information
to the public about the current state of things is dependent on specific data
that has to be captured and shared to the public in a way that is useful,
usable and desirable. During a crisis, the public needs to minimize exposure
to the situation or act accordingly to provide support where needed. The
contribution of this paper is a framework that substantiates the type of data
employed to capture and modify shared information with the public during a
crisis of a biological nature, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper
summarises findings (e.g., demography and neighbourhood) based on the public
data repository Marivate et al. (2020) and
dashboard111https://bitly.com/covid19-dash, to support general understanding
and lessons learned from the COVID-19 epidemic.

The disease, COVID-19, is a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by
the SARS-CoV-2 virus Bai et al. (2020). The first reported case of COVID-19
was in December 2019 in Wuhan, China Phingzeng10. The problem with SARS-CoV-2
is the pressure it puts on the healthcare system because of its high infection
rate Zhao et al. (2020). Globally, sudden spikes in the confirmed COVID-19
cases are severe because there are limited resources to effectively manage and
treat patients in any of the current healthcare systems Ferguson et al.
(2020). As of February 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared
SARS-CoV-2 a pandemic- one of the first biological threats to modern society
in the 21st century.Remuzzi and Remuzzi (2020). In order for the South African
government to reduce the widespread of SARS-CoV-2, travelling restrictions
were placed on high-risk regions and border-crossings were closed from one
country to another. South Africa experienced the first COVID-19 case on the
28th of February 2020, and as of the 25th of March 2020, the number of
confirmed COVID-19 cases increased to 702, despite efforts to contain the
virus by putting a ban on international travel Organization (2020). The
increase in confirmed cases may cause widespread panic and anxiety, which is
why the public relies on good, reliable information and data, now more than
ever.

Currently, information regarding the COVID-19 outbreak in South Africa is
shared with the public across various platforms, of which two are most
popular/most widely used. Firstly, the National Institute for Communicable
Diseases (NICD) publishes an infographic that contains limited information,
providing a bird’s-eye view of the outbreak. This information is limited to
South Africa and only reports the number of tests performed, number of
confirmed cases, which regions are affected, and COVID-19 related mortality
NICD (2020). Secondly, the minister of the Department of Health (DoH) in South
Africa, Zwelini Mkhize, updates the public regarding the cases as they arise
on a daily basis. These updates are published sentences on the DoH website,
containing some demographic information about the confirmed cases, including
age, gender, travel history and mode of contraction of SARS-CoV-2 DoH (2020).
Although these sources of information are valuable, they are potentially
ineffective ways of sharing information to the public regarding their
usability for a variety of reasons. Amongst these is the number of different
platforms a person has to navigate through to gain access to accurate data.
Additionally, the format in which the data are presented is not in a computer
readable format and has to undergo processing in order to be used and stored.
This further complicates legibility, simplicity and accessibility of the
information that is shared, a concern about South African government data that
was highlighted in prior work Marivate and Moorosi (2018). The impact of not
having useful, usable and desirable information has a direct effect on
management strategies and responses from the public in relation to the disease
Gonulal (2019).

To counter the aforementioned problem, the Data Science for Social Impact
(DSFSI) research group at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, has
developed an open repository for the data integrity of South African COVID-19
cases. DSFSI Lab members and willing volunteers are responsible for the
mining, validation and storage of data related to the COVID-19 patients in
South Africa. To work collectively on a project related to public data in a
way that can be scaled, the DSFSI manages and consolidates the available data
related to the COVID-19 cases in South Africa. Once consolidated, the data are
shared in an open, publicly available repository on GitHub.com, and then
linked to the dashboard Marivate and Group (2020). On the repository, any
member or user has the freedom to critique and propose new features or data to
be added to the repository or dashboard. This includes data integrity issues
as well as information to be added to the repository that is otherwise
outdated or virtually inaccessible to the public. The workflow of this process
is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Data publishing cycle of COVID-19 data

In order to link information to the COVID-19 records, data needs to be
accurate and restructured. Unfortunately, when data are not updated and
information changes about the state of the evidence, then it becomes difficult
to track when the changes occurred, especially if the changes relate to the
unique ID or name of the item. One such example relates to the publicly
available South African hospital data. Some items in the hospital data were
last updated more than two years prior to 2020. This includes hospital data
such as coordinates, accurate contact information, and facilities available
within the hospital, as well as the population size of a/the district.

Most of the aforementioned information is not consolidated in one place a
great risk factor in a time where the public needs to know where to seek care,
and which hospitals are equipped to test and manage COVID-19 patients. Another
example came about in a sudden spike of confirmed cases between the 23rd and
25th of March 2020. This increase of 435 cases came unaccompanied by any of
the aforementioned demographic information, transmission type, nor their
travel history, and these results are still pending. In subsequent days, there
has been the same challenge, although the latest available data on deaths has
demographic information and some travel history.

##  2 Aims and Methodology

The primary objectives of this study were to determine what data should be
included in a public repository amidst the COVID-19 outbreak and how this data
should be disseminated within a public dashboard. The public repository of
data followed a Creative Commons licence for data, and MIT License for Code,
with copyright for the Data Science for Social Impact research group at the
University of Pretoria, South Africa JSOUP (2020). All of the data were
gathered and consolidated on the public repository which is hosted on
GitHub222https://www.github.com/dsfsi/covid19za and uploaded on Zenodo
Marivate et al. (2020).

To determine if the dashboard (Fig. 2) and data repository were used, data and
analytics were performed on the basis of descriptive statistics related to the
number of views, clicks, comments and recommendations on the public repository
and dashboard. The use of the repository goes further than just the views, but
that other researchers actually use it for analysis.

Figure 2: Consolidated dashboard using data from the repository. _Left_ :
Front page with aggregated national statistics. _Right_ : Aggregated
statistics by province.

To measure whether or not the repository and dashboard were useful and
desirable, the public repository allowed for the posting of issues, comments
and recommendations. These items were categorised according to their
submission on the repository. An item could be sorted into more than one
category depending on the nature of the problem. The DSFSI and public have the
opportunity to choose which problems they would like to work on, and solutions
are approved by the DSFSI group.

##  3 Results

In total, 58,169 users accessed the dashboard in the time period of 17th March
to 18th April 2020 (Fig. 3)

Figure 3: Data usage information from the website.

As seen in Fig. 3, at least 20.4 percent of users return to the dashboard,
with an average session duration of 1.35 minutes per session. In addition to
this, the repository from which the data are drawn have had over 2,000 clones
of the dataset from at least 200 different people. The majority of the users
were from the GitHub community, but a few unique users (meaning they had not
visited before) accessed the repository from other platforms (Table 1).

Table 1: Data usage information from the website Non-English or Site | Views | Unique visitors
---|---|---
github.com | 2,229 | 797
twitter.com | 675 | 431
Google.com | 647 | 353
Linkedin.com | 212 | 125
zendo.org | 58 | 26
Bing.com | 57 | 27
facebook.com | 43 | 27
m.facebook.com | 39 | 26
vima.co.za | 20 | 9
Ink.in | 17 | 8

At least 404 unique visitors viewed the issues that were posted on the
repository. A further 150 unique visitors viewed the pull requests. These were
requests for data that members of the DSFSI and the public contributed to the
actual datasets. To manage the issues that were posted, ten different labels
were created to categorise the issues. Currently, only six of the ten labels
were used for the issues that were posted. These were: bugs, data,
enhancements, good first issue, help wanted and questions (Table 2).

Table 2: Categories of lodged issues Label | Resolved issues | Unresolved issues
---|---|---
Bugs | 7 | 2
Data | 19 | 10
Enhancement | 26 | 17
Good first issue | 2 | 2
Help wanted | 2 | 1
Question | 1 | 1

Bugs referred to any error in the data or issue related to a feature of either
the dashboard or function within the repository. The single unresolved issue
in bugs related to a single incorrect data entry, but finding the source
confirming the correct data proved challenging. Data were any inquiry about
the data including differences between data sets, missing data, or additions
to datasets. To resolve these issues, data needs to be updated from the
source. Enhancement meant improvements to current implementations of either
the data in the repository or dashboard. Pending information for most of these
enhancements. These include additional fields that were not provided in the
publicly available data. Good first issues were entry level problems that
could be completed by people from any background. These were labelled as such
for newcomers to the project that did not require either a lot of time or
expertise to work on. Help wanted translated to problems that require
additional attention. The unresolved issues require data that are not
currently available to the public in order to solve the issues. Questions were
presented as general request for clarity or required more information on a
particular issue in the repository that another person posted. To resolve the
one unresolved question, a decision has to be made internally about the data
to resolve the matter. There were more than 10,000 additions to the repository
data, and 1,430 deletions, all reviewed by different members of DSFSI and
accepted if they were noteworthy contributions to the repository. In addition
to this, there were 26 different contributors who pushed 345 commits to all
branches within the repository.

The majority of requests and changes to the repository and dashboard were
associated with the data or enhancements to the data. In total, there are
fifteen datasets, with seven of them related to information about hospitals in
SA. Once created, the subsequent data were displayed in a dashboard Marivate
et al. (2020). Included in the dashboard were information related to COVID-19,
a South African helpline, sources of the information, when last the
information was updated, a blog post containing the purpose of the dashboard,
links to the open public repository, and general information about the
research group. Some analysis that can be accomplished with the data is shown
in Fig. 4.

Figure 4: Examples of analysis made possible by the data repository. _Left_
Age distribution of positive cases. _Right:_ Provincial growth

##  4 Conclusion

Data are one of the most important assets during a crisis. Unfortunately, not
prioritising this commodity had complications during the early days of the
COVID-19 pandemic from a South African perspective. To prevent this from
happening, the DSFSI research group have started collaborating and expanding
this type of methodology to create a line list for the rest of the African
continent333https://www.github.com/dsfsi/covid19africa. The data from this
project led to discussion between DSFSI and the NICD and DoH, in an attempt to
assist the situation. The COVID-19 pandemic showed the world the value of
data, and that people and systems should effectively prepare for a time of
crisis. Enabling the public to engage with data in a way that is open and
collaborative is an overlooked service that can aid during a calamity.
Furthermore, having readily available data is useful when needed during an
emergency, but can seem redundant during peaceful times. Therefore,
prioritising data management practices, getting input from the people who use
the information, and collaborating between different organisations to gain the
same result should be a proactive approach and standard, not one that is only
implemented during a catastrophe.

##  5 Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge every person from the public that dedicated their
time, effort and energy to assist during this pandemic. At the time of this
publication, in alphabetical order, Alta de Waal, Jay Welsh, Nompumelelo
Mtsweni, Ofentswe Lebogo, Shiven Moodley, Vutlhari Rikhotso, S’busiso
Mkhondwane. As this is an open contribution project, the updated list of
contributors is available on the github
repo444https://github.com/dsfsi/covid19za/graphs/contributors. We would like
to thank the DSFSI research group at the University of Pretoria for all their
expertise, patience and hard work during this time. We also would like to
thank all the employees of the NICD, DoH and WHO who assisted with data during
this time. We would like to acknowledge ABSA for sponsoring the industry chair
and it’s related activities to the project.

## References

  * [1]
  * Bai et al. [2020] Yan Bai, Lingsheng Yao, and Tao Wei. 2020.  Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19.  _Jama_ (March 2020), E1.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.2565
  * DoH [2020] DoH. 2020.  _South African Department of Health_.  Retrieved March 26, 2020 from http://www.health.gov.za/
  * Ferguson et al. [2020] Neil M Ferguson, Daniel Laydon, Gemma Nedjati-Gilani, Natsuko Imai, Kylie Ainslie, Marc Baguelin, Sangeeta Bhatia, Adhiratha Boonyasiri, Zulma CucunubÃ¡, Gina Cuomo-Dannenburg, Amy Dighe, Ilaria Dorigatti, Han Fu, Katy Gaythorpe, Will Green, Arran Hamlet, Wes Hinsley, Lucy C Okell, Sabine van Elsland, Hayley Thompson, Robert Verity, Erik Volz, Haowei Wang, Yuanrong Wang, Patrick GT Walker, Peter Winskill, Charles Whittaker, Christl A Donnelly, Steven Riley, and Azra C Ghani. 2020\.  Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID19 mortality and healthcare demand.  _London: Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team_ (March 2020), 1 – 20\.  https://doi.org/10.25561/77482
  * Gonulal [2019] Talip Gonulal. 2019\.  Missing data management practices in L2 research: the good, the bad and the ugly.  _Erzincan University Education Faculty Journal_ 1, 21 (Feb. 2019), 56 – 73.  https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.448559
  * JSOUP [2020] JSOUP. 2020.  _KSOUP Licence_.  Retrieved February 29, 2020 from https://jsoup.org/license
  * Marivate et al. [2020] Vukosi Marivate, Alta de Waal, Herkulaas Combrink, Ofentswe Lebogo, Shivan Moodley, Nompumelelo Mtsweni, Vuthlari Rikhotso, Jay Welsh, and S’busiso Mkhondwane. 2020\.  _Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case data - South Africa_.  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3732419
  * Marivate and Group [2020] Vukosi Marivate and Data Science For Social Impact Research Group. 2020.  _COVID 19 ZA South Africa Dashboard_.  https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/1b60bdc7-bec7-44c9-ba29-be0e043d8534/page/hrUIB Accessed at https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/1b60bdc7-bec7-44c9-ba29-be0e043d8534/page/hrUIB.
  * Marivate and Moorosi [2018] Vukosi Marivate and Nyalleng Moorosi. 2018.  Exploring data science for public good in South Africa: evaluating factors that lead to success. In _Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age_. 1–6.
  * NICD [2020] NICD. 2020.  _National Institute For Communicable Diseases (NICD)_.  Retrieved March 26, 2020 from http://www.nicd.ac.za/
  * Organization [2020] World Health Organization. 2020\.  _Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): situation report_.  Retrieved March 16, 2020 from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331475/nCoVsitrep11Mar2020-eng.pdf
  * Remuzzi and Remuzzi [2020] Andrea Remuzzi and Giuseppe Remuzzi. 2020.  COVID-19 and Italy: what next?  _The Lancet_ 395, 10229 (March 2020), 1 – 4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30627-9
  * Robson [2020] Barry Robson. 2020\.  COVID-19 and Italy: what next?  _The Lancet_ 119, 103670 (April 2020), 1 – 19.  https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103670
  * Zhao et al. [2020] Wen Zhao, Shikai Yu, Xiangyi Zha, Ning Wang, Qiumei Pang, Tongzeng Li, and Aixin Li. 2020.  linical characteristics and durations of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in Beijing: a retrospective cohort study.  _MedRxiv_ 119, 103670 (March 2020), 1 – 6.  https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.13.20035436