Preliminary Perspectives on Information Passing in the Intelligence Community
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What kinds of information do intelligence analysts engage with in their analysis work?
- How does information flow in the analysis work of intelligence analysts?
- What factors influence how intelligence analysts engage with information in their analysis work?
2. Literature Survey
2.1. Search Strategy
- Keyword search: We performed a brainstorming session and identified an initial set of keywords and terms to nonexhaustively represent the research space we wanted to explore. These terms were generated based on our existing knowledge of the research space as well as the terms we heard from the talks and discussions that occurred during the initial weeks of SCADS. These keywords were used as search terms on Google Scholar.
- Author and Publication search: We created a list of key authors and publication venues that covered the identified topics. The publication record of these authors was examined and relevant papers were added to our spreadsheet.
- Citation-chaining: Recorded papers were labeled as either relevant or not relevant by the researchers who read them, and papers of particular interest were flagged for the whole group to read. Papers that were identified as relevant were used to find further papers by exploring their references, the list of papers that cited them, and looking at other work the authors produced.
2.2. Themes
- Information: Addresses information (or proxy information) that analysts deal with, how they deal with it, and how the information flows between different entities.
- Process: Addresses workflows or processes that analysts use in their day-to-day work. Also includes workflows or processes that are specific to certain situations.
- Job: Addresses how analysts perceive their jobs and occupational job scope.
- Collaboration: Addresses collaboration among analysts, intelligence agencies, and other relevant individuals or groups.
2.3. Patterns in the Literature
2.3.1. Insights Gained
2.3.2. Model Identification
3. Study Design
3.1. Study Conceptualization
3.2. Interview Themes
3.3. Interview Methodology
3.4. Pilot Interviews
3.5. Participant Recruitment
3.6. Analysis Plan
4. Preliminary Findings
5. Conclusions and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Study Design Document
- Problem/Motivation:
- Intelligence analysts work with a plethora of information coming from various sources.
- This information informs the outcomes of their sensemaking process and may have actionable insights that get passed forward.
- IAs need to communicate different kinds of information to different kinds of audiences, formally and informally.
- Assembling and preparing information to be communicated to other parties requires nontrivial efforts from the IAs.
- It is thus critical to understanding how the information flows from different sources in and out of an analyst’s workflow.
- Understanding what types of and how (even in abstract terms fit for an unclassified scenario) information is acquired and passed on in the intelligence analysis community may help to design systems that can help to ease the burden of information preparation for communication.
- For instance, identifying what format of input information leads to what format of output information can ultimately help recommend relevant information through the TLDR.
- In the literature, there has been a focus on collaborative practices, or the lack thereof; however, there is a gap in understanding how cooperative or asynchronous collaboration happens in the intricate hierarchy of an intelligence community.
- Specific Study Goals:
- Through this study, we aim to interview analysts to:
- Understand their perceptions of their work in relation to others,
- Generalize in how information flows, both into their work and outward to others (a more holistic view)
- Understand the impacts of various information types, trustworthiness, completeness, etc. on analyst workflows (treating the analyst as the central node of the information flow)
- Population: Intelligence Analysts
- This will need to be more specific when we find out more about the participants
- Details may include years of experience, how long since they’ve last worked as an analyst, area of focus (HumInt, SigInt, GeoInt, etc.)? Other common performance indicators of the individual? Personality factors?
- What agency were they affiliated with (if we are allowed to get that information)?
- Research Questions/Objective:
- What are the critical dimensions of personalization for information passing requirements of intelligence analysts?
- Situated context of analysis and how the people share information around the network.
- Please add other peripheral areas of foci if appropriate.
- Sample Size:
- Analysis Plan
- Grounded theory approach to help us start analysis as and when we get data
- Expected Outcomes
- Greater understanding of an analysts workflow in the context of the information that they work with
- A holistic representation of how information flows through the hierarchy of a (to be determined) intelligence community/organization
- Add more if you think we can get anything more from the analysis—might be good to let certain contributions surface on their own
- Triangulation of findings across the literature of the common design considerations (thematic?) and with what we find out from the interviews. See if it contributes further to identifying a list of design specifications when we know to come up with the envisioned TLDR system.
Appendix B. Project Provenance
Week | Goal | Outcome |
---|---|---|
1 (6/13–6/17) | Settle into NC Day in the life conversations with analysts | Learning about the intelligence community |
2 (6/20–6/24) | Review interface designs by design students Day in the life conversations with analysts | Team formation An initial study design (Appendix A) proposed Literature to read identified |
3 (6/27–7/1) | Research literature discussion and area identification | Literature survey spreadsheet created IRB submitted |
4 (7/4–7/8) | Review literature models for patterns (v1) | |
5 (7/11–7/15) | Review literature models (v2 & v3) Conversations with analyst researchers | Finding patterns in literature models Interview guide draft v1 |
6 (7/18–7/22) | Pilot testing interview guide (v1–v5) | IRB Approval to run study |
7 (7/25–7/29) | Running interviews/Collecting data | Finished majority of interviews |
8 (8/01–8/05) | Complete interviews and write report | Report written |
Appendix B.1. Week 1
Appendix B.2. Week 2
Appendix B.3. Week 3
Appendix B.4. Week 4
Appendix B.5. Week 5
- A more systematic literature review
- Analyst interaction log visualization and representation
- A design study to develop design goals for the TLDR
Appendix B.6. Week 6
Appendix B.7. Week 7
Appendix B.8. Week 8
Appendix C. Literature Survey Spreadsheet Fields
Field | Description |
---|---|
Paper type | One of the following categories: Application/Design Study, System, Technique, Evaluation, Dissertation/Thesis, Review, Theory/Model, Book. Note: These categories are based on the VIS Area Model used to characterize the types of visualization research contributions of papers (http://ieeevis.org/year/2021/info/call-participation/area-model (accessed on 27 June 2022). |
Thrust/Thesis | A short summary (less than 100 characters) about the paper/what they did. Takeaway column is more about contributions. |
Details | More relevant details from the paper. |
Population | If empirical work, who and how big was the sampled population? Note: We added this column later on in our process of collecting these papers as it became apparent to us that it would be useful to distinguish which papers used an analyst population in their study and which did not. |
Relevant to RQ | Which of our four research question areas (Info, Process, Job, Collab) this paper was most relevant to? |
How Relevant to RQ | A brief description of how the paper is relevant to the selected RQ(s). |
Contribution | What the authors claim to contribute with their work/Key takeaways. |
Limitations | Areas where we believe the paper was limited in its contribution, methodology, scope, etc., particularly as compared to our intended work (not necessarily the limitations that a paper may list). |
Takeaway | A short summary of the main lessons learned from this work. Trust/Thesis column is more about motivation and method. |
Unique ID | An index number to refer to citations within team discussions. |
Appendix D. Key Interview Questions
Themes | Goals | Suggested Questions |
---|---|---|
Background | Understand where the analyst is coming from and how his/her perspectives may have been formed | How long have you been with LAS?How long have you been an analyst?When did you last work as an analyst? |
Topic Area/Experience | Understand what the analyst does/did at a general level, as well as on a day-to-day basis | What types of analysis work have you done/do you currently do?What were your role(s)? |
Visualizing Information Flow | Model the flow of analyst information inputs/outputs | Drawing yourself in the center, we are going to create a diagram as a discussion aid. |
Inputs | Understand the sources of triggers that lead to an analysis task and the interactions with those sources | Please draw and describe the things that may cue you to begin an analysis task.Who do these triggers typically come from?<if customer>At a high level, what types of customers are you serving?In what form do these triggers usually come in?Imagine that you received a [mentioned trigger]. How do you go about understanding what someone may want from that [trigger]?How much interaction takes place between [requester] and the analyst in the process? |
Outputs | Understand the outputs and how they are delivered from an analysis task | Describe the form(s) your output(s) take.How is it communicated?Imagine you are providing the same information to three different recipients—how do you change your information output for each recipient? |
Cooperation | Understand the kinds of interactions that the analyst has/had with others. Identify types, frequency, amount, and targets of interaction (and any other features of the interactions that may seem relevant) | Explain how your position involves coordinating with others.What methods do you currently use to understand the work being done by other analysts? |
Information Types/Process | Understand the data used in the processes used when doing an analysis task | In a general sense, what forms of data do you work with to answer a [request/customer]?Why do you work with these particular forms of data? |
Process Variability | Understand the dynamic information flow during the sense-making process | Tell us about your workflow—when information comes in, is it one static piece or a continuous stream?What kinds of factors impact your process? In what ways? |
Feedback with Requester | Understand the interactions with the recipients of analysis outputs | What form does feedback take?Does it impact your outputs?Do you ever send feedback to your [requester]?—To improve the efficiency of future analysis. |
Appendix E. Notetaking Template
- Interviewer:
- Notetaker:
- Interview ID:
References
- Patterson, E.; Woods, D.; Tinapple, D.; Roth, E.; Finley, J.; Kuperman, G. Aiding the Intelligence Analyst: From Problem Definition to Design Concept Exploration; Report AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2001-0116; Ohio State Univeristy: Columbus, OH, USA, 2001; Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA397621.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2022).
- Symon, P.B.; Tarapore, A. Defense Intelligence Analysis in the Age of Big Data. Jt. Force Q. 2015, 79, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Wynne, K.T.; Lyons, J.B. An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2018, 19, 353–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gadepally, V.N.; Hancock, B.J.; Greenfield, K.B.; Campbell, J.P.; Campbell, W.M.; Reuther, A.I. Recommender systems for the department of defense and intelligence community. Linc. Lab. J. 2016, 22, 74–89. [Google Scholar]
- Papadopoulos, T.; Charalabidis, Y. What do governments plan in the field of artificial intelligence? Analysing national AI strategies using NLP. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Athens, Greece, 23–25 September 2020; pp. 100–111. [Google Scholar]
- Komlodi, A.; Rheingans, P.; Ayachit, U.; Goodall, J.; Joshi, A. A user-centered look at glyph-based security visualization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Visualization for Computer Security (VizSEC 05), Minneapolis, MN, USA, 26 October 2005; pp. 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walchshofer, C.; Hinterreiter, A.; Xu, K.; Stitz, H.; Streit, M. Provectories: Embedding-based Analysis of Interaction Provenance Data. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pioch, N.J.; Everett, J.O. POLESTAR: Collaborative knowledge management and sensemaking tools for intelligence analysts. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management—CIKM ’06, Arlington, VA, USA, 6–11 November 2006; p. 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kershaw, K. Creating a “TLDR” for Knowledge Workers—Ncsu-las.org. 2022. Available online: https://ncsu-las.org/2022/08/scads-tldr-for-knowledge-workers/ (accessed on 25 January 2023).
- Hepenstal, S.; Zhang, L.; William Wong, B.L. An analysis of expertise in intelligence analysis to support the design of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Melbourne, Australia, 17–20 October 2021; pp. 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, R. Analytic Culture in the US Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study; Number 14; Central Intelligence Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Nolan, B.R. Information Sharing and Collaboration in the United States Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study of the National Counterterrorism Center. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Fink, G.A.; North, C.L.; Endert, A.; Rose, S. Visualizing cyber security: Usable workspaces. In Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Workshop on Visualization for Cyber Security, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 11 October 2009; pp. 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Varga, M.; Winkelholz, C.; Träber-Burdin, S. An Exploration of Cyber Symbology. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security (VizSec), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 23 October 2019; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groenewald, C.; Wong, B.L.W.; Attfield, S.; Passmore, P.; Kodagoda, N. How Analysts Think: How Do Criminal Intelligence Analysts Recognise and Manage Significant Information? In Proceedings of the 2017 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC), Athens, Greece, 11–13 September 2017; pp. 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, G.; Kuchar, O.A.; Wolf, K.E. Exploring the analytical processes of intelligence analysts. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 4–9 April 2009; ACM: Boston, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Straus, S.; Parker, A.; Bruce, J. The Group Matters: A Review of Processes and Outcomes in Intelligence Analysis. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2011, 15, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keel, P.E. Collaborative Visual Analytics: Inferring from the Spatial Organization and Collaborative Use of Information. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, Baltimore, MD, USA, 31 October–2 November 2006; pp. 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogel, K.M.; Tyler, B.B. Interdisciplinary, cross-sector collaboration in the US Intelligence Community: Lessons learned from past and present efforts. Intell. Natl. Secur. 2019, 34, 851–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pirolli, P.; Card, S. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA, USA, 2–6 May 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, G.; Phillips, J.K.; Rall, E.L.; Peluso, D.A. A data-frame theory of sensemaking. In Expertise out of Context: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 113–155. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, Y.; Stasko, J. Characterizing the intelligence analysis process: Informing visual analytics design through a longitudinal field study. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), Providence, RI, USA, 23–28 October 2011; pp. 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahrend, J.M.; Jirotka, M.; Jones, K. On the collaborative practices of cyber threat intelligence analysts to develop and utilize tacit Threat and Defence Knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics and Assessment (CyberSA), London, UK, 13–14 June 2016; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connors, E.S.; Craven, P.L.; McNeese, M.D.; Jefferson, T., Jr.; Bains, P., Jr.; Hall, D.L., Jr. An application of the AKADAM approach to intelligence analyst work. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, USA, 20–24 September 2004; SAGE Publications Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2004; Volume 48, pp. 627–630. [Google Scholar]
- Hammell, R.J.; Hanratty, T.; Heilman, E. Capturing the value of information in complex military environments: A fuzzy-based approach. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Brisbane, Australia, 10–15 June 2012; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Newcomb, E.A.; Hammell, R.J. Examining the Effects of the Value of Information on Intelligence Analyst Performance. In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems Applied Research ISSN, New Orleans, LA, USA, 1–4 November 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Dragos, V. Developing a core ontology to improve military intelligence analysis. Int. J. Knowl.-Based Intell. Eng. Syst. 2013, 17, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dhami, M.K.; Careless, K. Intelligence analysts’ strategies for solving analytic tasks. Mil. Psychol. 2019, 31, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, W.; Schroh, D.; Proulx, P.; Skaburskis, A.; Cort, B. The Sandbox for analysis: Concepts and methods. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’06, Montreal, QC, Canada, 22–27 April 2006; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 801–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browne, G.J.; Rogich, M.B. An Empirical Investigation of User Requirements Elicitation: Comparing the Effectiveness of Prompting Techniques. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2001, 17, 223–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.a.; Gorg, C.; Stasko, J. Evaluating visual analytics systems for investigative analysis: Deriving design principles from a case study. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 12–13 October 2009; pp. 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chopra, K.; Haimson, C. Information Fusion for Intelligence Analysis. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI, USA, 3–6 January 2005; p. 111a. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayoub, P.J.; Petrick, I.J.; McNeese, M.D. Weather Systems: A New Metaphor for Intelligence Analysis. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2007, 51, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, L.; Pirrung, M.; Blaha, L.; Dowling, M.; Feng, M. Toward a visualization-supported workflow for cyber alert management using threat models and human-centered design. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security (VizSec), Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2 October 2017; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, D.T. Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis; National Defense Intelligence College, Center for Strategic Intelligence Research: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Dimara, E.; Stasko, J. A Critical Reflection on Visualization Research: Where Do Decision Making Tasks Hide? IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 2022, 28, 1128–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buchanan, L.; D’Amico, A.; Kirkpatrick, D. Mixed method approach to identify analytic questions to be visualized for military cyber incident handlers. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security (VizSec), Baltimore, MD, USA, 24 October 2016; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madanagopal, K.; Ragan, E.D.; Benjamin, P. Analytic Provenance in Practice: The Role of Provenance in Real-World Visualization and Data Analysis Environments. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2019, 39, 30–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Toniolo, A.; Preece, A.D.; Webberley, W.; Norman, T.J.; Sullivan, P.; Dropps, T. Conversational intelligence analysis. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, ICDCN’16, Singapore, 4–7 January 2016; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wen, Z.; Zhou, M.X.; Aggarwal, V. Context-Aware, adaptive information retrieval for investigative tasks. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI’07, Honolulu, HI, USA, 28–31 January 2007; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gentry, J.A. Managers of Analysts: The Other Half of Intelligence Analysis. Intell. Natl. Secur. 2016, 31, 154–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, M.; Vogel, K.M. Algorithms that Empower? Platformization in U.S. Intelligence Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), Virtual, 12–15 November 2020; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrington, H.J. Affinity Diagrams. In The Innovation Tools Handbook; Productivity Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 2, pp. 45–54. [Google Scholar]
- Hossain, M.S.; Andrews, C.; Ramakrishnan, N.; North, C. Helping intelligence analysts make connections. In Proceedings of the Workshops at the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7–11 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Blaha, L.M. Interactive OODA processes for operational joint human-machine intelligence. In Proceedings of the NATO IST-160 Specialist’s Meeting: Big Data and Military Decision Making, Bordeaux, France, 30 May–1 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Antunes, P.; Herskovic, V.; Ochoa, S.F.; Pino, J.A. Reviewing the quality of awareness support in collaborative applications. J. Syst. Softw. 2014, 89, 146–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elm, W.; Potter, S.; Tittle, J.; Woods, D.; Grossman, J.; Patterson, E. Finding decision support requirements for effective intelligence analysis tools. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, 26–30 September 2005; SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005; Volume 49, pp. 297–301. [Google Scholar]
- Roth, E.M.; Pfautz, J.D.; Mahoney, S.M.; Powell, G.M.; Carlson, E.C.; Guarino, S.L.; Fichtl, T.C.; Potter, S.S. Framing and contextualizing information requests: Problem formulation as part of the intelligence analysis process. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 2010, 4, 210–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnston, R. Developing a Taxonomy of Intelligence Analysis Variables; Technical Report; Central Intelligence Agency Center for the Study of Intelligence: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, B.W.; Kodagoda, N. How analysts think: Inference making strategies. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 2015, 59, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kustermann, A. Using Information-Sharing Exchange Techniques from the Private Sector to Enhance Information Sharing between Domestic Intelligence Organizations; Technical report; Naval Postgraduate School: Monterey, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, W.; Berdini, E.; Mandel, D.R.; Tetlock, P.E. Restructuring structured analytic techniques in intelligence. Intell. Natl. Secur. 2018, 33, 337–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Döbler, N.; Bartnik, C. Normative Affordances Through and By Technology: Technological Mediation and Human Enhancement. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2022, 7, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López Rivero, A.J.; Beato, M.E.; Muñoz Martínez, C.; Cortiñas Vázquez, P.G. Empirical Analysis of Ethical Principles Applied to Different AI Uses Cases. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2022, 7, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whiting, M.; Cook, K.; Grinstein, G.; Liggett, K.; Cooper, M.; Fallon, J.; Morin, M. VAST challenge 2014: The Kronos incident. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST), Paris, France, 25–31 October 2014; pp. 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VAST Challenge 2019: Disaster at St. Himark! Virtual. 21 October 2019. Available online: https://vast-challenge.github.io/2019/index.html (accessed on 2 January 2023).
- Cook, K.; Grinstein, G.; Whiting, M. The VAST Challenge: History, scope, and outcomes: An introduction to the Special Issue. Inf. Vis. 2014, 13, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, B.; Vinogradov, A.; Li, C.; Ware, S.G. Insider Threat Analyst Workflow Dataset. December 2020. Available online: https://s3.amazonaws.com/las.scads.public/6G4CDK8SYD/UKy_Data.zip (accessed on 2 January 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Block, J.E.; Bookner, I.; Chu, S.L.; Crouser, R.J.; Honeycutt, D.R.; Jonas, R.M.; Kulkarni, A.; Paredes, Y.V.; Ragan, E.D. Preliminary Perspectives on Information Passing in the Intelligence Community. Analytics 2023, 2, 509-529. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytics2020028
Block JE, Bookner I, Chu SL, Crouser RJ, Honeycutt DR, Jonas RM, Kulkarni A, Paredes YV, Ragan ED. Preliminary Perspectives on Information Passing in the Intelligence Community. Analytics. 2023; 2(2):509-529. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytics2020028
Chicago/Turabian StyleBlock, Jeremy E., Ilana Bookner, Sharon Lynn Chu, R. Jordan Crouser, Donald R. Honeycutt, Rebecca M. Jonas, Abhishek Kulkarni, Yancy Vance Paredes, and Eric D. Ragan. 2023. "Preliminary Perspectives on Information Passing in the Intelligence Community" Analytics 2, no. 2: 509-529. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytics2020028