Investigative analysts who work with collections of text documents connect embedded threads of evidence in order to formulate hypotheses about plans and activities of potential interest. As the number of documents and the corresponding number of concepts and entities within the documents grow larger, sense-making processes become more and more difficult for the analysts. We have developed a visual analytic system called Jigsaw that represents documents and their entities visually in order to help analysts examine them more efficiently and develop theories about potential actions more quickly. Jigsaw provides multiple coordinated views of document entities with a special emphasis on visually illustrating connections between entities across the different documents.
RussellDMStefikMJPirelliPCardSK. The cost structure of sensemaking. CHI ′93: Proceedings of the INTERACT ′93 and CHI ′93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Amsterdam, Netherlands) ACM: New York, NY, USA, 1993; 269–276.
2.
KleinGMoonBHoffmanR.Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems2006; 21: 70–73.
3.
NormanD.Visual representations. In Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1994.
4.
CardSKMackinlayJShneidermanB.Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann: Los Altos, CA, 1999.
5.
ThomasJJCookKA. Illuminating the Path. IEEE Computer Society: Chicago, 2005.
6.
WongPCThomasJ.Visual analytics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications2004; 24: 20–21.
7.
PirolliPCardS.Sensemaking processes of intelligence analysts and possible leverage points as identified through cognitive task analysis. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (McLean, VA). https://analysis.mitre.org/proceedings/index.html, May 2005.
8.
HeuerR.Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency: Washington, DC, 1999.
9.
JohnstonR.Analytic Culture in the United States Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study. Central Intelligence AgencyWashington, DC, 2005.
10.
AmarREaganJStaskoJ.Low-level components of analytic activity in information visualization. In Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (Info Vis ′05) (Minneapolis, MN), IEEE Computer Society Press: Siver Spring, MD, October 2005; 111–117.
11.
AmarRStaskoJ.Knowledge precepts for design and evaluation of information visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics2005; 11: 432–442.
12.
YiJSKangYAStaskoJJackoJ.Toward a deeper understanding of the role of interaction in information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics2007; 13: 1224–1231.
13.
StaskoJGörgCLiuZSinghalK.Supporting investigative analysis through interactive visualization. Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics, Science, and Technology (VAST′07) (Sacramento, CA), IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, 2007; 131–138.
WiseJAThomasJJPennockKLantripDPottierMSchurACrowV.Visualizing the non-visual: Spatial analysis and interaction with information from text documents. Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis′95) (Atlanta, GA), IEEE Computer Society Press: Silver Spring, MD, October 1995; 51–58.
18.
ChauMXuJChenH.Extracting meaningful entities from police narrative reports. 2nd National Conference on Digital Government Research (Los Angeles, CA), 2002.
19.
JacksonPMoulinierI.Natural Language Processing for Online Applications: Text Retrieval, Extraction, and Categorization. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2002.
20.
GATE - General Architecture for Text Engineering.http://gate.ac.uk/ (accessed 21 March 2008).
SanfilippoAFranklinLTratzSDanielsonGMilesonNRienscheRMcGrathL.Automating frame analysis. First International Workshop on Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Prediction (Phoenix, AZ), Springer Science+Business Media: New York, NY, April 2008; 239–248.
26.
HughesFJ. Discovery, proof, choice: The art and science of the process of intelligence analysis, case study 6, ‘All Fall Down’. Unpublished report, 2005.
27.
AhlbergCShneidermanB.Visual information seeking: Tight coupling of dynamic query filters with starfield displays. Proceedings of ACM CHI ′94, (Boston, MA), ACM: New York, NY, April 1994; 313–317.
28.
BierEAIshakEWChiE.Entity workspace: An evidence file that aids memory, inference, and reading. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Analysis (ISI ′06), (San Diego, CA), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, May 2006; 466–472.
29.
ChappellARCowellAJThurmanDAThomsonJR. Supporting mutual understanding in a visual dialogue between analyst and computer. Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 48th Annual Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Santa Monica, CA, September 2004; 376–380.
30.
SanfilippoABaddeleyBCowellAJGregoryMLHohimerRTratzS.Building a human information discourse interface to uncover scenario content. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (McLean, VA), https://analysis.mitre.org/proceedings/index.html, May 2005.
31.
WrightWSchrohDProulxPSkaburskisACortB.The sandbox for analysis: Concepts and methods. Proceedings of ACM CHI ′06 (Montreal, Quebec), ACM: New York, NY, April 2006; 801–810.
32.
GörgCLiuZParekhNSinghalKStaskoJ.Jigsaw meets Blue Iguanodon – The VAST 2007 Contest. Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST ′07) (Sacramento, CA), IEEE Computer Press: Silver Spring, MD, October2007; 201–202.
33.
PlaisantCGrinsteinGScholtzJWhitingMO'ConnellTLaskowskiSChienLWrightTAWGörgCLiuZParekhNSinghalKStaskoJ.Evaluating visual analytics: The 2007 visual analytics science and technology symposium contest. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications2008; 28: 12–21.
34.
LeeBCzerwinskiMRobertsonGBedersonBB. Understanding research trends in conferences using PaperLens. CHI ′05: CHI ′05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Proceedings of ACM CHI ′05 (Portland, OR), ACM: New York, NY, 2005; 1969–1972.
KaplerTWrightW.Geotime information visualization. Information Visualization2005; 4: 136–146.
38.
JonkerDWrightWSchrohDProulxPCortB.Information triage with TRIST. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (McLean, VA) https://analysis.mitre.org/proceedings/index.html, May 2005.
39.
XuJChenH.Criminal network analysis and visualization. Communications of the ACM2005; 48: 101–107.
40.
HetzlerETurnerA.Analysis experiences using information visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications2004; 24: 22–26.
41.
CardSK. Leverage points and tools for aiding intelligence analysis. Unpublished report presented at the 2007 Human–Computer Interaction Consortium, 2007.
42.
SanfilippoABaddeleyBPosseCWhitneyP.A layered dempster-shafer approach to scenario construction and analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Analysis (ISI ′07) (New Brunswick, NJ), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, May 2007; 95–102.
43.
FingerRBisantzA.Utilizing graphical formats to convey uncertainty in a decision-making task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science2002; 39: 1–25.
44.
IsenbergPCarpendaleS.Interactive tree comparison for co-located collaborative information visualization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics2007; 13: 1232–1239.
45.
BallRNorthCBowmanD.Move to improve: Promoting physical navigation to increase user performance with large displays. Proceedings of ACM CHI ′07 (San Jose, CA), ACM: New York, NY, April 2007; 191–200.
46.
BadalamenteRVGreitzerFL. Top ten needs for intelligence analysis tool development. Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis (McLean, VA), https://analysis.mitre.org/proceedings/index.html, May 2008.
