Information fusion: telling the story (or threat narrative)

2015

SPIE Proceedings

The revision of the Joint Directors of the Laboratories (JDL) Information Fusion model in 2004 discussed information processing, incorporated the analyst, and was coined the Data Fusion Information Group (DFIG) model. Since that time, developments in information technology (e.g., cloud computing, applications, and multimedia) have altered the role of the analyst. Data production has outpaced the analyst; however the analyst still has the role of data refinement and information reporting. In this paper, we highlight three examples being addressed by the DFIG model. One example is the role of the analyst to provide semantic queries (through an ontology) so that vast amount of data available can be indexed, accessed, retrieved, and processed. The second idea is reporting which requires the analyst to collect the data into a condensed and meaningful form through information management. The last example is the interpretation of the resolved information from data that must include contextual information not inherent in the data itself. Through a literature review, the DFIG developments in the last decade demonstrate the usability of the DFIG model to bring together the user (analyst or operator) and the machine (information fusion or manager) in a systems design.

Section: Decision Supportmentioning

confidence: 98%

One decade of the Data Fusion Information Group (DFIG) model

2015

SPIE Proceedings

“…We are building visualization techniques to display the various multi-intelligence fusion results and allow the user a reconfigurable user-defined operating picture (UDOP) [107,108]. The tools should help build a narrative of the situation [109] as a work domain product.…”

Section: Discusssionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-intelligence critical rating assessment of fusion techniques (MiCRAFT)

2015

SPIE Proceedings

Assessment of multi-intelligence fusion techniques includes credibility of algorithm performance, quality of results against mission needs, and usability in a work-domain context. Situation awareness (SAW) brings together low-level information fusion (tracking and identification), high-level information fusion (threat and scenario-based assessment), and information fusion level 5 user refinement (physical, cognitive, and information tasks). To measure SAW, we discuss the SAGAT (Situational Awareness Global Assessment Technique) technique for a multi-intelligence fusion (MIF) system assessment that focuses on the advantages of MIF against single intelligence sources. Building on the NASA TLX (Task Load Index), SAGAT probes, SART (Situational Awareness Rating Technique) questionnaires, and CDM (Critical Decision Method) decision points; we highlight these tools for use in a Multi-Intelligence Critical Rating Assessment of Fusion Techniques (MiCRAFT). The focus is to measure user refinement of a situation over the information fusion quality of service (QoS) metrics: timeliness, accuracy, confidence, workload (cost), and attention (throughput). A key component of any user analysis includes correlation, association, and summarization of data; so we also seek measures of product quality and QuEST of information. Building a notion of product quality from multiintelligence tools is typically subjective which needs to be aligned with objective machine metrics.

“…We are building visualization techniques to display the various multiintelligence fusion results and allow the user a reconfigurable user-defined operating picture (UDOP) [107,108]. The tools should help build a narrative of the situation [109] as a work domain product.…”

Section: Basis Of Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Multi-intelligence critical rating assessment of fusion techniques (MiCRAFT) method

2015 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON)

2015

Assessment of multi-intelligence fusion techniques includes algorithm performance credibility, mission needs quality assessment, and work-domain usability. Situation awareness (SAW) bridges low-level information fusion (tracking and identification), with high-level information fusion (threat and scenario-based assessment), against user refinement (physical, cognitive, and information tasks). To measure SAW, common techniques include the NASA TLX (Task Load Index), SAGAT (Situational Awareness Global Assessment Technique) probes, SART (Situational Awareness Rating Technique) questionnaires, and CDM (Critical Decision Method) decision points. These SAW tools are combined for a MultiIntelligence Critical Rating Assessment of Fusion Techniques (MiCRAFT). The focus is to measure user refinement of a situation over the information fusion quality of service (QoS) metrics: timeliness, accuracy, confidence, workload (cost), and attention (throughput). A key component of any user analysis includes correlation, association, and summarization of data; so we also seek measure SAW in the QuEST of information.