Versions Compared

Old Version 18

changes.mady.by.user Zafar Gilani

Saved on

compared with

New Version 19

changes.mady.by.user Zafar Gilani

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

outputDistance.csv

Created by Zafar Gilani, sent by email 6/14/2010. It compares trilateration (3 landmarks) with mulitlateration (3 to 5 landmarks) giving the target hostname, IP address, its actual lat/longs, the targets estimated location, landmark hostnames, landmark lat/longs and error between estimated and actual

acuumulated_results.xlsx

Created by Fida, sent by email 6/10/2010. It is a compendium comparing the several of the  geolocation methods including:CBG, SOI, TBG, TBG_Updtaed, Apollonius, Triilateration

cbg_tri_lateration_vs_new_tri_lateration.xlsx

File Sent by Zafar 3.08pm Jun 1 2010. Compares improved trilateration (by Farrah) vs CBG trilateration.
- There are a total of 174 targets for CBG out of which 131 are those which ignore values that are either "0<error<1" or "NaN". 
- Only 74 targets are ones that overlap between CBG tri-lateration and improved tri-lateration.
- If I don't ignore CBG's values that have estimate error in the range "0<error<1" then CBG performs 64/74 times better and tri-lateration performs only 10/74 times better.
- But even if I ignore values with error estimate "0<error<1" then CBG performs 32/74 times better, improved tri-lateration performs 10/74 times better and rest are unaccounted

m_vs_t_rtt_new.xlsx

From Zafar by email 6/2/2010 2:06am. So far what I've gathered from doing this: There are so-called "bad" landmark estimate values in target files which causes these. There is also a portion in the code that deliberately ignores such values (see 1 under "Results, observations and explanation" here). By restricting n to 10 and 4 I've managed to remove those "bad" values for 39 and 14 targets respectively.

???cbg vs trilateration (zafar) v2.xlsx

From Zafar, direct upload on 6/19/2010 1:41am. This spreadsheet provides a histogram of the errors for 74 overlapping results between CBG trilateration and improved trilateration (by Farrah).

Procedure to generate analysis for all studied geolocation techniques

We created a partially automated procedure to collect data from multiple spreadsheets into a single detailed spreadsheet for comprehensive analysis. The trouble is that different geolocation techniques give results for different sets of targets (or hosts) and this number varies largely from one spreadsheet to another. Furthermore there are inconsistencies in data and data formatting. However to cope with all of this and generate an analysis follow the guidelines below:

  1. The first step requires us to create multiple CSV files. Each CSV file will correspond to an independent geolocation technique. Open a spreadsheet already created and copy target IPs and error distance columns into a new spreadsheet and save it as a CSV (.csv) file. Name it against the geolocation technique such as apollonius.csv for Apollonius. Table 2 below shows geolocation technique against its file name. Click on the file name to download and view the file.
  2. Put these under a csv directory. Put the csv directory and Node_info.txt file alongside CreateCSVForComparison.pl script. Table 3 below provides links to these files.
  3. Execute CreateCSVForComparison.pl script. This will generate all-analysis.csv file containing data in the following format. This will contain all data including null value for those targets for which a geolocation technique didn't find any estimate results.
  4. Open this all-analysis.csv file and convert this to a spreadsheet for analysis.