Page History

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 s. 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.