2006
DOI: 10.1109/tit.2006.878228
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explicit Loss Inference in Multicast Tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
89
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(90 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
89
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(10) is an explicit function of the measurement results, so this method only requires simple arithmetic computation. This Also this estimator is a consistent estimator of the real link loss rate and has the same asymptotic variance as the MLE, to first order in the link-loss rates [13]. This ensures the explicit estimator has nearly the same accuracy comparing to the MLE method for the divide sub-trees.…”
Section: Monitorsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…(10) is an explicit function of the measurement results, so this method only requires simple arithmetic computation. This Also this estimator is a consistent estimator of the real link loss rate and has the same asymptotic variance as the MLE, to first order in the link-loss rates [13]. This ensures the explicit estimator has nearly the same accuracy comparing to the MLE method for the divide sub-trees.…”
Section: Monitorsmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…Finally, one can construct an even simpler estimator, also with an explicit solution, by temporally extending the estimator of [9]. Let…”
Section: Simpler Temporal Estimatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, a variant of the MINC approach was recently proposed in [9], which constructed an estimator as an explicit function of the measured data as means of avoiding numerical root finding. In fact, we show using experiments that subtree-partition results in lower asymptotic variance (as the number of probes grows large) than the explicit estimator of [9].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If so, what is that and how different between the estimates obtained by the explicit MLE estimator and the estimator presented in [13] when n < ∞. The two issues will be addressed in this paper.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Unfortunately, there has been little progress in this regard until [12], where a connection between observations and the degree of the polynomial is established that provides the theoretical foundation to reduce the degree of the polynomial obtained from the likelihood equation. Prior to [12], the authors of [13] introduced an explicit estimator built on the law of large numbers. The estimator has been proved to be a consistent estimator and has the same asymptotic variances as that of an MLE to first order.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%