Abstract
Measurements consistency-based Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) is the main technique for monitoring the integrity of global satellite navigation systems at the user-level. Existing RAIM algorithms utilize two tests, in the position domain a test for RAIM availability and in the measurement domain a test for failure detection. These tests involve the computation of three parameters: test statistic, decision threshold, and protection level. The test statistic is based on the actual measurements in the form of the sum of the squared errors (SSE). The decision threshold is chosen on the basis of the statistical characteristics of the SSE including the assumption that the errors are normally distributed. However, in practice residual, error distributions exhibit heavier tails than predicted by the Gaussian model. Therefore, this paper challenges the normality assumption of the residual navigation errors in three ways. First, real data are used to assess its impact on the traditional RAIM algorithm. Second, extreme value theory is applied to the tails, and the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution is derived to capture residual navigation errors. Third, the performance of the traditional RAIM approach is compared with that employing the GEV distribution. The results demonstrate that the GEV model is a more accurate representation of the distribution of residual navigation errors than the conventional Gaussian model and should be used in the development of integrity monitoring algorithms.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson EW, Ellis DM (1971) Error distributions in navigation. J Navigation 24:429–442
Azais JM, Gadat S, Lévy JC, Rols B, Mercadier C, Jordan C, Suard N (2009) GNSS integrity achievement by using extreme value theory. ION-GNSS-2009, Savannah, GA, pp 1281–1287
Beran R, Ducharme G (1991) Asymptotic theory for bootstrap methods in statistics. Centre de recherches mathematiques, Universite de Montreal, Montreal
Bhatti U (2008) Improved integrity algorithms for the integrated GPS/INS systems in the presence of slowly growing errors. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London
Brooker P (2004) Radar inaccuracies and mid-air collision risk: parts 1 and 2-A dynamic methodology. J Navigation (57)1, 25–37; 39-51
Brown RG (1992) A baseline GPS RAIM scheme and a note on the equivalence of three RAIM methods. Navigation 39(3):301–316
Brown RG (1996) Receiver autonomous integrity monitoring theory and applications volume II. Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Washington, pp 143–165
Collins JP, Langley R (1998) The residual tropospheric propagation deal: How bad can it get, ION-GPS, 15–18
D’Agostino RB, Stephens MA (1986) Goodness-of-fit techniques, marcel dekker Ltd
DeCleene B (2000) Defining Pseudo Range Integrity-Overbounding. ION-GPS
Embrechts P, Kluppelberg C, Mikosch T (1997) Modelling extremal events for insurance and finance. Springer, Heidelberg
Feng S, Ochieng WY, Walsh D, Ioannides R (2006) A measurement domain receiver autonomous integrity monitoring algorithm. GPS Sol J 10(2):85–96
Fisher RA, Tippet LHC (1928) Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest number of the sample. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. (24)
Hsu DA (1979) Long-tailed distributions for position errors in navigation. Appl Stat 28(1):62–72
ICAO (2005) Standards and recommended practices specifications, ICAO Annex 10, Vol. I; Radionavigation Aids
Moek G, Lutz E, Mosberg W (2001) Risk assessment of RNP10 RVSM in the South Atlantic Flight identification regions. ARINC Corporation
Ober PB (2003) Integrity prediction and monitoring of navigation systems. Integricom Publishers, Netherlands
Ochieng W Y, Sheridan KF, Sauer K, Han X (2002) An assessment of the RAIM performance of a combined Galileo/GPS navigation System using the marginally detectable errors (MDE) algorithm. GPS Solutions (5)3, 42–51
Panagiotakopoulos D (2009) Robust statistical framework for monitoring the integrity of space-based navigation systems, and preparing the marketplace for integrity-based services. PhD Thesis, Imperial College London
Panagiotakopoulos D, Majumdar A, Ochieng WY (2009) Characterising the distribution of safety occurrences in aviation: an approach using extreme value theory. Transp Res Rec 2106:129–140
Parker JB (1972) Error distributions in navigation. Journal of Navigation 25:250–252
Prescott P, Walden AT (1980) Maximum-likelihood estimation of the parameters of the three-parameter generalized extreme-value distribution. Biometrica 67:723–724
Rife J, Walter T, Blanch J (2004) Overbounding SBAS and GBAS Error distributions with excess-mass functions. The 2004 international symposium on GNSS/GPS, 6-8 December 2004, Sydney, Australia
Shively C (2000) An overbound concept for pseudorange error from the LAAS ground facility. ION-GPS 2000
Stephens MA (1992) Breakthrough in Statistics. Springer Verlag, New York
Stephens MA (1977) Goodness-of-fit for the extreme value distribution. Biometrika 64:583–588
Walter T, Enge P, DeCleene B (2002) Integrity lessons from the WAAS integrity panel (WIPP), ION-GPS 2002
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and Logica for funding this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Panagiotakopoulos, D., Majumdar, A. & Ochieng, W.Y. Extreme value theory-based integrity monitoring of global navigation satellite systems. GPS Solut 18, 133–145 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-013-0317-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-013-0317-9