Journal of Geodesy

, Volume 90, Issue 9, pp 793–805 | Cite as

Taking correlations in GPS least squares adjustments into account with a diagonal covariance matrix

  • Gaël KermarrecEmail author
  • Steffen Schön
Original Article


Based on the results of Luati and Proietti (Ann Inst Stat Math 63:673–686, 2011) on an equivalence for a certain class of polynomial regressions between the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) and the generalized least squares (GLS) estimator, an alternative way to take correlations into account thanks to a diagonal covariance matrix is presented. The equivalent covariance matrix is much easier to compute than a diagonalization of the covariance matrix via eigenvalue decomposition which also implies a change of the least squares equations. This condensed matrix, for use in the least squares adjustment, can be seen as a diagonal or reduced version of the original matrix, its elements being simply the sums of the rows elements of the weighting matrix. The least squares results obtained with the equivalent diagonal matrices and those given by the fully populated covariance matrix are mathematically strictly equivalent for the mean estimator in terms of estimate and its a priori cofactor matrix. It is shown that this equivalence can be empirically extended to further classes of design matrices such as those used in GPS positioning (single point positioning, precise point positioning or relative positioning with double differences). Applying this new model to simulated time series of correlated observations, a significant reduction of the coordinate differences compared with the solutions computed with the commonly used diagonal elevation-dependent model was reached for the GPS relative positioning with double differences, single point positioning as well as precise point positioning cases. The estimate differences between the equivalent and classical model with fully populated covariance matrix were below the mm for all simulated GPS cases and below the sub-mm for the relative positioning with double differences. These results were confirmed by analyzing real data. Consequently, the equivalent diagonal covariance matrices, compared with the often used elevation-dependent diagonal covariance matrix is appropriate to take correlations in GPS least squares adjustment into account, yielding more accurate cofactor matrices of the unknown.


GPS Correlations Weighted least squares Equivalent kernel Mátern covariance family 



Parts of the work were funded by the DFG under the label SCHO1314/1-2, this is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. The European Permanent Network and contributing agencies are thanked for providing freely GNSS data and products. Valuable comments of three anonymous reviewers helped us improve significantly the manuscript.


  1. Abramowitz M, Segun IA (1972) Handbook of mathematical functions. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammar GS, Gragg WB (1988) Superfast solution of real positive definite Toeplitz systems. SIAM J Matrix Anal Appl 9:61–76Google Scholar
  3. Ataike H (1973) Block Toeplitz matrix inversion. SIAM J Appl Math 24(2):234–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alkhatib H, Schuh WD (2007) Integration of the Monte Carlo covariance estimation strategy into tailored solution procedures for large-scale least squares problems. JoG 81(1):53–66Google Scholar
  5. Baksalary JK (1988) Criteria for the equality between ordinary least squares and best linear unbiaised estimators under certain linear models. Can J Stat 16(1):97–102Google Scholar
  6. Barciss EH (1969) Numerical solution of linear equations of Toeplitz and vector Toeplitz systems. Numerische Mathematik 13:404–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beutler G, Bauersima I, Gurtner W, Rothacher M (1986) Correlations between simultaneous GPS double difference observations in the multistation mode: implementation considerations and first experiences. Manuscripta Geodaetica 12:40–44. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bierman GJ (1977) Factorization methods for discrete sequential estimation. Volume 123 of mathematics in science and engineering. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bona P (2000) Precision, cross correlation, and time correlation of GPS phase and code observations. GPS Solut 4(2):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borre K, Tiberius C (2000) Time series analysis of GPS observables. In: Proceedings of ION GPS 2000, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, September 19–22, pp 1885–1894Google Scholar
  11. Bottoni GP, Barzaghi R (1993) Fast collocation. Bull Géodésique 67(2):119–126Google Scholar
  12. Brent R (1989) Old and new algorithms for Toeplitz systems. In: Luk FT (ed) Proceedings SPIE, volume 975, advanced algorithms and architectures for signal processing III. SPIE, Bellingham, pp 2–9Google Scholar
  13. Brent RP, Gustavson FG, Yun DYY (1980) Fast solution of Toeplitz systems of equations and computation of Pade approximants. J Algorithms 1(259):295Google Scholar
  14. Bruyninx C, Habrich H, Söhne W, Kenyeres A, Stangl G, Völksen C (2012) Enhancement of the EUREF Permanent Network services and products. In: Kenyon S, Pacino MC, Marti U (eds) Geodesy for Planet Earth. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 136. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 27–35Google Scholar
  15. Cressie N (1993) Statistics for spatial data. J. Wiley.&. Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Dach R, Brockmann E, Schaer S, Beutler G, Meindl M, Prange L, Bock H, Jäggi A, Ostini L (2009) GNSS processing at CODE: status report. J Geod 83(3–4):353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dach R, Hugentobler U, Fridez P, Meindl M (2007) Bernese GPS software version 5.0. Astronomical Institute, University of Bern, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. Durbin J (1960) The fitting of time series models. Rev Inst Int Stat 28:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. El-Rabbany A (1994) The effect of physical correlations on the ambiguity resolution and accuracy estimation in GPS differential positioning. PhD thesis, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  20. Euler HJ, Goad CC (1991) On optimal filtering of GPS dual frequency observations without using orbit information. Bull Geod 65(2):130–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grafarend EW (1976) Geodetic applications of stochastic processes. Phys Earth Planet Inter 12(2–3):151–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grafarend EW, Awange J (2012) Applications of linear and nonlinear models. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray RM (2006) Toeplitz and circulant matrices: a review. Found Trends Commun Inform Theory 2(3):155–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Handcock MS, Wallis JR (1994) An approach to statistical spatial–temporal modeling of meteorological fields. J Am Stat Assoc 89(426):368–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffmann-Wellenhof B, Lichtenegger H, Collins J (2001) GPS theory and practice, 5th edn. Springer Wien, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Howind J, Kutterer H, Heck B (1999) Impact of temporal correlations on GPS-derived relative point positions. J Geod 73(5):246–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jansson P, Persson CG (2013) The effect of correlation on uncertainty estimates—with GPS examples. J Geod Sci 3(2):111–120Google Scholar
  28. Jin SG, Luo O, Ren C (2010) Effects of physical correlations on long-distance GPS positioning and zenith tropospheric delay estimates. Adv Space Res 46:190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Journel AG, Huifbregts CJ (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Kermarrec G, Schön S (2014) On the Mátern covariance family: a proposal for modeling temporal correlations based on turbulence theory. J Geod 88:1061–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klees R, Broersen P (2002) How to handle colored observation noise in large-scale least-squares problems-building the optimal filter. DUP Science, Delft University Press, Delft (30 pages)Google Scholar
  32. Koch KR (1999) Parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in linear models. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Koivunen AC, Kostinski AB (1999) The feasibility of data whitening to improve performance of weather radar. J Appl Meteor 38:741–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krämer W (1986) Least squares regression when the independent variable follows an ARIMA process. J Am Stat Assoc 81(393):150–154. doi: 10.2307/2287982 Google Scholar
  35. Krämer W, Donninger C (1987) Spatial autocorrelation among errors and the relative efficiency of OLS in the linear regression model. J Am Stat Assoc 82(398):577–579Google Scholar
  36. Kutterer H (1999) On the sensitivity of the results of least-squares adjustments concerning the stochastic model. J Geod 73:350–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leandro R, Santos M, Cove K (2005) An empirical approach for the estimation of GPS covariance matrix of observations. In: Proceeding ION 61st Annual Meeting, The MITRE Corporation and Draper Laboratory, 27–29 June 2005, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  38. Levinson N (1947) The Wiener RMS error criterion in filter design and prediction. J Math Phys 25(1–4):261–278Google Scholar
  39. Luo X, Mayer M, Heck B (2012) Analysing time series of GNSS residuals by means of ARIMA processes. Int Assoc Geod Symp 137:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Luo X (2012) Extending the GPS stochastic model by means of signal quality measures and ARMA processes. PhD Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  41. Luati A, Proietti T (2011) On the equivalence of the weighted least squares and the generalised least squares estimators, with applications to kernel smoothing. Ann Inst Stat Math 63(4):673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mátern B (1960) Spatial variation-Stochastic models and their application to some problems in forest surveys and other sampling investigation. Medd Statens Skogsforskningsinstitut 49(5):144Google Scholar
  43. Meier S (1981) Planar geodetic covariance functions. Rev Geophys Space Phys 19(4):673–686Google Scholar
  44. Moritz H (1980) Advanced physical geodesy. Wichmann, KarlsruheGoogle Scholar
  45. Niemeier W (2008) Adjustment computations, 2nd edn. Walter de Gruyter, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Puntanen S (1987) On the relative goodness of ordinary least squares estimation in the general linear model. Acta Univ Tamper Ser A 216Google Scholar
  47. Puntanen S, Styan G (1989) The equality of the ordinary least squares estimator and the best linear unbiased estimator. Am Stat 43(3):153–161. doi: 10.2307/2685062 Google Scholar
  48. Radovanovic RS (2001) Variance-covariance modeling of carrier phase errors for rigorous adjustment of local area networks. IAG 2001 Scientific Assembly, Budapest, Hungary, September 2–7, 2001Google Scholar
  49. Rao C, Toutenburg H (1999) Linear models, least-squares and alternatives, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Santos MC, Vanicek P, Langley RB (1997) Effect of mathematical correlation on GPS network computation. J Surv Eng 123(3):101–112Google Scholar
  51. Satirapod C, Wang J, Rizos C (2003) Comparing different GPS data processing techniques for modelling residual systematic errors. J Surv Eng 129(4):129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schön S, Kutterer H (2006) Uncertainty in GPS networks due to remaining systematic errors: the interval approach. J Geod 80:150–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schön S, Brunner FK (2007) Treatment of refractivity fluctuations by fully populated variance-covariance matrices. In: Proc. 1st Colloquium Scientific and Fundamental Aspects of the Galileo Programme Toulouse OktGoogle Scholar
  54. Schön S, Brunner FK (2008) Atmospheric turbulence theory applied to GPS carrier-phase data. J Geod 1:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schuh WD, Krasbutter I, Kargoll B (2014) Korrelierte Messung—was nun? Neuner H (Hrsg.): Zeitabhängige Messgrößen—Ihre Daten haben (Mehr-)Wert, DVW-Schriftenreihe 74. ISBN: 978-3-89639-970-0, S. 85–101Google Scholar
  56. Shkarofsky IP (1968) Generalized turbulence space-correlation and wave-number spectrum-function pairs. Can J Phys 46:2133–2153Google Scholar
  57. Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of spatial data. Some theory for kriging. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teunissen PJG, Kleusberg A (1998) GPS Geod. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trench WF (1964) An algorithm for the inversion of finite Toeplitz matrices. J Soc Indus Appl Math 12(3):515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trefethen LN, Bau D (1997) Numerical linear algebra. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia. ISBN 0898713617, 9780898713619Google Scholar
  61. Vennebusch M, Schön S, Weinbach U (2010) Temporal and spatial stochastic behavior of high-frequency slant tropospheric delays from simulations and real GPS data. Adv Space Res 47(10):1681–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang J, Satirapod C, Rizos C (2002) Stochastic assessment of GPS carrier phase measurements for precise static relative positioning. J Geod 76(2):95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weinbach T (2012) (2012): Feasibility and impact of receiver clock modeling in precise GPS data analysis. Wissenschaftliche Arbeiten der Fachrichtung Geodäsie und Geoinformatik der Leibniz Universität Hannover ISSN 0174–1454, Nr. 303, Hannover 2013Google Scholar
  64. Wieser A, Brunner FK (2000) An extended weight model for GPS phase observations. Earth Planet Space 52:777–782Google Scholar
  65. Zyskind G (1967) On canonical forms, non-negative covariance matrices and best and simple least squares linear estimators in linear models. Ann Math Stat 38(4):1092–1109Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Erdmessung (IfE)Leibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations