Selecting data for autoregressive modeling in polar motion prediction
- 46 Downloads
The Least-squares extrapolation of harmonic models and autoregressive (LS + AR) prediction is currently considered to be one of the best prediction model for polar motion parameters. In this method, LS fitting residuals are treated as data to train an AR model. But it is readily known that using too many data will result in learning a badly relevant AR model, implying increasing the model bias. It can also be possible that using too few data will result in a lower estimation accuracy of the AR model, implying increasing the model variance. So selecting data is a critical issue to compromise between bias and variance, and hence to obtain a model with optimized prediction performance. In this paper, an experimental study is conducted to check the effect of different data volume on the final prediction performance and hence to select an optimal data portion for AR model. The earth orientation parameters products released by the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service were used as primary data to predict changes in polar motion parameters over spans of 1–500 days for 800 experiments. The experimental results showed that although the short term prediction were not ameliorated, but the method that the AR model parameters calculated by appropriate data volume can effectively improve the accuracy of long-term prediction of polar motion.
KeywordsPolar motion Prediction Least-squares extrapolation Autoregressive model Optimized data intervals
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41774005, 51774270), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2017YFE0107100). We thank the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) for providing EOP products.
- Akyilmaz O, Kutterer H (2004) Prediction of Earth rotation parameters by fuzzy inference systems. J Geodesy 78(1):82–93Google Scholar
- Bizouard C, Gambis D (2009) The combined solution C04 for earth orientation parameters consistent with international terrestrial reference frame 2005. In: International association of geodesy symposium, Munich, Germany, International Association of Geodesy Symposia, vol 134, pp 265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kosek W, McCarthy DD, Johnson T, Kalarus M (2004) Comparison of polar motion prediction results supplied by the IERS sub-bureau for rapid service and predictions and results of other prediction methods. Proc Journees 68:164–169Google Scholar
- Kosek W, Kalarus M, Johnson TJ, Wooden WH, McCarthy D, Popinski W (2005) A comparison of LOD and UT1-UTC forecasts by different combination prediction techniques. Artif Satell 40(2):119–125Google Scholar
- Kosek W, Kalarus M, Niedzielski T (2008) Forecasting of the Earth orientation parameters—comparison of different algorithms. Nagoya J Med Sci 69(3–4):133–137Google Scholar
- Ratcliff JT, Gross RS (2010) Combinations of earth orientation measurements: SPACE2008, COMB2008, and POLE2008. JPL Publication 13-5 73(12):627–637Google Scholar
- Shen Y, Guo JY, Liu X, Kong QL, Guo LX, Wang L (2017) Long-term prediction of polar motion using a combined SSA and ARMA model. J Geodesy 3(92):333–343Google Scholar