Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 557–566 | Cite as

Selecting data for autoregressive modeling in polar motion prediction

  • Fei Wu
  • Guobin ChangEmail author
  • Kazhong Deng
  • Wuyong Tao
Original Study


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.


Polar 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.


  1. Akulenko LD, Kumakshev SA, Markov YG, Rykhlova LV (2002) Forecasting the polar motions of the deformable Earth. Astron Rep 46(10):858–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akyilmaz O, Kutterer H (2004) Prediction of Earth rotation parameters by fuzzy inference systems. J Geodesy 78(1):82–93Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information–theoretic approach. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dobslaw H, Dill R, Grötzsch A, Brzeziński A, Thomas M (2010) Seasonal polar motion excitation from numerical models of atmosphere, ocean, and continental hydrosphere. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 115:B10406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freedman AP, Steppe JA, Dickey JO, Eubanks TM, Sung LY (1994) The short-term prediction of universal time and length of day using atmospheric angular momentum. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 99(B4):6981–6996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gambis D, Luzum B (2011) Earth rotation monitoring, UT1 determination and prediction. Metrologia 48(4):165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guo JY, Li YB, Dai CL, Shum CK (2013) A technique to improve the accuracy of Earth orientation prediction algorithms based on least squares extrapolation. J Geodyn 70(10):36–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jayles C, Chauveau JP, Didelot F, Auriol A, Tourain C (2016) Doris system and integrity survey. Adv Space Res 58(12):2691–2706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jia S, Xu TH, Sun ZZ, Li JJ (2017) Middle and long-term prediction of UT1-UTC based on combination of gray model and autoregressive integrated moving average. Adv Space Res 59(3):888–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalarus M, Schuh H, Kosek W, Akyilmaz O, Bizouard Ch, Gambis D, Gross R, Jovanović B, Kumakshev S, Kutterer H, Mendes Cerveira PJ, Pasynok S, Zotov L (2010) Achievements of the earth orientation parameters prediction comparison campaign. J Geodesy 84(10):587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Lei Y, Guo M, Hu D, Cai H, Zhao D, Hu Z, Gao Y (2017) Short-term prediction of UT1-UTC by combination of the grey model and neural networks. Adv Space Res 59(2):524–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ratcliff JT, Gross RS (2010) Combinations of earth orientation measurements: SPACE2008, COMB2008, and POLE2008. JPL Publication 13-5 73(12):627–637Google Scholar
  17. Schuh H, Ulrich M, Egger D, Müller J, Schwegmann W (2002) Prediction of earth orientation parameters by artificial neural networks. J Geodesy 76(5):247–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shen Y, Guo JY, Zhao C, Yu XM, Li JL (2015) Earth rotation parameter and variation during 2005–2010 solved with LAGEOS SLR data. Geodesy Geodyn 6(1):55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Su X, Liu L, Hsu H, Wang G (2014) Long-term polar motion prediction using normal time–frequency transform. J Geodesy 88(2):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang QX, Hu C, Xu TH, Chang GB (2017) Impacts of earth rotation parameters on GNSS ultra-rapid orbit prediction: derivation and real-time correction. Adv Space Res 60(12):2855–2870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wu F, Deng KZ, Chang GB, Wang QX (2018) The application of a combination of weighted least-squares and autoregressive methods in predictions of polar motion parameters. Acta Geod Geophys 53(2):247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu XQ, Zhou YH (2015) EOP prediction using least square fitting and autoregressive filter over optimized data intervals. Adv Space Res 56(10):2248–2253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Xu XQ, Zhou YH, Liao XH (2012) Short-term earth orientation parameters predictions by combination of the least-squares, AR model and Kalman filter. J Geodyn 62(1016):83–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zotov L, Xu XQ, Zhou YH, Skorobogatov A (2018) Combined SAI-SHAO prediction of earth orientation parameters since 2012 till 2017. Geodesy Geodyn 9(6):485–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fei Wu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guobin Chang
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Kazhong Deng
    • 2
  • Wuyong Tao
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of GeomaticsEast China University of TechnologyNanchangChina
  2. 2.School of Environment Science and Spatial InformaticsChina University of Mining and TechnologyXuzhouChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Geo-Information EngineeringXi’an Research Institute of Surveying and MappingXi’anChina
  4. 4.School of Geodesy and GeomaticsWuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations