Advertisement

Nonlinear Geospatial Frame Transformations in the Presence of Noisy Data

  • Christopher Kotsakis
Article

Abstract

This paper presents an extended least squares framework for geospatial frame transformation problems with nonlinear models in the presence of noisy data. The goal is to set up an analytic scheme for obtaining transformed coordinates in the target frame with improved accuracy over the classic stepwise approach that is commonly used in practice. The proposed methodology is based on the joint spatial adjustment of all observed coordinates from the respective frames (initial and target) in conjunction with their stochastic model over all points of interest. This allows us to properly handle the cross-correlated noise in the initial coordinates between control and new points, and thus to overcome a crucial limitation of other operational approaches. In algebraic terms, the proposed approach relies on the weighted least squares adjustment of a stacked set of Gauss–Helmert models that can unequivocally describe any geospatial frame transformation over different groups of points. The analytic solution to this stacking problem is derived for the case of nonlinear parametric models, regardless of the structure of the error covariance matrices of the input data. The study focuses on computational aspects and the proper implementation of the solution algorithm via the Newton–Gauss iteration method. A numerical example is given to demonstrate the expected improvement in the statistical accuracy of the transformed coordinates under the proposed stacking approach.

Keywords

Spatial adjustment Coordinate transformation Geospatial reference frames Nonlinear least squares Gauss–Helmert stacking Noise filtering 

References

  1. Ayhan E, Akar OE, Uzun S, Dilaver A, Kansu O (2011) Analysis of digital data obtained from raster and vector maps. J Surv Eng 137:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beinat A, Crosilla F (2003) Generalised Procrustes algorithms for the conformal updating of a cadastral map. ZfV 128(5):341–349Google Scholar
  3. Bevis M, Brown A (2014) Trajectory models and reference frames for crustal motion geodesy. J Geod 88:283–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjorck A (1996) Numerical methods for least squares problems. SIAM, Philadelphia PA, p 408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cobb MA, Chung MJ, Poley H, Petry FE, Shaw KB, Miller HV (1998) A rule-based approach for the conflation of attributed vector data. Geoinformatica 2(1):7–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doytsher Y, Hall JK (1997) Gridded affine transformation and rubber-sheeting algorithm with Fortran program for calibrating scanned hydrographic survey maps. Comput Geosci 23(7):785–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doytsher Y, Filin S, Ezra E (2001) Transformation of datasets in linear-based map conflation framework. Surv Land Inf Syst 61(3):159–169Google Scholar
  8. Eggert DW, Lorusso A, Fisher RB (1997) Estimating 3-D rigid body rotations: a comparison of four major algorithms. Mach Vis Appl 9:272–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felus YA, Burtch RC (2009) On symmetrical three-dimensional datum conversion. GPS Solut 13:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fruh C, Zakhor A (2003) Constructing 3D city models by merging aerial and ground views. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 23(6):52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gill PE, Murray W (1978) Algorithms for the solution of the nonlinear least-squares problem. SIAM J Numer Anal 15(5):977–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golub GH, van Loan CF (1980) An analysis of the total least-squares problem. SIAM J Numer Anal 17(6):883–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grafarend EW (2006) Linear and nonlinear models—fixed effects, random effects and mixed models. de Gruyter, Berlin, p 752Google Scholar
  14. Grafarend EW, Awange JL (2003) Nonlinear analysis of the three-dimensional datum transformation conformal group C7(3). J Geodesy 77:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hackeloeer A, Klasing K, Krisp JM, Meng L (2014) Georeferencing: a review of methods and applications. Ann GIS 20(1):61–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koch K-R (1999) Parameter estimation and hypothesis testing in linear models, 2nd edn. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, p 331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kotsakis C, Vatalis A, Sanso F (2014) On the importance of intra-frame and inter-frame covariances in frame transformation theory. J Geodesy 88(12):1187–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu L, Zhang Y, Tao P, Zhang Z, Zhang Y (2013) Estimation of transformation parameters between centre-line vector road maps and high resolution satellite images. Photogram Rec 28(142):130–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahboub V (2012) On weighted total least-squares for geodetic transformations. J Geodesy 86:359–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neitzel F (2010) Generalization of total least-squares on example of unweighted and weighted 2D similarity transformation. J Geodesy 84:751–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pope A (1972) Some pitfalls to be avoided in the iterative adjustment of nonlinear problems. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual ASPRS meeting, American Society of Photogrammetry, Falls Church, VA, pp 449–477Google Scholar
  22. Ruiz JJ, Ariza FJ, Urena MA, Blazquez EB (2011) Digital map conflation: a review of the process and a proposal for classification. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25(9):1439–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sequeira V, Ng K, Wolfart E, Goncalves J, Hogg D (1999) Automated reconstruction of 3D models from real environments. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 55(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Soler T, Snay RA (2004) Transforming positions and velocities between the international terrestrial reference frame of 2000 and North American datum of 1983. J Surv Eng 130(2):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Teunissen PJG (1986) Adjusting and testing with the models of the affine and similarity transformations. Manuscr Geod 11:214–225Google Scholar
  26. Teunissen PJG (1990) Nonlinear least squares. Manuscr Geod 15(3):137–150Google Scholar
  27. Umeyama S (1991) Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 13(4):376–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Huffel S (ed) (2002) Total least-squares and errors-in-variables modeling—analysis, algorithms and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, p 395Google Scholar
  29. Watson GA (2006) Computing Helmert transformations. J Comput Appl Math 197(2):387–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association for Mathematical Geosciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geodesy and SurveyingAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessaloníkiGreece

Personalised recommendations