IAG 150 Years pp 719-725 | Cite as

Application-Driven Critical Values for GNSS Ambiguity Acceptance Testing

  • Sandra VerhagenEmail author
  • Peter J. G. Teunissen
  • Jingyu Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 143)


Integer ambiguity estimation and validation are crucial steps when solving the carrier-phase based GNSS model. For the validation, different ambiguity acceptance tests have been proposed. For those tests often fixed critical values are used, with the important disadvantage that the performance of the tests varies a lot depending on measurement set-up and circumstances. Therefore it is better to use model-driven critical values such that it is guaranteed that the failure rate will not exceed a user-defined threshold. This contribution will study the model-dependency of the critical values for two well-known acceptance tests, the ratio test and difference test, and then specifically for a given application. This means that mainly the satellite-receiver geometry and number of epochs will be variable. It will be shown that critical values do exhibit a strong dependence on these factors, and it will not be possible to simply use a fixed (i.e., constant) application-driven critical value.


Critical value Integer acceptance test Model-dependency 



This work has been executed in the framework of the Positioning Program Project 1.01 “New carrier phase processing strategies for achieving precise and reliable multi-satellite, multi-frequency GNSS/RNSS positioning in Australia” of the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information.


  1. Abidin HA (1993) Computational and geometrical aspects of on-the-fly ambiguity resolution. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Surveying Engineering, Technical Report no.104, University of New Brunswick, 314 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Chen Y (1997) An approach to validate the resolved ambiguities in GPS rapid positioning. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on kinematic systems in geodesy, geomatics and navigation, BanffGoogle Scholar
  3. Euler HJ, Schaffrin B (1991) On a measure for the discernibility between different ambiguity solutions in the static-kinematic GPS-mode. In: IAG symposia no. 107, kinematic systems in geodesy, surveying, and remote sensing. Springer, New York, pp 285–295Google Scholar
  4. Frei E, Beutler G (1990) Rapid static positioning based on the fast ambiguity resolution approach FARA: theory and first results. Manuscr Geod 15:325–356Google Scholar
  5. Han S (1997) Quality control issues relating to instantaneous ambiguity resolution for real-time GPS kinematic positioning. J Geod 71:351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Han S, Rizos C (1996) Validation and rejection criteria for integer least-squares estimation. Surv Rev 33(260):375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Landau H, Euler HJ (1992) On-the-fly ambiguity resolution for precise differential positioning. In: Proceedings of ION GPS 1992, The Institute of Navigation, Fairfax, pp 607–613Google Scholar
  8. Odijk D, Verhagen S, Teunissen PJG (2012) Medium-Distance GPS Ambiguity Resolution with Controlled Failure Rate. In: Kenyon S et al (eds) Geodesy for planet earth. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 136. Springer, Berlin, pp 745–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Teunissen PJG (1995) The least-squares ambiguity decorrelation adjustment: a method for fast GPS integer ambiguity estimation. J Geod 70:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Teunissen PJG (1999) An optimality property of the integer least-squares estimator. J Geod 73:587–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Teunissen PJG (2003) Integer aperture GNSS ambiguity resolution. Artif Satell 38:79–88Google Scholar
  12. Teunissen PJG (2005) GNSS ambiguity resolution with optimally controlled failure-rate. Artif Satell 40:219–227Google Scholar
  13. Tiberius CCJM, De Jonge PJ (1995) Fast positioning using the LAMBDA method. In: Proceedings of DSNS’95, Bergen, paper no. 30Google Scholar
  14. Verhagen S (2005) The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Geodetic Commission, No. 58Google Scholar
  15. Verhagen S, Teunissen PJG (2006) New global navigation satellite system ambiguity resolution method compared to existing approaches. J Guid Control Dyn 29:981–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Verhagen S, Li B (2012) LAMBDA Software Package - Matlab implementation, version 3.0. Delft University of Technology and Curtin University, 39pGoogle Scholar
  17. Verhagen S, Teunissen PJG (2013) The ratio test for future GNSS ambiguity resolution. GPS Solutions 17:535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Verhagen S, Li B, Teunissen PJG (2013) Ps-LAMBDA: Ambiguity success rate evaluation software for interferometric applications. Comput Geosci 54:361–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang J, Stewart MP, Tsakiri M (1998) A discrimination test procedure for ambiguity resolution on-the-fly. J Geod 72:644–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wu Y, Jin SG, Wang Z, Liu J (2010) Cycle slip detection using multi-frequency GPS carrier phase observations: a simulation study. Adv Space Res 46(2):144–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Verhagen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter J. G. Teunissen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jingyu Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Geoscience and Remote SensingDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.GNSS Research CentreCurtin UniversityBentley, WAAustralia

Personalised recommendations