Application-Driven Critical Values for GNSS Ambiguity Acceptance Testing
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.
KeywordsCritical 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Teunissen PJG (2003) Integer aperture GNSS ambiguity resolution. Artif Satell 38:79–88Google Scholar
- Teunissen PJG (2005) GNSS ambiguity resolution with optimally controlled failure-rate. Artif Satell 40:219–227Google Scholar
- Tiberius CCJM, De Jonge PJ (1995) Fast positioning using the LAMBDA method. In: Proceedings of DSNS’95, Bergen, paper no. 30Google Scholar
- Verhagen S (2005) The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Netherlands Geodetic Commission, No. 58Google Scholar
- Verhagen S, Li B (2012) LAMBDA Software Package - Matlab implementation, version 3.0. Delft University of Technology and Curtin University, 39pGoogle Scholar