Advertisement

Comparison of outlier detection algorithms for GOCE gravity gradients

  • J. Bouman
  • M. Kern
  • R. Koop
  • R. Pail
  • R. Haagmans
  • T. Preimesberger
Conference paper
Part of the International Association of Geodesy Symposia book series (IAG SYMPOSIA, volume 129)

Abstract

goce will be the first satellite ever to measure the second derivatives of the Earth’s gravitational potential in space. It will be possible to derive a high accuracy and high resolution model of the gravitational field if systematic errors and/or outliers have been removed from the data. It is necessary to detect outliers in the data pre-processing because undetected outliers may lead to erroneous results when the data are further processed, for example in the recovery of a gravity field model. Outliers in the goce gravity gradients will be searched for and detected in the gravity field analysis pre-processing step.

In this paper, a number of algorithms are discussed that detect outliers in the diagonal gravity gradients. One of them combines wavelets with either a statistical method or filtered gradients with an identification rate of about 90% or more. Another high performing algorithm is the combination of three methods, that is, the tracelessness condition (a physical property of the diagonal gradients), comparison with model or filtered gradients, and along-track interpolation of gradient anomalies. Using two sets of simulated gravity gradients, the algorithms are compared in terms of their identification rate and number of falsly detected outliers. In addition, it is shown that the quality of the gravity field solution is very much affected by outliers. Undetected outliers can degrade the gravity field solution by up to twenty times as compared with a solution without outliers.

Keywords

Outliers goce mission Gradiometry Statistical tests 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arabelos D, Tscherning CC (1998) Calibration of satellite gradiometer data aided by ground gravity data. Journal of Geodesy. 72: 617–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett V, Lewis T (1994) Outliers in statistical data. 3rd edition, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouman J (2004) Quick-look outlier detection for GOCE gravity gradients. Paper presented at the LAG Porto meeting (GGSM 2004)Google Scholar
  4. Bouman J, Koop R, Tscherning CC, Visser P (2004) Calibration of GOCE SGG data using high-low SST, terrestrial gravity data and global gravity field models. Journal of Geodesy, 78, DOI 10.1007/s00190-004-0382-5Google Scholar
  5. Cesare S (2002) Performance requirements and budgets for the gradiometric mission. Issue 2 GO-TN-AI-0027, Preliminary Design Review, Alenia, TurinGoogle Scholar
  6. ESA (1999) Gravity field and steady-state ocean circulation mission. Reports for mission selection. The four candidate Earth explorer core missions. ESA SP-1233(1). European Space Agency, NoordwijkGoogle Scholar
  7. Heiskanen W, Moritz H (1967) Physical Geodesy. W.H. Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  8. Kern M, Preimesberger T, Allesch M, Pail R, Bouman J, Koop R (2004) Outlier detection algorithms and their performance in GOCE gravity field processing. Accepted for publication in Journal of GeodesyGoogle Scholar
  9. Lemoine F, Kenyon S, Factor J, Trimmer R, Pavlis N, Chinn D, Cox C, Klosko S, Luthcke S, Torrence M, Wang Y, Williamson R, Pavlis E, Rapp R, Olson T (1998) The development of the joint NASA GSFC and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) geopotential model EGM96. TP 1998-206861, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, GreenbeltGoogle Scholar
  10. Mayer C (2003) Wavelet modelling of ionospheric currents and induced magnetic fields from satellite data. PhD thesis. Geomathematics Group, Department of Mathematics, University of Kaiserslautern, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Pail R, Preimesberger T (2003) GOCE quick-look gravity solution: application of the semianalytic approach in the case of data gaps and non-repeat orbits. Studia geophysica et geodaetica. 47:435–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rapp R, Wang Y, Pavlis N (1991) The Ohio State 1991 geopotential and sea surface topography harmonic coefficient models. Rep 410, Department of Geodetic Science and Surveying, The Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  13. Tscherning CC (1991) The use of optimal estimation for grosserror detection in databases of spatially correlated data. Bulletin d’Information, no. 68, 79–89, BGIGoogle Scholar
  14. Vauterin P, van Camp M (2004) TSoft Manual. Version 2.0.14, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Bruxelles, Belgium. Available at http://www.astro.oma.be/SEISMO/TSOFT/tsoft.htmlGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bouman
    • 1
  • M. Kern
    • 2
  • R. Koop
    • 1
  • R. Pail
    • 2
  • R. Haagmans
    • 3
  • T. Preimesberger
    • 4
  1. 1.SRON National Institute for Space ResearchUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute of Navigation and Satellite GeodesyTU GrazGrazAustria
  3. 3.Science and Applications DepartmentESA/ESTECNoordwijkThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Space Research InstituteAustrian Academy of SciencesGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations