Skip to main content

Fixed Failure Rate Ambiguity Validation Methods for GPS and Compass

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC) 2013 Proceedings

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 244))

Abstract

Ambiguity resolution plays a crucial role in real time kinematic GNSS positioning which gives centimetre precision positioning results if all the ambiguities in each epoch are correctly fixed to integers. However, the incorrectly fixed ambiguities can result in large positioning offset up to several meters without notice. Hence, ambiguity validation is essential to control the ambiguity resolution quality. Currently, the most popular ambiguity validation is ratio test. The criterion of ratio test is often empirically determined. Empirically determined criterion can be dangerous, because a fixed criterion cannot fit all scenarios and does not directly control the ambiguity resolution risk. In practice, depending on the underlying model strength, the ratio test criterion can be too conservative for some model and becomes too risky for others. A more rational test method is to determine the criterion according to the underlying model and user requirement. Miss-detected incorrect integers will lead to a hazardous result, which should be strictly controlled. In ambiguity resolution miss-detected rate is often known as failure rate. In this paper, a fixed failure rate ratio test method is presented and applied in analysis of GPS and Compass positioning scenarios. A fixed failure rate approach is derived from the integer aperture estimation theory, which is theoretically rigorous. The criteria table for ratio test is computed based on extensive data simulations in the approach. The real-time users can determine the ratio test criterion by looking up the criteria table. This method has been applied in medium distance GPS ambiguity resolution but multi-constellation and high dimensional scenarios haven’t been discussed so far. In this paper, a general ambiguity validation model is derived based on hypothesis test theory, and fixed failure rate approach is introduced, especially the relationship between ratio test threshold and failure rate is examined. In the last, factors that influence fixed failure rate approach ratio test threshold is discussed according to extensive data simulation. The result shows that fixed failure rate approach is a more reasonable ambiguity validation method with proper stochastic model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Euler H, Schaffrin B (1991) On a measure for the discernibility between different ambiguity solutions in the static-kinematic GPS-mode. In: IAG, Symposium, pp 285–295

    Google Scholar 

  2. Frei E, Beutler G (1990) Rapid static positioning based on the fast ambiguity resolution approach fara: theory and first results. Manuscripta Geod 15(6):325–356

    Google Scholar 

  3. Han S (1997) Quality-control issues relating to instantaneous ambiguity resolution for real-time GPS kinematic positioning. J Geodesy 71(6):351–361

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Hassibi A, Boyd S (1998) Integer parameter estimation in linear models with applications to GPS. Signal Proc, IEEE Trans on 46(11):2938–2952

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Ji S, Chen W, Ding X, Chen Y, Zhao C, Hu C (2010) Ambiguity validation with combined ratio test and ellipsoidal integer aperture estimator. J Geodesy 84(10):597–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Landau H, Euler H (1992) On-the-fly ambiguity resolution for precise differential positioning. In: Proceedings of ION GPS , pp 607–613

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li T, Wang J (2012) Some remarks on GNSS integer ambiguity validation methods. Surv Rev 44:230–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Montenbruck O, Hauschild A, Steigenberger P, Hugentobler U, Teunissen P, Nakamura S (2012) Initial assessment of the compass/Beidou-2 regional navigation satellite system. GPS Solutions, 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  9. Neyman J, Pearson E (1933) On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character 231:289–337

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tabachnick B, Fidell L, Osterlind S (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tandy M, Young K (2012) Variable duration fixed failure rate ambiguity resolution. GPS Solutions, pp 1–7

    Google Scholar 

  12. Teunissen P (1995) The least-squares ambiguity decorrelation adjustment: a method for fast GPS integer ambiguity estimation. J Geodesy 70(1):65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Teunissen P (1998) On the integer normal distribution of the GPS ambiguities. Artif Satellites 33(2):49–64

    Google Scholar 

  14. Teunissen P (1999a) An optimality property of the integer least-squares estimator. J Geodesy 73(11):587–593

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Teunissen P (1999b) The probability distribution of the GPS baseline for a class of integer ambiguity estimators. J Geodesy 73(5):275–284

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Teunissen P (2002) The parameter distributions of the integer GPS model. J Geodesy 76(1):41–48

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Teunissen P (2003a) A carrier phase ambiguity estimator with easy-to-evaluate fail rate. Artif Satellites 38(3):89–96

    Google Scholar 

  18. Teunissen P (2003b) Integer aperture GNSS ambiguity resolution. Artif Satellites 38(3):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  19. Teunissen P (2004) Penalized GNSS ambiguity resolution. J Geodesy 78(4):235–244

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Teunissen P (2005a) GNSS ambiguity resolution with optimally controlled failure-rate. Artif Satellites 40(4):219–227

    Google Scholar 

  21. Teunissen P (2005b) Integer aperture bootstrapping: a new GNSS ambiguity estimator with controllable fail-rate. J Geodesy 79(6):389–397

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Teunissen P (2005c) Integer aperture least-squares estimation. Artif Satellites 40:149–160

    Google Scholar 

  23. Teunissen P, Verhagen S (2009) The GNSS ambiguity ratio-test revisited: a better way of using it. Surv Rev 41(312):138–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Teunissen P, Verhagen S (2011) integer aperture estimation a framework for GNSS ambiguity acceptance testing. Inside GNSS

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tiberius C, De Jonge P (1995) Fast positioning using the lambda method. In: Proceedings 4th international conference differential satellite systems, Citeseer, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tiberius C, Jonkman N, Kenselaar F (1999) The stochastics of GPS observables. GPS World 10(2):49–54

    Google Scholar 

  27. Verhagen S (2005) The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation. PhD thesis

    Google Scholar 

  28. Verhagen S (2006) Improved performance of multi-carrier ambiguity resolution based on lambda method. In: Proceedings of Navitec 2006

    Google Scholar 

  29. Verhagen S, Teunissen P (2006a) New global navigation satellite system ambiguity resolution method compared to existing approaches. J Guidance Control Dyn 29(4):981–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Verhagen S, Teunissen P (2006b) On the probability density function of the GNSS ambiguity residuals. GPS Solutions 10(1):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Verhagen S, Teunissen P (2012) The ratio test for future GNSS ambiguity resolution. GPS Solutions, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wang J, Stewart M, Tsakiri M (1998) A discrimination test procedure for ambiguity resolution on-the-fly. J Geodesy 72(11):644–653

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Wei M, Schwarz K (1995) Fast ambiguity resolution using an integer nonlinear programming method. In: Proceedings of ION GPS 1995, pp 1101–1110

    Google Scholar 

  34. Xu P (2006) Voronoi cells, probabilistic bounds, and hypothesis testing in mixed integer linear models. Inf Theory, IEEE Trans on 52:7, 3122–3138

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was funded by cooperative research center for spatial information (CRCSI) project 1.01 'New carrier phase processing strategies for achieving precise and reliable multi-satellite, multi-frequency GNSS/RNSS positioning in Australia'.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Wang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wang, L., Feng, Y. (2013). Fixed Failure Rate Ambiguity Validation Methods for GPS and Compass. In: Sun, J., Jiao, W., Wu, H., Shi, C. (eds) China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC) 2013 Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 244. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37404-3_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37404-3_34

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37403-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37404-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics