Performance Analysis of Several GPS/Galileo Precise Point Positioning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the performance of several precise point positioning (PPP) models, which combine dual-frequency GPS/Galileo observations in the un-differenced and between-satellite single-difference (BSSD) modes. These include the traditional un-differenced model, the decoupled clock model, the semi-decoupled clock model, and the between-satellite single-difference model. We take advantage of the IGS-MGEX network products to correct for the satellite differential code biases and the orbital and satellite clock errors. Natural Resources Canada's GPSPace PPP software is modified to handle the various GPS/Galileo PPP models. A total of six data sets of GPS and Galileo observations at six IGS stations are processed to examine the performance of the various PPP models. It is shown that the traditional un-differenced GPS/Galileo PPP model, the GPS decoupled clock model, and the semi-decoupled clock GPS/Galileo PPP model improve the convergence time by about 25% in comparison with the un-differenced GPS-only model. In addition, the semi-decoupled GPS/Galileo PPP model improves the solution precision by about 25% compared to the traditional un-differenced GPS/Galileo PPP model. Moreover, the BSSD GPS/Galileo PPP model improves the solution convergence time by about 50%, in comparison with the un-differenced GPS PPP model, regardless of the type of BSSD combination used. As well, the BSSD model improves the precision of the estimated parameters by about 50% and 25% when the loose and the tight combinations are used, respectively, in comparison with the un-differenced GPS-only model. Comparable results are obtained through the tight combination when either a GPS or a Galileo satellite is selected as a reference.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".