MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing Probability of Correct Ambiguity Resolution in the Presence of Time-Correlated Errors

2006· article· en· W2135350230 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle O’Keefe, Mark G. Petovello, Gérard Lachapelle, M. Elizabeth Cannon

Bibliographic record

VenueNAVIGATION Journal of the Institute of Navigation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbiguity resolutionCovariance matrixAmbiguityComputer scienceAlgorithmKalman filterCovarianceMathematicsStatisticsGlobal Positioning SystemGNSS applications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: To meet their accuracy requirements, many applications require the resolution of the carrier phase ambiguities to their integer values. However, the process of ambiguity resolution is ultimately based on statistical values and therefore has an associated probability of being performed correctly. This paper develops a method of computing the probability of correctly fixing the ambiguities in the presence of time correlated errors. A new Kalman filter for use in the presence of time correlated observations is reviewed and adapted for carrier phase GPS applications. In terms of correlated errors, consideration is specifically given to ionosphere, zenith troposphere, and multipath effects; all modeled as first-order Gauss-Markov processes. Simulated results, based on the covariance matrix of the float ambiguities, are used to provide theoretical bounds on the probability of correct fix using several levels of observation error variances and time correlations. Results indicate that increased correlation of observations reduces the ability to resolve ambiguities suggesting that if observation correlation is ignored, overly optimistic probabilities of correct ambiguity resolution will be obtained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNAVIGATION Journal of the Institute of NavigationSame topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207