MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187825411 · doi:10.1109/ipin.2015.7346959

Performance comparison of Kalman filter and maximum likelihood carrier phase tracking for weak GNSS signals

2015· article· en· W2187825411 on OpenAlexaff
Zhe He, Mark G. Petovello

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGNSS positioning and interference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarrier recoveryMultipath propagationPhase-locked loopGNSS applicationsDoppler effectPhase (matter)Computer scienceKalman filterCarrier-to-noise ratioTracking (education)Phase noiseElectronic engineeringAttenuationSignal-to-noise ratio (imaging)DemodulationPhysicsTelecommunicationsGlobal Positioning SystemEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

GNSS carrier phase measurement capability is one of the most important features for high performance/accuracy receivers. However significant signal attenuation due to blockage and multipath as experienced indoors for example, degrades carrier phase quality in standard carrier phase tracking loops using PLL or KF-PLL. Under such conditions, the receiver may not be able to generate reliable carrier phase measurements either due to weak signal, fading or fragility of conventional tracking loops. One contribution of this paper is the proposed decoupled maximum likelihood carrier phase, Doppler and Doppler rate tracking architecture. This approach first independently estimates Doppler rate and Doppler based on power spectra and then estimates the carrier phase if possible. In order to assess the actual carrier phase measurement quality, controlled simulation is also conducted after analyzing the overall phase tracking performance. Double differenced carrier phase results as well as RTK solutions show that the proposed method works well and is able to generate reliable carrier phase measurement and centimeter level solution when the carrier-to-noise-density ratio (C/N0) is about 20 dB-Hz.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGNSS positioning and interferenceFrench-language works237,207