Studying the Fixing Rate of GPS PPP Ambiguity Resolution Under Different Geomagnetic Storm Intensities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Global Positioning System (GPS) Precise Point Positioning (PPP) with correct fixing ambiguity resolution (AR) can reach cm‐mm level positioning accuracy. However, this accuracy can be degraded by the geomagnetic storm effects. To comprehensively investigate the ambiguity resolved percentage (ARP) of GPS kinematic PPP, referred to as PPP‐ARP, under different intensities of geomagnetic storms, based on the Natural Resources Canada's Canadian Spatial Reference System (CSRS) PPP, this study for the first time gives the correlation between the PPP‐ARP and storm intensity using 67 storms occurred in the past 5 years of 2018–2022. Experimental results indicate that the PPP‐ARP decreases gradually as the increase of geomagnetic storm intensity. Under quiet and low geomagnetic conditions (Dst min > −50 nT), the PPP‐ARP of global GNSS stations can achieve more than 96%, while these during strong storms (Dst min ≤ −100 nT) are generally lower than 90.0%, especially for the PPP‐ARP of some stations located at low latitudes which are lower than 40.0%. The mechanism of PPP‐ARP decrease under geomagnetic storms is mainly due to the cycle slips and even loss of lock of GNSS signals caused by the storms induced ionospheric disturbances and scintillations. In addition, different from many previous studies, we found that the CSRS‐PPP with AR can achieve good positioning accuracy (3D RMS <0.2 m) even under strong geomagnetic storms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".