Comparison between four integer ambiguity resolved PPP GNSS time transfer software solutions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a comparison between four different software solutions (dubbed PPP-AR or IPPP, all based on the resolution of integer ambiguities of the carrier-phase) that compute time links between GNSS receivers. Additional processing layers have been specially developed to enable usage for time transfer purposes. A variety of GNSS receivers connected to UTC(k) timescales across the globe, covering a wide range of baselines and several GNSS receiver models was used in this work. For one of the links, the availability of an optical fiber link between the stations allowed a comparison of each software-based GNSS link to this common reference, otherwise links were compared with each other using a specially-developed four-cornered hat algorithm. In the performance analysis we focused on the frequency stability of the time links. Results show that all four independently developed software solutions agree within 20 ps on TDEV for all averaging times and highlight the importance of mitigating day-boundary phase discontinuities. This demonstrates the reliability of the different implementations of the PPP-AR/IPPP technique for operational time transfer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it