MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408483643 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-20749

Investigating Galileo Signal Tracking Challenges in Smartphones

2025· preprint· en· W4408483643 on OpenAlexaff
F. Zangeneh-Nejad, Mohamed Elsheikh, Fei Liu, Yang Gao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFractal and DNA sequence analysis
Canadian institutionsTrusted Positioning (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalileo (satellite navigation)SIGNAL (programming language)Tracking (education)Computer scienceAeronauticsReal-time computingRemote sensingEngineeringGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2016, Android smartphones have allowed access to the raw GNSS data, leading to significant improvements in positioning accuracy. Modern devices now support dual-frequency GNSS and multiple satellite systems, making positioning more reliable. Despite significant efforts in GNSS smartphone positioning, including using the Galileo constellation, several important issues still need to be addressed. Galileo signals have more complex modulation schemes compared to GPS signals. Practical tests show that after a short period, Galileo measurements' status may change from 'TOW Decoded' to 'E1C 2nd Code' status, where TOW represents the GNSS time of week. The receiver can stay on the 'E1C 2nd Code' status for several minutes. Some Galileo-ready chips track the data component to decode the navigation message. Once the ephemerides and clock data are decoded, they switch to tracking the E1C (pilot component), resulting in the 'E1C 2nd Code' status and ambiguous pseudoranges. In the current Galileo tracking approach, some satellites remain in 'TOW Known' or 'TOW Decoded' status for over an hour, while others switch to 'E1C 2nd Code Lock', resulting in ambiguous pseudoranges. The algorithm used to determine the tracking status for each satellite remains unclear. The white paper published by the European GNSS Agency’s (GSA) recommends checking the Galileo tracking status and highly advises using Galileo measurements only when in the E1C 2nd Code status.In this research, we will show that a 4 ms jump is still observed in some datasets, even though the tracking status is E1C 2nd Code. This confirms that verifying the signal tracking status alone is insufficient, as 4 ms jumps in the data can still occur despite this check. During these "jump epochs," erroneous measurements can adversely affect positioning accuracy. To investigate this issue, data collected by the Xiaomi Mi8 and Google Pixel 8 Pro devices are used. The results indicate that these jumps vary between devices and over time. The results also show that these jumps still occur, even though the tracking status is E1C 2nd Code.This 4 ms jump has also been addressed by Galluzzo et al. (2018) during the 2018 IPIN conference. They proposed a straightforward method to correct the pseudorange by detecting jumps through the difference between two consecutive epochs. If the difference is around 4 ms, the subsequent pseudoranges are adjusted accordingly. Although the theory behind this method is straightforward and effective in many cases, it cannot detect all jumps, for example, when those satellites first appear or when the pseudorange is missing. In this research, we employ the Observation Minus Calcaulation (OMC) to solve this issue and find the undetected 4 ms jumps. Finally, we investigate the accuracy of the kinematic data from Xiaomi Mi8 and Google Pixel 8 Pro devices with and without corrections for the 4 ms jumps. The results showed performance improvement in terms of the root mean square (RMS) and the 50th percentile of the horizontal positioning error after applying the correction for the 4 ms jump in Galileo measurements.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFractal and DNA sequence analysisFrench-language works237,207