A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate
Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determi...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Wang, Lei [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2014 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Journal of geodesy - Berlin : Springer, 1995, 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:89 ; year:2014 ; number:4 ; day:26 ; month:11 ; pages:361-375 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR001590928 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR001590928 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230327134057.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201001s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR001590928 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Wang, Lei |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 2 | |a A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2014 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Ambiguity acceptance test |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Fixed failure rate approach |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ratio test |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Difference test |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Threshold function |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Verhagen, Sandra |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of geodesy |d Berlin : Springer, 1995 |g 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 |w (DE-627)271175389 |w (DE-600)1478938-3 |x 1432-1394 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:89 |g year:2014 |g number:4 |g day:26 |g month:11 |g pages:361-375 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_32 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_90 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_138 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_150 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_171 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_187 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_224 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_250 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_267 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_281 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_370 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_636 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_702 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2001 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2004 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2006 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2015 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2020 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2021 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2025 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2026 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2027 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2031 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2034 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2038 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2039 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2044 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2048 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2049 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2050 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2057 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2059 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2061 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2064 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2065 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2068 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2070 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2086 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2088 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2093 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2106 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2107 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2108 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2113 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2116 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2118 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2119 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2122 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2129 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2143 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2144 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2147 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2148 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2152 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2153 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2188 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2190 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2232 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2446 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2470 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2472 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2507 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2522 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2548 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4035 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4046 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4242 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4246 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4251 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4326 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4333 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4334 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4335 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4336 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4393 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 89 |j 2014 |e 4 |b 26 |c 11 |h 361-375 | ||
| author_variant |
l w lw s v sv |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:14321394:2014----::nwmiutacpactstrsodeemntomtowtc |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2014 |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 doi (DE-627)SPR001590928 (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Wang, Lei verfasserin aut A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. Ambiguity acceptance test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fixed failure rate approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ratio test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Difference test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Threshold function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Verhagen, Sandra aut Enthalten in Journal of geodesy Berlin : Springer, 1995 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 (DE-627)271175389 (DE-600)1478938-3 1432-1394 nnns volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 89 2014 4 26 11 361-375 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 doi (DE-627)SPR001590928 (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Wang, Lei verfasserin aut A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. Ambiguity acceptance test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fixed failure rate approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ratio test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Difference test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Threshold function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Verhagen, Sandra aut Enthalten in Journal of geodesy Berlin : Springer, 1995 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 (DE-627)271175389 (DE-600)1478938-3 1432-1394 nnns volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 89 2014 4 26 11 361-375 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 doi (DE-627)SPR001590928 (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Wang, Lei verfasserin aut A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. Ambiguity acceptance test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fixed failure rate approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ratio test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Difference test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Threshold function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Verhagen, Sandra aut Enthalten in Journal of geodesy Berlin : Springer, 1995 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 (DE-627)271175389 (DE-600)1478938-3 1432-1394 nnns volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 89 2014 4 26 11 361-375 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 doi (DE-627)SPR001590928 (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Wang, Lei verfasserin aut A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. Ambiguity acceptance test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fixed failure rate approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ratio test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Difference test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Threshold function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Verhagen, Sandra aut Enthalten in Journal of geodesy Berlin : Springer, 1995 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 (DE-627)271175389 (DE-600)1478938-3 1432-1394 nnns volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 89 2014 4 26 11 361-375 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 doi (DE-627)SPR001590928 (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Wang, Lei verfasserin aut A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate 2014 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. Ambiguity acceptance test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fixed failure rate approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ratio test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Difference test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Threshold function (dpeaa)DE-He213 Verhagen, Sandra aut Enthalten in Journal of geodesy Berlin : Springer, 1995 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 (DE-627)271175389 (DE-600)1478938-3 1432-1394 nnns volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 89 2014 4 26 11 361-375 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Journal of geodesy 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Journal of geodesy 89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375 volume:89 year:2014 number:4 day:26 month:11 pages:361-375 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Ambiguity acceptance test Fixed failure rate approach Ratio test Difference test Threshold function |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Journal of geodesy |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Wang, Lei @@aut@@ Verhagen, Sandra @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2014-11-26T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
271175389 |
| id |
SPR001590928 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR001590928</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230327134057.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR001590928</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Lei</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ambiguity acceptance test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fixed failure rate approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ratio test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Difference test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Threshold function</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Verhagen, Sandra</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of geodesy</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : Springer, 1995</subfield><subfield code="g">89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)271175389</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1478938-3</subfield><subfield code="x">1432-1394</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:89</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:26</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:361-375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2446</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2472</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2548</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">89</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">26</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">361-375</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Wang, Lei |
| spellingShingle |
Wang, Lei misc Ambiguity acceptance test misc Fixed failure rate approach misc Ratio test misc Difference test misc Threshold function A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| authorStr |
Wang, Lei |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)271175389 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1432-1394 |
| topic_title |
A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate Ambiguity acceptance test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Fixed failure rate approach (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ratio test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Difference test (dpeaa)DE-He213 Threshold function (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Ambiguity acceptance test misc Fixed failure rate approach misc Ratio test misc Difference test misc Threshold function |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Ambiguity acceptance test misc Fixed failure rate approach misc Ratio test misc Difference test misc Threshold function |
| topic_browse |
misc Ambiguity acceptance test misc Fixed failure rate approach misc Ratio test misc Difference test misc Threshold function |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of geodesy |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
271175389 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of geodesy |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)271175389 (DE-600)1478938-3 |
| title |
A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR001590928 (SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e |
| title_full |
A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| author_sort |
Wang, Lei |
| journal |
Journal of geodesy |
| journalStr |
Journal of geodesy |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2014 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
361 |
| author_browse |
Wang, Lei Verhagen, Sandra |
| container_volume |
89 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Wang, Lei |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 |
| title_sort |
new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| title_auth |
A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| abstract |
Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_150 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_636 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2001 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2004 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2021 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2031 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2038 GBV_ILN_2039 GBV_ILN_2044 GBV_ILN_2048 GBV_ILN_2049 GBV_ILN_2050 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2059 GBV_ILN_2061 GBV_ILN_2064 GBV_ILN_2065 GBV_ILN_2068 GBV_ILN_2070 GBV_ILN_2086 GBV_ILN_2088 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_2106 GBV_ILN_2107 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_2112 GBV_ILN_2113 GBV_ILN_2116 GBV_ILN_2118 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2122 GBV_ILN_2129 GBV_ILN_2143 GBV_ILN_2144 GBV_ILN_2147 GBV_ILN_2148 GBV_ILN_2152 GBV_ILN_2153 GBV_ILN_2188 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2232 GBV_ILN_2336 GBV_ILN_2446 GBV_ILN_2470 GBV_ILN_2472 GBV_ILN_2507 GBV_ILN_2522 GBV_ILN_2548 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4035 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4046 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4242 GBV_ILN_4246 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4251 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4326 GBV_ILN_4333 GBV_ILN_4334 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4336 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4393 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Verhagen, Sandra |
| author2Str |
Verhagen, Sandra |
| ppnlink |
271175389 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T23:26:38.769Z |
| _version_ |
1803602308652597248 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR001590928</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230327134057.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR001590928</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00190-014-0780-2-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang, Lei</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A new ambiguity acceptance test threshold determination method with controllable failure rate</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract The ambiguity acceptance test is an important quality control procedure in high precision GNSS data processing. Although the ambiguity acceptance test methods have been extensively investigated, its threshold determine method is still not well understood. Currently, the threshold is determined with the empirical approach or the fixed failure rate (FF-) approach. The empirical approach is simple but lacking in theoretical basis, while the FF-approach is theoretical rigorous but computationally demanding. Hence, the key of the threshold determination problem is how to efficiently determine the threshold in a reasonable way. In this study, a new threshold determination method named threshold function method is proposed to reduce the complexity of the FF-approach. The threshold function method simplifies the FF-approach by a modeling procedure and an approximation procedure. The modeling procedure uses a rational function model to describe the relationship between the FF-difference test threshold and the integer least-squares (ILS) success rate. The approximation procedure replaces the ILS success rate with the easy-to-calculate integer bootstrapping (IB) success rate. Corresponding modeling error and approximation error are analysed with simulation data to avoid nuisance biases and unrealistic stochastic model impact. The results indicate the proposed method can greatly simplify the FF-approach without introducing significant modeling error. The threshold function method makes the fixed failure rate threshold determination method feasible for real-time applications.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ambiguity acceptance test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Fixed failure rate approach</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ratio test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Difference test</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Threshold function</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Verhagen, Sandra</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of geodesy</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : Springer, 1995</subfield><subfield code="g">89(2014), 4 vom: 26. Nov., Seite 361-375</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)271175389</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1478938-3</subfield><subfield code="x">1432-1394</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:89</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2014</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">day:26</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:361-375</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00190-014-0780-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_150</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_636</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2004</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2031</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2038</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2039</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2044</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2048</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2049</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2059</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2061</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2064</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2068</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2070</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2086</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2088</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2106</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2107</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2113</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2116</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2118</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2122</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2143</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2144</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2147</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2148</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2188</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2232</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2446</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2470</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2472</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2507</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2522</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2548</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4035</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4046</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4242</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4246</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4251</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4326</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4333</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4336</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4393</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">89</subfield><subfield code="j">2014</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="b">26</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">361-375</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4004107 |