30.08.2013 Views

The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation

The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation

The GNSS integer ambiguities: estimation and validation

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Unfortunately, this relatively simple approach cannot be applied when <strong>integer</strong> parameters<br />

are involved in the <strong>estimation</strong> process, since the <strong>integer</strong> estimators do not have a Gaussian<br />

distribution, even if the model is linear <strong>and</strong> the data are normally distributed. Instead of<br />

the vc-matrices, the parameter distribution itself has to be used in order to obtain the<br />

appropriate measures that can be used to validate the <strong>integer</strong> parameter solution.<br />

In the past, the problem of non-Gaussian parameter distributions was circumvented by<br />

simply ignoring the r<strong>and</strong>omness of the fixed ambiguity estimator. Several testing procedures<br />

for the <strong>validation</strong> of the fixed solution have been proposed using this approach.<br />

This section will give an overview <strong>and</strong> evaluation of these procedures, taken from (Verhagen<br />

2004).<br />

3.5.1 Integer <strong>validation</strong><br />

<strong>The</strong> first step in validating the float <strong>and</strong> fixed solution is to define three classes of<br />

hypotheses, (Teunissen 1998b). In practice the following hypotheses are used:<br />

H1 : y = Aa + Bb + e, a ∈ R n , b ∈ R p , e ∈ R m<br />

H2 : y ∈ R m , (3.71)<br />

H3 : y = Aǎ + Bb + e, b ∈ R p , e ∈ R m<br />

with Qy = σ 2 Gy for all hypotheses.<br />

In hypothesis H1 it is assumed that all unknown parameters are real-valued. In other<br />

words, the constraint that the <strong>ambiguities</strong> should be <strong>integer</strong>-valued is ignored. <strong>The</strong> float<br />

solution is thus the result of least-squares <strong>estimation</strong> under H1.<br />

In the third hypothesis the <strong>integer</strong> constraint is considered by assuming that the correct<br />

<strong>integer</strong> values of the <strong>ambiguities</strong> are known. <strong>The</strong> values are chosen equal to the fixed<br />

<strong>ambiguities</strong> obtained with <strong>integer</strong> least-squares. Hence, the least-squares solution under<br />

H3 corresponds to the fixed solution. Clearly, the first hypothesis is more relaxed than<br />

the third hypothesis, i.e. H3 ⊂ H1.<br />

<strong>The</strong> second hypothesis does not put any restrictions on y <strong>and</strong> is thus the most relaxed<br />

hypothesis.<br />

It will be assumed that the m-vector of observations y is normally distributed with a zeromean<br />

residual vector e. <strong>The</strong> matrix Gy is the cofactor matrix of the variance-covariance<br />

matrix Qy, <strong>and</strong> σ 2 is the variance factor of unit weight. <strong>The</strong> unbiased estimates of σ 2<br />

under H1 <strong>and</strong> H3 respectively are given by:<br />

H1 : ˆσ 2 = êT G −1<br />

y ê<br />

m − n − p =<br />

H3 : ˇσ 2 = ěT G −1<br />

y ě<br />

m − p = ˇ Ω<br />

m − p<br />

ˆΩ<br />

m − n − p<br />

(3.72)<br />

<strong>The</strong> denominators in (3.72) are equal to the redundancies under the corresponding<br />

hypotheses.<br />

58 Integer ambiguity resolution

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!