Search

Carrier phase signals are considered among the key observations in global navigation satellite systems (GNSSs) and several other high-precision inter-ferometric measurement systems. However, these ultra-precise measurements are not fully exploited when the integerness of their inherent ambiguities is discarded during the estimation process. Provided that the integer-estimable functions of their phase ambiguities are properly identified, integer ambiguity resolution (IAR) can be utilized to benefit their parameter solutions. For the GNSS code division multiple access systems with transmitters that broadcast carrier phase signals on identical frequencies, these integer-estimable functions have been characterized and are well-known as double differenced ambiguities. However, this is not the case with "frequency-varying" carrier phase signals that are broadcast by GLONASS satellites, Low-Earth-Orbiting communication satellites, or cellular long-term evolution (LTE) transmitters. This study aims to present full-rank models that can be used to identify integer-estimable ambiguity functions, thereby bringing the observation equations of frequency-varying carrier phase measurements into an IAR-applicable form. Our analytical results are supported by several numerical examples, including GNSS and terrestrial-based IAR as well as a new set of "inter-frequency" integer ambiguities that this study discovers in Galileo multi-frequency carrier phase signals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Minimal Detectable Bias (MDB) is an important diagnostic tool in data quality control. The MDB is traditionally computed for the case of testing the null hypothesis against a single alternative hypothesis. In the actual practice of statistical testing and data quality control, however, multiple alternative hypotheses are considered. We show that this has two important consequences for one's interpretation and use of the popular MDB. First, we demonstrate that care should be exercised in using the single-hypothesis-based MDB for the multiple hypotheses case. Second, we show that for identification purposes, not the MDB, but the Minimal Identifiable Bias (MIB) should be used as the proper diagnostic tool. We analyse the circumstances that drive the differences between the MDBs and MIBs, show how they can be computed using Monte Carlo simulation and illustrate by means of examples the significant differences that one can experience between detectability and identifiability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]