91 visualizações

Enviado por Pablo Córdova

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- A I I E Transactions Volume 11 Issue 4 1979 [Doi 10.1080_05695557908974471] Muth, Eginhard J.; White, John a. -- Conveyor Theory- A Survey
- Landscape effects on stream temperature in Minnesota streams of the Lake Superior Basin (306-star08-08)
- Package Survey
- HuberC-SEMWorkshop
- Does Financial Education Influence Savings Behavior_Sarr_Sadhu_Fiala
- US Consumer Inflation Model - June 2010
- A Correlation Between Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Values and P
- Active Learning Literature Survey
- Logistic Regression Approach to Software Reliability Engineering with Failure Prediction
- State-Space Analysis of Time-varying Higher-order Spike Correlation for Multiple Neural Spike Train Data
- 1-s2.0-0165011488901133-main
- R - CDM Manual
- Mathematical Model@Abhishek
- Site-To-Site Variation of Synonymous Substitution Rates
- 8 model psihosomatic al familiei cu astm la copii.pdf
- 06-96-57
- occupancy in presence
- Time Series Project
- Forecasting Counts
- Bayesian Data Mining, With Application to Bench Marking and Credit Scoring

Você está na página 1de 4

Lingli Zhao,Shuai Liu , Junsheng Li, Haicheng Xu School of Engineering, Honghe University, Mengzi, P.R.China ,661100 e-mail:zll_csu@126.com Lingli Zhao, Shuai Liu School of Info-Physics and Geomatics Engineering, Central South University, Changsha , P.R.China,410083

AbstractPolynomial fitting method is widely used in GPS height conversion into normal heights in survey engineering and whcih has become a hotspot. Different models used in different area of interpolation have different precisions, therefore, it is very important to optimize model before GPS height conversion in order to obtain high precision. Lots of engineering practice has proven that The conicoid model could satisfied forth degree demand, but there is no proof why the conicoid model is better. So, the paper introduce AIC to choose the better model for transforming GPS height, we separate the value of AIC into two parts, AICin and AICout, then add them up to obtain the total value, AICtotal, which could testify which model is the best model comparing with the relative information. The experiments show that the optimization model for GPS height fitting considering of AIC criterion is valid and something useful is concluded. Keywords- AIC; GPS height; optimization model; polynomial fitting

and N of these known points, N=f(X,Y) , using this model we could calculate the N of other GPS points ,namely, the points of interpolation by their plan coordinates X and Y. Then, we could get the H by the formula H=h-N. [2][3][4][5][6] There are many mathematical models in fitting methods, different models used in different area of interpolation have different precisions, therefore, it is very important to optimize model before GPS height conversion in order to obtain high precision. Lots of engineering practice has proven that The conicoid model could satisfied forth degree demand, but there is no proof why the conicoid model is better. Akaike's information criterion [7], developed by Hirotsugu Akaike under the name of "an information criterion" (AIC) in 1971 and proposed in Akaike (1974), is a measure of the goodness of fit of an estimated statistical model. So, the paper introduce AIC to choose the better model for transforming GPS height, we separate the value of AIC into two parts, AICin and AICout, then add them up to obtain the total value, AICtotal, which could testify which model is the best model comparing with the relative information. The experiments show that the optimization model for GPS height fitting considering of AIC criterion is valid and something useful is concluded.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of the position of the geoid with respect to the WGS84 ellipsoid is required to transform GPS (Globe Position System)-derived ellipsoidal heights (h) to physically meaningful orthometric heights, in the application of survey engineering, regardless of the [small] curvature of the plumblines, adopting normal heights (H) to stand for orthometric heights while quasi-geoid (N) stand for geoid, we could get the formula H = h-N (1) However, the Quasi-geoid (N) could not be obtained directly, and we could not transfer GPS heights (h) to normal heights (H) accurately. Conventional geometry leveling is the main method to determine H, but this method has poor efficiency. GPS positioning has the quality of high precision in position, rapid speed, and simple manipulation etc. Therefore, how to utilize GPS positioning to deal with the heights problem has become a hotspot in survey engineering. GIS fitting method is adopted in GPS heights conversion in a small certain area. A solution is sought the points where colocated by GPS (getting h) and geometry leveling (getting H) in certain area, and we could get the values of Quasi-geoid of these points (N=h-H) [1]. We call these points GPS/leveling points, namely the known points. In this method, we consider the Quasi-geoid in a certain area of interpolation to be a polynomial surface or other mathematical model, then we can construct the mathematical model by the plan coordinates X, Y

II.

Supposed that one point A(x, y) in an area of interpolation, its Quasi-geoid value is N, they relationship could be expressed:

f (x, y) = a0 + a1x + a2 y + a3xy+ a4x2 + a5 y2 + a6x2 y + a7 y2x + a8x3 + a9 y3 +

If there are n points, we could get the below matrix

(2)

(3)

N = AX +

1 x1 1 x2 A = 1 x3 1 xn a0 a1 X = a2 an

y1 y2 y3 yn

x1 y1 x2 y2 x3 y3 xn yn

Where

0 1 = 2 n

III.

We could get the values of X under least square , then back to formula (3), we could get any points Quasi-geoid value and obtain normal heights. In formula (3), if unknown number is one degree term, called plane model fitting, if unknown number is quadratic term, called the conicoid model fitting, if unknown number is three degree term, called three degree model fitting, they geometrical models are showed in Figure 1 ,Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively.

Akaike's information criterion, developed by Hirotsugu Akaike under the name of "an information criterion" (AIC) in 1971 and proposed in Akaike (1974), is a measure of the goodness of fit of an estimated statistical model. It is grounded in the concept of entropy, in effect offering a relative measure of the information lost when a given model is used to describe reality and can be said to describe the tradeoff between bias and variance in model construction, or loosely speaking that of precision and complexity of the model [7]. The AIC is not a test on the model in the sense of hypothesis testing; rather it is a tool for model selection. Given a data set, several competing models may be ranked according to their AIC, with the one having the lowest AIC being the best. From the AIC value one may infer that e.g the top three models are in a tie and the rest are far worse, but one should not assign a value above which a given model is 'rejected'.[8] In the general case, the AIC is

Where m is the number of parameters in the statistical model and n is the number of the calculation for the estimated model. In GPS height conversion m=3 if adopting plane model, m=6 if adopting conicoid model, m=10 if adopting three degree model. If we choose 20 GPS/leveling points, n=20 for the three models. is residual sum of squares. There are two kinds of errors in GPS height conversion, the one is from the known points; the other is from the checking points. For every chosen model, we could calculate two values of AIC by formula (5), they are AICin and AICout respectively, and however, we should take both of them into account to optimize a model and obtain which model is better, the value of AIC is lager and the model is better, Add both of AIC values to justify which model is better.

2

IV.

Figure 2. The conicoid model

EXPERIMENTS

A city area made a E-class GPS control net, the area is about 500 km2, the number of the control points is 153 and the number of GPS/leveling points of these control points is 58.

We pick up 13 GPS/leveling points showed in Figure 4, and make two tests to optimize model.

conicoid model and three degree model, which one is the best model, the other two points as checking points, and the results are showed in table . Test 2: There are 13 GPS/leveling points showed in Figure 4, choosing 9 of them distributed equably in area of interpolation as known points to optimize plane model, conicoid model and three degree model, which one is the best model, the other four points as checking points and the results are showed in table . Table and table give the known points and the checking points mean square errors, minimum errors, max

., errors and AIC values. Mean square errors are AIC values are calculated by formula (5). K.P and C.P stands for the known points and the checking points respectively.

Figure 4. The distribution of 13 GPS/leveling points

V T PV r

Test 1: There are 13 GPS/leveling points showed in Figure 4, choosing 11 of them distributed equably in area of interpolation as known points to optimize plane model,

Table I. Model Three models precisions comparability and AIC values in test 1 Minimum errors (cm)

K.P C.P

K.P C.P

K.P C.P AICin

AIC values

AICout AICtotal

K.P C.P

Two models precisions comparability and AIC values in test 2 Minimum errors (cm)

K.P C.P

K.P C.P AICin

AIC values

AICout AICtotal

plane conicoid

3.25 .58

3.36 1.44

-.34 -.03

-.03 -.37

4.7 .69

-5.67 -2.18

8.69 11.24

8.76 13.06

17.45 24.30

From table , we could see that the best model is the three degree model, then the conicoid model and the plane model. From the precision comparability, we could see that the AIC as optimization model for GPS height fitting is valid. Moreover, the three degree model has better precision than the conicoid model in known points, while the conicoid model has better precision than the three degree model in checking points, and the three degree model needs more GPS/leveling points , which has more workflow.

From table , we could see that the conicoid model is better that the plane model, AIC testifies it is valid to optimize model for GPS height fitting. V. CONCLUSIONS

To Sum up, the fitting precisions is much related with fitting models, if we choose the three degree model , the precision is a little better, but we need to have more GPS/leveling points and increase workflow, and it is not obvious to improve precision compared with the conicoid model. What we should pay attention is that both the three

degree model and the conicoid model have one convexity or concave, we should guarantee that there be one convexity or concave in fitting as possible otherwise the fitting model may be fuzzy and its result will not optimize the fitting model by AIC. The paper introduce AIC criterion to choose the better model for transforming GPS height, separating the value of AIC into two parts, AICin and AICout, then add them up to obtain the total value, AICtotal, which could testify which model is the best model comparing with the relative information in the experiments. The experiments show that the optimization model for GPS height fitting considering of AIC is valid and we get a conclusion the conicoid model is better model which has widely used in survey engineering.

[2]

[3]

REFERENCES

[1] Featherstone WE, Sproule DM (2006). Fitting AUSGeoid98 to the Australian Height Datum using GPS data and least squares collocation:

[7] [8]

application of a cross-validation technique,Survey Review 38(301): 573-582. Papp G, Kalmr J 1996: Interpretation of local geoid undulations in the Pannonian Basin. sterreichische Beitrge zu Meteorologie und Geophysik. Proceedings of the 7th International Meeting on Alphine Gravimetry. pp. 95-96. McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5, 115-133. Minsky, M., & Papert, S. (1969). Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry. The MIT Press. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations by backpropagating errors. Nature, 323, 533-536. Werbos, P. J. (1974). Beyond Regression: New Tools for Prediction and Analysis in the Behav-ioral Sciences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akaike_information_criterion Akaike, Hirotugu (1974). "A new look at the statistical model identification". IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 19 (6): 716 723. doi:10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705. MR0423716.

- A I I E Transactions Volume 11 Issue 4 1979 [Doi 10.1080_05695557908974471] Muth, Eginhard J.; White, John a. -- Conveyor Theory- A SurveyEnviado porTio Dwi Laksono
- Landscape effects on stream temperature in Minnesota streams of the Lake Superior Basin (306-star08-08)Enviado porMinnesota's Lake Superior Coastal Program
- Package SurveyEnviado poroctavioascheri
- HuberC-SEMWorkshopEnviado porAndré Santana
- Does Financial Education Influence Savings Behavior_Sarr_Sadhu_FialaEnviado porDetteDeCastro
- US Consumer Inflation Model - June 2010Enviado porWallstreetable
- A Correlation Between Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Values and PEnviado porgaddargaddar
- Active Learning Literature SurveyEnviado porsootos
- Logistic Regression Approach to Software Reliability Engineering with Failure PredictionEnviado porijsea
- State-Space Analysis of Time-varying Higher-order Spike Correlation for Multiple Neural Spike Train DataEnviado porshimazaki
- 1-s2.0-0165011488901133-mainEnviado porHidayah Nurul Hasanah Zen
- R - CDM ManualEnviado porAlexandre Peres
- Mathematical Model@AbhishekEnviado porakuril
- Site-To-Site Variation of Synonymous Substitution RatesEnviado porYves Semegni
- 8 model psihosomatic al familiei cu astm la copii.pdfEnviado porCailean Daniela Veronica
- 06-96-57Enviado porJEms AEron
- occupancy in presenceEnviado poralina1194
- Time Series ProjectEnviado porMuhammad Saddam Kasuri
- Forecasting CountsEnviado pordiguruis
- Bayesian Data Mining, With Application to Bench Marking and Credit ScoringEnviado porNedim Hifziefendic
- Pena (2006). Graphical Model for Fishers DiscriminantEnviado porJohn Kirk
- Inventory ControlEnviado porZetsu Black
- Lagging Effects of the Use of Activity-Based Costing on the Financial Performance of Small FirmsEnviado porLilian Brodesco
- Inferring 3d structureEnviado porfrank
- Artis Et Al 2004 Hidden PeriodicitiesEnviado porYudha Yudhanto
- WSPC-WP-01-0913_block rate water budgets so cal v2.pdfEnviado porNasr jobair
- OutputEnviado porasriniadesilia
- Demand Nodel QuebecEnviado porAmir Joon
- Report.docxEnviado porAninda Dutta
- Monthly Sales dataEnviado porsrivatsav

- testquestionEnviado porzhanje
- AUSST_technote_v2_0Enviado porAjay_mane22
- 802Dsl_FB_0505_enEnviado porplasticos_jfm6580
- lab6microcontroller-110627222931-phpapp02Enviado porMemikat Cahaya
- EMS_User_Guide_7.0Enviado porLewis Obi
- ch09solEnviado porEric Martin
- ymrtc_log.txtEnviado porDarmawan Syah
- 21 Sharath CVEnviado porchatuusumitava
- PANASONIC MN FP Webserver User Peweu EngEnviado porrmorenodx4587
- Call for Papers 2018 SISOM & ACOUSTICS First Ann (1)Enviado porIacob Nicolae
- Legal Entity[1]Enviado porAmit Moon
- resume of masrur 17Enviado porapi-447380813
- Z77 Memory ReportEnviado porاحمد جاسم شكاره
- Production Planning and ControlEnviado porRaksha Gavli
- History Performance TRM 3G Packet Loss Daily 20181030104345(UTC 09 00) 2Enviado porreza
- cclientserverEnviado porSangita Ajay
- Assembly InstEnviado porYomna Mohsen
- Web Development Company | eCommerce Solutions | SEO Company India | Web Solution-TGRPLEnviado porthirdresources
- cdc for ZOSEnviado porWaseem Ahmed
- Artificial IntelligenceEnviado porleenamanta
- Front Pages.docxEnviado porNaveen Jaswal
- REJ525_B320Enviado porkra_am
- MAXIMA：Science and Engineering ApplicationsEnviado porteo2005
- How To Make A Simple iPhone Game with Cocos2D 3.0 Tutorial | Ray Wenderlich.pdfEnviado porGabriel A. Velasquez
- Risk Acceptance FormEnviado porYdeNawaytes
- Accelya KaleEnviado porAjinkya
- 12_12 PHS_ISSUU.pdfEnviado porLina Marcela
- TCP IP_4Enviado porapi-19663123
- Project MingleSpot DocsEnviado porअनिकेत कुमार चौबे
- Imp Jsp & Serv QueEnviado porvaishnavipadmanabhan