Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634
www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

Backward smoothing for precise GNSS applications

Pavel Vaclavovic ⇑,1, Jan Dousa
Geodetic Observatory Pecny, Research Institute of Geodesy, Topography and Cartography, Czech Republic

Received 2 February 2015; received in revised form 16 July 2015; accepted 17 July 2015
Available online 26 July 2015

Abstract

The Extended Kalman filter is widely used for its robustness and simple implementation. Parameters estimated for solving dynamical
systems usually require certain time to converge and need to be smoothed by a dedicated algorithms. The purpose of our study was to
implement smoothing algorithms for processing both code and carrier phase observations with Precise Point Positioning method. We
implemented and used the well known Rauch–Tung–Striebel smoother (RTS). It has been found out that the RTS suffer from significant
numerical instability in smoothed state covariance matrix determination. We improved the processing with algorithms based on Singular
Value Decomposition, which was more robust. Observations from many permanent stations have been processed with final orbits and
clocks provided by the International GNSS service (IGS), and the smoothing improved stability and precision in every cases. Moreover,
(re)convergence of the parameters were always successfully eliminated.
Ó 2015 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: GNSS; Kalman filter; Backward smoothing; Ambiguity; Precise Point Positioning

1. Introduction are updated based on new observations. The Kalman filter

The Extended Kalman filter, Anderson and Moore
(1979), is widely used in many technical branches for its
robustness and simple implementation. Compared to batch
least squares adjustment when many observations from
many epochs are processed, and no parameter is
pre-eliminated, the Kalman filter can work with matrices
of lower dimension. The reason is that the Kalman filter
processes epoch by epoch. Therefore; the processing is
computationally more efficient, particularly in kinematic
applications. The filtering technique became entirely pow-
erful especially in solving dynamical systems in real time.
The filter is initiated with a priori state vector with its
covariance matrix and then all the unknown parameters
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pavel.vaclavovic@pecny.cz (P. Vaclavovic).
URL: http://www.pecny.cz (P. Vaclavovic).
1
The author is currently a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Civil
Engineering of the Czech Technical University in Prague.
is a recursive algorithm, and every estimated parameter
depends on current as well as all previous epochs. Due to
this fact, required unknowns need certain time to converge.
Assuming that someone is interested in parameters esti-
mated during initialisation period, the precision must be
improved by applying a smoothing algorithm. Such
approach cannot be actually used in real-time but only in
post-processing mode because observations from all previ-
ous epochs as well as from all next epochs contribute to
an estimation. This procedure exploits converged precise
parameters and recalculates the parameters in every epoch
in the backward direction. Nevertheless, many researchers,
such as geophysics, and climatologists do not need only real
time processing, but they are also often interested in pro-
cessing historical data with the best accuracy. Moreover, a
smoothing helps not only to improve the accuracy after cold
start but also along the entire processing interval.
Several scientific papers dealing with a smoothing in
the field of geodesy or mathematics were published.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.07.020
0273-1177/Ó 2015 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1628 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634
Rauch et al. (August 1965) developed the recursive algorithm
known as Rauch–Tung–Striebel smoother (RTS) which is
based on results from the previous forward filter in each
epoch. Zhang et al. (1996) pointed out that the smoother
covariance recursion is very sensitive to the round off error
and suggested to implement the new robust algorithm based
on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). An alternative
for the RTS was published by Bryson et al. (1962) but with
the equivalent numerical problem. Park et al. (1994) devel-
oped new square root forms for smoothing formulas.
Cao et al. (2008) implemented the RTS for carrying out
the GPS positioning with code data from low cost receiver.
However, they have not confronted the numerical weakness
because the precise carrier phase data were not used.
Therefore, the aim of our study was to use the backward
smoothing for processing the most precise carrier phase
observations. We processed both code and phase observa-
tions on undifferenced level, and we used precise satellite
orbits and clocks products provided by the International
GNSS service (IGS), Dow et al. (2009). We applied all nec-
essary correction models, such as tidal displacements,
atmospheric effects, phase wind-up, antenna phase center
offsets and variations. Introducing the precise satellite
orbits and clocks is the principle of Precise Point
Positioning (PPP), Kouba and Heroux (2001). The imple-
mentation was done within the framework of the project
at the Geodetic Observatory Pecny in the Czech Republic
dealing with development of the software library called
G-Nut, Vaclavovic et al. (2013). This software employs
the PPP strategy for precise positioning or troposphere
monitoring in post-processing as well as in real time.
The first section of this investigation will summarize the
smoothing theory. The next sections will describe the non-
linear system model and the processing scheme. The plots
of achieved coordinates and tropospheric time series will
be presented afterwards. Finally, in the conclusion, we will
summarise results, limitations, and usage of the backward
smoothing.
2. Smoothing theory
The Kalman filtering and smoothing are based on min-
imum variance estimation where both parameters and
observations comply with Gaussian distribution. They are
generally developed for discrete linear systems, neverthe-
less, each nonlinear system can be linearised via Tailor
Series. Such a linear system can be described by the follow-
ing equations
xkþ1 ¼ Uk xk þ ek
Rkþ1 ¼ Uk Rk UTk þ Rek
z k ¼ Ak x k þ v k
The subscript is a time argument. e is a state noise, and Re
is a noise covariance matrix. A is usually called design
matrix and v post fit residuals. U is a transition matrix
describing state transformation between two consecutive
epochs. A state vector x at the epoch k can be expressed
as a conditional mean given observations z from epochs
1; 2; . . . ; N :
^xkjN ¼ E½X k jz1 ; z2 ; . . . ; zN 
Three cases can occur: k > N ; k ¼ N or k < N which are
termed as prediction, filtering or smoothing. As this paper
is dealing only with smoothing, the prediction and filtering
issues are referred to a literature for details (e.g. Anderson
and Moore, 1979).
There are three types of smoother: fixed point, fixed lag
and fixed interval. The fixed point smoother estimates xk
for constant k and all N. The fixed lag smoother addresses
achieving xk for constant delay between observation recep-
tion and state vector estimation. The fixed interval
smoother, which will be discussed in this paper, uses all
data from fixed N epochs to estimate the state at each
epoch. Therefore, it can be used only for post-processing.
The distinct advantage of all kinds of smoothers is that
more data are used than in case of forward filtering only,
so the estimation is expected to be more precise. The stan-
dard RTS algorithm works with stored results from the
Kalman filter and can be expressed in the recursive formula
^xkjN ¼ ^xkjk þ C k ð^xkþ1jN  ^xkþ1jk Þ ð1Þ
C k ¼ Rkjk UR1
kþ1jk
RkjN ¼ R1 T
kjk þ C k ðRkþ1jN  Rkþ1jk ÞC k ð2Þ
where ^xkjN ; RkjN are smoothed state and covariance matrix,
^xkjk ; Rkjk are updated state and covariance matrix, and
^xkþ1jk ; Rkþ1jk are predicted state and covariance matrix. C
is usually called smoother gain. U was identity in our study
because we did not assume receiver motion. However, the
algorithm works also with data from moving receivers
because a transition matrix does not influence the equa-
tions stability. The recursion starts at N th epoch and con-
tinues down to the first one.
As mentioned in the previous paragraph, these equa-
tions suffer from numerical problems. This shortcoming
is addressed, for instance, in Zhang et al. (1996). Since
the smoothed covariance matrix is computed by differenc-
ing two matrices it is not guaranteed that the matrix remain
positive semidefinite. A solution based on SVD is proposed
in the mentioned paper. The new proposed approach differ
from the standard RTS technique only in estimating
smoothed covariance matrix because equations for
smoothing state vector are robust enough. The
SVD-based modified equations can be derived as follows.
If RkjN is symmetric and positive semidefinite it can be
decomposed by SVD for all k and N
RkjN ¼ U kjN DkjN U TkjN ð3Þ
where U ; D are an orthogonal and a diagonal matrix,
respectively. The problem is transformed into seeking for-
mulas for U kjN and DkjN . Let us introduce temporal vari-
ables T 1 and T 2 and their SVD decomposition
 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634
2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
1
T1 ¼ 4 Rek Uk 5 ¼ U k Dk V Tk
D1 T
kjk U kjk
" #
D1k Vk
T
T2 ¼  kD
¼U  k V T
k
Dkþ1jN U kþ1jN C Tk
T
After multiplying both sides by their transpose and making
several algebraic manipulations, the quantities U kjN ; DkjN
are expressed as
U kjN ¼ V k
DkjN ¼ D k DT
k
Finally, the resulted smoothed covariance matrix is com-
posed by the Eq. (3). The state is given by the Eq. (1).
3. Observation model
The proposed algorithms were used for processing
undifferenced GNSS code (P) and carrier phase (L) obser-
vations to produce state vector containing receiver coordi-
nates, tropospheric zenith total delay (ZTD), receiver
clocks and ambiguities. Dual frequency P and L data were
used to form ionosphere-free (IF) linear combinations
(subscript 3 in Eqs. (5) and (6)) to eliminate first order of
the ionospheric effect. The observation equation for the
IF linear combination can be formulated for receiver A
and satellite i as
P iA3 ¼ qiA þ cdA þ mf ZTDA þ cDP A3 þ cDP i3
LiA3 ¼ qiA þ cdA þ mf ZTDA þ cDLA3  cDLi3 þ kf N iA3
q is a geometry distance between phase centres of a satellite
at signal emission time and a receiver at signal reception
time, respectively. c is the speed of light in vacuum, d is a
receiver clock bias. ZTD is mapped to slant delays by an
elevation dependent mapping function mf . DP is a code
bias and DL is a phase bias. k and N are the IF wavelength
and the IF ambiguity, respectively. DP includes hardware
delays of code signals at a receiver and a satellite. While
such delays at a satellite can be modelled by Differential
Code Bias (DCB), delays at a receiver vanish in the receiver
clock parameter. DL was not modelled but absorbed by
ambiguity float values and receiver clocks. Additional
modelling of DL is necessary for integer ambiguity resolu-
tion, Mervart et al. (2008).
The precise IGS orbits are referred to the satellite center
of mass; therefore, phase center offsets and variations had
to be considered. Other corrections, such as solid earth
tides, ocean tide loading, phase wind-up, and relativistic
effect were applied. The zenith total delay was separated
into two parts: hydrostatic (ZHD) and wet (ZWD).
While the ZHD can be corrected by the Saastamoinen tro-
pospheric model the ZWD had to be estimated. Both com-
ponents were mapped to slant delays by different mapping
functions. All the parameters were modelled as stochastic
processes. The receiver clock was estimated independently
1629
every epoch as a white noise process. The receiver coordi-
ð4Þ nates were modelled also as a white noise with different
variances for a static and a kinematic solution. The ZWD
was described with the random walk process and the ambi-
guities with constants according to their definition.
4. The processing scheme
The state vector dimension is usually not constant in
GNSS applications. As new satellites are observed or
another satellites disappeared behind the horizon, ambigu-
ities are introduced or removed from the state vector. This
section will describe the processing scheme and highlight
weaknesses of this approach.
Fig. 1 illustrates filtering and smoothing algorithm
implemented in our software. The processing started with
a priori state and appropriate covariance matrix. A priori
receiver coordinates with their precision can be introduced
in our software by a user or calculated from code data. A
priori receiver clocks had to be determined from code data
independently every epoch, and ZHD was taken from the
Saastamoinen model. After the state vector is initialized,
it is predicted to the next epoch. The prediction consisted
of adding the noise matrix into the covariance matrix
and adding or removing ambiguities from the state vector
if necessary. A new ambiguity was introduced when new
satellite started to be observed, and it was removed when
either particular satellite disappeared behind the horizon,
or when a cycle slip occurred. The flowchart demonstrated
ð5Þ by Fig. 1 does not contain preprocessing because it is
ð6Þ
Initialization of X and Q k = N -1
k=1
synchronisation epoch
Kalman filter k with epoch k+1
(Square root)
smoother prediction
save predicted
and updated X, Q
smoother update
k = k +1
k = k -1
YES
k<N print smoothed X, Q
NO
YES
k>1
NO
END
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the Kalman filter with the backward smoothing.
1630 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634

performed before the processing part. The transition Table 1

matrix was equal to identity. The next step was a filter
update. The Kalman filter is sufficient for less precise obser-
vations (i.e. code data), but for precise carrier phase mea-
surements, the square root formula, Anderson and
Moore (1979), is necessary for increasing the numerical sta-
bility. The state vector with covariance matrix were stored
from the prediction as well as from the update.
When all N epochs were filtered the smoothing could
start in the backward direction. Since the algorithm was
recursive, two consecutive epochs need to be synchronised.
It means that only common parameters remained, and the
rest of them were removed. It is extremely important that
every elements in the state vector belong to the right row
and column in the covariance matrix after each manipula-
tion. Removing a parameter in the forward pass means that
the same parameter had to be introduced in the backward
pass. However, if the parameter has not converged within
the forward filter, its variance on the diagonal of the
covariance matrix had to be increased by additional noise
in the smoothing. It was important because each ambiguity
was estimated as a constant, and, consequently, the
smoothing did not allow ambiguity to change in time.
This procedure is called the smoothing prediction in the
flowchart, and it was necessary, particularly when observa-
tion data contained short intervals for initialisation of
ambiguities. When it was omitted it behaved like a system-
atic error. After that, the state vector could be smoothed
according to the Eq. (1).
Determination of the smoothed covariance matrix was
more difficult since the Eq. (2) suffers from numerical insta-
bilities. Therefore, the alternative procedure based on SVD
decomposition described in the theory section was used.
However, Eq. (3) requires inversion of the noise covariance
matrix, which usually contains zero elements on the diago-
nal for parameters estimated as constant. Since the inver-
sion of such a matrix is not allowed, all zero values were
increased by very small noise 1e10. We used such value
without thorough investigation but only due to our good
experience. If the noise of the static coordinate or the ambi-
guity was 1e10 instead of 0 the algorithm worked stably
and the parameters remained constant in practice.
5. Results
The presented algorithms were implemented in the
G-Nut software developed at the Geodetic Observatory
Pecny in Czech Republic. Data from many permanent sta-
tions worldwide were processed in a post-processing mode
with IGS final orbits and clocks following the PPP method.
Table 1 provides summary of the processing strategy. Fig. 3
shows estimated ZTDs together with EUREF (Regional
Reference Frame Sub-Commission for Europe) final com-
bined products for the same station at the same period as
the coordinates. We kept coordinates static in this solution
when we focused on ZTDs estimation. However, we tried
also to estimate coordinates as pseudo-kinematic. Fig. 2
The processing strategy.
Software G-Nut/Tefnut
Processing technique PPP
Orbits, clocks IGS final
Adjustment Square root Kalman filter, backward
smoothing
GNSS GPS
Sampling rate 300 s
Ionosphere First order eliminated by the ionosphere-
free combination
Data weight P 3: 2 m
L3 : 1 cm
Troposphere ZHD: Saastamoinen
ZWD: estimated
Mapping function GMF DRY, GMF WET
Elevation angle cutoff 5 degrees
ZWD random walk 5 mm/sqrt(hour)
Ambiguity float
Tidal ocean loading: GOT00.2
solid earth tides: IERS convention 1996
atmospheric loading: not applied
Phase center PCO + PCV
demonstrates achieved pseudo-kinematic daily positioning
for a station DYNG in Greece during April 10, 2013.
The three top plots demonstrate north, east, and up coor-
dinate components, and the zero lines represent their medi-
ans. The bottom plot shows number of satellites used in the
processing. The both plots demonstrates typical conver-
gence effect of all the parameters when only forward filter
is applied. It took up to one hour until all coordinates
and ZTDs became stable. A priori coordinates were calcu-
lated using code data obtaining precision of about several
meters. A priori zenith wet delay was taken from the
Saastamoinen troposphere model. Fig. 2 shows that all
the components of the achieved coordinates from the for-
ward Kalman filter lost their stability between 9 p.m. and
about 10 p.m. Looking at the bottom plot of the Fig. 2 dis-
playing number of processed satellites indicates that the
instability could be caused by decreased number of visible
satellites. However, the results from the backward smooth-
ing are very stable during such period. The smoothing is
dependent on filter results and starts from the end of the fil-
ter processing. Therefore, if the filter finishes with con-
verged stable results the smoothing is well initialized, and
precise parameters can be exploited in recomputing in a
backward direction. Due to this fact, short (re)conver-
gences can be avoided and smoothed. Smoothed ZTDs,
see Fig. 3, could be also considered as more accurate and
can be found more consistent with the EUREF final
products.
The state vector was sufficiently estimated by the stan-
dard RTS formula, but the RTS algorithms usually failed
in smoothing the covariance matrix. The reason is
explained in the second section of the paper. Fig. 4 shows
formal errors of estimated ZTDs. While the top plot shows
errors of smoothed ZTDs estimated by the RTS, the bot-
tom plot shows achieved precision estimated by SVD
 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634 1631

0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10

N [m]
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30 backward
-0.40
forward
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
E [m]

0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30 backward
-0.40
forward
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
U [m]

0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30 backward
-0.40
forward
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
10-APR-2014
20

15
#Sat

10

0
Number of satellites used in the processing
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
10-APR-2014

Fig. 2. Kinematic solution for coordinates based on the forward filter and the backward smoothing. The three top plots show north, east, and up station
coordinate components and the bottom plot shows number of satellites used in the processing during the day.

2.30

2.28
ZTD [m]

2.26

2.24
backward
forward
2.22
EUREF reference product
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
10-APR-2014

Fig. 3. Kinematic solution for troposphere based on the forward filter and the backward smoothing. Zenith total delays are displayed together with the
EUREF final combined products.
1632 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634

modification. The bottom plot shows that the alternative results are station dependant. It can be explained by vari-
approach using SVD is more robust and sufficient because able length of time parameters become stable after cold
negative values were obtained by the RTS time to time. start, which is caused by different quality of code observa-
Fig. 4 also demonstrates that smoothed parameters are tions at different stations. The backward smoothing
more precise than filtered ones along the entire processing exploits already stable parameters, particularly carrier
interval. Similar figure could be shown for all remaining phase ambiguities, and therefore the RMS of smoothed
parameters besides ZTD. ZTDs is less station dependant.
We processed RINEX (Receiver Independent Exchange Pseudo-kinematic coordinates solution has been per-
Format) files with daily observations of sixteen stations of formed for the same sixteen EPN stations and the same
the EUREF Permanent network (EPN) since day of year period. Fig. 6 shows RMS of achieved kinematic coordi-
001 until 100 of 2014, and we estimated ZTDs for those nates from the forward filter only, and Fig. 7 shows
stations via forward filter only as well as backward RMS of achieved coordinates from the backward smooth-
smoothing. Coordinates were kept static in this analysis. ing. We can see that the precision has been improved at
We compared achieved ZTDs to EUREF combined final every station by applying the smoothing algorithm. The
products, and Fig. 5 shows RMS of the differences. It RMS has been decreased mainly due to improving preci-
can be inferred that smoothed ZTDs are more accurate sion after cold starts and after all re-convergences, which
with respect to the EUREF final products at all the sta- can be seen, for instance, on Fig. 2 before 10 p.m. The
tions. We can also see that the RMS of forward filter coordinates of the station DRES has been estimated with

10
backward
forward
8
sqrt(Qii) [mm]

0
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
10-APR-2014
10
backward
forward
8
sqrt(Qii) [mm]

0
00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00
10-APR-2014

Fig. 4. Achieved precision from the algorithm based on standard RTS formula (top) and SVD modification (bottom). The curve with triangles illustrates
square root of variance of ZTD from forward filter and the curve with circles from the backward smoothing.

16
Forward filter Backward smoothing
14
12
ZTD RMS [mm]

10
8
6
4
2
0
WROC
WTZR

GOPE
HOFN
CASC

BRUX

DRES

GRAZ
HERT

POTS

REYK

DENT
MALL

PDEL
NICO

KIRU

Fig. 5. The RMS of differences between EUREF final combined ZTDs and our achieved ZTDs from forward filter or backward smoothing. The plot
shows the comparison for 16 EPN stations.
 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634 1633

20
North
East
Up

Coordinates RMS [cm]

15

10

WROC
WTZR

GOPE
HOFN
CASC

BRUX

DRES

GRAZ
HERT

POTS

REYK

DENT
MALL

PDEL
NICO

KIRU
Fig. 6. The RMS of coordinates from pseudo-kinematic solution based on forward filter only. The plot shows the RMS for 16 EPN stations.

20
North
East
Up
Coordinates RMS [cm]

15

10

WROC
GOPE
WTZR
HOFN
CASC

BRUX

DRES

GRAZ
HERT

POTS

REYK

DENT
MALL

PDEL
NICO

KIRU
Fig. 7. The RMS of coordinates from pseudo-kinematic solution based on backward smoothing. The plot shows the RMS for 16 EPN stations.

worse precision compared to other stations. It needs our problems were caused by round off error when subtracting
further investigation and improving robustness of our soft- two very similar matrices. This problem was solved with
ware. On the other hand, it demonstrates that the smooth- reformulating the equations exploiting the SVD matrix
ing algorithm depends on results from forward filter, decomposition.
therefore, if a processing fails in the forward run due to The disadvantage of the algorithm is the need of invert-
low data quality or undetected cycle slips it cannot be very ing the noise matrix containing zero elements for constant
precise neither after backward run. parameters, such as carrier phase ambiguities or static
coordinates. However, if the noise for all those parameters
were increased by very small noise 1e-10 the inversion was
6. Conclusion
accurate enough, and the parameters remained static as
expected.
We described the implementation of the backward
Finally, the combination of both mentioned algorithms
smoothing algorithm for enhancing a state vector using
can be used in post-processing solution. In particular, the
converged parameters, in particular ambiguities. The
kinematic solution was improved significantly since fre-
Kalman filter is a very good technique for a real time pro-
quent re-convergences caused by cycle slips were avoided.
cessing, however, if any delay in the production of a state
It is possible to use the smoothing only for off-line process-
vector estimate can be accepted, the backward smoothing
ing; however, there are also applications where a short
is proper technique for improving precision and making
delay can be permitted, and the real time processing is
the solution much more stable and robust. The main goal
not required. An example is a real-time water vapour mon-
of this investigation was to find out whether the RTS
itoring for modern meteorology applications (Dousa and
smoother could be used in the Precise Point Positioning
Vaclavovic, 2014). Our further development will focus on
for processing undifferenced code and carrier phase obser-
using backward smoothing for troposphere parameters
vations with IGS final orbits and clocks products.
estimation with a 5–15 min delays.
Implementation in GNSS was different from other
branches because a number of unknown parameters
changes due to the initial ambiguities of carrier phase Acknowledgments
observations. The synchronisation of state and covariance
matrix between two consecutive epochs had to be done The development of the G-Nut/Tefnut software was
carefully. It has been shown that the RTS was stable and funded by the Czech Scientific Foundation
robust only for smoothing the state, but it usually failed (P209/12/2207). The implementation of the backward
in determination the covariance matrix. The numerical smoothing was supported by the Student Grant
1634 P. Vaclavovic, J. Dousa / Advances in Space Research 56 (2015) 1627–1634
Competition at the Czech Technical University in Prague
(SGS14/053/OHK1/1T/11). We are thankful to the
EUREF and IGS community providing data and products
used in this work, in particular products of precise global
orbit and clock corrections supported by individual
contributing agencies.
References
Anderson, B.D.O., Moore, J.B., 1979. Optimal Filtering. Prentice-Hall
Inc, Englewood Cliffs.
Bryson, A.E., Frazier, M., 1962. Smoothing for linear and nonlinear
dynamic systems. In: Proceedings of the Optimum Systems Synthesis
Conference, Ohio, September 11–13, pp. 353–364.
Cao, Y., Mao, X., 2008. Improved filtering-smoothing algorithm for GPS
positioning. In: Proceedings of the 11th International IEEE
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Beijing, China,
October 12–15.
Dousa, J., Vaclavovic, P., 2014. Real-time zenith tropospheric delays in
support of numerical weather prediction applications. Adv. Space Res.
53 (9), 1347–1358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2014.02.021.
Dow, J.M., Neilan, R.E., Rizos, C., 2009. The international GNSS service
in a changing landscape of global navigation satellite systems. J. Geod.
83 (3–4), 191–198.
Kouba, J., Heroux, P., 2001. Precise point positioning using IGS and
clock products. GPS Sol. 5 (2), 12–28.
Mervart, L., Lukes, Z., Rocken, Ch., Tetsuya, I., 2008. Precise point
positioning with ambiguity resolution in real-time. In: Proceedings of
the 21st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of
The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2008), Savannah, GA,
September, pp. 397–405.
Park, P., Kailath, T., 1994. New square-root smoothing algorithms. In:
Proceedings of the 33rd Conference on Decision and Control, Lake
Buena Vista FL, December, pp. 1215–1220.
Rauch, H.E., Tung, F., Striebel, C.T., August 1965. Maximum likelihood
estimates of linear dynamic systems. AIAA J. 3 (8), 1445–1450.
Vaclavovic, P., Dousa, J., Gyori, G., 2013. G-Nut software library – state
of development and first results. Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 10 (4), 431–
436.
Zhang, Y., Li, X.R., 1996. Fixed-interval smoothing algorithm based on
singular value decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications, Dearborn,
September 15–18, pp. 916–921.