Abstract
Cartesian coordinate transformation between two erroneous coordinate systems is considered within the Errors-In-Variables (EIV) model. The adjustment of this model is usually called the total Least-Squares (LS). There are many iterative algorithms given in geodetic literature for this adjustment. They give equivalent results for the same example and for the same user-defined convergence error tolerance. However, their convergence speed and stability are affected adversely if the coefficient matrix of the normal equations in the iterative solution is ill-conditioned. The well-known numerical techniques, such as regularization, shifting-scaling of the variables in the model, etc., for fixing this problem are not applied easily to the complicated equations of these algorithms. The EIV model for coordinate transformations can be considered as the nonlinear Gauss-Helmert (GH) model. The (weighted) standard LS adjustment of the iteratively linearized GH model yields the (weighted) total LS solution. It is uncomplicated to use the above-mentioned numerical techniques in this LS adjustment procedure. In this contribution, it is shown how properly diminished coordinate systems can be used in the iterative solution of this adjustment. Although its equations are mainly studied herein for 3D similarity transformation with differential rotations, they can be derived for other kinds of coordinate transformations as shown in the study. The convergence properties of the algorithms established based on the LS adjustment of the GH model are studied considering numerical examples. These examples show that using the diminished coordinates for both systems increases the numerical efficiency of the iterative solution for total LS in geodetic datum transformation: the corresponding algorithm working with the diminished coordinates converges much faster with an error of at least 10-5 times smaller than the one working with the original coordinates.
References
Adcock R.J., 1877. Note on the method of least-squares. The Analyst, 4(6), 183–184.
Akyilmaz O., 2007. Total least-squares solution of coordinate transformation. Surv. Rev., 39, 68–80.
Amiri-Simkooei A. and Jazaeri S., 2012. Weighted total least-squares formulated by standard least squares theory. J. Geod. Sci., 2(2), 113–124.
Amiri-Simkooei A., 2013. Application of least squares variance component estimation to errors-invariables models. J. Geodesy, 87, 935–944.
Amiri-Simkooei A., Zangeneh-Nejad F. and Asgari J., 2016. On the covariance matrix of weighted total least-squares estimates. J. Surv. Eng., 142, UNSP 04015014, DOI: 10.1061 /(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000153.
Burša M., 1962. The theory for the determination of the non-parallelism of the minor axis of the reference ellipsoid and the inertial polar axis of the Earth, and the planes of the initial astronomic and geodetic meridians from observations of artifical Earth satellites. Stud. Geophys. Geod., 6, 209–214.
Carroll R.J. and Ruppert D., 1996. The use and misuse of orthogonal regression in linear errors-invariables models. Am. Stat., 50, 1–6.
Fang X., 2011. Weighted Total Least Squares Solutions for Applications in Geodesy. PhD Thesis. Geodaesie und Geoinformatik Der Leibniz Universitaet Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Fang X., 2013. Weighted total least squares: necessary and sufficient conditions, fixed and random parameters. J. Geodesy, 87, 733–749.
Fang X., 2014a. On non-combinatorial weighted total least squares with inequality constraints. J. Geodesy, 88, 805–816.
Fang X., 2014b. A structured and constrained total least-squares solution with cross covariance. Stud. Geophys. Geod., 58, 1–16.
Fang X., 2014c. A total least squares solution for geodetic datum transformations. Acta Geod. Geophys., 49, 189–207.
Fang X., 2015. Weighted total least-squares with constraints: a universal formula for geodetic transformations. J. Geodesy, 89, 450–469.
Fang X., Li B., Alkhatib H., Zeng W. and Yao Y., 2017. Bayesian inference for the errors-invariables model. Stud. Geophys. Geod., 61, 35–52.
Featherstone W.E., 1997. A comparison of existing co-ordinate transformation models and parameters in Australia. The Trans-Tasman Surveyor, 1(2), 25–34.
Felus Y.A., 2004. Application of total least squares for spatial point process analysis. J. Surv. Eng., 130, 126–133.
Ghilani C.D. and Wolf P.R., 2006. Adjustment Computations: Spatial Data Analysis. Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Golub G.H. and van Loan C.F., 1980. An analysis of the total least squares problem. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 17, 883–893.
Grafarend E.W. and Awange J.L., 2003. Nonlinear analysis of the three-dimensional datum transformation [conformal group C7(3)]. J. Geodesy, 77, 66–76.
Koch K.R., 1999. Parameter Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Linear Models. Second Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.
Lu J., Chen Y., Li B.F. and Fang X., 2014. Robust total least squares with reweighting iteration for three-dimensional similarity transformation. Surv. Rev., 46, 28–36.
Neitzel F., 2010. Generalization of total least-squares on example of unweighted and weighted 2D similarity transformation. J. Geodesy, 84, 751–762.
Pearson K., 1901. LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philos. Mag. Ser. 6, 2, 559-572.
Pope A.J., 1972. Some pitfalls to be avoided in the iterative adjustment of nonlinear problems. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting, American Society of Photogrammetry, Washington, D.C., Mar. 12-17, 1972. American Society of Photogrammetry, Bethesda, MD, 449-477.
Schaffrin B. and Felus Y.A, 2008. On the multivariate total least-squares approach to empirical coordinate transformations. Three algorithms. J. Geodesy, 82, 373–383.
Schaffrin B. and Wieser A., 2008. On weighted total least-squares adjustment for linear regression. J. Geodesy, 82, 415–421.
Schaffrin B. and Snow K., 2010. Total least-squares regularization of Tykhonov type and an ancient racetrack in Corinth. Linear Alg. Appl., 432, 2061–2076.
Shen Y., Li B. and Chen Y., 2011. An iterative solution of weighted total least-squares adjustment. J. Geodesy, 85, 229–238.
Snow K., 2012. Topics in Total Least-Squares Adjustment within the Errors-In-Variables Model: Singular Cofactor Matrices and Prior Information. PhD Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Soler T., 1976. On Differential Transformations between Cartesian and Curvilinear (Geodetic) Coordinates. Report 236. Department of Geodetic Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Tong X., Jin Y. and Li L., 2011. An improved weighted total least squares method with applications in linear fitting and coordinate transformation. J. Surv. Eng., 137, 120–128.
Wolf H., 1963. Geometric connection and re-orientation of three-dimensional triangulation nets. Bull. Geod., 68, 165–169.
Xu P., 2016. The effect of errors-in-variables on variance component estimation. J. Geodesy, 90, 681–701.
Xu P., Liu J. and Shi C., 2012. Total least squares adjustment in partial errors-in-variables models: algorithm and statistical analysis. J. Geodesy, 86, 661–675.
Xu P., Liu J., Zeng W. and Shen Y., 2014. Effects of errors-in-variables on weighted least squares estimation. J. Geodesy, 88, 705–716.
Xu P. and Liu J., 2014. Variance components in errors-in-variables models: estimability, stability and bias analysis. J. Geodesy, 88, 719–734.
Yang Y., 1999. Robust estimation of geodetic datum transformation. J. Geodesy, 73, 268–274.
Zeng H., 2015. Analytical algorithm of weighted 3D datum transformation using the constraint of orthonormal matrix. Earth Planets Space, 67, 105, DOI: 10.1186/s40623-015-0263-6.
Zhou Y., Kou X., Li J. and Fang X., 2017. Comparison of structured and weighted total leastsquares adjustment methods for linearly structured errors-in-variables model. J. Surv. Eng., 143, UNSP 04016019, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000190.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Aydin, C., Mercan, H. & Uygur, S.Ö. Increasing numerical efficiency of iterative solution for total least-squares in datum transformations. Stud Geophys Geod 62, 223–242 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-017-1003-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11200-017-1003-0