‘manuscripta geodactica (1986) 11:262—271 manuscripta geodaetica © Springer-Verlag 1986 Generating classes of equivalent linear models by nuisance parameter elimination Applications to GPS observations B.Schaffrin and E. Grafarend Department of Geodetic Science, Stuttgart University, Keplerstrafle 11, D-7000 Stuttgart |, Federal Republic of Germany Received March 25, 1986; Accepted September 12, 1986 Abstract Rithin a theorem and to corollaries the theory of nutsance paraneter elimination is presented. The theo- retical results are applied to sequential bias elimi~ nation for GPS-phase observations in order to reduce the influence of transmitter (satellite) and receiver (ground) clock errors, ambiguity unknowns and refrac tion corrections. A differencing matrix is constructed for single, double and triple differencing in order to eliminate the respective biases in a threo-way classification model without interactions. Introduction Bias or nuisance paranater elimination 1s a standard technique in many geodetic problems, e.g. the elimi- nation of the orientation unknown within network ad= Justnent. The topic has gained new interest because of new measurement techniques for point positioning, e.g. the satellite global positioning system (GPS) or the inertial surveying system (155). Various bias elimination procedures based on differencing of the observations, have been proposed. With respect to the Gaus-Markov model the classical method of bias or nuisance paraneter elimination can be described as following: Let the expectation Efy} of the observation vector y be represented by the partitioned linear model 2 Ely) = Ag+ Bn, Diy} = Po, (0.1) where € and n are non-stochastic unknown vectors, 1) being called bias or nuisance parameter vector. The colunn spaces of the rectangular matrices A and 8 ‘are assumed to be complementary such that the rank Offprint requests to: B. Schaffein identity rk A + rk B= rk [A,B] holds. This condition assures the separability of both parameter groups, and ne Now find a matesx R of maximum column rank such that RTs = 0 holds. Then ecaTyy = alas, vemTyy = RTP Re? 5 (0.2) is the new transformed GaueMarkoy model of type caus ueinert, The key question we are confronted with, is ‘the one when the estimation & from model (0.2) coin cides with the one coming out of (0.1) according to the least-squares principe. Instead of postulating the identity of the respective estimates £ and 4 and therefore of the estinates FE + Foi for any arbitrary matrix F = (F,, F,] of suitable size, we rather prefer to set up a weaker postulate which considers the above identity for a specific matrix F only, particularly for F = [F,.F, [1,0] where I denotes the identity matrix. As a con- sequence we obtain identical estimates Fé from both nodels for any arbitrary matrix F, of suitable size Note that conditions for the stronger postulate of jdentical estinates F,E,+ Fy for azz Tinear Fors F = [F,,F,] have previcusly been given by J.K. saksa~ Jary and 8, Kala (1981) and 8, Schaftein (1983, p.52) Since, in general, the bias estimates are of minor interest the weak postulate sens to be more appropriate for most applications, especially as Tong as we think of GPS (and ISS). A lemma by J-K. Saksalary (1984) will be shown to prove useful in connection with the weak formulation. Here chapter 1 gives an introduction to the fundamentaltheory as contained in Theorem 1.1 and corollaries 1.2 4.3. Then chapter 2 presents an overlook over the S-phase observational equations and the appropriate Jinear model which is of type three-way layout without Finally, in chapter 3 we sequentially soply the fundamental theory of bias elimination to this model by means of single, double and tripie air- ferencing of the GPS-phase observations. tailed numerical analysis we refer to the motivating contribution by W. Zindlohr and D. wells (1985). interactions For a de- 1. The equivalence theorem for linear models with and without nuisance parameters let us begin with the general formulation of @ linear adel which beside the mx 1 parameter vector & con- tains another 2 x 1 vector n of “nudeance parameters! in order to take systematic effects of model biases into account. Thus we characterize "expectation" and "dispersion" of the n « 1 observation vector y by Egy} = Ag + Bn, Dtyp = PT? aa wiere A and 8 are design matrices of size nx m and Nx respectively, but not necessarily of full column rank ty and vg, and P is the positive-definite n «mn weight matrix. Since we are interested in separating the parameter vectors ¢ and n, we additionally assume the complementarity of both range spaces R(A) and R(B) Jeading to the fundamental rank additivity condition Pk (RB) = rk A+ TK BE ry trp smttcn (1.2) Next we are trying to simplify the original model (1.1) in such a way that after a certain transformation only the parameter vector © occurs. For this purpose we intreduce an x (n=rg) matrix R of fal} colum rank such that ‘i RR=O,rkR+rkBen, (2.3) holds which fulfills the equivalent range space con- dition aim xB), (a) R(R) = N(BT) , dim A(R) = ne this showing that the columns of R construct @ pasts of the nullepace of BT. Once we have a certain solution of (1.3) at hand, say f,. the general class of admissible matrices is then given by the representation 263 a= aT eR Alpe = ass - Pe(e're)*e") « with the additional requirement of being roguiar , (1.56) for any otherwise arbitrarily chosen nx (n-rg) matrix K. Here I, denotes the n fat which Teads to the representation x WER ACPO" [ . Fg PEED) yor, |) Py= 7 Sasa aloe [~ [at a'ea stra} |e u = FTra,8) pe Toa ates)” [a7] alenalea| [ot TaunTentayr al PA A Pa A = yTenTe ay A(T tA8I| | | PY Ton elpal [a The structure of L allows for the decomposition L= Ua! 2£ and onty if the range space condition yTecnTe tay (RT=LIy = (1.9) is mets obviously (1-10) is ts equivalent vTacaTe tay (aT-uga Tay = formulation. In this case, the condition for =F ‘iformly unbiased estimable a = FT(AE + Bn) to be uniformly unbiased estinab’) gTacnoRy"R with respect to the R-transformed model eqalyy = ala + aTen , oenly} = RTP Ro? , A.B: aTacaTetRy RTA aTR(RTP™?R)"R™|” 1 sTrcaTp“ay ata alacatentny "a's js automatically satisfied because of 8 a + [) RORTP RI “RTy 82 + (rk Ree RTTA\BI) into its BIQUUE 52 in the Retransforned node! rk R= rk RTCA, 8 * sre ntnreicenn | AML IY, . stra slral |e ‘A,B][A,B)) =n - rk[A,B] = rk(Ly Oo holds true due to condition (1.11) Part (1) of Theorem 1.1 was first presented by 7.X. Jaksalary (1984, Theorem 5.1) with a slightly different proof. Here where we have restricted the class of ad~ nissible transformation matrices R according to (1.5a,b), the vector 1 of nuisance paraneters has been eliminated so that condition (1.9) or (1-10) cannot be fulfilled unless we assume (1.13) FT(AG + Bn) = FTA. Thus ne can expect identical BLUES within model (1.1) as well as (1.7) for linear functions of the parameter vector £ only. On the other hand, the result is always true under condition (1.13) as stated in the following for the linear function ¢ Corolary 1 (2) Any arbitrary, but fixed Linear function 4 FTAg fuleiiting condition (1.13), possesses the same BLUUS within the original model (1.1) as in any Retransformed model (1.7) for R arbitrarily chosen out of class (1.54,b). (i) Under these conditions alo the BIQUUES of the variance component 0” within both models coinesde. (4) We confirm condition (1.9) by calculating atea —aton |” [aT PrA,B) f= BTpa 3" 1 =PCAe) | 5 ™ 7 |taTpa-aTpa(e'a)*a! ons ‘Al B1pB)*B'PA alpe = (ly ~ Pe(aTPB)*BT) Ke pacaTpa-ap6(8"P8)*8!PaI*ATE for Ke and R(1,-PBCBTPB)'ET}) = RR, (ATER) RIP) = 265 = A(R) = N(BT) = RR) considering (1.3) and (1.4). (44) For R out of class (1.5a,b) we obtained (1,6a) already; thus condition (1.9) is fulfilled for R because of part (1). On the other hand, we simply compute the inclusion an 1 x ex {ol (8) which proves condition (1.11). R(R) Corollary 1.2 plays the cantral role in the thivd chapter where we apply it to the first order approxi~ mation of the GPS observational model in order to take care of the respective bias effects. However, before- hand we shal] extend theorem 2.1 in a different direc tion: we require for ali Tinear functions o = F'(AE+8n) to have identical BLUUEs within the original and the Retransformed model, thereby obtaining a condition fer ‘the matrix R. Unfortunately, the respective BIQUUES of the variance component o* will then coincide only for the trivial choice of the matrix R being invertibie. Corollary 1.3: 1 @ FT(ne + Bn) possesses the same BLWUS in both models, in the Bvery arbitrary Linear function ¢ original (1.1) and in the respective Retrane- Formed one (1,7) ~ R arbitrary, not necessarily of class (1.58,b) -, provided that the matrix R fulL11s one of the equivalent conditions REPLA.B]) © R(R) (aaa) ekIA,8,P IR] = rk R. (1.5) (i) Under these conditions, the BIQWIES of the variance component 97 within both models coin cide, tn addition, 4£ and only if the matrix R is invertible. Proof: (4) The equivalence between (1.18) and (1.15) 4s ‘obvious. Furthermore, (1.8) and (1.10) are satisfied by all matrices F of suitable size if (2.14) or (1.15) hotds. Vice versa, define F,, Vinear form such that for ‘ aon Flag wen) = lh PIA,B] as a particular ates] [e e's} |n apa266 ‘the BLUUEs become identical in both models. But according to (1.9) this is true if and only if ‘lea aTon |” [a' R(PLA,B] FA) = e’pa ston} |e" ° (PLA,B]) © R(R) js fulfilled which proves (1.14) (ii) Combining condition (1.14) with the condition (1.1L) for the identity of the respective BIQUUES of a” yields 4 R(PIA,B) U K( (;] y= RMe RR) and therefore rk R =n which requires the matrix R to be invertible. CJ ‘A more general version of part (i) of corollary 1.9 already appeared in J.K. Baksalary and R. Kala (1981) and slightly extended in 8. soharfrin (1983, Theoren 1.4.32). Nevertheless its applicabiTity turns out to be rather limited ance we think of R-transformations out of class (1.5a,b) which certainly de not pass the test conditions (1.14) or (1.15) why we were concentrated on corollary 1.2 instead. This is the reason As seen in the third chapter, a particularly pleasant situation is met if the matrix & has sone specific structure, for instance one of the ANOVA ("Analysis of variance") model, often called classification model. 2. First order approximation of the GPS observational GPs-observations are based on electromagnetic nave propagation from a satelTite transmitter to @ ground receiver. For example, when we describe the electro hnagretic waves with the satellite mass centre as the origin of an oscillating monochromatic dipole in vacuo, then the electric and magnetic Field vectors ean be represented by pgk?cose cos(kr-wt) ier we (2) Paks cose cos(kr-ut) er 2k2u cos%4 cos*(kr-ut) EA 2 en.) ke > jn the far distant zone characterized by r > 2° or kr = 1 following K. Neste and Wit. Sng (1980, 9.315 316). k = 24/2" denotes the spherical wave nunber with respect to the wave Length A”, uw = 2ev the normalized oscillation frequency v, p, the amptitude of the os- cillating dipole of polarization p(t) = Py 608 ut (2,, 2g $5) S880 the orthonormal spherical tangent space, namely ax/3a ax/ao 2° Taye” Taper ° Cg axfar 8p * Tage here X spherical longitude, ¢ spherical latitude, r radial distance of the wave front originating from the satellite mass centre. Once we introduce the phase ¥orye) = ke = wt 25) the oscittating bart in the (E,H) fields as well as in the energy flux density £ A 4 (the Poynting vector) is dnvarsant with respect to 2ej translations such that the phase can only be recovered up to the anbi- guity k + 52°, namely cos(y + 20g). 5 = 0,1,2, (2.6) cos 8 treet) = cos 8 (rectepn i}. Let us assume that an electromagnetic wave is trans~ mitted fron the satellite at phase position o®(t*) and received at the ground topocentric observer at. phase position ¥,(t,) where t,, t® denote the coor- dinate tine of the transmitter and receiver time frame, Que to relativiatic aberration and relativistic poppler shige we have to transform kr = and ut + ina first order approximation by a rorentz transformation ~ from the satellite frame into the observer's frame. But we have to add another trans- formation due to the anholonomity of the observer's frame! From the observer's frame we have to transform into the quasiinertial geocentric equatorial frane in which also the coordinate clock in the near Earth space is operating in. In the quas‘inertial geocentric equatorial frame we are computing station coordinates of geodetic points on the Earth surface: Fron the point of view of a geocentric observer, the satellite and the laboratory where the receiver is placed are moving. For instance, from the satellite coordinate spacetime x", t" we transform into the observer's . t! and furtheron into the coordinate spacetimegeocentric spacetine x, t . Here is not the space to tutline the various Lorentz transformations as a first srder approximation, but we want at Teast to mention the problen. For the establishnent of a relativistic geocentric reference frame we refer to M. Pufimoto and 5. Grafarend (1985). “flere let us consider the cPs-oaservable phase aiffer- (a7) = VCE) = Wt) + Any In order to make satellite coordinate time t® comparable te the observer's coordinate tine t, we shalT transform tS into t,, e.g. by a Lorents transformation ag a First ‘order approxination, * xSt8) = (t,)1 + op (2.8) where we have neglected all relativistic terms 0, which refer to the relative motion of a satellite with respect to an observer. Once the satellite signal is emitted at time instant tS in the satellite time frame it is travelling with phase speed ¢ over a distance US(tS) ~ x(t JH before it is received at time instant t, in the observer's time frame. Accordingly we express the phase oS(t5) by the a. Taylor expansion up to first order terms. (2.9) with the additional approximation WSS), (CE DE = x8 (ta (EDI dix8(t & t= xt) = ted Splt 185 (tI = (tt) = H(t, )-4, (tH WS (EI, Ct dime eS lta) LEE CED (2.10) 267 The relative GPS-phase observational equation is now Used with respect to a quasi inertial geocentric equa- torial frame without any change though we had to apply another transformation, €.9. a Lorentz transformation as a first order approximation, due to relative rota~ tional motion of an cbserver on the earth surface with respect to the geccentre. More accurately, we had to take the gravity field in addition into account. In practice, satellite transmitter and ground receiver do not operate ideally: Their clocks set-off and drift. In order to account for these clock errors, the measured time could be modelled by a quadratic expression, 0.9. of type THES) = aPenesye cred (t5)? , : (2.11a) Telty) = aptsb, Mte,te such that Th-t® = aSebStS + c8(75)? , (2.11b) Tyte = atbiT, + GT? lohere {a,b,c} represent offset, drift and drift rate. Applying the a. Taylor expansion up to terms of First order to the phase observational equation, HT) = 8,2 -w aycetyebeew Thee. (2.128) WS(TS) = 9Sct8) mw aS-uTS-bSu(TS)? + cS (2.126) (TATE) = ECTS) = WAT) + 2nd = Hp (yet Hola, -aS tur (b.-bS Hate (ey-e8) + + ej to= W(t dup (t,)m(a,-a®) ro .(b,-bStuTe (eye) + (2.13) we find an observational equation which includes besi¢e the distance between transmitter and receiver and the ambiguity term, the clock offsets, the drift and drift rate. Instead of computing for each observational in- stant T, the dirft and drift rate coefficient, it is an operational procedure to vepresent 1, within the observational interval (T,, T,] by the median T and the time increments 8T,, namely by268 Tp #7, Ty 47, Apter, Bete at, amy Ty = (T+ 61)? #17 + aT + aT, (2.14) such that WOT ATS) ~ C05 ,) = 9b] = (2.15a) = oc Mast, (EEC aye + alT ot.) ~ w(Te-t8) + 2nj +0 with wT rt) = w(TSt8) = (2.15) = ofa, a5+T(b,-DS)+T%(c,-c8)]4u8T, (B42 Te.) = = usT (08 + 2Te8) Mean drift and mean drift rate are time-indopendent and have therefore been moved into the offset term, while the time-dependent drift and deift rate terms have been represented as 2 function of time increments. Now we are prepared to linearize the nonlinear obser- vational equation. For the phase of type “observed minus computed” may be systematically set-up according to (2.15a) - with or without modelled time clock errors (e)485(t)+y, where x5(t) = x8(t) + ax®(t) denotes the satellite position vector at the geocentric tine instant t = t, approximated by the prior information position vector S(t) computed from known ephenerides. ax%(t) is called the unknown satellite position correction vector, A(t) = Xop(t) + ax,(t) 8 the corresponding deconpo- sition of the ground position vector at the geocentric time instant. 4x abbreviates the 3 x 1 vector of co- ordinate corrections (6x,ty,22) with respect to quasi- inertial geocentric equatorial frame. a = aS(t) is the part of the design matrix which refers to the vacobi natrix 34,°,/9(K¥s2} taken at the point x. {a6.v) $5 the set of biae parameters. Namely, a(t) is the nuisance parameter u(T/-t.) 7 rt TZ c, representing al recelver specific biases, #.$- receiver tine clock offset ay, eritt b,1, and drivt rate c, 12 , the last to terms being Eine dependent, but possibly also sncluding other effects Vike re- fraction. These paraneters are dependent on receiver Index r and cbeorvation epoch t, DUE Independent of oa, + u,b, + satellite index s. In contrast, p8(t) represents all satel2ite spocitic biases, ¢.g. satellite clock error w(T®-t®) = = ua + uTSb8 + u(TS)2c8 , the last two terms being tine dependent, but possibly also including other effects Tikerefraction. These parameters are depend Om satelite Index ard oeervation epoch But Lo | | Gependent of receiver Index r. FinatTy xf aptesents a1 satetitte/ceceiver pele 4: the tnittal carrier beat. phase cucte amiguity, but also other effects, like teme- rally constant of refraction specific biases, These parameters are dependent on satellite and receiver index, but in- dependent of observation epoch, at least within each observing session, For more details of the set-up of the GPS-observable phase we ret (sea). yr to BW. Remondi With respect to the 2inear model (1.1), assuming nom | modelled time clock errors, we introduce (am) Edveh - (08(t) ~ o CE), 28(¢)Tax® (t)-a8(t) Tax, (t) a, (t) 48 S(t for a specific tine instant t (Ler sR, 1s £5), or symbolically, by using the “summation vectors” tq and ag of respective size Rx Land Sx 1, BO) edge opto ag eater ce.aey fas te TS RS where Zp 2 Caz CED. sagt a, LAS Ct)... aS (tH aus + a -(Diagtal(t),.. ake... | (DiagtaS(t),...,a8¢t)}1" (ax, 1) (2.108) After reordering by means of the "kronecker-zahfus product of matrices in combination with the "vec"= operation, we odtain vec E(Y,} = Eivec ¥4} = RSe (2.193) = vet Zp + (1g @ play + (15 @ 2p) + vec RS DiagiCay(t)dy...ylap(ty7)7 + (ax(e)) - oak ook 38 “1oiegtatctnn.. set sDiagear(e)}1" + (ax, (80) = BRR Be(2.198) As(t) + Be(t) - Alt) » gQ(t) andy := vee I, Ip and Ig being "identity matrices" E lof respective size RAR and SxS. for all tine instants 16 ts T, we set-up Egy E(tvee YI) AST % Ags Agegtly @ 1g @ Ipla + + (ly @ Ty @ 298 + Gy Ts Thy (2.20) such that after introducing eg(td] . by t= Leg(t2 (2.21) eh ql» A5= [Rey-Agly (A) = RST x 3(RES)T, (2.22) Bi Ip @ 1s Ty. IB Is @ Ry 3 Ty as Baa TH aay dy Diy Wy 5 Pk BRT, rk BEST, YKCB,,BgIS(RESH1)T , (2.236) B= [8,B,,B.], rk B = (RSIRT#ST)=(RESHT) +1 , ve finally arrive at Ety) = AE + By, Oty} = Plo? (2.25) 269 Ety) = Ag + Bn, D{y} = Po? , B= tp 1p W Ty, 1B ig @ Ip, 1p O15 BQ], rk B= (RSURT#ST) = (RESET) +1, nT = (Tal 8T1, o(n) = (RSERT+ST)H1 , ofy: she, ay with Ig a8 ReR “identity matrix", 2p as Rel "summation vector” containing only the number one as entry, and @ as "xronecker-zehfus" product of matrices defined by GOH (aH. IF Es Coy], (3.2) we shall now apply the equivalence theorem of the Tirst paragraph to this model, that is coroltary 1.2 For this purgose let us introduce, for any number QE N, the (Q-1)xQ "aieferencing matrix” through “1 0 oo oO 1 He... 0 Tw sates one come saci 3) 0 0 oo. 1 oat with the important. property tgtg =O. Rlag) = (eagle € Ry Ga) For @ := S the appropriate R-transformation 7 anet, (3.58) Jeads us to the R.-transformed model Thus we were led to a linearized phase observational equation as an example of a three-way layout without interactions being discussed in the following para~ graph. We should in addition note that for pure cycte (2.23¢) caTyeTyT], o(n) = (RSHRTEST) «1, (2.26) ambiguity effects in the y vector, a condition has to be added which guarantees incager numbers within y. Also for modelled time clock errors the size of n will constderably be reduced, while under certain circumstances the vector £, may be supposed to be time-independent . 4. Application of the equivalence theorem to the OPS observational model After having shown that, under sonehow ideal conditions, ‘the Tinearized GPS phase observations constitute a three-way classification model without interactions of type E(RGy} = RAE + (2y @ Ag @ Tp)y + (ly Bas B AQde, PKU2y @ Og @ Ips Ty B Bg @ 3p RATH1)(S-L) 2. o(ty py )=(ReT} Sat, Tjentp ARG) =REP Reo o(RGy) = (SI), (3.6) hich does not contain the subvector a anymore. & com parable elimination of the single subvectors g and y, respectively, is attained by applying one of the further Retrans formations T 7 @ 1, Bop (3.56) _a Ry = ab @ 1, @ Ip (3.5e) to the original model (3.1). In contrast the complete "bias elimination” 1s performed by sequential appli- cation of (3.5a,b,c), but regarding the correct size270 of the respective identity matrices. Thus we first arrive at the R-transformation a 7; 1 Rag == (ly @ 1g, @ ORM Ty Mag @ Tp) (3.72) with the corresponding R,.-transformed node! Ty =a EARggy} = RygAE + (ty Ws WAY, rity @ Og @ Og) = (Re1}(SH1], oly) = RSxL emlgys = ATP gg 62 o1algys = (Ren) SHUNT (3.8) or, alternatively, at one of the further R-transfor- mations 1 1 Rey i= OP @ Ty @ AR (3.76) and Toe Roy t= OP 8 ALB Ty (3.70) with the respective R-transforned models, but finaity a 7 Te sus Racy = (OF Tey Tp NTp @ sl a ah) = To algal = tested) TS (3.9) with E((ay @ tg @ Op)y) = (ty O de B BRIAE 1 Did Bag B dg)y) = (4p @ bg B BgIP™! + Teale alje? toate sly? , O{(ay @ hg B Sg)y} = (RAM(S-ANT-1) * 1, (3.10 a5 {ts Rpggtransformed mel where the full vector 1 of bias parameters has vanished by a simple “airrer- encing technique". Of course, we all know that this formal approach has a long tradition in the inprove- ment of geodetic results Now, we easily show that the assumptions of coroliary 2.2 are fulfilled, namely (1.3), due to Tae Rast = (oy @ 85M bp) + + [yp @ Ig @ Igy Tp @ 2g @ Ig, 1p B Ig @ IQ]= = 10 Woe Wap, 4 8084, ap @ ag 90] =0 (3.11a) and tk Ragy = (RL)(S“LY(T-2) = RST ~ [(RS#RT#ST)~(RESHT) 41] = (3.28) SRST = rk B Therefore, we conclude that any arbitrary Tinear function 9 := FTAg with FB = 0 automatically possesses identical extimates in the original model (3.1) of phase observations as in the model (3.10) of eriple differences. Of course, this conclusion does not hold anymore if we add integer constraints for the RS«1 vecter y to the model (3.1). However, even in this case, we still find identical estimates in the model (3.8) of double differences (with or without integer constraints for y), due to the conditions T Ryglly @ 45 @ Ip, Ty @ 1g @ IQ] = [l;@0 Gap, 1,8 ag @o) = and re Rg = (ReL)(SHL)T = RST = C(RT*ST)-T] AST ~ rk{ly @ 1g @ Tg, Ty Ts @ 2—) (3.228) being fulfilled. A similar conclusion holds for the model (3.6) of single differences because of ¥ aU 8 45 8 1g) BOT, and rk Ry = RT(S-1) = RTS = RT (3.138) = RTS rk(ly @ 1g @ Ip] Note that for the specific choice OO T FT c= caTce-ppca"pa) a"pja} 2a cp-pa(e! PB) *B"P] and therefore identical estimates for the paraneter vector & itself in all cases we discussed Acknowl edgenent: Initiation of this paper is due to discussions of sequential bias ellmination with W. Lindlohr (Stutt- gart University, Federal Republic of Germany) and D. Wells (University of New Brunswick at Fredericton, Canada) within the framework of the SFB 228 "Hochge~ rnaue Navigation". This support is gratefully acknow edged.salary JK, Kala R (1981) Linear transformations preserving best linear unbiased estinators in a general Gau-Narkoff model. Ann. Statist. 9: 913-916 ksalary JK (1984) A study of the equivalence between ‘4 GauB-Markoff model and its augmentation by hufsance parameters. Math, OF, Ser. Statistics AS: 1-35 moto M, Grafarend € (1986) Spacetime coordinates in the geocentric reference frane In: Kovalevsky J, Brumberg VA (Eds.), Relativity in Celestial Mechanics and Astrometry, IAU-Symp. No. 114 (Le~ ningrad, May 1985), D. Reidel Publ. Comp.: Dord- recht/Boston/Lancaster/Tokyo, pp 269-276 an Lindlohr W, Wells 0 (1985) GPS design using undiffer- enced carrier beat phase observations. Manus, Geod. 10: 255-295 Meetz K, Engl WL (1980) Elektronagnetische Felder (ochschultext). Springer-Verlag, Berl in/Heidel- berg/tiew York Remondi BW (1984) Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) phase observable for relative geades) nodel1ing, processing and results. Ph.D. disser- tation, Center for Space Research, The University of Texas, Austin/Texas Schaffrin B (1983) Varianz-Kevarianz-Konponenten~ sschitzung bei der Ausgle’ chung heterogener Wieder~ holungsmessungen. Deutsche Geodat ische Konmission, Bayr. Akad. der Wiss., Report C-282, Minchen