DIA-datasnooping and identifiability

Journal Article (2018)
Author(s)

S. Zaminpardaz (Curtin University)

Peter J G Teunissen (TU Delft - Mathematical Geodesy and Positioning, Curtin University)

Research Group
Mathematical Geodesy and Positioning
Copyright
© 2018 S. Zaminpardaz, P.J.G. Teunissen
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-018-1141-3
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2018
Language
English
Copyright
© 2018 S. Zaminpardaz, P.J.G. Teunissen
Research Group
Mathematical Geodesy and Positioning
Volume number
93 (2019)
Pages (from-to)
85–101
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

In this contribution, we present and analyze datasnooping in the context of the DIA method. As the DIA method for the detection, identification and adaptation of mismodelling errors is concerned with estimation and testing, it is the combination of both that needs to be considered. This combination is rigorously captured by the DIA estimator. We discuss and analyze the DIA-datasnooping decision probabilities and the construction of the corresponding partitioning of misclosure space. We also investigate the circumstances under which two or more hypotheses are nonseparable in the identification step. By means of a theorem on the equivalence between the nonseparability of hypotheses and the inestimability of parameters, we demonstrate that one can forget about adapting the parameter vector for hypotheses that are nonseparable. However, as this concerns the complete vector and not necessarily functions of it, we also show that parameter functions may exist for which adaptation is still possible. It is shown how this adaptation looks like and how it changes the structure of the DIA estimator. To demonstrate the performance of the various elements of DIA-datasnooping, we apply the theory to some selected examples. We analyze how geometry changes in the measurement setup affect the testing procedure, by studying their partitioning of misclosure space, the decision probabilities and the minimal detectable and identifiable biases. The difference between these two minimal biases is highlighted by showing the difference between their corresponding contributing factors. We also show that if two alternative hypotheses, say (Formula presented.) and (Formula presented.), are nonseparable, the testing procedure may have different levels of sensitivity to (Formula presented.)-biases compared to the same (Formula presented.)-biases.