pp 1-9 | Cite as

# Converted Total Least Squares Method and Gauss-Helmert Model with Applications to Coordinate Transformations

- 4 Downloads

## Abstract

In this paper, the three kind of solutions of TLS problem, the common solution by singular value decomposition (SVD), the iteration solution and Partial-EIV model are firstly reviewed with respect to their advantages and disadvantages. Then a newly developed Converted Total Least Squares (CTLS) dealing with the errors-in-variables (EIV) model is introduced. The basic idea of CTLS has been proposed by the authors in 2010, which is to take the stochastic design matrix elements as virtual observations, and to transform the TLS problem into a traditional Least Squares problem. This new method has the advantages that it cannot only easily consider the weight of observations and the weight of stochastic design matrix, but also deal with TLS problem without complicated iteration processing, if the suitable approximates of parameters are available, which enriches the TLS algorithm and solves the bottleneck restricting the application of TLS solutions. CTLS method, together with all the three TLS models reviewed here has been successfully integrated in our coordinate transformation programs and verified with the real case study of 6-parameters Affine coordinate transformation. Furthermore, the comparison and connection of this notable CLTS method and estimation of Gauss-Helmert model are also discussed in detail with applications of coordinate transformations.

## Keywords

Converted TLS Errors-In-Variables (EIV) Gauss-Helmert model Total Least Squares (TLS) Virtual observation## Notes

### Acknowledgements

The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for his many constructive comments, which helped to clarify a number of points in the revision.

## References

- Adcock RJ (1878) A problem in least squares. Analyst 5:53–54Google Scholar
- Akyilmaz O (2007) Total least-squares solution of coordinate transformation. Surv Rev 39(303):68–80Google Scholar
- Amiri-Simkooeil A, Jazaeri S (2012) Weighted total least squares formulated by standard least squares theory. J Geodetic Sci 2(2):113–124Google Scholar
- Cai J, Grafarend E (2009) Systematical analysis of the transformation between Gauss-Krüger-Coordinate/DHDN and UTM-Coordinate/ETRS89 in Baden-Württemberg with different estimation methods. In: Hermann Drewes (ed) IAG Symposium, vol 134. Geodetic Reference Frame 2009Google Scholar
- Dong D (2017) Study on the converted Total Least Squares method and its application in coordinate transformation. Bachelor Thesis, University of StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Felus Y, Schaffrin B (2005) Performing similarity transformations using errors-in-variables-model. Proceedings of the ASPRS meeting, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
- Golub GH, Van Loan CF (1980) An analysis of the total least squares problem. SIAM J Numer Anal 17(6):883–893, December 1980Google Scholar
- Kendall MG, Stuart A (1969) The advanced theory of statistics - Volume 2. Charles Griffin & Co Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Koch R (2002) Räumliche Helmert-Transformation variabler Koordinaten im Gauß-Helmert und im Gauß-Markov-Modell. ZfV, Zeitschrift für Geodäsie, Geoinformation und Landmanagement 127:147–152Google Scholar
- Pearson K (1901) On lines and planes of closest fit to points in space. Philos Mag 2:559–572Google Scholar
- Pope A (1972) Some pitfalls to be avoided in the iterative adjustment of nonlinear problems. In: Proceeding of the 38th Annual Meeting American Society of PhotogrammetryGoogle Scholar
- Schaffrin B (2003) A note on constrained Total Least-Squares estimation. In: Computational statistics and data analysis, eingereicht Oct 2003Google Scholar
- Schaffrin B (2005) Generalizing the Total Least-Squares estimator for empirical coordinate transformation, lecture in Geodetic Institute. University of Stuttgart, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Schaffrin B, Felus Y (2005) On total least-squares adjustment with constraints, In: Sansò F. (ed) A window on the future of geodesy. International association of geodesy symposia, vol 128. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
- Schaffrin B, Felus Y (2008) Multivariate total least squares adjustment for empirical affine transformations. In: Xu P, Liu J, Dermanis A (eds) International association of geodesy symposia: VI Hotine-Marussi symposium on the theoretical and computational geodesy, 29 May-2 June 2006,Wuhan, China, vol 132. Springer, Berlin, pp 238–242Google Scholar
- Schaffrin B, Wieser A (2008) On weighted Total Least Squares for linear regression. J Geod 82:415–421Google Scholar
- Shen Y, Li B, Chen Y (2011) An iterative solution of weighted total least squares adjustment. J Geod 85:229–238Google Scholar
- Van Huffel S, Lemmerling P (eds) (2002) Total least squares and errors-in-variables modeling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Van Huffel S, Vandewalle J (1991) The Total Least Squares problem computational aspects and analysis. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- Van Huffel S, Zha H (1993) The Total Least-Squares problem. In: Rao CR (ed) Handbook of statistics: computational statistics, vol 9. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 377–408Google Scholar
- Wang B, Li J, Liu C (2016) A robust weighted total least squares algorithm and its geodetic applications. Stud Geophys Geod 60(2016):180–194Google Scholar
- Wolf H (1978) Das geodätische Gauß-Helmert-Modell und seine Eigenschaften. zfv 103:41–43Google Scholar
- Xu P, Liu J, Shi C (2012) Total least squares adjustment in partial errors-in-variables models: algorithm and statistical analysis. J Geod 86:661–675Google Scholar
- Yao Y, Kong J, Cai J, Sneeuw N (2010) New method for Total Least Squares: the combination LS solution considering the random errors of design matrix, internal research report. University of Stuttgart, StuttgartGoogle Scholar