Optimization and testing of the GEMTEC model of total electron content in the ionosphere

Ivanov, V. B.; Gorbachev, O. A.; Kholmogorov, A. A.; Khokhryakov, D. E.

doi:10.1134/s0010952515040036

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different scientists used the positioning domain along with the TEC domain to assess the model performance [28,34]. Rovira-Garcia et al [34] clearly formulated the advantage From the cumulative distributions (panel a), we see that for small errors (~5 TECU) NeQuickG performs slightly better than BDGIM, while for errors greater than ~10 TECU, the distributions are similar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Usually, the models were tested for a rather limited time period and region covering. Ivanov et al [ 28 ] used only the 22nd day of each month from 2001 to 2011 to test the Klobuchar and GEMTEC models and found that they eliminate about 57 and 85% of the absolute error. Table 2 and Table 3 also demonstrate that the GEMTEC model performs better than the Klobuchar model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The GEMTEC model is an empirical global TEC model based on GIM CODG data through a full solar cycle (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009) in the first version [23] and 2000-2012 in the revised one [28]). The model is built on empirical orthogonal functions (on local time, month latitude, solar activity, and the expansion coefficients on longitude) and involves only one parameter-solar activity index F10.7.…”

Section: Ionospheric Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Klobuchar, NeQuickG, BDGIM, GLONASS, IRI-2016, IRI-2012, IRI-Plas, NeQuick2, and GEMTEC Ionospheric Models: A Comparison in Total Electron Content and Positioning Domains

Yasyukevich

Zatolokin

Padokhin

et al. 2023

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) provide a great data source about the ionosphere state. These data can be used for testing ionosphere models. We studied the performance of nine ionospheric models (Klobuchar, NeQuickG, BDGIM, GLONASS, IRI-2016, IRI-2012, IRI-Plas, NeQuick2, and GEMTEC) both in the total electron content (TEC) domain—i.e., how precise the models calculate TEC—and in the positioning error domain—i.e., how the models improve single frequency positioning. The whole data set covers 20 years (2000–2020) from 13 GNSS stations, but the main analysis involves data during 2014–2020 when calculations are available from all the models. We used single-frequency positioning without ionospheric correction and with correction via global ionospheric maps (IGSG) data as expected limits for errors. Improvements against noncorrected solution were as follows: GIM IGSG—22.0%, BDGIM—15.3%, NeQuick2—13.8%, GEMTEC—13.3%, NeQuickG and IRI-2016—13.3%, Klobuchar—13.2%, IRI-2012—11.6%, IRI-Plas—8.0%, GLONASS—7.3%. TEC bias and mean absolute TEC errors for the models are as follows: GEMTEC—−0.3 and 2.4 TECU, BDGIM—−0.7 and 2.9 TECU, NeQuick2—−1.2 and 3.5 TECU, IRI-2012—−1.5 and 3.2 TECU, NeQuickG—−1.5 and 3.5 TECU, IRI-2016—−1.8 and 3.2 TECU, Klobuchar—1.2 and 4.9 TECU, GLONASS—−1.9 and 4.8 TECU, and IRI-Plas—3.1 and 4.2 TECU. While TEC and positioning domains differ, new-generation operational models (BDGIM and NeQuickG) could overperform or at least be at the same level as classical empirical models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%