|
Size: 287
Comment:
|
Size: 4503
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = Spacecraft Zenith Variations: Comparison of Results = | ## page was renamed from Test11STU Comparative Results ## page was renamed from Spacecraft Zenith Variations ## page was renamed from Comparison = Spacecraft Zenith Variations = |
| Line 3: | Line 6: |
| '''Formal Uncertainty''' | == Test Over11 S/T/U Comparative Results == |
| Line 6: | Line 9: |
| The measures of accuracy are plotted for each test in figures ?? to ?? under Tables and Figures (below). | |
| Line 7: | Line 11: |
| '''CompMapVec RMS''' | Figure 1 illustrates the minimum uncertainty and RMSs for each test, and at which iteration each minimum occurs. The following patterns are apparent: * Test U achieves either the minimum value or within 0.03 cm of the minimum value for every RMS measure in the least number of iterations: 5 to 15 iterations sooner than Test T; and 15 to 20 iterations sooner than Test S (excluding Test S - CompMapVec RMS). * Test S consistently gives the largest RMS, with CompMapVec RMS showing no improvement from iterating. * CompareOBJ RMS (with and without optimal translation and rotation varies across tests by less than 0.2cm. |
| Line 9: | Line 16: |
| Residuals (Figure 2) maintain a value of approx. 3.1cm through the first 13 iterations, then decrease through the remainder of the first 50 iterations, seemingly forming an asymptote at approximately 1.4cm after approximately 55 iterations. | |
| Line 10: | Line 18: |
| Despite the continuing decrease in formal uncertainties, the CompareOBJ RMSs (figure 3) achieve their minima around 1.0cm within the first 10 to 30 iterations and then increase monotonically with iterating, possibly beginning to round off at 2.2cm, a higher value than that achieved with the corresponding tiling step. | |
| Line 11: | Line 20: |
| '''CompareOBJ RMS''' | CompareOBJ with optimal translation and rotation (figure 4) achieves the minimum values around 0.5cm within 5 to 20 iterations. Increase in RMS is small with further iteration, remaining below 0.7cm. |
| Line 13: | Line 22: |
| With such a differing behavior between CompareOBJ and CompareOBJ with optimal translation and rotation, the tilting and drifting behavior of the bigmap should be investigated. | |
| Line 14: | Line 24: |
| The jump in behavior of Test U at iteration 51 is likely due to operator-interference. After 50 iterations an investigation was conducted on one of the maplets which contains the feature, maplet EE0057. During the investigation, the operator opened the landmark within Lithos and loaded the full image suite in order to view the high-emission-angle images. The images were then auto-eliminated as per the iteration sequence. Unfortunately, a comparison of the landmark OOT files between iterations 50 and 51 confirms that the solution degraded in several aspects. The image correlation dropped from 0.9+ to correlations as low as 0.217. The landmark overlap was also broken with EE0057 and EE0075 now showing 'below albedo correlation limit'. Further iteration did not recover these aspects with similar values displayed in the iteration 80 EE0057.OOT file. | |
| Line 15: | Line 26: |
| '''CompareOBJ With Opt Tran & Rot''' | == Tables and Figures == |
| Line 17: | Line 28: |
| '''Figure 1: Minima''' | |
| Line 18: | Line 30: |
| {{attachment:Minima-100-resized.png}} | |
| Line 19: | Line 32: |
| '''Traces Running North_South''' | '''Figure 2: Formal Uncertainty''' |
| Line 21: | Line 34: |
| {{attachment:FormalUncertainty-100-resized.png}} | |
| Line 22: | Line 36: |
| '''Figure 3: CompMapVec RMS''' | |
| Line 23: | Line 38: |
| '''Traces Running West-East''' | {{attachment:CompMapVecRMS-100-resized.png}} '''Figure 4: CompareOBJ RMS''' {{attachment:CompOBJRMS-100-resized.png}} '''Figure 5: CompareOBJ With Opt Tran & Rot''' {{attachment:CompOBJwOptTranRotRMS-100-resized.png}} '''Traces''' {{attachment:transitIt20200.png}} {{attachment:transposedTransitIt20200.png}} {{attachment:transitIt40200.png}} {{attachment:transposedTransitIt40200.png}} {{attachment:transitIt60200.png}} {{attachment:transposedTransitIt60200.png}} {{attachment:transitIt80200.png}} {{attachment:transposedTransitIt80200.png}} {{attachment:transitIt100200.png}} {{attachment:transposedTransitIt100200.png}} |
| Line 28: | Line 68: |
{{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFS-05stepB020-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFT-05stepB020-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFU-05stepB020-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFS-05stepB040-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFT-05stepB040-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFU-05stepB040-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFS-05stepB060-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFT-05stepB060-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFU-05stepB060-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFS-05stepB080-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFT-05stepB080-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFU-05stepB080-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFS-05stepB100-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFT-05stepB100-1cm-4m.png}} {{attachment:heatPlot-T11RFU-05stepB100-1cm-4m.png}} |
Spacecraft Zenith Variations
Test Over11 S/T/U Comparative Results
The measures of accuracy are plotted for each test in figures ?? to ?? under Tables and Figures (below).
Figure 1 illustrates the minimum uncertainty and RMSs for each test, and at which iteration each minimum occurs. The following patterns are apparent:
Test U achieves either the minimum value or within 0.03 cm of the minimum value for every RMS measure in the least number of iterations: 5 to 15 iterations sooner than Test T; and 15 to 20 iterations sooner than Test S (excluding Test S - CompMapVec RMS).
Test S consistently gives the largest RMS, with CompMapVec RMS showing no improvement from iterating.
- CompareOBJ RMS (with and without optimal translation and rotation varies across tests by less than 0.2cm.
Residuals (Figure 2) maintain a value of approx. 3.1cm through the first 13 iterations, then decrease through the remainder of the first 50 iterations, seemingly forming an asymptote at approximately 1.4cm after approximately 55 iterations.
Despite the continuing decrease in formal uncertainties, the CompareOBJ RMSs (figure 3) achieve their minima around 1.0cm within the first 10 to 30 iterations and then increase monotonically with iterating, possibly beginning to round off at 2.2cm, a higher value than that achieved with the corresponding tiling step.
CompareOBJ with optimal translation and rotation (figure 4) achieves the minimum values around 0.5cm within 5 to 20 iterations. Increase in RMS is small with further iteration, remaining below 0.7cm.
With such a differing behavior between CompareOBJ and CompareOBJ with optimal translation and rotation, the tilting and drifting behavior of the bigmap should be investigated.
The jump in behavior of Test U at iteration 51 is likely due to operator-interference. After 50 iterations an investigation was conducted on one of the maplets which contains the feature, maplet EE0057. During the investigation, the operator opened the landmark within Lithos and loaded the full image suite in order to view the high-emission-angle images. The images were then auto-eliminated as per the iteration sequence. Unfortunately, a comparison of the landmark OOT files between iterations 50 and 51 confirms that the solution degraded in several aspects. The image correlation dropped from 0.9+ to correlations as low as 0.217. The landmark overlap was also broken with EE0057 and EE0075 now showing 'below albedo correlation limit'. Further iteration did not recover these aspects with similar values displayed in the iteration 80 EE0057.OOT file.
Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Minima
Figure 2: Formal Uncertainty
Figure 3: CompMapVec RMS
Figure 4: CompareOBJ RMS
Figure 5: CompareOBJ With Opt Tran & Rot
Traces
Heat Plots
