Open Access

Second Earth Orientation Parameters Prediction Comparison Campaign (2nd EOP PCC): Overview

Justyna Śliwińska
Justyna Śliwińska
, 
Tomasz Kur
Tomasz Kur
, 
Małgorzata Wińska
Małgorzata Wińska
, 
Jolanta Nastula
Jolanta Nastula
, 
Henryk Dobslaw
Henryk Dobslaw
 and 
Aleksander Partyka
Aleksander Partyka
   | Jan 05, 2023
Artificial Satellites's Cover Image
Artificial Satellites
Volume 57 (2022): Issue s1 (December 2022)
Proceedings of the Second Earth Orientation Parameters Prediction Comparison Campaign (2nd EOP PCC) Workshop, online, February 15-16, 2022
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Published Online: Jan 05, 2023
Page range: 237 - 253
Received: Jun 14, 2022
Accepted: Nov 17, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/arsa-2022-0021
Keywords
© 2022 Justyna Śliwińska et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Deadlines and milestones of the 2nd EOP PCC: blue – preparation phase, green – pre-operational phase (test phase), and red – operational phase
Deadlines and milestones of the 2nd EOP PCC: blue – preparation phase, green – pre-operational phase (test phase), and red – operational phase

Figure 2.

Input data used by participants to make the predictions
Input data used by participants to make the predictions

Figure 3.

Methods used by participants to make the predictions
Methods used by participants to make the predictions

Figure 4.

Times of submitting EOP forecasts by participants to the campaign Office
Times of submitting EOP forecasts by participants to the campaign Office

Figure 5.

Prediction horizons used by participants in the forecasts and the number of methods in which a given forecast horizon is exploited
Prediction horizons used by participants in the forecasts and the number of methods in which a given forecast horizon is exploited

Figure 6.

Differences between C04 and: IVS rapid, ILRS, IGS rapid, IGS final, Bulletin A, and SPACE solutions for x pole (a-c) and y pole (d-f). Note that for better visibility, the scale on y axis varies depending on the solution
Differences between C04 and: IVS rapid, ILRS, IGS rapid, IGS final, Bulletin A, and SPACE solutions for x pole (a-c) and y pole (d-f). Note that for better visibility, the scale on y axis varies depending on the solution

Figure 7.

Differences between C04 and IVS rapid, ILRS, IGS rapid, IGS final, and SPACE solutions for LoD (a-c); differences between C04 and IVS rapid, IGS rapid, IGS final, Bulletin A, and SPACE solutions for UT1-UTC (d-f). Note that for better visibility, the scale on y axis varies depending on the solution
Differences between C04 and IVS rapid, ILRS, IGS rapid, IGS final, and SPACE solutions for LoD (a-c); differences between C04 and IVS rapid, IGS rapid, IGS final, Bulletin A, and SPACE solutions for UT1-UTC (d-f). Note that for better visibility, the scale on y axis varies depending on the solution

Figure 8.

Differences between C04 and: USNO, GSFC, and IVS rapid solutions for dX (a-c), dY (d-f) components of precession-nutation
Differences between C04 and: USNO, GSFC, and IVS rapid solutions for dX (a-c), dY (d-f) components of precession-nutation

Figure 9.

Differences between C04 and USNO, GSFC, and IVS rapid solutions for dPsi (a-c), dEpsilon (d-f) components of precession-nutation
Differences between C04 and USNO, GSFC, and IVS rapid solutions for dPsi (a-c), dEpsilon (d-f) components of precession-nutation

Number of predictions submitted to the Office (as of February 9, 2022) with respect to the number of participants and the number of IDs

x pole y pole UT1-UTC LoD dPsi dEps dX dY Total
Total number of predictions 497 497 442 348 41 41 142 142 2150
Number of participants 16 16 15 10 2 2 6 6 19
Number of IDs 25 25 21 17 2 2 7 7 38

Details on EOP reference solutions compared in this study

Solution Starting date Provided EOP Provider
C04 1 January 1962 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC, LoD, dX, dY, dPsi, dEps The Earth Orientation Center of the IERS (Bizouard et al. 2019)
SPACE 19 July 1993 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC JPL (Ratcliff and Gross 2019)
Bulletin A 1 September 1996 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC IERS Rapid Service Prediction Centre (Wooden and Gambis 2004)
ILRS 28 December 1997 x pole, y pole, LoD ILRS (Sciarletta et al. 2010)
IGS rapid 30 June 1996 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC, LoD IGS (Kouba and Mireault 1998)
IGS final 30 June 1996 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC, LoD IGS (Kouba and Mireault 1998)
IVS rapid 4 January 2002 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC, LoD, dX, dY, dPsi, dEps IVS BKG/DGFI Combination Center (Malkin 2001)
GSFC 4 August 1979 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC, LoD, dX, dY, dPsi, dEps NASA GSFC (Technical description of solution gsf2014a, https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/series/operational/gsfc_r.txt – accessed on 13 September 2022)
USNO 4 August 1979 x pole, y pole, UT1-UTC, LoD, dX, dY, dPsi, dEps USNO (Technical description of solution usn2015a, https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eoppc/series/operational/usno_r.txt – accessed on 13 September 2022)

Root mean square (RMS), mean, minimum, and maximum of differences between C04 and: USNO, GSFC, and IVS rapid solutions for dX, dY and dPsi, dEps components of precession-nutation

Solution RMS Mean Min Max
dX (mas) dY (mas) dX (mas) dY (mas) dX (mas) dY (mas) dX (mas) dY (mas)
C04 – USNO 0.178 0.117 −0.001 0.018 −0.913 −0.455 2.952 1.658
C04 – GSFC 0.114 0.146 −0.034 0.027 −0.885 -1.262 0.946 2.002
C04 – IVS rapid 0.018 0.008 0.001 0.000 −0.231 −0.055 0.159 0.076
Solution dPsi (mas) dEps (mas) dPsi (mas) dEps (mas) dPsi (mas) dEps (mas) dPsi (mas) dEps (mas)
C04 – USNO 0.130 0.139 0.010 −0.031 −0.466 −0.642 1.608 1.086
C04 – GSFC 0.135 0.181 −0.019 −0.024 −0.878 −1.297 0.954 1.965
C04 – IVS rapid 0.078 0.117 0.009 −0.008 −0.414 −0.634 0.440 0.498

Root mean square (RMS), mean, minimum, and maximum of differences between C04 and ILRS, SPACE, IGS rapid, IGS final, IVS rapid, and Bulletin A solutions for LoD and UT1-UTC

Solution LoD UT1-UTC
RMS (ms) Mean (ms) Min (ms) Max (ms) RMS (ms) Mean (ms) Min (ms) Max (ms)
C04 – ILRS 0.035 0.000 −0.077 0.290 × × × ×
C04 – SPACE 0.015 −0.001 −0.054 0.050 0.019 −0.005 −0.113 0.082
C04 – IGS rapid 0.011 0.000 −0.039 0.034 0.051 −0.008 −0.167 0.153
C04 – IGS final 0.010 −0.001 −0.037 0.028 0.043 −0.006 −0.147 0.140
C04 – IVS rapid 0.098 −0.005 −0.391 0.502 0.212 −0.001 −1.035 0.744
C04 – Bulletin A × × × × 0.020 −0.004 −0.110 0.087

Details on the 1st and 2nd EOP PCC participants and methods

1st EOP PCC 2nd EOP PCC
Number of registered participants (institutes or groups of institutes) 13 19
Number of institutes 10 24
Number of countries of participants origin 7 8
Total number of all teams members No data 58
Number of registered prediction methods (IDs) 20 (+1 combined prediction series) 38
Number of active participants 11 16

Root mean square (RMS), mean, minimum, and maximum of differences between C04 and Bulletin A, SPACE, IGS rapid, IGS final, ILRS, and IVS rapid solutions for x pole and y pole

Solution RMS Mean Min Max
x pole (mas) y pole (mas) x pole (mas) y pole (mas) x pole (mas) y pole (mas) x pole (mas) y pole (mas)
C04 – Bulletin A 0.052 0.045 0.001 0.001 −0.312 −0.242 0.152 0.139
C04 – SPACE 0.066 0.051 0.035 −0.025 −0.307 −0.228 0.214 0.122
C04 – IGS rapid 0.084 0.070 0.006 −0.001 −0.413 −0.257 0.247 0.254
C04 – IGS final 0.080 0.065 0.001 0.000 −0.419 −0.254 0.227 0.194
C04 – ILRS 0.214 0.241 −0.050 −0.116 −1.656 −0.772 0.600 0.673
C04 – IVS rapid 0.360 0.299 0.028 0.139 -1.441 -1.144 2.268 1.263
eISSN:
2083-6104
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
4 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Geosciences, other
Journal RSS Feed