## 4 PVT Results
### Fine-Tuning of the WE Function
#### 4.2.1 Static Urban Scenario  
Let us analyze the static urban scenario. The results of analyzing different exclusion thresholds and average configurations are shown in Figure 13 and Table 1. We see that for all the thresholds the results are better when we average the RLR values. Particularly, the best results (in terms of percentage of RTK fixes) are obtained when applying the exclusion threshold of \(-1\) dB. Regarding the averaging configuration, for the case of a threshold of \(-1\) dB, the best configuration is the one with an averaging time of 5 s. Nevertheless, for the rest of analyzed thresholds the best averaging configuration is obtained with an averaging time of 1 s. It is interesting to note that the analyzed \([-2,1]\) range of thresholds is representative to find the best exclusion threshold. The reason is that larger thresholds reduce the RMS error but at the expense of reducing the percentage of RTK fixes. The reason is that the larger the thresholds the larger the number of excluded satellites. On the other hand, lower thresholds would produce worse results. The reason is that the number of excluded satellites is reduced, then the results would be more similar to the reference ones. Similar results are obtained for the rest of scenarios, so we will show results for thresholds within the \([-2,1]\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Configuration**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RTK\_Fixes**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RTK Correct Fixes**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(Wrong Fix: Error \(>\) 10 cm)**} & \\ \hline  & **Error (m)** & **Error (cm)** & **\%** & **Error (cm)** & **\%** & **Error (cm)** & **\%** \\ \hline Reference & 14.0 & 2.5 & 85.2 & 2.5 & 85.1 & 79.9 & 14.7 \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{Threshold = 0 dB} \\ \hline Avg1 & 6.7 & 2.4 & 84.7 & 2.4 & 84.7 & 26.7 & 15.3 \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{Threshold = \(-1\) dB} \\ \hline Avg5 & 6.7 & 2.6 & 86.3 & 2.6 & 86.3 & 31.6 & 13.7 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Static urban scenario: PVT results for different exclusion thresholds and average configurations. It is worth pointing out that we focus on improving the performance of the RTK phase-based positioning mode. This is why we consider the percentage of RTK fixes as the parameter to optimize. This is illustrated in Figure 12(a), which shows how the best configuration in terms of 3D RMS error is the one with threshold of 1 dB and averaging time of 1 s. Notwithstanding, Figure 12(b) shows how the best configuration in terms of RTK fixes is the one using an exclusion threshold of \(-1\) dB. Therefore, we say that the last one is the best configuration for the Urban scenario. Actually, we see in Figure 12(b) that the exclusion threshold of \(-1\) dB is the only one that gives an improvement with respect to the reference one (i.e., results without applying the exclusion function). Last but not least, we see an important improvement of the error in the RTK float mode, being greater than a 50% reduction for all configurations. The reason of this improvement is the exclusion of NLOS ranges, which were tremendously affecting the range accuracy. Moreover, there is a conversion effect from RTK fixes into RTK float, thus improving the average accuracy of the RTK float mode. Similar conclusions can be extracted from the results shown in Figure 14. When analyzing the cumulative distribution function (cdf) of the PVT error we do not see a valuable improvement between the solution when applying (blue curve) or not (red curve) 2 pol exclusion. This improvement is apparent when comparing the total 3D RMS error as shown in Figure 13(a). Indeed, as shown in the plots of the lower row of Figure 14, the improvement on the total error comes from the improvement of the RTK float error, the RTK fix error is very similar when applying or not 2 pol exclusion. Figure 13: Results in the Urban scenario for different exclusion thresholds and average configurations.