# Spoofing Traction Strategy Based on the Generation of Traction Code
## 3 Results
### Experimental Results  
The results of the spoofing experiment designed in Section 2.3.3 are listed in this section.  
Unlike the simulation results in Section 3.1, effective intermediate frequency spoofing data with noise were generated based on the signal generation software. The obtained results of the three spoofing traction strategies Under the C/N\({}_{0}\) 50 dBHz condition are shown in Figures 14-16. Code-phase difference diagrams were plotted accordingly.  
Figure 13: Theoretical simulation results of the proposed traction strategy. (**a**) Code phase difference; (**b**) Outputs of correlators; (**c**) Outputs of phase discriminator of code tracking loop; (**d**) Outputs of filter of code tracking loop.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c} \hline \hline
**Traction Strategy** & **Theoretical Value Ranges of v\({}_{\text{drag}}\)** & **t\({}_{\text{c\_min}}\)** \\ \hline Strategy 1 & v\({}_{\text{drag}}\) & \(\leq\) 2.79 cps & 0.538 s \\ Strategy 2 & v\({}_{\text{drag}}\) & \(\leq\) 0.104 cps & 14.423 s \\ Proposed strategy & v\({}_{\text{drag}}\) & \(\leq\) 27.89 cps & 0.054 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Value ranges of v\({}_{\text{drag}}\) for three strategies.  
Figure 14: Results of the conventional Strategy 1 (C/N\({}_{0}=50\) dBHz, D = 1). (**a**) Obtained results of software receiver; (**b**) Code phase difference.  
Figure 15: Results of the conventional Strategy 2(C/N\({}_{0}=50\) dBHz, D = 1). **(a)** Obtained results of the software receiver; **(b)** Code phase difference.  
Figure 16: Results of the proposed strategy (\(\rm C/N_{0}=50\,dBHz\), \(\rm D=1\)). (**a**) Obtained results of software receiver; (**b**) Code phase difference.  
Under a C/N\({}_{0}\) of 50 dBHz, the results obtained when the receiver is equipped with a narrow correlator are presented in Figure 20.  
Figure 19: Results of the proposed strategy (C/N\({}_{0}=30\) dBHz, \(\mathrm{D}=1\)). (**a**) Obtained results of software receiver; (**b**) Code phase difference.  
Figure 21: Ratio Test metric behavior of the genuine signal.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**RMSE** & **Genuine Signal** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Strategy 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Strategy 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proposed Strategy**} \\ \hline Code Doppler/cps & 0.4255 & 0.3392 & \(-\)20.28\% & 2.0826 & 389.45\% & 0.4327 & 1.69\% \\ Carrier Doppler/Hz & 0.4713 & 0.4657 & \(-\)1.19\% & 51.7133 & 10.872.48\% & 0.4739 & 0.55\% \\ Baseband signal power/dBHzm & 0.4440 & 3.4613 & 679.57\% & 6.4441 & 1351.37\% & 0.4493 & 1.19\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Comparison of RMSE for different strategies and the genuine signal (C/N\({}_{0}\) = 60 dBHz, D = 1).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**RMSE** & **Genuine Signal** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Strategy 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Strategy 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Proposed Strategy**} \\ \hline Code Doppler/cps & 0.3338 & 0.2986 & \(-\)10.55\% & 0.5735 & 71.81\% & 0.3453 & 3.45\% \\ Carrier Doppler /Hz & 1.0176 & 0.9403 & \(-\)7.60\% & 1.7632 & 73.27\% & 1.0222 & 0.45\% \\ Baseband signal power /dBm & 1.4194 & 3.5533 & 150.34\% & 2.4744 & 74.33\% & 1.4155 & \(-\)0.27\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Comparison of RMSE for different strategies and the genuine signal (C/N\({}_{0}\) = 50 dBHz, D = 0.2).  
Figure 22: Ratio Test metric behavior under traction Strategy 1.