## 3 Results
### Adjustment Results Using the EAM and UAM for Five and Six Baseline Vectors  
We processed 766 h of observations for the BROD station. For JASL and OPOC, it was 767 h and 763 h, respectively. Table 2 shows the values of mean standard deviations and values of extreme absolute linear discrepancies in relation to reference coordinates for the EAM and UAM adjustment of post-processing results using six and five baseline vectors respectively for all the stations. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Station**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Solution**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Statistics**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Number of Baseline Vectors**} \\ \cline{3-8}  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**6**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**5**} \\ \cline{4-8}  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Coordinate**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Coordinate**} \\ \cline{4-8}  & & & **N** & **E** & **U** & **N** & **E** & **U** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**BROD**} & \multirow{3}{*}{EAM} & Mean (m) & 0.005 & 0.005 & 0.008 & 0.004 & 0.000 & 0.009 \\  & & Standard deviation (m) & 0.009 & 0.011 & 0.017 & 0.010 & 0.006 & 0.016 \\  & & Max. (m) & 0.190 & 0.043 & 0.118 & 0.229 & 0.022 & 0.143 \\  & & Mean (m) & 0.004 & 0.001 & 0.008 & 0.004 & 0.002 & 0.008 \\  & & Standard deviation (m) & 0.006 & 0.007 & 0.014 & 0.006 & 0.006 & 0.014 \\  & & Max. (m) & 0.023 & 0.037 & 0.056 & 0.019 & 0.026 & 0.048 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean discrepancies with respect to reference coordinates, their standard deviation, and extreme values obtained with the EAM and UAM for six and five baseline vectors. Figure 4: Division of Poland regarding the mean baseline vector length and standard deviation. Mean baseline vector length to the six, five, and three nearest ASG-EUPOS stations (left to right). In most cases, the mean linear discrepancies were slightly larger for the UAM than for the EAM. In the case of the UAM and six baseline vectors, the mean discrepancies for coordinate N assumed values from \(-0.005\) to \(-0.001\) m, for coordinate E, from \(-0.007\) to \(0.003\) m, and, for coordinate U, from \(-0.001\) to \(0.008\) m, whereas, in the case of the UAM and five baseline vectors, the mean discrepancies for coordinate N assumed values from \(-0.005\) to \(-0.001\) m, for coordinate E, from \(-0.005\) to \(0.000\) m, and, for coordinate U, from \(0.000\) to \(0.008\) m. Therefore, the results of a post-processing adjustment with the UAM and six or five baseline vectors were similar in terms of mean linear discrepancy ranges (Table 2). In some cases of the EAM, the max values of linear discrepancies were larger for five baseline vectors than for six in the N-component. This was probably caused by a wrong ambiguity resolution in at least one of the shorter baselines. Regarding the extreme values for the six and five baseline vectors using the EAM and UAM, the extreme value of the discrepancy was apparently lower for the UAM. It was particularly evident if six baseline vectors were used for the OPOC station for component U, as the extreme value dropped from 0.256 m to 0.053 m, and, for station JASL, the U extreme discrepancy fell to 0.072 from 0.234 m. Similarly, the extreme discrepancy for coordinate U was reduced in the approach with five baseline vectors from 0.162 to 0.053 m for OPOC and from 0.267 to 0.072 m for JASL. For the UAM adjustment, the values of the extreme discrepancies were comparable regardless of the number of baseline vectors. Regarding the position of the points on the horizontal plane in relation to the reference position (Figure 5), the precision and accuracy of the coordinates improved thanks to the UAM.