## 4 Integrated Experiments  
The above two strategies about attitude modes and PCV modeling are introduced into Jason-3 POD to integratedly compare their performance. The experiment selected 20 days data, the same as Section 3. Eight schemes for POD were designed: scheme 1 used nominal attitude without PCVs; scheme 2 used attitude event file without PCVs; scheme 3 used the combined model without PCVs; scheme 4 used quaternions data without PCVs; scheme 5 used nominal attitude with PCVs; scheme 6 used attitude event file with PCVs; scheme 7 used the combined model with PCVs; scheme 8 used quaternions data with PCVs. Limited by length of paper, we only utilized CNES orbits and SLR technology to validate the orbital accuracy for eight schemes. Table 5 shows the validation accuracy of eight schemes using CNES orbits and SLR technology. The maximum errors with/without receiver PCVs with nominal attitude corresponds to the PCO correction errors (see Section 3.1.2). Compared with schemes 1 and 5, schemes 2 and 6, schemes 3 and 7, schemes 4 and 8, the 3D-RMS position difference by introducing receiver PCVs are improved by 13.8 mm, 2.6 mm, 3.7 mm, and 4.7 mm, and the distance errors with SLR validation are improved by 0.4 mm, 1.4 mm, 1.8 mm, and 1.1 mm, respectively. Compared with schemes 2 and 3, schemes 6 and 7, regardless of whether PCVs are introduced, the accuracy using the combined attitude is higher than that of attitude event file (in red marks), which also prove the feasibility of the combined attitude in integrated POD. The combined attitude can be as a revision of event file to get more stable attitude and orbits. By introducing receiver PCVs map, orbital accuracy can be improved by millimeter level based on the combined attitude, event file, and quaternions. The integrated effects of attitude modes and receiver PCVs on POD are almost consistent with the effect of a single variable. Among the eight schemes, the optimal POD results in the R, T and N directions and 3D-RMS position difference are approximately 1.33 cm, 2.38 cm, 1.17 cm, and 2.97 cm, respectively. Figures 11 and 12 show the stability of orbit accuracy (3D-RMS) based on the eight schemes according to with/no PCVs and different attitude modes, respectively. The stability of orbital R-RMS based on eight schemes is similar to those of 3D-RMS; so it will not be shown here. From Figures 11 and 12, we noted that the introduction of PCVs has little influence on the stability of orbit accuracy. Note that Figure 12b-d have the same range of ordinates, which are different from Figure 12a. Among \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Cut-Off**\(60^{\circ}\) & **Mean** & **STD** & **RMS** & **Cut-Off**\(0^{\circ}\) & **Mean** & **STD** & **RMS** \\ \hline no PCVs & 1.1 & 14.4 & 14.7 & no PCVs & 3.3 & 20.1 & 21.7 \\ PCVs & –3.7 & 13.2 & 14.0 & PCVs & –0.8 & 17.2 & 17.6 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Orbital SLR residuals statistics [unit: mm]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Scheme**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**CNES Orbits Validation**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**SLR Validation**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **R-RMS** & **T-RMS** & **N-RMS** & **3D-RMS** & **Mean** & **STD** & **RMS** \\ \hline
1 (Normal + nopcv) & 35.89 & 179.61 & 78.72 & 199.36 & 9.45 & 71.54 & 72.62 \\
2 (Event file + nopcv) & 2.66 & 6.65 & 2.36 & 7.54 & 0.23 & 2.22 & 2.43 \\
3 (Combined + nopcv) & 2.22 & 5.22 & 2.16 & 6.07 & 0.27 & 2.21 & 2.44 \\
4 (Quaternions + nopcv) & 1.26 & 2.83 & 1.50 & 3.44 & –0.09 & 1.93 & 2.11 \\
5 (Normal + pcv) & 35.94 & 178.14 & 78.55 & 197.98 & 8.89 & 71.58 & 72.58 \\
6 (Event file + pcv) & 2.79 & 6.38 & 2.13 & 7.28 & –0.32 & 2.12 & 2.29 \\
7 (Combined + pcv) & 2.34 & 4.86 & 1.85 & 5.70 & –0.27 & 2.07 & 2.26 \\
8 (Quaternions + pcv) & 1.33 & 2.38 & 1.17 & 2.97 & –0.44 & 1.76 & 2.01 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Accuracy comparison of eight POD schemes [unit: cm].