## 7 Conclusions  
The results of the standardized tests for the two categories of receivers were presented. The results were analyzed in terms of well-defined receiver key performance indicators. The result analysis showed that both the receiver categories were impacted ominously by the interference threats. More specifically, it was observed that the mass-market RUT was capable of recovering from a high-powered jamming event much faster than the professional grade RUT. Moreover, the MM RUT was capable of withstanding a power-varying interference event longer than the PRO RUT, resulting in a much higher availability for MM RUT than that of a PRO RUT. On the contrary, in terms of performance accuracy, PRO RUT is instead performing better than the MM RUT. However, when a C/N\({}_{0}\) mask of 25 dB-Hz was applied at the PVT computation stage for both the receiver categories, they tend to behave almost similarly against interference threats, i.e., both the receivers exhibit similar availability against the same kind of interference threat. A performance comparison of the RUT under different threat signatures, considering the methodology the interfering signal is generated (i.e., via synthetic signal or via real recorded signal), was also presented. The objective of this test set up was to investigate the impact of the interference signal generation on the RUT's positioning performance. The results showed that the interfering  
Figure 12: C/N\({}_{0}\) of (**a**) Galileo E1b, and (**b**) Galileo E5b tracked satellites. signals generated synthetically had impacted the RUT more than the real-recorded version of the same signatures. This could potentially be due to the fact that the synthetic signatures are free from multipath and GNSS PRN codes and, hence, are much cleaner than the recorded ones, resulting in a far-reaching impact on the RUT's navigation performance. Dual frequency GPS/Galileo L1/E1 and L5/E5 test was also carried out in order to investigate if the RUT could intelligently exploit the frequency diversity in the presence of interference in the L1/E1 frequency band. It was interesting to experience that the L5/E5 signals were also affected to a lesser extent, even though the interference was on L1/E1 band. It was noticed that the professional RUT did not generate L5/E5 observations for those epochs in which no L1/E1 observation was generated. Based on this result, it can be stated that the RUT was not yet capable of exploiting the frequency diversity to withstand the interference in L1/E1 band. Overall, this paper shows that the availability of threat signatures and standardized test procedures is critical towards understanding the behavior of GNSS receivers under the most frequently encountered interference threats. This, in turn, should help the GNSS community in developing the next generation of robust receiver technologies and to support wider utilization of GNSS in safety and liability-critical high-value applications. [PERSON] wrote the manuscript with the help of the other authors. In addition, [PERSON] was involved in the test platform development and wrote the MATLAB-based script for analyzing the receiver test data. [PERSON] wrote some parts of the manuscript, developed the C++-based script for the automation of the receiver testing, carried out the MM receiver testing, and also helped in analyzing the test results. [PERSON] wrote a script to automate the PRO receiver testing, carried out all the PRO receiver tests, and also helped in analyzing the receiver test results. [PERSON] contributed to the introductory part of the manuscript and he was also involved in test platform development and results analysis. [PERSON] and [PERSON] were involved in real-world interference data collection and classification, overall reviewing of the manuscript, and also offered an expert industrial opinion on the subject matter.