## 3 Results
### Comparisons Results
Indeed, the \"gal score\" related to the GLONASS comparisons was always higher than the one associated to the GPS comparisons. Another important output was the number of fixed solutions produced by the Galileo combinations. In fact, the reduced number of Galileo available satellites allowed a very small number of satellite combinations. Despite this, it was possible to produce 1287 comparisons for the \"\(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_5}}\)\" group. This cannot be considered a causality since Table 3 also shows that the Galileo combinations with five satellites were the ones in which there was a prevalence of the \"Instantaneous\" ambiguity fixing method (the most restrictive one). With regard to the number of epochs involved in the computations of float comparisons, Table 4 shows a very high decreasing rate when the combinations with six satellites were involved. This is true both for of \(\Delta_{\text{D \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Comparison**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Avg. Values Comp.**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**r-Test Summary**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Epochs** & **Gal Score** & **Epochs** & **Avg. \(p\)** & **n. Epochs \(p\) \(<\) 0.05** & **Appendix/Supp. Material** \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_4}}\) & 860 & 75.8\% & 504 & 0.130 & 42.7\% & Figure S1 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_glo\_4}}\) & 847 & 76.5\% & — & — & — & Figure S2 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_glo\_5}}\) & 1287 & 90.8\% & 1283 & 0.047 & 91.0\% & Figure S3 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_glo\_5}}\) & 1279 & 99.0\% & 756 & 0.014 & 93.0\% & Figure S4 \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_6}}\) & 1280 & 99.2\% & 1280 & 0.008 & 98.0\% & Figure A1a \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,1 gal\_vs\_glo\_6}}\) & 1280 & 99.8\% & 998 & 0.041 & 89.2\% & Figure A1b \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{D,2 gal\_vs\_gps\_4}}\) & 736 & 82.2\% & 205 & 0.271 & 38.1\% & Figure S5 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_4}}\) & 463 & 90.9\% & — & — & — & Figure S6 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,2 gal\_vs\_gps\_5}}\) & 1176 & 97.9\% & 1065 & 0.024 & 93.0\% & Figure S7 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_5}}\) & 1171 & 98.9\% & 444 & 0.024 & 96.6\% & Figure S8 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,2 gal\_vs\_gps\_6}}\) & 32 & 93.8\% & 30 & 0.036 & 93.3\% & Figure S9 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{D,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_6}}\) & 32 & 100\% & 25 & 0.006 & 96.0\% & Figure S10 \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_4}}\) & 860 & 6.7\% & 504 & 0.049 & 86.9\% & Figure S11 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_glo\_4}}\) & 847 & 22.3\% & — & — & — & Figure S12 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_5}}\) & 1287 & 27.9\% & 1283 & 0.056 & 85.7\% & Figure S13 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_glo\_5}}\) & 1279 & 40.5\% & 756 & 0.068 & 80.4\% & Figure S14 \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_6}}\) & 1280 & 26.0\% & 1280 & 0.068 & 87.3\% & Figure Altc \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_6}}\) & 1280 & 36.1\% & 998 & 0.121 & 65.1\% & Figure Alt \\ \hline \(\Delta_{\text{H,1 gal\_vs\_gps\_4}}\) & 736 & 12.2\% & 206 & 0.005 & 98.5\% & Figure S15 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_4}}\) & 463 & 38.0\% & — & — & — & Figure S16 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,2 gal\_vs\_gps\_5}}\) & 1176 & 15.3\% & 1065 & 0.060 & 82.8\% & Figure S17 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_5}}\) & 1171 & 42.4\% & 444 & 0.072 & 82.2\% & Figure S18 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_6}}\) & 32 & 62.5\% & 30 & 0.045 & 93.3\% & Figure S19 \\ \(\Delta_{\text{H,2 gal\_vs\_glo\_6}}\) & 32 & 59.4\% & 25 & 0.451 & 16.0\% & Figure S20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Summary of the comparisons. The “comparison” column shows the object of the comparison for fixed (\(\Delta_{\text{D,1}}\) or \(\Delta_{\text{H,1}}\)) or float (\(\Delta_{\text{D,2}}\) or \(\Delta_{\text{H,2}}\)) solutions with n satellites (with n = 4, 5, 6) for the Galileo (gal), GPS (gps), and GLONASS (glo) constellations. The average values comparisons columns (Avg. values comp.)