Comparison between Galileo CBOC Candidates and BOC(1,1) in Terms of Detection Performance

<table>Detection probability versus the <svg height="16.299999" id="M79" style="vertical-align:-3.3907pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 40.299999 16.299999" width="40.299999" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,.062,12.013)"><path d="M682 629q-1 -16 -1.5 -72t-2.5 -86l-31 -4q-5 92 -51 129t-139 37q-100 0 -177 -49t-116 -125t-39 -162q0 -122 66 -201t182 -79q83 0 137 42.5t112 128.5l26 -15q-12 -31 -42.5 -88t-45.5 -75q-139 -27 -199 -27q-148 0 -243 81.5t-95 226.5q0 173 129.5 274.5
t325.5 101.5q114 0 204 -38z" id="x1D436"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,12.047,12.013)"><path d="M368 703l-264 -866h-60l265 866h59z" id="x2F"></path></g><g transform="matrix(.017,-0,0,-.017,19.05,12.013)"><path d="M857 650l-6 -28q-44 -4 -61.5 -16.5t-29.5 -48.5q-11 -32 -37 -166l-78 -399h-29l-351 537h-4l-56 -276q-24 -120 -24 -164q0 -35 17.5 -46t75.5 -15l-6 -28h-245l7 28q41 2 62 14t31 44q10 30 41 171l53 245q8 44 6.5 60.5t-14.5 33.5q-10 15 -27 19.5t-64 6.5l6 28h153
l350 -516h5l48 257q25 131 25 171q0 34 -17.5 45t-77.5 15l7 28h240z" id="x1D441"></path></g>
<g transform="matrix(.012,-0,0,-.012,33.912,16.088)"><path d="M241 635q53 0 94 -28.5t63.5 -76t33.5 -102.5t11 -116q0 -58 -11 -112.5t-34 -103.5t-63.5 -78.5t-94.5 -29.5t-95 28t-64.5 75t-34.5 102.5t-11 118.5q0 58 11.5 112.5t34.5 103t64.5 78t95.5 29.5zM238 602q-32 0 -55.5 -25t-35.5 -68t-17.5 -91t-5.5 -105
q0 -76 10 -138.5t37 -107.5t69 -45q32 0 55.5 25t35.5 68.5t17.5 91.5t5.5 105t-5.5 105.5t-18 92t-36 68t-56.5 24.5z" id="x30"></path></g>
</svg> at a false alarm probability of 10<sup>-4</sup> comparison among standalone BOC(1,1), CBOC(6,1,4/33), and the CBOC(6,1,4/33)
demodulated with a BOC(1,1) replica.</table>

International Journal of Navigation and Observation

fig13

Figure 13

Figure 13: Comparison between Galileo CBOC Candidates and BOC(1,1) in Terms of Detection Performance 