**Table 9:** Filter cutting values: optimal selection.
% Pubs. lost	25	10	5	1	0.1
d CS	0.210	0.255	0.285	0.300	0.300
CM	0.225	0.285	0.300	0.300	0.300
d₂ CS	5.400	9.000	8.550	9.000	9.000
CM	8.100	8.550	7.650	7.650	8.550
d₅ CS	2100	3000	3000	3000	3000
CM	1350	1950	2100	2700	3000
d₆ CS	2000	4000	7000	17000	20000
CM	1000	2000	4000	13000	19000
% dpp CS	90.74	70.24	46.34	7.06	0.88
CM	88.85	65.66	46.66	19.47	4.13

NOTE: The first row gives the percentage of published identifications that would be lost when the optimal filter cutting values listed in the subsequent rows are used. The last two rows show the percentage of discarded proposed pairs (dpp), that is, those pairs that when using the filter values of the corresponding column would not reach the differential correction procedure.

Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text

	1 Introduction
	2 The line of variations
	3 Application 1: Impact monitoring
	4 Application 2: Orbit determination
	5 Application 3: Orbit identification
	6 Application 4: Qualitative analysis
	7 Conclusions
	Appendix A: Comparison of LOV definitions
	References