X-Git-Url: https://gerrit.fd.io/r/gitweb?a=blobdiff_plain;f=docs%2Freport%2Fintroduction%2Fmethodology_plrsearch.rst;h=65ac59022277385ab36b4dfc2bd8c401a903328d;hb=935bc3285b5a2174ba2846f4ab3f3e9e14e1cf17;hp=cc81088e62be2a6928e517e69e2eedb18dfb2931;hpb=8940a28e292d715c92f46d7a509d9e4ac0b18f2a;p=csit.git

diff --git a/docs/report/introduction/methodology_plrsearch.rst b/docs/report/introduction/methodology_plrsearch.rst
index cc81088e62..65ac590222 100644
--- a/docs/report/introduction/methodology_plrsearch.rst
+++ b/docs/report/introduction/methodology_plrsearch.rst
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-.. _plrsearch_algorithm:
+.. _`PLRsearch algorithm`:
 
 PLRsearch
 ^^^^^^^^^
@@ -338,16 +338,67 @@ as the observed trends have varied characteristics.
 Probably, using a more realistic fitting functions
 will give better estimates than trend analysis.
 
-Graphical example
-`````````````````
+Graphical examples
+``````````````````
+
+The following pictures show the upper and lower bound (one sigma)
+on estimated critical rate, as computed by PLRsearch, after each trial measurement
+within the 30 minute duration of a test run.
+
+Both graphs are focusing on later estimates. Estimates computed from
+few initial measurements are wildly off the y-axis range shown.
+
+L2 patch
+--------
+
+This test case shows quite narrow critical region. Both fitting functions
+give similar estimates, the graph shows the randomness of measurements,
+and a trend. Both fitting functions seem to be somewhat overestimating
+the critical rate. The final estimated interval is too narrow,
+a longer run would report estimates somewhat bellow the current lower bound.
+
+.. only:: latex
+
+    .. raw:: latex
+
+        \begin{figure}[H]
+            \centering
+                \graphicspath{{../_tmp/src/introduction/}}
+                \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{PLR_patch}
+                \label{fig:PLR_patch}
+        \end{figure}
+
+.. only:: html
+
+    .. figure:: PLR_patch.svg
+        :alt: PLR_patch
+        :align: center
+
+Vhost
+-----
+
+This test case shows quite broad critical region. Fitting functions give
+fairly differing estimates. One overestimates, the other underestimates.
+The graph mostly shows later measurements slowly bringing the estimates
+towards each other. The final estimated interval is too broad,
+a longer run would return a smaller interval within the current one.
+
+.. only:: latex
+
+    .. raw:: latex
 
-The following picture shows the estimated average of the critical rate
-computed by the two fitting functions after each trial measurement
-within the 30 minute duration of a PLRsearch test run.
+        \begin{figure}[H]
+            \centering
+                \graphicspath{{../_tmp/src/introduction/}}
+                \includegraphics[width=0.90\textwidth]{PLR_vhost}
+                \label{fig:PLR_vhost}
+        \end{figure}
 
-.. image:: PLRsearch.svg
+.. only:: html
 
-.. TODO: Add a 1901 result section when results are available.
+    .. figure:: PLR_vhost.svg
+        :alt: PLR_vhost
+        :align: center
 
 .. _plrsearch draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vpolak-bmwg-plrsearch-00
 .. _RFC 2544: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2544