diff --git a/DSD/qrs/images/2w_experiment.svg b/DSD/qrs/images/2w_experiment.svg
index ef7b305..cb16e54 100644
--- a/DSD/qrs/images/2w_experiment.svg
+++ b/DSD/qrs/images/2w_experiment.svg
@@ -7,8 +7,11 @@
    viewBox="0 0 609.24652 216.63609"
    version="1.1"
    id="svg5"
-   inkscape:version="1.2.2 (1:1.2.2+202305151915+b0a8486541)"
+   inkscape:version="1.2.2 (b0a8486541, 2022-12-01)"
    sodipodi:docname="2w_experiment.svg"
+   inkscape:export-filename="2w_experiment.pdf"
+   inkscape:export-xdpi="175.618"
+   inkscape:export-ydpi="175.618"
    xmlns:inkscape="http://www.inkscape.org/namespaces/inkscape"
    xmlns:sodipodi="http://sodipodi.sourceforge.net/DTD/sodipodi-0.dtd"
    xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
@@ -25,12 +28,12 @@
      inkscape:document-units="mm"
      showgrid="false"
      inkscape:zoom="0.70710678"
-     inkscape:cx="1112.279"
-     inkscape:cy="461.74073"
+     inkscape:cx="1268.5496"
+     inkscape:cy="458.20519"
      inkscape:window-width="1920"
-     inkscape:window-height="1016"
+     inkscape:window-height="1056"
      inkscape:window-x="1920"
-     inkscape:window-y="27"
+     inkscape:window-y="0"
      inkscape:window-maximized="1"
      inkscape:current-layer="layer1" />
   <defs
@@ -503,12 +506,12 @@
          style="font-size:10px;stroke-width:0.264583"
          x="39.374374"
          y="257.96527"
-         id="tspan3081">2: Exactly one &quot;reboot&quot; occurence.</tspan><tspan
+         id="tspan3081">2: Exactly one &quot;reboot&quot; occurence and no &quot;high&quot; occurence.</tspan><tspan
          sodipodi:role="line"
          style="font-size:10px;stroke-width:0.264583"
          x="39.374374"
          y="270.46527"
-         id="tspan3091">3: There should not be &quot;high&quot; states for more than 30s.</tspan><tspan
+         id="tspan3091">3: There should not be &quot;high&quot; states for more than 2m.</tspan><tspan
          sodipodi:role="line"
          style="font-size:10px;stroke-width:0.264583"
          x="39.374374"
@@ -601,7 +604,10 @@
        style="font-size:12.0059px;line-height:1.25;font-family:'STIX Two Text';-inkscape-font-specification:'STIX Two Text';letter-spacing:0px;word-spacing:0px;stroke-width:0.0794137"
        x="476.69379"
        y="118.70661"
-       id="text3272"><tspan
+       id="text3272"
+       inkscape:export-filename="text3272.pdf"
+       inkscape:export-xdpi="175.618"
+       inkscape:export-ydpi="175.618"><tspan
          sodipodi:role="line"
          id="tspan3270"
          style="stroke-width:0.0794137"
@@ -628,6 +634,6 @@
          id="tspan3278"
          style="stroke-width:0.0794137"
          x="555.52734"
-         y="118.62257">0</tspan></text>
+         y="118.62257">4</tspan></text>
   </g>
 </svg>
diff --git a/DSD/qrs/main.tex b/DSD/qrs/main.tex
index de17858..fe6b607 100644
--- a/DSD/qrs/main.tex
+++ b/DSD/qrs/main.tex
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
-
 \documentclass[conference]{IEEEconf}
 
 
@@ -33,7 +32,7 @@
 \input{acronyms}
 \title{\textbf{\Large MAD: One-Shot Machine Activity Detector for Physics-Based Cyber Security\\}}
 
-\author{Arthur Grisel-Davy$^{1,*}$, Sebastian Fischmeister$^{2}$\\
+\author{Arthur Grisel-Davy$^{1,*}$, Sebastian Fischmeister$^{1}$\\
     \normalsize $^{1}$University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada\\
     \normalsize agriseld@uwaterloo.ca, sfishme@uwaterloo.ca\\
     \normalsize *corresponding author
@@ -194,6 +193,7 @@ The pattern $\lambda$ is the \textit{unknown} pattern assigned to the samples in
 \label{fig:overview}
 \end{figure}
 
+\pagebreak
 \section{Proposed Solution: MAD}\label{sec:solution}
 \gls{mad}'s core idea separates it from other traditional sliding window algorithm.
 In \gls{mad}, the sample window around the sample to classify dynamically adapts for optimal context selection.
@@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ s_i = \underset{j\in[1,k]}{\arg\min}(sd(i,e_j) \textrm{ with } sd(i,e_j)<T_j)
 \end{equation}
 In the case where no distance is below the threshold, the sample defaults to the \textit{unknown} state.
 
+
 \subsection{Algorithm}
 The algorithm for \gls{mad} follows three steps:
 
@@ -354,12 +355,83 @@ Thus the second part also terminates.
 Finally, the third part uses the sames loops as the second and also terminates.
 Overall, \gls{mad} always terminates for any finite time series and finite set of finite patterns.
 
-\textbf{Monotony of number of unknown sample}\agd{find better title}
-\agd{Explain that the number of unknown sample is monotonic as a function of alpha.
-Also, a sample that is classified as unknown will always remain unknown if alpha decreases.}
+\textbf{Influence of $\alpha$}
+The shrink coefficient $\alpha$ is the only hyperparameter of the detector.
+Its default value is one.
+$\alpha$ controls the threshold of similarity that a substring should cross to get qualified as a match to a pattern.
+$\alpha$ takes its value in $\mathbb{R}_*^+$.
+The default value for $\alpha$ is one.
+This value follows the intuitive reasoning presented in Section~\ref{sec:solution}.
 
-\section{Evaluation}
-The evaluation of \gls{mad} consists in the detection of the states for time series from various machines.
+To better understand the influence of the shrink coefficient, the algorithm can be perceived as a 2D area segmentation problem.
+Let us consider the 2D plane where each pattern has a position based on its shape.
+A substring to classify also has a position in the plane and a distance to each pattern (see bottom part of Figure~\ref{fig:overview}).
+During classification, the substring takes the label of the closest pattern.
+For any pattern $P_j$, the set of positions in the plane that are assigned to $P_j$ --- i.e., the set of positions for which $P_j$ is the closest pattern --- is called the area of attraction of $P_j$.
+In a classic \gls{1nn} context, every point in the plane is in the area of attraction of one pattern.
+
+This infinite area of attraction is not a desirable feature in this context.
+Let us consider now a time series exhibiting anomalous or unforeseen behavior.
+Some substrings in this time series do not resemble any of the provided pattern.
+In an infinite area of attraction context, the anomalous points are assigned to a pattern, even if they poorly match it.
+As a result, the behavior of the security rule can become unpredictable as anomalous points can receive a seemingly random label.
+
+A more desirable behavior of the state detection system is to inform of the presence of unpredicted behavior.
+This behavior naturally emerges when the areas of attraction of the patterns are limited to a finite size.
+The shrink coefficient $\alpha$ --- through the modification of the threshold $T_j$ --- provides control over the shrink of the areas of attraction.
+The lower the value of $\alpha$, the smaller the areas of attraction around each sample.
+Applying a coefficient to the thresholds produces a reduction of the radius of the area of attraction, not an homothety of the initial areas.
+In other words, the shrink does not preserve the shape of the area.
+For a value $\alpha < 0.5$, all areas become disks --- in the 2D representation --- and all shape information are lost.
+
+The impact of the $\alpha$ coefficient on the classification is monotonic and predictable.
+Because $\alpha$ influences the thresholds, changing $\alpha$ results in moving the transitions in the detected labels.
+In other words, a lower value of $\alpha$ expands the unknown segments while a higher value shrinks them until they disappear.
+Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_impact} illustrates the impact $\alpha$ on the width of unknown segments.
+The impact of $\alpha$ on the number of unknown sample is also monotonic.
+
+\begin{proof}
+We prove the monotony of the number of unknown samples as a function of $\alpha$ by induction.
+The base case is $\alpha=0$.
+In this case, the threshold for every pattern $P_j\in P$ is $T_j = \alpha\times ID_j = 0$.
+With every $T_j=0$, no sample can have a distance below the threshold and every sample is labeled as \textit{unknown}.
+
+For the induction case, let us consider $\alpha$ increasing from the value $\alpha_0$ to $\alpha_1 = \alpha_0 + \delta$ with $\delta \in \mathbb{R}_*^+$.
+The increasing of $\alpha$ induces the increase of every threshold $T$ from the value $T_0$ to $T_1$
+\begin{equation}
+\alpha_0 <\alpha_1 \rightarrow T_0 < T_1
+\end{equation}
+
+For every value of every threshold $T$ we can define a set of all samples below the threshold as $S_T$.
+When a threshold increases from $T_0$ to $T_1$, all the samples in $S_{T_0}$ also belong in $S_{T_1}$ by the transitivity of order in $\mathbb{R}_*^+$.
+It is also possible for samples to belong to $S_{T_1}$ but not to $S_{T_0}$ if their distance falls between $T_0$ and $T_1$.
+Hence, $S_{T_0}$ is a subset of $S_{T_1}$ and the cardinality of $S_T$ as a function of $T$ is monotonically non-decreasing.
+
+We conclude that the number of unknown samples --- i.e.,samples above every thresholds --- as a function of $\alpha$ is monotonically non-increasing.
+\end{proof}
+
+
+Figure~\ref{fig:alpha} presents the number of unknown samples in the classification of the NUCPC-1 time series based on the value of $\alpha$.
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centering
+\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{images/alpha.pdf}
+\caption{Evolution of the number of unknown samples based on the value of the shrink coefficient $\alpha$.}
+\label{fig:alpha}
+\end{figure}
+
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centering
+\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{images/alpha_impact.pdf}
+\caption{Behavior of the classifier with different values of $\alpha$. A lower value of $\alpha$ expands the unknown sections (orange sections).}
+\label{fig:alpha_impact}
+\end{figure}
+
+
+\pagebreak
+\section{Case Study 1: Comparison with Other Methods}
+The first evaluation of \gls{mad} consists in the detection of the states for time series from various machines.
 We evaluate the performance of the proposed solution against other traditional methods to illustrate the capabilities and advantages of \gls{mad}.
 
 \subsection{Performance Metrics}
@@ -493,78 +565,6 @@ With both performances metrics combined, \gls{mad} outperforms the other methods
 \label{fig:res}
 \end{figure*}
 
-\subsection{Influence of $\alpha$}
-The shrink coefficient $\alpha$ is the only hyperparameter of the detector.
-Its default value is one.
-$\alpha$ controls the threshold of similarity that a substring should cross to get qualified as a match to a pattern.
-$\alpha$ takes its value in $\mathbb{R}_*^+$.
-The default value for $\alpha$ is one.
-This value follows the intuitive reasoning presented in Section~\ref{sec:solution}.
-
-To better understand the influence of the shrink coefficient, the algorithm can be perceived as a 2D area segmentation problem.
-Let us consider the 2D plane where each pattern has a position based on its shape.
-A substring to classify also has a position in the plane and a distance to each pattern (see bottom part of Figure~\ref{fig:overview}).
-During classification, the substring takes the label of the closest pattern.
-For any pattern $P_j$, the set of positions in the plane that are assigned to $P_j$ --- i.e., the set of positions for which $P_j$ is the closest pattern --- is called the area of attraction of $P_j$.
-In a classic \gls{1nn} context, every point in the plane is in the area of attraction of one pattern.
-
-This infinite area of attraction is not a desirable feature in this context.
-Let us consider now a time series exhibiting anomalous or unforeseen behavior.
-Some substrings in this time series do not resemble any of the provided pattern.
-In an infinite area of attraction context, the anomalous points are assigned to a pattern, even if they poorly match it.
-As a result, the behavior of the security rule can become unpredictable as anomalous points can receive a seemingly random label.
-
-A more desirable behavior of the state detection system is to inform of the presence of unpredicted behavior.
-This behavior naturally emerges when the areas of attraction of the patterns are limited to a finite size.
-The shrink coefficient $\alpha$ --- through the modification of the threshold $T_j$ --- provides control over the shrink of the areas of attraction.
-The lower the value of $\alpha$, the smaller the areas of attraction around each sample.
-Applying a coefficient to the thresholds produces a reduction of the radius of the area of attraction, not an homothety of the initial areas.
-In other words, the shrink does not preserve the shape of the area.
-For a value $\alpha < 0.5$, all areas become disks --- in the 2D representation --- and all shape information are lost.
-
-The impact of the $\alpha$ coefficient on the classification is monotonic and predictable.
-Because $\alpha$ influences the thresholds, changing $\alpha$ results in moving the transitions in the detected labels.
-In other words, a lower value of $\alpha$ expands the unknown segments while a higher value shrinks them until they disappear.
-Figure~\ref{fig:alpha_impact} illustrates the impact $\alpha$ on the width of unknown segments.
-The impact of $\alpha$ on the number of unknown sample is also monotonic.
-
-\begin{proof}
-We prove the monotony of the number of unknown samples as a function of $\alpha$ by induction.
-The base case is $\alpha=0$.
-In this case, the threshold for every pattern $P_j\in P$ is $T_j = \alpha\times ID_j = 0$.
-With every $T_j=0$, no sample can have a distance below the threshold and every sample is labeled as \textit{unknown}.
-
-For the induction case, let us consider $\alpha$ increasing from the value $\alpha_0$ to $\alpha_1 = \alpha_0 + \delta$ with $\delta \in \mathbb{R}_*^+$.
-The increasing of $\alpha$ induces the increase of every threshold $T$ from the value $T_0$ to $T_1$
-\begin{equation}
-\alpha_0 <\alpha_1 \rightarrow T_0 < T_1
-\end{equation}
-
-For every value of every threshold $T$ we can define a set of all samples below the threshold as $S_T$.
-When a threshold increases from $T_0$ to $T_1$, all the samples in $S_{T_0}$ also belong in $S_{T_1}$ by the transitivity of order in $\mathbb{R}_*^+$.
-It is also possible for samples to belong to $S_{T_1}$ but not to $S_{T_0}$ if their distance falls between $T_0$ and $T_1$.
-Hence, $S_{T_0}$ is a subset of $S_{T_1}$ and the cardinality of $S_T$ as a function of $T$ is monotonically non-decreasing.
-
-We conclude that the number of unknown samples --- i.e.,samples above every thresholds --- as a function of $\alpha$ is monotonically non-increasing.
-\end{proof}
-
-
-Figure~\ref{fig:alpha} presents the number of unknown samples in the classification of the NUCPC-1 time series based on the value of $\alpha$.
-
-
-\begin{figure}
-\centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{images/alpha.pdf}
-\caption{Evolution of the number of unknown samples based on the value of the shrink coefficient $\alpha$.}
-\label{fig:alpha}
-\end{figure}
-
-\begin{figure}
-\centering
-\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{images/alpha_impact.pdf}
-\caption{Behavior of the classifier with different values of $\alpha$. A lower value of $\alpha$ expands the unknown sections (orange sections)}
-\label{fig:alpha_impact}
-\end{figure}
 
 \begin{figure*}
 \centering
@@ -573,6 +573,9 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:alpha} presents the number of unknown samples in the classificat
 \label{fig:areas}
 \end{figure*}
 
+\pagebreak
+\section{Case Study 2: Attack Scenarios}
+
 \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
 In this section we highlight specific aspects of the proposed solution.