diff --git a/project/template.tex b/project/template.tex
index 93c1041..4a5d28e 100644
--- a/project/template.tex
+++ b/project/template.tex
@@ -2135,7 +2135,7 @@ \subsubsection{$d$-split Syndrome Decoding Problem}
   c_j & = \sum_{i=1}^d a_{i,j} \cdot b_{i,j}, \quad j \in [\tau].
 \end{align*}
 
-While the $d$-split variant introduces a slight reduction in security compared to the standard SD problem, this is mitigated by a small increase in the security parameters $m$, and $w$. The primary advantage of this variant lies in its flexibility. We have a bound on the size of the $|\mathbb{F}_q| \geq m/d$. Therefore, the main benefit to introduce the $d$-split version is let the protocol work on polynomials of smaller degree and/or on specific fields which provides better performance trade-offs~\cite{aguilarsyndrome11}. The increase in parameters are given by
+While the $d$-split variant introduces a slight reduction in security compared to the standard SD problem, this is mitigated by a small increase in the security parameters $m$, and $w$. The primary advantage of this variant lies in its flexibility. We have a bound on the size of the $|\mathbb{F}_q| \geq m/d$. Therefore, the main benefit of introducing the $d$-split version is to let the protocol work on polynomials of smaller degree and/or on specific fields which provides better performance trade-offs~\cite{aguilarsyndrome11}. The increase in parameters are given by
 \begin{align}
   \epsilon_1 \geq \frac{\binom{m/d}{w/d}}{\binom{m}{w}} \cdot \epsilon_d\label{eq:d_split_epsilon}
 \end{align}