Capitalization of section titles

Author: Maltesius

report/src/sections/04-Approach.tex

@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ \subsubsection*{Verifier computation}
 \end{theorem}
 
 
-\subsection{Shuffle security}\label{subsec:approach-shuffle-security}
+\subsection{Shuffle Security}\label{subsec:approach-shuffle-security}
 The shuffle method proposed by Larsen et al.~\cite{cryptoeprint:2022/560} that is used in Curdleproofs is based on the idea of shuffling a list of proposers over a set of slots.
 A formal definition of the shuffle is given in~\autoref{fig:shuffle}.
 
@@ -397,7 +397,7 @@ \subsubsection{Shuffle Security}
 
 By repeating this experiment for several runs, one can experimentally say when a shuffle with given parameters is secure.
 
-\subsubsection{Size reduction}
+\subsubsection{Size Reduction}
 If we reduce the shuffle size used in Whisk and still prove it secure, then we expect to see a reduction in the size overhead on the blockchain.
 
 We first set our focus on Curdleproofs, as this is the protocol we have modified directly.

report/src/sections/05-experimental-protocol.tex

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ \section{Experimental Protocol}\label{sec:experimental-protocol}
 The virtual machine is running Ubuntu Server 24.
 
 
-\subsection{CAAUrdleproof}\label{sec:CAAUrdleproof-experiment}
+\subsection{CAAUrdleproofs}\label{sec:CAAUrdleproof-experiment}
 In this experiment, we measure the time to run the CAAUrdleproofs protocol.
 The results will be compared to those of Curdleproofs, which we re-run on our hardware.
 As Curdleproofs already has a Rust benchmark implemented, we will be using that same benchmark for both protocols.
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ \subsection{CAAUrdleproof}\label{sec:CAAUrdleproof-experiment}
 
 
 
-\subsection{Shuffle security}\label{subsec:experimental-protocol-shuffle-security}
+\subsection{Shuffle Security}\label{subsec:experimental-protocol-shuffle-security}
 In this experiment, we run the shuffle protocol with varying shuffle sizes and varying numbers of adversarial tracked ciphertexts.
 The purpose of this experiment is to find the lowest possible shuffle size that is still secure against adversarial tracking.
 We, therefore, run the experiment with shuffle sizes,~$\ell$, between 32 and 512.

report/src/sections/06-results.tex

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ \subsection{Proving and Verifying Times}\label{subsec:results:provingverifying}
 
 
 
-\subsection{Shuffle security}\label{subsec:Shuffle-security}
+\subsection{Shuffle Security}\label{subsec:Shuffle-security}
 
 \begin{figure}[!htb]
     \centering

report/src/sections/07-discussion.tex

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ \section{Discussion}\label{sec:discussion}
 We will also discuss some of the limitations of the CAAUrdleproofs protocol and how it compares to Curdleproofs.
 
 
-\subsection{CAAUrdleproofs in comparison to Curdleproofs}\label{subsec:CAAUrdleproofs-vs-Curdleproofs}
+\subsection{CAAUrdleproofs in Comparison to Curdleproofs}\label{subsec:CAAUrdleproofs-vs-Curdleproofs}
 As mentioned in~\autoref{subsec:results:provingverifying}, the proving and verifying times between the two protocols are close to identical when $\ell$ is a power of two.
 This is because the added computation is negligible compared to the other computations present in the original Curdleproofs protocol.
 

report/src/sections/09-future-works.tex

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\section{Future work}\label{sec:future-works}
+\section{Future Work}\label{sec:future-works}
 In this section, we will focus on areas where the Whisk protocol still has room for improvement.
 
 The main modification from Curdleproofs to CAAUrdleproofs is the added flexibility in choosing the shuffle size for Whisk.

report/src/sections/appendix/04-shuffling-times.tex

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 \clearpage
-\section{Shuffling results}\label{sec:shuffling-results}
+\section{Shuffling Results}\label{sec:shuffling-results}
 Here, we present the results of the shuffling times given different shuffling size values.
 The results can be seen in~\autoref{fig:shufflespeed}.
 \begin{figure}[!htb]