fixies

experiment.tex

@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ \subsection{Quality}\label{subsec:experiments_quality}
 We run our experiments using the two settings in Section \cref{subsec:experiments_infrastructure}, namely, \average and \wide,  and varied: \emph{i)} the number of vertexes in the pipeline template in [3,7], \emph{ii)} the window size in [1,$|$max$_v$$|$], where max$_v$ is the number of vertexes in the pipeline template, and \emph{iii)} the number of candidate services for each vertex in the pipeline template in [2, 7]. Values are calculated as the ratio of a given metric to the best metric, where the best metric is obtained through an exhaustive approach. It should be noted that, consequently, there is a constant upper boundary of 1 in the charts.
 
 
-\cref{fig:quality_window_average_perce,fig:quality_window_perce_wide} presents our results the quantitive metrics in \cref{subsec:metrics} for the \wide and \average settings, respectively.
+\cref{fig:quality_window_average_perce,fig:quality_window_perce_wide} present our results the quantitive metrics in \cref{subsec:metrics} for the \wide and \average settings, respectively.
 
 %
 In a configuration employing a \wide setting with three nodes, the average quality ratio for a window size of one is 0.93, with a standard deviation of 0.02; for a window size of two, it is 0.98 with a standard deviation of 0.01. When the number of nodes is increased to four, the average quality ratios observed are 0.88 for a window size of one (standard deviation = 0.04), 0.96 for a window size of two (standard deviation = 0.02), and 0.99 for a window size of three. Further increasing the node count to five yields average quality ratios of 0.76 for a window size of one (standard deviation = 0.09), 0.90 for a window size of two (standard deviation = 0.04), with further increments in window sizes of three and four maintaining standard deviations of 0.01.