Added reference and TODO

latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex

@@ -110,10 +110,10 @@ subjected to.
 Their major differece is that while with proximal decoding the constraints
 are regarded in a global context, considering all parity checks at the same
 time, with \ac{ADMM} each parity check is
-considered separately, in a more local context (line 4 in both algorithms).
+considered separately and in a more local context (line 4 in both algorithms).
 This difference means that while with proximal decoding the alternating
 minimization of the two parts of the objective function inevitably leads to
-oscillatory behaviour (as explained in section (TODO)), this is not the
+oscillatory behaviour (as explained in section \ref{subsec:prox:conv_properties}), this is not the
 case with \ac{ADMM}, which partly explains the disparate decoding performance
 of the two methods.
 Furthermore, while with proximal decoding the step considering the constraints
@@ -133,6 +133,8 @@ itself.
 The advantage which arises because of this when using \ac{ADMM} is that
 it can be easily detected, when the algorithm gets stuck - the algorithm
 returns a pseudocodeword, the components of which are fractional.
+\todo{Additional constraints can then be successively added, until a valid
+codeword is returned}
 
 \todo{Compare time complexity using Big-O notation}
 
@@ -149,7 +151,7 @@ returns a pseudocodeword, the components of which are fractional.
     \item \ac{ADMM} faster than proximal decoding $\rightarrow$
         Parallelism
     \item Proximal decoding faster than \ac{ADMM} $\rightarrow$ dafuq
-        (larger number of iterations before convergence?)
+        (larger number of iterations before convergence? More values to compute for ADMM?)
 \end{itemize}