From df6b3b1785aa36a95bf65fc4a888429bbfa754fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andreas Tsouchlos <an.tsouchlos@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 22:20:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Document ready for correction up to and including chapter
 proximal and appendix

---
 latex/thesis/abbreviations.tex              | 2 +-
 latex/thesis/chapters/appendix.tex          | 6 +++---
 latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex        | 2 ++
 latex/thesis/chapters/proximal_decoding.tex | 8 +++++---
 4 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/latex/thesis/abbreviations.tex b/latex/thesis/abbreviations.tex
index 55e240f..01365ca 100644
--- a/latex/thesis/abbreviations.tex
+++ b/latex/thesis/abbreviations.tex
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 
 \DeclareAcronym{AWGN}{
     short = AWGN,
-    long  = additive white gaussian noise
+    long  = additive white Gaussian noise
 }
 
 \DeclareAcronym{ADMM}{
diff --git a/latex/thesis/chapters/appendix.tex b/latex/thesis/chapters/appendix.tex
index 94a74ab..a80e542 100644
--- a/latex/thesis/chapters/appendix.tex
+++ b/latex/thesis/chapters/appendix.tex
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ their results in \cite[Sec. 5.1]{proximal_paper}
 and they seem to suitably describe the behaviour of the decoding performance
 over a wide range of values for $\gamma$.
 The parameter $\omega$ is chosen to be $0.05$ and the maximum number of
-iterations performed $K$ is 100.
+iterations $K$ performed is 100.
 $\eta$ is set to $1.5$.
 
 In figure \ref{fig:prox:gamma_omega_multiple}, the relationship between
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ $\gamma \in \left\{ 0.01, 0.05, 0.15 \right\}$.
                                         {res/proximal/2d_ber_fer_dfr_pegreg252x504.csv};
             \end{axis}
         \end{tikzpicture}
-        \caption{LDPC code (Progressive Edge Growth Construction) with $n=504, k=252$
+        \caption{LDPC code (progressive edge growth construction) with $n=504, k=252$
             \cite[\text{PEGReg252x504}]{mackay_enc}}
     \end{subfigure}%
 
@@ -465,7 +465,7 @@ $\gamma \in \left\{ 0.01, 0.05, 0.15 \right\}$.
             \end{axis}
         \end{tikzpicture}
         
-        \caption{LDPC code (Progressive Edge Growth Construction) with $n=504, k=252$
+        \caption{LDPC code (progressive edge growth construction) with $n=504, k=252$
             \cite[\text{PEGReg252x504}]{mackay_enc}}
     \end{subfigure}%
 
diff --git a/latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex b/latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex
index f4474cc..cbc3caa 100644
--- a/latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex
+++ b/latex/thesis/chapters/comparison.tex
@@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
 
 TODO
 
+\todo{Note: This chapter is currently only a very rough draft and is not yet ready for correction}
+
 %In this chapter, proximal decoding and \ac{LP} Decoding using \ac{ADMM} are compared.
 %First the two algorithms are compared on a theoretical basis.
 %Subsequently, their respective simulation results are examined and their
diff --git a/latex/thesis/chapters/proximal_decoding.tex b/latex/thesis/chapters/proximal_decoding.tex
index a1377dd..afc8fb5 100644
--- a/latex/thesis/chapters/proximal_decoding.tex
+++ b/latex/thesis/chapters/proximal_decoding.tex
@@ -1214,7 +1214,7 @@ $\SI{2.80}{GHz}$ and utilizing all cores.
         \end{axis}
     \end{tikzpicture}
 
-    \caption{Time requirements of the proximal decoding algorithm imlementation%
+    \caption{Timing requirements of the proximal decoding imlementation%
         \protect\footnotemark{}}
     \label{fig:prox:time_comp}
 \end{figure}%
@@ -1502,6 +1502,8 @@ theoretical considerations.
 
     \begin{tikzpicture}
         \begin{axis}[grid=both,
+                     width=0.6\textwidth,
+                     height=0.45\textwidth,
                      xlabel={$n$}, ylabel={Time per frame (s)},
                      legend style={at={(0.05,0.77)},anchor=south west},
                      legend cell align={left},]
@@ -1518,8 +1520,8 @@ theoretical considerations.
         \end{axis}
     \end{tikzpicture}
 
-    \caption{Time Complexity of Proximal Decoding and Modified Implementation%
-        \protect\footnotemark{}}
+    \caption{Comparison of the timing requirements of the implementations of proximal
+        decoding and the improved algorithm\protect\footnotemark{}}
     \label{fig:prox:time_complexity_comp}
 \end{figure}%
 %