3 - degree-restricted cases and arborescences
4 - bounded expansion classes?
8 - ranking of permutations on general sets, relationship with integer sorting
9 - JN: 4.5.1: neslo by preci isolovat nejaky vlstnosti restriction matrices
10 tak aby byl speedup? Staci napr predpokladat 4.5.2 (jako to postulovat)
11 co je to vlastne za matice co splnuji 4.5.2
12 - JN: bounded-degree restriction graphs; would it imply general speedup?
16 - formatting of multi-line \algin, \algout
20 > 2: simplify, remove proof sketches
21 - 3: intro: replace "efficient" by "linear"
22 - 3.1.7, 3.1.10: skip proof
23 - 3.3: do we really need the full Komlos's result?
24 - 3.3.17: maxflow: shouldn't Karzanov be cited, too?
25 - 3.5.1: does the first alg give any insight?
26 - 3.5.1: mention geometric distribution
27 - 5.4.6: could we give a simple proof?
28 - 5: mention graphs with moving vertices?
29 - 6: mention d-regular graphs
30 - 6: two monographs on Euclidean MST
31 M. Steel: Probability theory and combinatorial optimization, SIAM 1997
32 J. Yukich: Probability theory of classical Euclidean optimization problems, Springer 1998
36 - Remark on 2.5.1: polynomial time could be replaced by sub-exponential time.
37 - For 1.5.6, you should probably quote D. Cheriton and R.E. Tarjan.
38 Finding Minimum Spanning Trees. SIAM J. on Comp. 5(4) (1976) pp.
39 724-742. who gave a linear time algorithm for planar graphs, extended by
40 Tarjan in 1983 to proper minor closed classes (both quoted by Gustedt).
41 [XXX: Cannot get the paper.]
42 - In 3.1.12 and 3.1.16, you should make explicit the dependence of the
43 running time with respect, for instance, to the Hadwiger number of the
44 graph or to the maximal density nabla(G) of a minor of the graph, as
45 considering a minor closed class or another does not change the
46 algorithm but only the bound on its running time.