Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Arthur E. Feather

dblp:20/5057 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1982
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Parallel and multicore computing · 50% Performance modeling and evaluation · 50%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Image and video processing · 100%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Image and video processing
image correlation
0.011982
Parallel Processing Approaches to Image Correlation · IEEE Trans. Computers 1982

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

asymptotic complexity analysis · 0.0SIMD parallelism · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1982 Parallel Processing Approaches to Image Correlation
abstract
Image correlation is representative of a wide variety of window-based image processing tasks. The way in which multimi-croprocessor systems (e.g., PASM) can use SIMD parallelism to perform image correlation is examined. Two fundamental algorithm strategies are explored. In one approach, all of the data that will be needed in a processor are transferred to the processor and operated on there. In the other, each processor performs all possible operations on its local data, generating partial results which are then transferred to the processor in which they are needed. The "time/space/inter-processor-transfer" complexities of the two algorithm approaches are analyzed in order to quantify the differences resulting from the two -strategies. For both approaches, the asymptotic time complexity of the N-processor SIMD algorithms is (1/N)th that of the corresponding serial algorithms.
Leah J. Siegel, Howard Jay Siegel, Arthur E. Feather
IEEE Trans. Computers3