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
EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert

John D. Lipson

dblp:19/6894 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1967
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

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.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Coding theory · 70% Automata and formal languages · 30%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Coding theory
sardinas-patterson criterion		 0.011967
On the unique decodability of codes (Corresp.) · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1967
Coding theory
source coding		 0.011967
On the unique decodability of codes (Corresp.) · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1967
Automata and formal languages
unique decodability		 0.011967
On the unique decodability of codes (Corresp.) · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1967
Coding theory › error-correcting codes
decodable codes		 0.011967
On the unique decodability of codes (Corresp.) · IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1967

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

algorithmic complexity analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1967 On the unique decodability of codes (Corresp.)
abstract
A simplification of the Sardinas and Patterson test for unique decodability is given. It is shown that duplicate sequences of code symbols generated by that algorithm can be omitted, resulting in a more efficient algorithm with respect to computer storage and time required to carry out the test. This simplicity is employed in deriving an improved upper bound on the number of sequences of code symbols that must be generated in order to determine whether or not a given code is uniquely decodable. This easily computed bound serves as a measure of the amount of computer storage and time required to carry out the test for any given code.
John D. Lipson
 IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory1