EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Asaph Zemach
dblp:93/1551
· DBLP profile ↗
8ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2000
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Systems, architecture and hardware · 7Theory of computation · 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
4 papers |
Parallel and multicore computing · 87% Performance modeling and evaluation · 8% Memory systems · 5% | |
| Theoretical computer science
1 paper |
Algorithms and data structures · 77% Distributed computing theory · 23% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers |
Concurrent programming · 100% |
Topics — the 11 heaviest of 12, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Concurrent programming
concurrent data structures |
0.0 | 2 | 1999 | Scalable Concurrent Priority Queue Algorithms · PODC 1999 Combining Funnels: A New Twist on an Old Tale · PODC 1998 |
Parallel and multicore computing
parallel algorithms |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | A Wait-Free Sorting Algorithm · PODC 1997 |
Algorithms and data structures › sequence algorithms › sorting
parallel sorting |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | A Wait-Free Sorting Algorithm · PODC 1997 |
Algorithms and data structures › sequence algorithms
sorting |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | A Wait-Free Sorting Algorithm · PODC 1997 |
Parallel and multicore computing
concurrent data structures |
0.0 | 1 | 1996 | Diffracting Trees · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1996 |
Parallel and multicore computing
load balancing |
0.0 | 1 | 1996 | Diffracting Trees · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1996 |
Performance modeling and evaluation › simulation › parallel architecture simulation
multiprocessor simulation |
0.0 | 1 | 1999 | Scalable Concurrent Priority Queue Algorithms · PODC 1999 |
Parallel and multicore computing › parallel algorithms
shared-memory parallel algorithms |
0.0 | 1 | 1998 | Combining Funnels: A New Twist on an Old Tale · PODC 1998 |
Distributed computing theory
fault tolerance |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | A Wait-Free Sorting Algorithm · PODC 1997 |
Distributed computing theory › concurrent objects
wait-free algorithms |
0.0 | 1 | 1997 | A Wait-Free Sorting Algorithm · PODC 1997 |
Memory systems › shared memory
distributed shared memory |
0.0 | 1 | 1996 | Diffracting Trees · ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 1996 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
linearfunnels · 0.0funneltree · 0.0randomization · 0.0CRCW PRAM · 0.0simulation · 0.0randomized coordination · 0.0combinatorial data structure · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Combining Funnels: A Dynamic Approach to Software Combining
Nir Shavit, Asaph Zemach |
J. Parallel Distributed Comput. | 2 |
| 1999 | Scalable Concurrent Priority Queue AlgorithmsabstractThis paper addresses the problem of designing bounded range priority queues, that is, queues that support a fixed range of priorities. Bounded range priority queues are fundamental in the design of modern multiprocessor algorithms -- from the application level to lowest levels of the operating system kernel. While most of the available priority queue literature is directed at existing small-scale machines, we chose to evaluate algorithms on a broader concurrency scale using a simulated 256 node shared memory multiprocessor architecture similar to the MIT Alewife. Our empirical evidence suggests that the priority queue algorithms currently available in the literature do not scale. Based on these findings, we present two simple new algorithms, LinearFunnels and FunnelTree, that provide true scalability throughout the concurrency range. 1 Introduction Priority queues are a fundamental class of data structures used in the design of modern multiprocessor algorithms. Their uses range from ... Nir Shavit, Asaph Zemach |
PODC | 2 |
| 1998 | Combining Funnels: A New Twist on an Old Tale
Nir Shavit, Asaph Zemach |
PODC | 2 |
| 1998 | A Steady State Analysis of Diffracting Trees
Nir Shavit, Eli Upfal, Asaph Zemach |
Theory Comput. Syst. | 3 |
| 1997 | A Wait-Free Sorting AlgorithmabstractSorting in one of a set of fundamental problems in computer saence.In this paper we present the first wait-free algorithm for sorting an input array of size N using P s N proceseom to achieve optimal running time.Known sorting algorithms, when made wait-flee through previously eskabliehed trsmsformation techniques have complexity O(logs N).The randomized algorithm we present here, when run in the CRCW PRAM model executes in optimal O(log N) time where P = N and O(N log N/P) otherwise.The wait-free property guarantees that the sort will complete despite any delays or failures incumed by the processors.This is a very desirable property from an operating systems point of view, since it allows oblivious thread scheduling as well as thread creation and deletion, without fear of losing the algorithm's correctness.We further present a variant of the algorithm which is shown to suffer no more than O(m) cent ention when rust Sy'tlChrOnOUd~.Sorting is a basic algorithmic building block and hm attracted the attention of many reeearchera.In this paper we present a wait-i%ee algorithm for sorting an ssmay of N elements, in the CRCW PRAM model with processor failures and undetectable restarts.Herlihy [17] defines a wait-free data structure M one on which any operation by any processor is guaranteed to complete within a bounded number of steps, regardless of the actions or failures of other proceesom.By extension, a wait-free algorithm for some iixed-size problem is guaranteed to arrive at the solution within a bounded "MIT and Nir Shavit, Eli Upfal, Asaph Zemach |
PODC | 3 |
| 1996 | A Steady State Analysis of Diffracting Trees (Extended Abstract)abstractDijj%-acting trees are an effective and highly scalable distributed-parallel technique for shared counting and load balanc-We believe ourmodel and modeling approach open the way to steady-state analysis of other distributed-parallel structures such as counting networks and elimination trees. Nir Shavit, Eli Upfal, Asaph Zemach |
SPAA | 3 |
| 1996 | Diffracting TreesabstractShared counters are among the most basic coordination structures in multiprocessor conputation, with applications ranging from barrier synchronization to concurrent-data-structure design. This article introduces diffracting trees, novel data structures for share counting and load balancing in a distributed/parallel environment. Empirical evidence, collected on a simulated distributed shared-memory machine and several simulated message-passing architectures, shows that diffracting trees scale better and are more robust than both combining trees and counting networks, currently the most effective known methods for implementing concurrent counters in software. The use of a randomized coordination method together with a combinatorial data structure overcomes the resiliency drawbacks of combining trees. Our simulations show that to handle the same load, diffracting trees and counting networks should have a similar widthw, yet the depth of a diffracting tree isO(logw), whereas counting networks have depthO(log2w). Diffracting trees have already been used to implement highly efficient producer/consumer queues, and we believe diffraction will prove to be an effective alternative paradigm to combining and queue-locking in the design of many concurrent data structures. Nir Shavit, Asaph Zemach |
ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. | 2 |
| 1994 | Diffracting Trees (Preliminary Version)abstractShared counters are among the most basic coordination structures in multiprocessor computation, with applications ranging from barrier synchronization to dynamic load balancing. Introduced in this paper are diffracting trees, novel distributed-parallel data structures for shared counting. Diffracting trees combine a randomized coordination method together with a combinatorial data structure, to yield a logarithmic depth counter that improves on the log2 depth of counting networks, and overcomes the resiliency drawbacks of combining trees. Empirical evidence collected on a simulated distributed shared-memory multiprocessor shows that diffracting trees substantially outperform both combining trees and counting networks, currently the most effective known methods for shared counting. Not only do diffracting trees have higher throughput and lower latency, but unlike any known technique, their latency remains almost constant as the number of processors increases. Nir Shavit, Asaph Zemach |
SPAA | 2 |