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
Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Ram K. Gupta

dblp:16/4853 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1978
—ORCID · none

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

Systems, architecture and hardware · 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.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Memory systems · 67% Performance modeling and evaluation · 33%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Memory systems › virtual memory management
paging algorithms		 0.011978
Working Set and Page Fault Frequency Paging Algorithms: A Performance Comparison · IEEE Trans. Computers 1978
Memory systems › memory management
virtual memory		 0.011978
Working Set and Page Fault Frequency Paging Algorithms: A Performance Comparison · IEEE Trans. Computers 1978

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

analytical modeling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1978 Working Set and Page Fault Frequency Paging Algorithms: A Performance Comparison
abstract
Performance of a paged virtual memory computer system operating under working set (WS) and page fault frequency (PFF) paging algorithms is analyzed analytically. Performance sensitivity to program reference behavior and paging algorithm parameter is studied for the two paging algorithms. The results indicate that when performance with the two algorithms is compared, the WS algorithm is generally less sensitive to changes in program behavior. Results are also provided relating to performance sensitivity to algorithm parameter selection.
Ram K. Gupta, Mark A. Franklin
 IEEE Trans. Computers1