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

Stanley C. Eisenstat

dblp:73/606 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1989
—ORCID · none

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

Theory of computation · 2Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2Systems, 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.

Theoretical computer science
3 papers
Computational complexity · 86% Algorithms and data structures · 14%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
2 papers
Programming languages and type systems · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Programming languages and type systems
control structures
0.011980
Space-Time Trade-Offs in Structured Programming: An Improved Combinatorial Embedding Theorem · J. ACM 1980
Programming languages and type systems › programming paradigms
structured programming
0.011980
Space-Time Trade-Offs in Structured Programming: An Improved Combinatorial Embedding Theorem · J. ACM 1980
Computational complexity › complexity measures
program complexity
0.011980
Space-Time Trade-Offs in Structured Programming: An Improved Combinatorial Embedding Theorem · J. ACM 1980
Computational complexity
time-space tradeoffs
0.011980
Space-Time Trade-Offs in Structured Programming: An Improved Combinatorial Embedding Theorem · J. ACM 1980
Programming languages and type systems
program schemata
0.011976
Space and Time Hierarchies for Classes of Control Structures and Data Structures · J. ACM 1976
Algorithms and data structures › analysis of algorithms
data structure complexity
0.011975
The Complexity of Control Structures and Data Structures · STOC 1975

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

combinatorial embedding · 0.0hierarchy theorems · 0.0graph embedding · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1989 Comments on scheduling parallel iterative methods on multiprocessor systems II
Stanley C. Eisenstat
Parallel Comput.1
1984 Squeezing the most out of an algorithm in CRAY FORTRAN
abstract
This paper describes a technique for achieving supervector performance on a CRAY-1 in a purely FORTRAN environment {i.e., without resorting to assembler language).The technique can be applied to a wide variety of algorithms m hnear algebra, and is beneficial m other architectural settings.
Jack J. Dongarra, Stanley C. Eisenstat
ACM Trans. Math. Softw.2
1980 Space-Time Trade-Offs in Structured Programming: An Improved Combinatorial Embedding Theorem
abstract
AnSTRACT Let G and G* be programs represented by directed graphs There is defined a relation ~-s.r between G and G* that formahzes the notton of G* simulating G with Sffold loss of space efficiency and T-fold loss of time efficiency, ~t is proved that ff G - lo B n + O(Iog2 logz n) KEY WORDS AND PHRASES ancestor tree, complexity, control structure, dtrected graph, embedding CR CATEGORIES 4 22, 4 34, 5 24, 5 32 IntroducttonIn a previous paper [1] we made precise some intuitwe observations concerning the efficiency of structured programs by defining a combinatorial relation that corresponds to the notion of uniform szrnulatton between programs.Informally, we say that a program G* uniformly simulates a program G ff G* carries out the computation of G (and possibly addRlonal computation which might be regarded as "bookkeeping") in such a way that the space-time efficiency of G is degraded by a factor that is independent of the size of G.The main results of [ 1] indicate that the nonexistence of uniform simulations among many well-known classes of control structures is at least in part due to the combinatorial aspects of program structure and not to such details of program orgamzation as choice of data structures or limitations on the form of Boolean expressions.Indeed, the main result of [1, Th. 5.1] provides a nontrivml lower bound on the loss of space-time efficiency in any structured simulation of a goto program.This short note extends that result, improving the space-time inequality of [1, Th. 5.1] by an exponentml.Thus we now show that there are goto programs with n statements such that for any structured simulation either Pernnsslon to copy wtthout fee all or part of this matenal is granted provided that the copies are not made or distnbuted for direct commercial advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the tttle of the pubhcation and Rs date appear, and notice is gwen that copying ts by permission of the AssoclaUon for Computing Machinery To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission These results were announced at the 1976 Johns Hopkins Conference on Information Sciences and Systems
Richard A. DeMillo, Stanley C. Eisenstat, Richard J. Lipton
J. ACM2
1976 Space and Time Hierarchies for Classes of Control Structures and Data Structures
abstract
Control structures and data structures are modeled by directed graphs. In the control case nodes represent executable statements and arcs represent possible flow of control; in the data case nodes represent memory locations and arcs represent logical adjacencies in the data structure. Classes of graphs are compared by a relation ≤ S.T where G ≤ S.T H if G can be embedded in H with at most a T -fold increase in distance between embedded nodes by making at most S “copies” of any node in G . For both control structures and data structures, S and T are interpreted as space and time constants, respectively. Results are presented that establish hierarchies with respect to ≤ S.T for (1) data structures, (2) sequential program schemata normal forms, and (3) sequential control structures.
Richard J. Lipton, Stanley C. Eisenstat, Richard A. DeMillo
J. ACM2
1975 The Complexity of Control Structures and Data Structures
abstract
The running time or computational complexity of a sequential process is usually determined by summing weights attached to the basic operations from which the process is derived. In practice, however, the complexity is often limited by how efficiently it can access its data structures and how efficiently it can control program flow. Furthermore, it has been extensively argued [4] that certain limitations on the process sequencing mechanisms available to the programmer result in more “efficient” representations for the underlying processes. In this paper we will examine these issues in an attempt to assess the “power” of various data and control structures.
Richard J. Lipton, Stanley C. Eisenstat, Richard A. DeMillo
STOC2