Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
This map shows the geographic impact of J. Demmel's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by J. Demmel with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites J. Demmel more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by J. Demmel. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by J. Demmel. The network helps show where J. Demmel may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of J. Demmel
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of J. Demmel.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of J. Demmel based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with J. Demmel. J. Demmel is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Demmel, J., Mark Frederick Hoemmen, Marghoob Mohiyuddin, & Katherine Yelick. (2008). Avoiding communication in sparse matrix computations. Proceedings - IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium. 1–12.84 indexed citations
6.
Волков, В. М. & J. Demmel. (2008). Benchmarking GPUs to tune dense linear algebra. 1–11.361 indexed citations breakdown →
Bai, Zhaojun, et al.. (1995). LAPACK Working Note 91: The Spectral Decomposition of Nonsymmetric Matrices on Distributed Memory Parallel Computers.2 indexed citations
9.
Demmel, J. & K. Stanley. (1994). LAPACK Working Note 86: The Performance of Finding Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors of Dense Symmetric Matrices on Distributed Memory Computers.1 indexed citations
10.
Demmel, J., Jack Dongarra, Robert A. Geijn, & David Walker. (1993). LAPACK for distributed memory architectures: The next generation. University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas). 323–329.2 indexed citations
11.
Demmel, J.. (1992). Open problems in numerical linear algebra. University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota).5 indexed citations
12.
Anderson, E., C. Bischof, J. Demmel, et al.. (1990). LAPACK Working Note 26: Prospectus for an Extension to LAPACK: A Portable Linear Algebra Library for High-Performance Computers.1 indexed citations
13.
Deift, Percy, J. Demmel, Luen-Chau Li, & Carlos Tomei. (1989). The bidiagonal singular value decomposition and Hamiltonian mechanics: LAPACK working note No. 11. OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information).
14.
Bai, Zai-Qiao, J. Demmel, & A. McKenney. (1989). On Floating Point Errors in Cholesky.30 indexed citations
15.
Demmel, J., et al.. (1989). Teleoperation experiments with a Utah/MIT hand and a VPL DataGlove. NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).7 indexed citations
16.
Demmel, J. & W. Kahan. (1988). Computing small singular values of bidiagonal matrices with guaranteed high relative accuracy: LAPACK working note number 3. OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information).6 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.