World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
32
Citations
4505
World Ranking
13155
National Ranking
5284

Edith Hemaspaandra publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Edith Hemaspaandra sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 166 publications — 33rd percentile

33% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Edith Hemaspaandra D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Edith Hemaspaandra sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 32 D-Index — 10th percentile

10% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Edith Hemaspaandra is affiliated with the Rochester Institute of Technology in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on topics intersecting computer science, with particular emphasis on artificial intelligence, computational theory and mathematics, economics and econometrics, management science and operations research, and information systems.

Their scholarly output covers a range of main topics, including:

  • Internet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
  • Game Theory and Voting Systems
  • Auction Theory and Applications
  • Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
  • Advanced Graph Theory Research
  • Software Engineering Research
  • Teaching and Learning Programming

Edith Hemaspaandra has published extensively, with a total of 46 works categorized under computer science. Notable recent papers include:

  • Control in the presence of manipulators: cooperative and competitive cases, 2020, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
  • Search versus Decision for Election Manipulation Problems, 2020, ACM Transactions on Computation Theory
  • Insight into Voting Problem Complexity Using Randomized Classes, 2022, Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  • Effective Succinct Feedback for Intro CS Theory, 2022, Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
  • The Robustness of LWPP and WPP, with an Application to Graph Reconstruction, 2020, Computational Complexity

Frequently appearing publication venues for their work include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Journal of Computer and System Sciences
  • Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • ACM Transactions on Computation Theory

Edith Hemaspaandra collaborates regularly with a core group of coauthors, including:

  • Zack Fitzsimmons
  • Lane A. Hemaspaandra
  • David E. Narváez
  • Zohair Raza Hassan
  • Ivona Bezáková

Best Publications

  • How hard is bribery in elections

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • Anyone but him: The complexity of precluding an alternative

    Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra;Jörg Rothe

  • Llull and Copeland voting computationally resist bribery and constructive control

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra;Jörg Rothe

  • Exact analysis of Dodgson elections: Lewis Carroll's 1876 voting system is complete for parallel access to NP

    Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra;Jörg Rothe

  • The complexity of Kemeny elections

    Edith Hemaspaandra;Holger Spakowski;Jörg Vogel

  • Using complexity to protect elections

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • Multimode control attacks on elections

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • The shield that never was: Societies with single-peaked preferences are more open to manipulation and control

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra;Jörg Rothe

  • Bypassing combinatorial protections: polynomial-time algorithms for single-peaked electorates

    Felix Brandt;Markus Brill;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • Dichotomy for voting systems

    Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • A Richer Understanding of the Complexity of Election Systems

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra;Joerg Rothe

  • Copeland voting: ties matter

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Henning Schnoor

  • The complexity of bribery in elections

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • A modal perspective on the computational complexity of attribute value grammar

    Patrick Blackburn;Edith Spaan

  • The complexity of manipulative attacks in nearly single-peaked electorates

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • The Price of Universality

    Edith Hemaspaandra

  • Hybrid Elections Broaden Complexity‐Theoretic Resistance to Control

    Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra;Jörg Rothe

  • Bypassing combinatorial protections: polynomial-time algorithms for single-peaked electorates

    Felix Brandt;Markus Brill;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • Computational Aspects of Approval Voting

    Dorothea Baumeister;Gábor Erdélyi;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

  • The Complexity of Poor Man's Logic

    Edith Hemaspaandra

  • P-Selective Sets and Reducing Search to Decision vs Self-Reducibility

    Edith Hemaspaandra;Ashish V. Naik;Mitsunori Ogihara;Alan L. Selman

  • The complexity of manipulative attacks in nearly single-peaked electorates

    Piotr Faliszewski;Edith Hemaspaandra;Lane A. Hemaspaandra

Frequent Co-Authors

Lane A. Hemaspaandra
Lane A. Hemaspaandra University of Rochester
Jörg Rothe
Jörg Rothe Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
Piotr Faliszewski
Piotr Faliszewski AGH University of Science and Technology
Osamu Watanabe
Osamu Watanabe Tokyo Institute of Technology
Felix Brandt
Felix Brandt Technical University of Munich
Mitsunori Ogihara
Mitsunori Ogihara University of Miami
Harry Buhrman
Harry Buhrman University of Amsterdam
Alan L. Selman
Alan L. Selman University at Buffalo, State University of New York

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

If you’re interested in studying Computer Science in the USA, it’s important to consider a range of related online degrees and career pathways. Many students explore interdisciplinary options to deepen their expertise and improve job prospects. For those passionate about sustainability, you might wonder what can you get with an environmental science degree—a path that can be closely tied to computing through data analysis and environmental modeling.

Flexible study options are also growing in popularity, such as earning an accelerated computer science degree online. These programs allow you to graduate faster and enter the job market more quickly.

Beyond computer science, branches like engineering are increasingly pursued online. If you’re considering tackling real-world challenges, exploring an environmental engineering online degree could be a smart next step.

Concerned about tuition costs? Take a practical look at mechanical engineering degree cost to compare with other programs and make an informed decision.

Choosing the right online degree can greatly expand your career options in technology, engineering, and science.

Best Scientists Citing Edith Hemaspaandra

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles