World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
36
Citations
11229
World Ranking
10981
National Ranking
4566

Nina Amenta 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 Nina Amenta 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: 102 publications — 9th percentile

9% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Nina Amenta 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 Nina Amenta 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: 36 D-Index — 23rd percentile

23% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2000 - Fellow of Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

Overview

Nina Amenta is affiliated with the University of California, Davis in the United States. Their research primarily spans engineering with a focus on several subfields including general economics, econometrics and finance, aerospace engineering, global and planetary change, computer graphics and computer-aided design, and computational mechanics.

Their work covers a range of main topics, notably in aviation industry analysis and trends, air traffic management and optimization, advanced aircraft design and technologies, computer graphics and visualization techniques, forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology studies, body composition measurement techniques, and advanced numerical analysis techniques.

They have contributed to multiple publications, including:

  • "Nudging Consumers Toward Greener Air Travel by Adding Carbon to the Equation in Online Flight Search" (2021) in Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board
  • "Anisotropy and Cross Fields" (2024) in Computer Graphics Forum
  • "Dihedral deformation and rigidity" (2020) in Computational Geometry
  • "Developing an automated skeletal phenotyping pipeline to leverage biobank-level medical imaging databases" (2023) in American Journal of Biological Anthropology
  • "Adding Carbon to the Equation in Online Flight Search" (2020) in RePEc: Research Papers in Economics

Frequent co-authors in their research include Angela Sanguinetti, Chelsea C. Cataldo-Ramirez, David Haddad, Timothy D. Weaver, and Lance C. Simons.

Several publication venues are recurrent in their work, such as:

  • Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board
  • Computer Graphics Forum
  • American Journal of Biological Anthropology
  • Computational Geometry
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics

Nina Amenta is a recipient of an award from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation as a fellow in 2000.

Best Publications

  • Surface Reconstruction by Voronoi Filtering

    Nina Amenta;Marshall W. Bern

  • A SIMPLE ALGORITHM FOR HOMEOMORPHIC SURFACE RECONSTRUCTION

    Nina Amenta;Sunghee Choi;Tamal K. Dey;Naveen Leekha

  • A new Voronoi-based surface reconstruction algorithm

    Nina Amenta;Marshall Bern;Manolis Kamvysselis

  • The power crust

    Nina Amenta;Sunghee Choi;Ravi Krishna Kolluri

  • The power crust, unions of balls, and the medial axis transform

    Nina Amenta;Sunghee Choi;Ravi Krishna Kolluri

  • The crust and the B-Skeleton: combinatorial curve reconstruction

    Nina Amenta;Marshall Bern;David Eppstein

  • Defining point-set surfaces

    Nina Amenta;Yong Joo Kil

  • Evolutionary morphing

    D.F. Wiley;N. Amenta;D.A. Alcantara;D. Ghosh

  • Optimal Point Placement for Mesh Smoothing

    Nina Amenta;Marshall Bern;David Eppstein

  • 3D skeletons: a state-of-the-art report

    Andrea Tagliasacchi;Thomas Delame;Michela Spagnuolo;Nina Amenta

  • Real-time parallel hashing on the GPU

    Dan A. Alcantara;Andrei Sharf;Fatemeh Abbasinejad;Shubhabrata Sengupta

  • Incremental constructions con BRIO

    Nina Amenta;Sunghee Choi;Günter Rote

  • Surface reconstruction from noisy point clouds

    Boris Mederos;Nina Amenta;Luiz Velho;Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo

  • Helly-type theorems and Generalized Linear Programming

    N. Amenta

  • Case study: visualizing sets of evolutionary trees

    N. Amenta;J. Klingner

  • Space-time surface reconstruction using incompressible flow

    Andrei Sharf;Dan A. Alcantara;Thomas Lewiner;Chen Greif

  • Deformed products and maximal shadows of polytopes

    Unknown

  • Computational topology: ambient isotopic approximation of 2-manifolds

    Nina Amenta;Thomas J. Peters;Alexander C. Russell

  • The domain of a point set surface

    Nina Amenta;Yong J. Kil

  • The Medial axis of a union of balls

    Nina Amenta;Ravi Krishna Kolluri

  • Efficient hash tables on the gpu

    Nina Amenta;Dan Anthony Feliciano Alcantara

Frequent Co-Authors

Marshall Bern
Marshall Bern Protein Metrics (United States)
David Eppstein
David Eppstein University of California, Irvine
Owen Carmichael
Owen Carmichael Pennington Biomedical Research Center
John D. Owens
John D. Owens University of California, Davis
Bernd Hamann
Bernd Hamann University of California, Davis
Tamal K. Dey
Tamal K. Dey Purdue University West Lafayette
Charles DeCarli
Charles DeCarli University of California, Davis
Andrei Sharf
Andrei Sharf Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Michael Kazhdan
Michael Kazhdan Johns Hopkins University
Paul M. Thompson
Paul M. Thompson University of Southern California

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

Exploring undergraduate and graduate pathways in Computer Science can be both flexible and affordable, especially with online options. For students seeking a fast route to advancement, consider programs labeled as the quickest cheapest masters degree. These accelerate graduation timelines while minimizing costs, allowing you to enter the workforce or advance your career sooner.

If you're weighing which education investment is most beneficial, look into the most useful graduate degrees. These programs are in high demand and align well with today’s computer science careers.

You don’t have to commit to a four-year program to gain core technical skills. Earning an associate degree online is a quick way to boost your credentials or jumpstart your IT journey.

Many students are also interested in finding cheap online college classes, which help reduce tuition costs while delivering quality education. Whichever path you select, online learning opens up new career possibilities and flexible study options tailored to your life.

Best Scientists Citing Nina Amenta

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles