World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
87
Citations
32186
World Ranking
720
National Ranking
380

Thomas Reps 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 Thomas Reps 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: 384 publications — 85th percentile

85% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Thomas Reps 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 Thomas Reps 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: 87 D-Index — 95th percentile

95% 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

  • 2013 - Member of Academia Europaea
  • 2005 - ACM Fellow For contributions to automated program analysis and synthesis.
  • 2000 - Fellow of John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

Overview

Thomas Reps is affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States. Their research primarily spans the field of Computer Science, with contributions distributed across various subfields including Artificial Intelligence, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Software, Information Systems, and Hardware and Architecture.

The research topics that Reps has extensively worked on include Formal Methods in Verification, Software Engineering Research, Logic, Programming, and Type Systems, Software Testing and Debugging Techniques, Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques, Advanced Malware Detection Techniques, and Natural Language Processing Techniques.

Their recent publications demonstrate a focus on the analysis, transformation, and robustness of source code models. Notable papers include:

  • "Semantic Robustness of Models of Source Code," 2022, presented at the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER)
  • "Synthesizing abstract transformers," 2022, published in the Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
  • "Semantic Robustness of Models of Source Code," 2020, available through arXiv (Cornell University)
  • "CFLOBDDs: Context-Free-Language Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams," 2024, featured in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems
  • "Fast Graph Simplification for Interleaved-Dyck Reachability," 2022, found in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems

Among their frequent coauthors are Loris D'Antoni, Swarat Chaudhuri, Jordan Henkel, Jinwoo Kim, and Somesh Jha.

Reps has published in respected venues including arXiv (Cornell University), Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), Artifact Digital Object Group, and ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems.

Throughout their career, Thomas Reps has received several distinctions. They were named a Member of Academia Europaea in 2013 and recognized as an ACM Fellow in 2005 for contributions to automated program analysis and synthesis. Additionally, they were awarded a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation in 2000.

Best Publications

  • Interprocedural slicing using dependence graphs

    Susan Horwitz;Thomas Reps;David Binkley

  • Interprocedural slicing using dependence graphs

    Susan Horwitz;Thomas Reps;David Binkley

  • Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis via graph reachability

    Thomas Reps;Susan Horwitz;Mooly Sagiv

  • Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic

    Mooly Sagiv;Thomas Reps;Reinhard Wilhelm

  • Parametric shape analysis via 3-valued logic

    Mooly Sagiv;Thomas Reps;Reinhard Wilhelm

  • The Cornell program synthesizer: a syntax-directed programming environment

    Tim Teitelbaum;Thomas Reps

  • Integrating noninterfering versions of programs

    Susan Horwitz;Jan Prins;Thomas Reps

  • Integrating non-intering versions of programs

    S. Horwitz;J. Prins;T. Reps

  • Solving shape-analysis problems in languages with destructive updating

    Mooly Sagiv;Thomas Reps;Reinhard Wilhelm

  • Analyzing Memory Accesses in x86 Executables

    Gogul Balakrishnan;Thomas W. Reps

  • An Incremental Algorithm for a Generalization of the Shortest-Path Problem

    G. Ramalingam;Thomas Reps

  • WYSINWYX: What You See Is Not What You eXecute

    G. Balakrishnan;T. Reps;D. Melski;T. Teitelbaum

  • Program analysis via graph reachability

    Thomas W. Reps

  • The synthesizer generator

    Thomas Reps;Tim Teitelbaum

  • The use of program dependence graphs in software engineering

    Susan Horwitz;Thomas Reps

  • Generating language-based environments

    Thomas William Reps

  • Incremental Context-Dependent Analysis for Language-Based Editors

    Thomas Reps;Tim Teitelbaum;Alan Demers

  • Identifying modules via concept analysis

    M. Siff;T. Reps

  • The use of program profiling for software maintenance with applications to the year 2000 problem

    Thomas Reps;Thomas Ball;Manuvir Das;James Larus

  • Precise interprocedural dataflow analysis with applications to constant propagation

    Mooly Sagiv;Thomas Reps;Susan Horwitz

  • The Synthesizer Generator: A System for Constructing Language-Based Editors

    Thomas W. Reps;Tim Teitelbaum

Frequent Co-Authors

Mooly Sagiv
Mooly Sagiv Tel Aviv University
Susan Horwitz
Susan Horwitz University of Wisconsin–Madison
Somesh Jha
Somesh Jha University of Wisconsin–Madison
Reinhard Wilhelm
Reinhard Wilhelm Saarland University
Eran Yahav
Eran Yahav Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Ben Liblit
Ben Liblit University of Wisconsin–Madison
David Binkley
David Binkley Loyola University Maryland
Edmund M. Clarke
Edmund M. Clarke Carnegie Mellon University
Neil Immerman
Neil Immerman University of Massachusetts Amherst
Jan F. Prins
Jan F. Prins University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

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 a Computer Science degree in the USA often opens the door to diverse online programs and evolving career pathways. Many students are turning to online degrees that pay well to quickly enhance earning potential while enjoying flexibility and convenience.

With the growth of technology, areas such as artificial intelligence are seeing increased demand. If you’re interested in this rapidly expanding field, pursuing an artificial intelligence degree online can provide a solid foundation and open up exciting job prospects in tech-driven industries.

Choosing the right major is also crucial. Many students look for guidance on the best majors in college to align their studies with job market trends and personal interests.

For those considering advanced education, there are also easy masters programs to get into that allow students to upskill without an overwhelming admissions process.

By exploring these options, students can make informed decisions about their academic journey and career path in computer science and beyond.

Best Scientists Citing Thomas Reps

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles