World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
37
Citations
14927
World Ranking
10445
National Ranking
4364

Alan Ritter 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 Alan Ritter 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: 91 publications — 6th percentile

6% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Alan Ritter 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 Alan Ritter 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: 37 D-Index — 27th percentile

27% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Alan Ritter is affiliated with the Georgia Institute of Technology in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on the field of Computer Science, with an emphasis on Artificial Intelligence among other subfields. The scope of their work extends into Sociology and Political Science, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Information Systems, and Molecular Biology.

The scientist has contributed extensively to topics including Topic Modeling, Natural Language Processing Techniques, Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection, Misinformation and Its Impacts, Multimodal Machine Learning Applications, Text Readability and Simplification, and Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies.

Publication venues frequently featuring their work include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Among recent papers authored or coauthored by Alan Ritter are the following:

  • "Just Say No: Analyzing the Stance of Neural Dialogue Generation in Offensive Contexts" (2021), Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
  • "Pre-train or Annotate? Domain Adaptation with a Constrained Budget" (2021), Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
  • "Can Language Models be Instructed to Protect Personal Information?" (2023), arXiv (Cornell University)
  • "Tensor Trust: Interpretable Prompt Injection Attacks from an Online Game" (2023), arXiv (Cornell University)
  • "Extracting a Knowledge Base of COVID-19 Events from Social Media" (2020), arXiv (Cornell University)

Frequent coauthors collaborating with Alan Ritter include:

  • Wei Xu
  • Tarek Naous
  • Sauvik Das
  • Junmo Kang
  • Ashutosh Baheti

Best Publications

  • Named Entity Recognition in Tweets: An Experimental Study

    Alan Ritter;Sam Clark;Oren Etzioni

  • Deep Reinforcement Learning for Dialogue Generation

    Jiwei Li;Will Monroe;Alan Ritter;Dan Jurafsky

  • SemEval-2016 Task 4: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Preslav Nakov;Alan Ritter;Sara Rosenthal;Fabrizio Sebastiani

  • Never-ending learning

    T. Mitchell;W. Cohen;E. Hruschka;P. Talukdar

  • Adversarial Learning for Neural Dialogue Generation

    Jiwei Li;Will Monroe;Tianlin Shi;Sébastien Jean

  • Never-ending learning

    T. Mitchell;W. Cohen;E. Hruschka;P. Talukdar

  • Open domain event extraction from twitter

    Alan Ritter;Oren Etzioni;Sam Clark

  • Data-Driven Response Generation in Social Media

    Alan Ritter;Colin Cherry;William B. Dolan

  • Deep Reinforcement Learning for Dialogue Generation

    Jiwei Li;Will Monroe;Alan Ritter;Michel Galley

  • Unsupervised Modeling of Twitter Conversations

    Alan Ritter;Colin Cherry;Bill Dolan

  • SemEval-2013 Task 2: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Preslav Nakov;Sara Rosenthal;Zornitsa Kozareva;Veselin Stoyanov

  • Shared Tasks of the 2015 Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text: Twitter Lexical Normalization and Named Entity Recognition

    Timothy Baldwin;Marie Catherine de Marneffe;Bo Han;Young-Bum Kim

  • SemEval-2014 Task 9: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Sara Rosenthal;Alan Ritter;Preslav Nakov;Veselin Stoyanov

  • Twitter Part-of-Speech Tagging for All: Overcoming Sparse and Noisy Data

    Leon Derczynski;Alan Ritter;Sam Clark;Kalina Bontcheva

  • SemEval-2015 Task 10: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Sara Rosenthal;Preslav Nakov;Svetlana Kiritchenko;Saif Mohammad

  • Weakly Supervised User Profile Extraction from Twitter

    Jiwei Li;Alan Ritter;Eduard Hovy

  • A Latent Dirichlet Allocation Method for Selectional Preferences

    Alan Ritter;Oren Etzioni

  • Weakly Supervised Extraction of Computer Security Events from Twitter

    Alan Ritter;Evan Wright;William Casey;Tom Mitchell

  • What Is This, Anyway: Automatic Hypernym Discovery.

    Alan Ritter;Stephen Soderland;Oren Etzioni

  • Generating More Interesting Responses in Neural Conversation Models with Distributional Constraints

    Ashutosh Baheti;Alan Ritter;Jiwei Li;Bill Dolan

  • Paraphrasing for Style

    Wei Xu;Alan Ritter;Bill Dolan;Ralph Grishman

  • SemEval-2015 Task 10: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Sara Rosenthal;Saif M Mohammad;Preslav Nakov;Alan Ritter

  • SemEval-2013 Task 2: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Preslav Nakov;Zornitsa Kozareva;Alan Ritter;Sara Rosenthal

  • SemEval-2014 Task 9: Sentiment Analysis in Twitter

    Sara Rosenthal;Preslav Nakov;Alan Ritter;Veselin Stoyanov

Frequent Co-Authors

Oren Etzioni
Oren Etzioni University of Washington
Jiwei Li
Jiwei Li Zhejiang University
Preslav Nakov
Preslav Nakov Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence
Veselin Stoyanov
Veselin Stoyanov Facebook (United States)
Dan Jurafsky
Dan Jurafsky Stanford University
Stephen Soderland
Stephen Soderland University of Washington
Raghu Machiraju
Raghu Machiraju The Ohio State University
Timothy Baldwin
Timothy Baldwin University of Melbourne
Tom M. Mitchell
Tom M. Mitchell Carnegie Mellon University
Marie-Catherine de Marneffe
Marie-Catherine de Marneffe The Ohio State University

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 online degrees is a flexible and affordable pathway for students interested in Computer Science. From certificates to advanced graduate programs, there are various options that fit different educational backgrounds and career goals.

If you’re getting started, consider pursuing an online associate degree in computer science or a related field. These programs provide foundational skills and can help you enter the workforce sooner or transfer credits to a bachelor’s degree.

For students with a bachelor’s degree, looking into the most valuable masters degrees can boost your career and earning potential. Many graduate schools now accept applicants with lower GPAs, making advanced study more accessible. You can explore online graduate schools with low gpa requirements for flexible admission options.

Cost is a key concern for many students. Fortunately, there are cheap online college classes available, making it easier to balance education and expenses while advancing your career in tech.

Best Scientists Citing Alan Ritter

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles