World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
43
Citations
15569
World Ranking
7757
National Ranking
3352

Hanna Wallach 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 Hanna Wallach 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: 121 publications — 15th percentile

15% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Hanna Wallach 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 Hanna Wallach 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: 43 D-Index — 46th percentile

46% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Hanna Wallach is affiliated with Microsoft in the United States. Their research primarily concentrates in the field of Computer Science with a focus on Artificial Intelligence and Safety Research, alongside work in Cognitive Neuroscience, Management Information Systems, and Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

Wallach's scholarly output includes publications in notable venues such as arXiv (Cornell University), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Communications of the ACM, the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, and SSRN Electronic Journal. These venues reflect a strong engagement with both foundational and applied aspects of computer science research.

Their recent papers demonstrate a focus on ethical and social issues within AI, machine learning fairness, data documentation, and representational harms in technology. Key publications include:

  • "Datasheets for datasets," 2021, Communications of the ACM
  • "Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support," 2022, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • "Toward fairness in AI for people with disabilities SBG@a research roadmap," 2020, ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing
  • "Understanding Machine Learning Practitioners' Data Documentation Perceptions, Needs, Challenges, and Desiderata," 2022, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • "Measuring Representational Harms in Image Captioning," 2022, 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Wallach's work covers several main topics, including:

  • Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Big Data and Business Intelligence
  • Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Data Stream Mining Techniques

They have collaborated frequently with several researchers, contributing to a network of scholarly partnerships that include Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Solon Barocas, Alexandra Chouldechova, Angelina Wang, and Su Lin Blodgett.

Overall, Hanna Wallach's research engages deeply with the intersections of technology and society, focusing on fairness, transparency, and the social implications of AI systems.

Best Publications

  • Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019)

    Unknown

  • Optimizing Semantic Coherence in Topic Models

    David Mimno;Hanna Wallach;Edmund Talley;Miriam Leenders

  • Topic modeling: beyond bag-of-words

    Hanna M. Wallach

  • Datasheets for datasets

    Timnit Gebru;Jamie Morgenstern;Briana Vecchione;Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

  • Evaluation methods for topic models

    Hanna M. Wallach;Iain Murray;Ruslan Salakhutdinov;David Mimno

  • Rethinking LDA: Why Priors Matter

    Hanna M. Wallach;David M. Mimno;Andrew McCallum

  • Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?

    Kenneth Holstein;Jennifer Wortman Vaughan;Hal Daumé;Miro Dudik

  • Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP

    Su Lin Blodgett;Solon Barocas;Hal Daumé;Hanna M. Wallach

  • Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability

    Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh;Daniel G Goldstein;Jake M Hofman;Jennifer Wortman Wortman Vaughan

  • Datasheets for Datasets

    Timnit Gebru;Jamie Morgenstern;Briana Vecchione;Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

  • Conditional Random Fields: An Introduction

    Hanna M Wallach

  • Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine Learning

    Harmanpreet Kaur;Harsha Nori;Samuel Jenkins;Rich Caruana

  • A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification

    Alekh Agarwal;Alina Beygelzimer;Miroslav Dudík;John Langford

  • Understanding the Effect of Accuracy on Trust in Machine Learning Models

    Ming Yin;Jennifer Wortman Vaughan;Hanna Wallach

  • Polylingual Topic Models

    David Mimno;Hanna M. Wallach;Jason Naradowsky;David A. Smith

  • Co-Designing Checklists to Understand Organizational Challenges and Opportunities around Fairness in AI

    Michael A. Madaio;Luke Stark;Jennifer Wortman Vaughan;Hanna Wallach

  • Counterfactual Data Augmentation for Mitigating Gender Stereotypes in Languages with Rich Morphology

    Ran Zmigrod;Sabrina J. Mielke;Hanna M. Wallach;Ryan Cotterell

  • Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability

    Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh;Daniel G. Goldstein;Jake M. Hofman;Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

  • Efficient Training of Conditional Random Fields

    Hanna Wallach

  • Structured Topic Models for Language

    Hanna M. Wallach

  • Fairlearn: A toolkit for assessing and improving fairness in AI

    Sarah Bird;Miro Dudík;Richard Edgar;Brandon Horn

  • Generating summary keywords for emails using topics

    Mark Dredze;Hanna M. Wallach;Danny Puller;Fernando Pereira

  • A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification

    Alekh Agarwal;Alina Beygelzimer;Miroslav Dudík;John Langford

  • Stereotyping Norwegian Salmon: An Inventory of Pitfalls in Fairness Benchmark Datasets

    Su Lin Blodgett;Gilsinia Lopez;Alexandra Olteanu;Robert Sim

  • Database of NIH grants using machine-learned categories and graphical clustering

    Edmund M Talley;David Newman;David Mimno;David Mimno;Bruce W Herr

Frequent Co-Authors

Hal Daumé
Hal Daumé University of Maryland, College Park
Ryan Cotterell
Ryan Cotterell ETH Zurich
Andrew McCallum
Andrew McCallum University of Massachusetts Amherst
David Mimno
David Mimno Cornell University
Mingyuan Zhou
Mingyuan Zhou The University of Texas at Austin
David M. Blei
David M. Blei Columbia University
Fernando Diaz
Fernando Diaz Microsoft (United States)
Kate Crawford
Kate Crawford Microsoft (United States)
Meredith Ringel Morris
Meredith Ringel Morris Google (United States)
Ece Kamar
Ece Kamar Microsoft (United States)

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 computer science in the USA also opens the door to related programs and flexible learning options. You might consider specialized tech degrees, such as earning an electrical engineering degree online admissions. This pathway offers strong job prospects and overlapping skills with computer science.

If you’re looking to boost your credentials quickly, certifications that pay well can be an attractive option. These certifications are often industry-recognized and can be completed faster than full degrees, opening doors to lucrative tech roles.

For those interested in advanced study, pursuing the shortest masters degree programs online can fast-track your progress. These programs are designed to be intensive but efficient, ideal if you want to enter the workforce or earn a higher salary sooner.

Before making your decision, take time to research which degrees truly improve employability. Focus on graduate degrees that are worth it to ensure your education investment pays off in the current job market.

Best Scientists Citing Hanna Wallach

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles