World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Award Badge
Rising Stars
2025

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Rising Stars 45 438 438 68 68 102 9848
Computer Science 35 11656 11323 4778 4571 129 5557

Maarten Sap publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Maarten Sap between 2014 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Maarten Sap published across 13 years, from 2014 to 2026, averaging 14.2 papers a year. Output peaked at 47 publications in 2025. 48 of the 185 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30 40
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2014 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 47. Peak 47 publications in 2025. 2014: 4 publications 2015: 6 publications 2016: 2 publications 2017: 7 publications 2018: 6 publications 2019: 8 publications 2020: 8 publications 2021: 22 publications 2022: 15 publications 2023: 27 publications 2024: 32 publications 2025: 47 publications 2026: 1 publication
2014 2026

185 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Maarten Sap: publications per year, 2014 to 2026
Year Publications
2014 4
2015 6
2016 2
2017 7
2018 6
2019 8
2020 8
2021 22
2022 15
2023 27
2024 32
2025 47
2026 1
Total 185
Download as CSV

Maarten Sap 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 Maarten Sap sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600
Bar chart with 97 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 32–41 to 991+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 609. Most scientists, 609, have 142–151 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 122–131 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
32–41 publications 991+

This scientist: 129 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Computer Science scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 14,188 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
32–41 7
42–51 22
52–61 82
62–71 134
72–81 249
82–91 324
92–101 421
102–111 420
112–121 497
122–131 544 129
132–141 555
142–151 609
152–161 559
162–171 534
172–181 556
182–191 583
192–201 519
202–211 508
212–221 490
222–231 437
232–241 423
242–251 408
252–261 377
262–271 301
272–281 335
282–291 320
292–301 293
302–311 250
312–321 238
322–331 206
332–341 209
342–351 208
352–361 162
362–371 176
372–381 127
382–391 158
392–401 128
402–411 104
412–421 94
422–431 99
432–441 83
442–451 108
452–461 73
462–471 77
472–481 69
482–491 84
492–501 62
502–511 54
512–521 57
522–531 51
532–541 51
542–551 32
552–561 38
562–571 28
572–581 43
582–591 33
592–601 41
602–611 32
612–621 28
622–631 25
632–641 27
642–651 17
652–661 20
662–671 17
672–681 15
682–691 14
692–701 21
702–711 13
712–721 12
722–731 19
732–741 14
742–751 12
752–761 10
762–771 10
772–781 11
782–791 10
792–801 11
802–811 8
812–821 8
822–831 7
832–841 11
842–851 10
852–861 5
862–871 9
872–881 4
882–891 6
892–901 3
902–911 6
912–921 3
922–931 2
932–941 2
942–951 2
952–961 3
962–971 3
972–981 3
982–990 5
991+ 100
Download as CSV

Maarten Sap 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 Maarten Sap sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
200 400 600 800
Bar chart with 52 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30–31 to 131+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 990. Most scientists, 990, have 36–37 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 34–35 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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
30–31 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 35 D-Index — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Computer Science scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 14,188 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30–31 879
32–33 983
34–35 918 35
36–37 990
38–39 968
40–41 907
42–43 821
44–45 763
46–47 689
48–49 543
50–51 543
52–53 518
54–55 500
56–57 458
58–59 400
60–61 337
62–63 308
64–65 292
66–67 249
68–69 213
70–71 192
72–73 189
74–75 165
76–77 139
78–79 119
80–81 121
82–83 113
84–85 88
86–87 87
88–89 75
90–91 69
92–93 57
94–95 46
96–97 38
98–99 34
100–101 36
102–103 27
104–105 37
106–107 18
108–109 31
110–111 19
112–113 16
114–115 12
116–117 20
118–119 15
120–121 5
122–123 20
124–125 8
126–127 5
128–129 7
130 3
131+ 98
Download as CSV

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2025 - Research.com Rising Stars Award

Overview

Maarten Sap is affiliated with Carnegie Mellon University in the United States and has contributed extensively to the field of computer science, particularly in artificial intelligence research. Their work spans several intersecting domains including natural language processing, ethics in AI, and safety research.

The scientist's recent publications include:

  • Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection (2022), Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
  • Automating Moral Reasoning (Invited Paper) (2022), Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (Schloss Dagstuhl)
  • 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
  • Medical Hallucination in Foundation Models and Their Impact on Healthcare (2025), bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
  • Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models (2023), arXiv (Cornell University)

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Maarten Sap include:

  • Yejin Choi
  • Xuhui Zhou
  • Liwei Jiang
  • Noah A. Smith
  • Jena D. Hwang

The scientist commonly publishes in these venues:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
  • Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
  • Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
  • Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society

Maarten Sap's main research fields and subfields are:

  • Computer Science
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Safety Research
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Information Systems

The primary topics covered in their work include:

  • Topic Modeling
  • Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Misinformation and Its Impacts

Best Publications

  • COMET: Commonsense Transformers for Automatic Knowledge Graph Construction

    Antoine Bosselut;Hannah Rashkin;Maarten Sap;Chaitanya Malaviya

  • The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection.

    Maarten Sap;Dallas Card;Saadia Gabriel;Yejin Choi

  • ATOMIC: An Atlas of Machine Commonsense for If-Then Reasoning

    Maarten Sap;Ronan Le Bras;Emily Allaway;Chandra Bhagavatula

  • Social IQa: Commonsense Reasoning about Social Interactions

    Maarten Sap;Hannah Rashkin;Derek Chen;Ronan Le Bras

  • RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models

    Samuel Gehman;Suchin Gururangan;Maarten Sap;Yejin Choi

  • Towards Assessing Changes in Degree of Depression through Facebook

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Johannes Eichstaedt;Margaret L. Kern;Gregory Park

  • Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language

    Maarten Sap;Saadia Gabriel;Lianhui Qin;Dan Jurafsky

  • Developing Age and Gender Predictive Lexica over Social Media

    Maarten Sap;Gregory Park;Johannes Eichstaedt;Margaret Kern

  • Gaining insights from social media language: Methodologies and challenges.

    Margaret L Kern;Gregory Park;Johannes C Eichstaedt;H Andrew Schwartz

  • PREDICTING INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Maarten Sap;Margaret L. Kern;Johannes C. Eichstaedt

  • The role of personality, age, and gender in tweeting about mental illness

    Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro;Johannes Eichstaedt;Gregory Park;Maarten Sap

  • Event2Mind: Commonsense Inference on Events, Intents, and Reactions

    Hannah Rashkin;Maarten Sap;Emily Allaway;Noah A. Smith

  • DExperts: Decoding-Time Controlled Text Generation with Experts and Anti-Experts

    Alisa Liu;Maarten Sap;Ximing Lu;Swabha Swayamdipta

  • Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus

    Jesse Dodge;Maarten Sap;Ana Marasovic;William Agnew

  • Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection.

    Maarten Sap;Swabha Swayamdipta;Laura Vianna;Xuhui Zhou

  • DLATK: Differential Language Analysis ToolKit

    H. Andrew Schwartz;Salvatore Giorgi;Maarten Sap;Patrick Crutchley

  • Social Chemistry 101: Learning to Reason about Social and Moral Norms

    Maxwell Forbes;Jena D. Hwang;Vered Shwartz;Maarten Sap

  • The Effect of Different Writing Tasks on Linguistic Style: A Case Study of the ROC Story Cloze Task

    Roy Schwartz;Maarten Sap;Ioannis Konstas;Leila Zilles

  • Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detection

    Xuhui Zhou;Maarten Sap;Swabha Swayamdipta;Yejin Choi

  • Living in the Past, Present, and Future: Measuring Temporal Orientation With Language

    Gregory Park;H. Andrew Schwartz;H. Andrew Schwartz;Maarten Sap;Margaret L. Kern

  • Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs

    Unknown

  • Connotation Frames of Power and Agency in Modern Films

    Maarten Sap;Marcella Cindy Prasettio;Ari Holtzman;Hannah Rashkin

  • Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs

    Unknown

  • Commonsense Reasoning for Natural Language Processing.

    Maarten Sap;Vered Shwartz;Antoine Bosselut;Yejin Choi

  • Delphi: Towards Machine Ethics and Norms

    Liwei Jiang;Jena D. Hwang;Chandra Bhagavatula;Ronan Le Bras

  • Detoxifying Language Models Risks Marginalizing Minority Voices.

    Albert Xu;Eshaan Pathak;Eric Wallace;Suchin Gururangan

  • ProsocialDialog: A Prosocial Backbone for Conversational Agents

    Unknown

  • When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment

    Unknown

  • The Role of Personality, Age and Gender in Tweeting about Mental Illnesses

    Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro;Johannes Eichstaedt;Gregory Park;Maarten Sap

Frequent Co-Authors

Yejin Choi
Yejin Choi Stanford University
Noah A. Smith
Noah A. Smith University of Washington
Lyle H. Ungar
Lyle H. Ungar University of Pennsylvania
H. Andrew Schwartz
H. Andrew Schwartz Stony Brook University
Johannes C. Eichstaedt
Johannes C. Eichstaedt Stanford University
Margaret L. Kern
Margaret L. Kern University of Melbourne
David Stillwell
David Stillwell University of Cambridge
Michal Kosinski
Michal Kosinski Stanford University
Martin E. P. Seligman
Martin E. P. Seligman University of Pennsylvania
Asli Celikyilmaz
Asli Celikyilmaz Facebook (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

If you’re interested in broadening your expertise or pursuing a new direction alongside Computer Science, several related online degrees can help you advance your career. For example, those seeking leadership positions in technology firms or startups might consider a 1 year executive mba online to quickly gain essential management skills.

Other popular tracks include exploring information management as a librarian through a librarian degree online. This pathway is ideal for those interested in digital archives or managing technical libraries.

Flexibility and affordability matter too. Students often search for an affordable master degree online to enhance expertise without incurring high costs. Advanced leadership roles may also require a doctorate in leadership online, which equips graduates for executive, academic, or consulting careers.

Regardless of the path you choose, these programs offer valuable opportunities to complement your Computer Science background and unlock diverse career pathways in today’s competitive market.

Best Scientists Citing Maarten Sap

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles