World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
41
Citations
7710
World Ranking
8794
National Ranking
153

Martha Larson 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 Martha Larson 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: 304 publications — 75th percentile

75% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Martha Larson 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 Martha Larson 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: 41 D-Index — 40th percentile

40% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Martha Larson is affiliated with Radboud University in the Netherlands. Their research spans across Computer Science and Medicine, focusing primarily on Artificial Intelligence, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, and medical applications such as Surgery and Infectious Diseases.

The scientist's work centers on several main topics, including:

  • Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Advanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
  • Privacy, Security, and Data Protection

Recent publications reflect interdisciplinary interests combining technology with health sciences and privacy concerns. Selected papers include:

  • "Personalized Landmark Recommendation Based on Geotags from Photo Sharing Sites" (2021), Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media
  • "Histotripsy Ablation in Preclinical Animal Models of Cancer and Spontaneous Tumors in Veterinary Patients: A Review" (2021), IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control
  • "Towards user-oriented privacy for recommender system data: A personalization-based approach to gender obfuscation for user profiles" (2021), Information Processing & Management
  • "Bile duct obstruction associated with pancreatitis in 46 dogs" (2020), Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
  • "Ultrasound-guided noninvasive pancreas ablation using histotripsy: feasibility study in an in vivo porcine model" (2023), International Journal of Hyperthermia

Co-authorship collaborations include frequent partnerships with Manel Slokom, Stefanie M. DeMonaco, Jessica Villm, Peter-Paul de Wolf, and Katharine Kripke, reflecting multidisciplinary interactions across computing and medical domains.

Frequent venues for their published work include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
  • Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound
  • Abstracts with programs - Geological Society of America
  • Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media

Best Publications

  • Collaborative Filtering beyond the User-Item Matrix: A Survey of the State of the Art and Future Challenges

    Yue Shi;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • CLiMF: learning to maximize reciprocal rank with collaborative less-is-more filtering

    Yue Shi;Alexandros Karatzoglou;Linas Baltrunas;Martha Larson

  • List-wise learning to rank with matrix factorization for collaborative filtering

    Yue Shi;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    Laurent Amsaleg;Benoit Huet;Martha Larson;Martha Larson;Guillaume Gravier

  • TFMAP: optimizing MAP for top-n context-aware recommendation

    Yue Shi;Alexandros Karatzoglou;Linas Baltrunas;Martha Larson

  • Cross-Domain Collaborative Filtering with Factorization Machines

    Babak Loni;Yue Shi;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Towards Large Yet Imperceptible Adversarial Image Perturbations With Perceptual Color Distance

    Zhengyu Zhao;Zhuoran Liu;Martha Larson

  • Bayesian Personalized Ranking with Multi-Channel User Feedback

    Babak Loni;Roberto Pagano;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Automatic tagging and geotagging in video collections and communities

    Martha Larson;Mohammad Soleymani;Pavel Serdyukov;Stevan Rudinac

  • Pairwise geometric matching for large-scale object retrieval

    Xinchao Li;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Mining mood-specific movie similarity with matrix factorization for context-aware recommendation

    Yue Shi;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Tags as bridges between domains: improving recommendation with tag-induced cross-domain collaborative filtering

    Yue Shi;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Crowdsourcing for Affective Annotation of Video: Development of a Viewer-reported Boredom Corpus

    Mohammad Soleymani;Martha Larson

  • The where in the tweet

    Wen Li;Pavel Serdyukov;Arjen P. de Vries;Carsten Eickhoff

  • Mining contextual movie similarity with matrix factorization for context-aware recommendation

    Yue Shi;Martha Larson;Alan Hanjalic

  • Adaptive diversification of recommendation results via latent factor portfolio

    Yue Shi;Xiaoxue Zhao;Jun Wang;Martha Larson

  • Personalized Landmark Recommendation Based on Geotags from Photo Sharing Sites

    Yue Shi;Pavel Serdyukov;Alan Hanjalic;Martha A. Larson

  • ChaLearn Joint Contest on Multimedia Challenges Beyond Visual Analysis: An overview

    Hugo Jair Escalante;Victor Ponce-Lopez;Jun Wan;Michael A. Riegler

  • Using coherence-based measures to predict query difficulty

    Jiyin He;Martha Larson;Maarten De Rijke

  • Spoken Content Retrieval: A Survey of Techniques and Technologies

    Martha Larson;Gareth J. F. Jones

Frequent Co-Authors

Alan Hanjalic
Alan Hanjalic Delft University of Technology
Wessel Kraaij
Wessel Kraaij Leiden University
Michael Riegler
Michael Riegler OsloMet – Oslo Metropolitan University
Alexandros Karatzoglou
Alexandros Karatzoglou Google (United States)
Mohammad Soleymani
Mohammad Soleymani University of Southern California
Gerald Friedland
Gerald Friedland Yale University
Franciska de Jong
Franciska de Jong Erasmus University Rotterdam
Maarten de Rijke
Maarten de Rijke University of Amsterdam
Paolo Cremonesi
Paolo Cremonesi Polytechnic University of Milan
Domonkos Tikk
Domonkos Tikk Gravity Research & Development Zrt.

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

Studying Computer Science in the USA opens doors to diverse career opportunities. If you’re considering broadening your expertise or exploring related areas, it can be helpful to look into the top 10 best majors for the future. These majors often align well with current industry demand and technological innovation, giving graduates a competitive edge.

For those seeking further specialization or leadership roles, pursuing a master's degree is a popular choice. Some of the masters degrees can be completed in less time or with more flexibility online, making it easier for working professionals or students with busy schedules.

Doctoral studies are also accessible online and can be a more affordable option than traditional routes. Explore the cheapest doctorate degree online to advance your career without a significant financial burden.

Moreover, if you’re focused on education leadership, there are fast-track options like the 1 year edd programs online. These accelerated programs allow you to achieve your academic and professional goals more quickly.

Best Scientists Citing Martha Larson

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles