World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
31
Citations
6453
World Ranking
13409
National Ranking
5364

Noam Slonim 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 Noam Slonim 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: 139 publications — 22nd percentile

22% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Noam Slonim 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 Noam Slonim 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: 31 D-Index — 6th percentile

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

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

Overview

Noam Slonim is affiliated with IBM in the United States and has contributed extensively to the field of computer science, with a focus on artificial intelligence. Their research spans several interconnected subfields, including artificial intelligence, information systems, sociology and political science, health, and applied psychology.

The central areas of their work cover a range of topics:

  • Topic Modeling
  • Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
  • Software Engineering Research
  • Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Machine Learning and Algorithms

Slonim's publication record features several recent papers showcasing developments in natural language processing and autonomous systems. These include:

  • "An autonomous debating system," 2021, Nature
  • "Efficient Methods for Natural Language Processing: A Survey," 2023, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics
  • "Usability and Credibility of a COVID-19 Vaccine Chatbot for Young Adults and Health Workers in the United States: Formative Mixed Methods Study," 2022, JMIR Human Factors
  • "Chatbot-Delivered COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Message Preferences of Young Adults and Public Health Workers in Urban American Communities: Qualitative Study," 2022, Journal of Medical Internet Research
  • "Quality Controlled Paraphrase Generation," 2022, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Their work has been cited with varying frequency, with the autonomous debating system paper attracting significant attention.

Slonim frequently collaborates with a core group of coauthors, reflecting established research partnerships. These include:

  • Yoav Katz
  • Ranit Aharonov
  • Liat Ein-Dor
  • Leshem Choshen
  • Ariel Gera

The venues where Slonim most commonly publishes highlight the arenas of scholarly communication they engage with. Key publication venues include:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
  • Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
  • Nature
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Best Publications

  • Document clustering using word clusters via the information bottleneck method

    Noam Slonim;Naftali Tishby

  • Agglomerative Information Bottleneck

    Noam Slonim;Naftali Tishby

  • A Universal Framework for Regulatory Element Discovery across All Genomes and Data Types

    Olivier Elemento;Noam Slonim;Saeed Tavazoie

  • Unsupervised document classification using sequential information maximization

    Noam Slonim;Nir Friedman;Naftali Tishby

  • The Power of Word Clusters for Text Classification

    Noam Slonim;Naftali Tishby

  • Information-based clustering.

    Noam Slonim;Gurinder Singh Atwal;Gašper Tkačik;William Bialek

  • Glucose regulates transcription in yeast through a network of signaling pathways

    Shadia Zaman;Soyeon I Lippman;Lisa Schneper;Noam Slonim

  • Show Me Your Evidence - an Automatic Method for Context Dependent Evidence Detection

    Ruty Rinott;Lena Dankin;Carlos Alzate Perez;Mitesh M. Khapra

  • Predicting Customer Churn in Mobile Networks Through Analysis of Social Groups

    Yossi Richter;Elad Yom-Tov;Noam Slonim

  • An autonomous debating system.

    Noam Slonim;Yonatan Bilu;Carlos Alzate;Roy Bar-Haim

  • Context Dependent Claim Detection

    Ran Levy;Yonatan Bilu;Daniel Hershcovich;Ehud Aharoni

  • Data Clustering by Markovian Relaxation and the Information Bottleneck Method

    Naftali Tishby;Noam Slonim

  • Multivariate Information Bottleneck

    Nir Friedman;Ori Mosenzon;Noam Slonim;Naftali Tishby

  • A Benchmark Dataset for Automatic Detection of Claims and Evidence in the Context of Controversial Topics

    Ehud Aharoni;Anatoly Polnarov;Tamar Lavee;Daniel Hershcovich

  • Stance Classification of Context-Dependent Claims

    Roy Bar-Haim;Indrajit Bhattacharya;Francesco Dinuzzo;Amrita Saha

  • Active Learning for BERT: An Empirical Study

    Liat Ein-Dor;Alon Halfon;Ariel Gera;Eyal Shnarch

  • Efficient Methods for Natural Language Processing: A Survey

    Unknown

  • Multivariate information bottleneck

    Noam Slonim;Nir Friedman;Naftali Tishby

  • Method and system for evaluating a machine tool operating characteristics

    Ehud Aharoni;Robert J. Baseman;Ramona Kei;Oded Margalit

  • Objective Classification of Galaxy Spectra using the Information Bottleneck Method

    Noam Slonim;Rachel Somerville;Rachel Somerville;Naftali Tishby;Ofer Lahav;Ofer Lahav

  • A Large-Scale Dataset for Argument Quality Ranking: Construction and Analysis

    Shai Gretz;Roni Friedman;Edo Cohen-Karlik;Assaf Toledo

  • Automatic Argument Quality Assessment - New Datasets and Methods.

    Assaf Toledo;Shai Gretz;Edo Cohen-Karlik;Roni Friedman

  • Ab initio genotype–phenotype association reveals intrinsic modularity in genetic networks

    Noam Slonim;Olivier Elemento;Saeed Tavazoie

Frequent Co-Authors

Naftali Tishby
Naftali Tishby Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Nir Friedman
Nir Friedman Weizmann Institute of Science
Iryna Gurevych
Iryna Gurevych Technical University of Darmstadt
Elad Yom-Tov
Elad Yom-Tov Microsoft (United States)
Ofer Lahav
Ofer Lahav University College London
Rachel S. Somerville
Rachel S. Somerville Flatiron Institute
Chris Reed
Chris Reed University of Dundee
William Bialek
William Bialek Princeton University
Olivier Elemento
Olivier Elemento Cornell University
James R. Broach
James R. Broach Pennsylvania 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 flexible education options is crucial for today’s students. Many learners start their journey with an online associate's degree in computer science or a related field. These programs offer foundational knowledge and can be a stepping stone toward a bachelor’s degree or entry-level roles.

Cost is often a deciding factor when choosing a degree. There’s a growing demand for affordable online courses that balance quality with value. Many reputable universities now provide competitive options that fit diverse budgets, making higher education more accessible.

Students with varying academic backgrounds can also benefit from online colleges that accept low gpa. These institutions offer pathways for learners to prove themselves and transition into successful tech careers, even if their academic record isn’t perfect.

Beyond computer science, fields like environmental science open up diverse career opportunities. If you’re interested in how tech can impact environmental solutions, learn more about what can you do with an environmental science degree and possible career paths.

Best Scientists Citing Noam Slonim

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles