World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Patrick Heymans

Patrick Heymans

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Computer Science 47 6481 6292 69 65 217 9110

Patrick Heymans publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Patrick Heymans between 1997 and 2024, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Patrick Heymans published across 28 years, from 1997 to 2024, averaging 8 papers a year. Output peaked at 37 publications in 2012. 1 of the 225 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
10 20 30
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 1997 to 2024. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 37. Peak 37 publications in 2012. 1997: 2 publications 1998: 3 publications 1999: 2 publications 2000: 0 publications 2001: 0 publications 2002: 1 publication 2003: 2 publications 2004: 2 publications 2005: 10 publications 2006: 10 publications 2007: 19 publications 2008: 15 publications 2009: 18 publications 2010: 20 publications 2011: 10 publications 2012: 37 publications 2013: 22 publications 2014: 9 publications 2015: 10 publications 2016: 6 publications 2017: 8 publications 2018: 4 publications 2019: 4 publications 2020: 3 publications 2021: 2 publications 2022: 5 publications 2023: 0 publications 2024: 1 publication
1997 2024

225 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Patrick Heymans: publications per year, 1997 to 2024
Year Publications
1997 2
1998 3
1999 2
2000 0
2001 0
2002 1
2003 2
2004 2
2005 10
2006 10
2007 19
2008 15
2009 18
2010 20
2011 10
2012 37
2013 22
2014 9
2015 10
2016 6
2017 8
2018 4
2019 4
2020 3
2021 2
2022 5
2023 0
2024 1
Total 225
Download as CSV

Patrick Heymans 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 Patrick Heymans 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, 212–221 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: 217 publications — 52nd percentile

52% 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
132–141 555
142–151 609
152–161 559
162–171 534
172–181 556
182–191 583
192–201 519
202–211 508
212–221 490 217
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

Patrick Heymans 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 Patrick Heymans 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, 46–47 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: 47 D-Index — 56th percentile

56% 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
36–37 990
38–39 968
40–41 907
42–43 821
44–45 763
46–47 689 47
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

Overview

Patrick Heymans is affiliated with the University of Namur in Belgium and has conducted research primarily in the field of Computer Science. Their work spans several subfields including Artificial Intelligence, Safety Research, Management of Technology and Innovation, Marketing, and Computer Networks and Communications.

The main topics of their research focus on Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning, Ethics and Social Impacts of AI, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), Product Development and Customization, Quality Function Deployment in Product Design, Service and Product Innovation, and Software System Performance and Reliability.

Patrick Heymans has contributed to a number of recent academic publications, with notable papers including:

  • "Ethical Adversaries" (2021), published in ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter
  • "Ethical Adversaries: Towards Mitigating Unfairness with Adversarial Machine Learning" (2020), published in arXiv (Cornell University)
  • "VaryMinions" (2022), published in Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • "VaryMinions" (2021), published in Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Their frequent collaborators include Gilles Perrouin, Paul Temple, Sophie Fortz, Xavier Devroey, and Pieter Delobelle.

Patrick Heymans often publishes in venues such as Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research), arXiv (Cornell University), ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, and Empirical Software Engineering.

Best Publications

  • Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics

    P.-Y. Schobbens;P. Heymans;J.-C. Trigaux

  • Generic semantics of feature diagrams

    Pierre-Yves Schobbens;Patrick Heymans;Jean-Christophe Trigaux;Yves Bontemps

  • Model checking lots of systems: efficient verification of temporal properties in software product lines

    Andreas Classen;Patrick Heymans;Pierre-Yves Schobbens;Axel Legay

  • A proposal for a scenario classification framework

    C. Rolland;C. Ben Achour;C. Cauvet;J. Ralyté

  • Disambiguating the Documentation of Variability in Software Product Lines: A Separation of Concerns, Formalization and Automated Analysis

    A. Metzger;P. Heymans;K. Pohl;P.-Y. Schobbens

  • Featured Transition Systems: Foundations for Verifying Variability-Intensive Systems and Their Application to LTL Model Checking

    A. Classen;M. Cordy;Pierre-Yves Schobbens;P. Heymans

  • Symbolic model checking of software product lines

    Andreas Classen;Patrick Heymans;Pierre-Yves Schobbens;Axel Legay

  • A text-based approach to feature modelling: Syntax and semantics of TVL

    Andreas Classen;Quentin Boucher;Patrick Heymans

  • Bypassing the Combinatorial Explosion: Using Similarity to Generate and Prioritize T-Wise Test Configurations for Software Product Lines

    Christopher Henard;Mike Papadakis;Gilles Perrouin;Jacques Klein

  • What's in a feature: a requirements engineering perspective

    Andreas Classen;Patrick Heymans;Pierre-Yves Schobbens

  • Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation

    Nicolas Genon;Patrick Heymans;Daniel Amyot

  • A Systematic Approach to Define the Domain of Information System Security Risk Management

    Éric Dubois;Patrick Heymans;Nicolas Mayer;Raimundas Matulevičius

  • On extracting feature models from product descriptions

    Mathieu Acher;Anthony Cleve;Gilles Perrouin;Patrick Heymans

  • Visual syntax does matter: improving the cognitive effectiveness of the i * visual notation

    Daniel L. Moody;Patrick Heymans;Raimundas Raimundas Matulevičius

  • Feature model extraction from large collections of informal product descriptions

    Jean-Marc Davril;Edouard Delfosse;Negar Hariri;Mathieu Acher

  • Model checking software product lines with SNIP

    Andreas Classen;Maxime Cordy;Patrick Heymans;Patrick Heymans;Axel Legay;Axel Legay

  • Improving the Effectiveness of Visual Representations in Requirements Engineering: An Evaluation of i* Visual Syntax

    Daniel Laurence Moody;Patrick Heymans;Raimundas Matulevicius

  • Beyond boolean product-line model checking: dealing with feature attributes and multi-features

    Maxime Cordy;Pierre-Yves Schobbens;Patrick Heymans;Axel Legay

  • Visual notation design 2.0: Towards user comprehensible requirements engineering notations

    Patrice Caire;Nicolas Genon;Patrick Heymans;Daniel L. Moody

  • Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering

    Elisabetta Di Nitto;Mark Harman;Patrick Heymans

  • Semantics of FODA Feature Diagrams

    J Bosch;T Mannisto;Yves Bontemps;Patrick Heymans

Frequent Co-Authors

Axel Legay
Axel Legay Université Catholique de Louvain
Krzysztof Czarnecki
Krzysztof Czarnecki University of Waterloo
Mike Papadakis
Mike Papadakis University of Luxembourg
Klaus Pohl
Klaus Pohl University of Duisburg-Essen
Daniel Amyot
Daniel Amyot University of Ottawa
Benoit Baudry
Benoit Baudry University of Montreal
Jean-François Raskin
Jean-François Raskin Université Libre de Bruxelles
Yves Le Traon
Yves Le Traon University of Luxembourg
Neil Maiden
Neil Maiden City, University of London
Hervé Panetto
Hervé Panetto University of Lorraine

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

As you consider studying Computer Science in the USA, exploring related online degrees can open up even more career opportunities. Many students look for interdisciplinary programs to enhance their skills and marketability.

For those interested in sustainability and technology, the cheapest online environmental science degree options can be an excellent way to combine environmental awareness with computational expertise.

If you are fascinated by designing and building machines, enrolling in an online degree for mechanical engineering can complement a foundation in computer science. This pairing allows you to work on robotics, automation, or advanced manufacturing projects.

Students eager to understand how the universe operates might consider the best online physics degree programs. Physics knowledge is valuable for careers in simulation, imaging, or scientific research.

Lastly, the demand for specialists with both computer science and analytical skills continues to rise. Pursuing a data science degree can help you break into sectors such as AI, finance, and healthcare analytics.

Best Scientists Citing Patrick Heymans

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles