Citation Analysis

Improving Robust Decisions with Data
Xiaoyu Cheng
https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16281
66
Citation mentions
51
Cited references
9
Sections
5,280
Words (approx)

References by Citation Intensity

Ordered by composite index (descending). Higher values indicate more intensive citation.

# Reference Year Mentions Breadth Sec. Wtd Share Composite Main %
1 Epstein and Schneider 2007 4 2 3.5 0.061 0.811 100%
2 Reshidi, Thereze and Zhang 2025 4 2 6.0 0.061 0.811 100%
3 Cheng (self) 2022 3 2 2.5 0.045 0.737 100%
4 Athey and Levin 2018 2 2 3.0 0.030 0.644 100%
5 Epstein, Kaido and Seo 2016 2 2 1.5 0.030 0.644 100%
6 Wang 1993 2 1 4.0 0.030 0.511 100%
7 Blum and Rosenblatt 1967 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
8 Gilboa and Schmeidler 1989 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
9 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
10 Carroll 2019 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
11 Cao 2014 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
12 Pires 2002 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
13 Gilboa and Schmeidler 1993 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
14 Neyman and Scott 1948 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
15 Lancaster 2000 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
16 Wilson 1927 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
17 Chen 2026 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
18 Wald 1950 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
19 Watson and Holmes 2016 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
20 Hansen and Marinacci 2016 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
21 Manski 2021 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
22 Kalai and Lehrer 1993 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
23 Hanany and Klibanoff 2007 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
24 Hanany and Klibanoff 2009 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
25 Siniscalchi 2009 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
26 Saito 2015 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
27 Ke and Zhang 2020 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
28 Carroll 2015 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
29 Carroll and Meng 2016 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
30 Gentzkow and Kamenica 2016 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
31 Kolotilin, Mylovanov, Zapechelnyuk and Li 2017 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
32 Dworczak and Martini 2019 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
33 De Jong 1995 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
34 Walley 1991 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
35 Brown, Cai and DasGupta 2001 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
36 Marinacci 2002 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
37 Marinacci and Massari 2019 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
38 Gilboa and Marinacci 2013 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
39 Cerreia-Vioglio, Maccheroni, Marinacci and Montruc... 2013 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
40 Denti and Pomatto 2022 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
41 Frick, Iijima and Ishii 2024 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
42 He and Libgober 2025 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
43 Tamer 2010 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
44 Canay and Shaikh 2017 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
45 Molinari 2020 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
46 Christensen, Moon and Schorfheide 2023 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.406 100%
47 Horn and Johnson 2012 5 1 2.5 0.076 0.149 0%
48 Aliprantis and Border 2006 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.087 0%
49 White 1984 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.087 0%
50 Watson 1996 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.087 0%
51 Wellner 1981 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.087 0%
Measures: Mentions = total in-text citations; Breadth = distinct sections; Sec. Wtd = section-weighted count (body ×2, lit review/appendix ×0.5); Share = mentions / total citations in paper; Composite = geometric mean of normalised count, breadth, and main-text ratio; Main % = fraction of mentions in main text (excl. appendix). (self) = self-citation.