Citation Analysis

\begindocument
Ruixuan Liu, Zhengfei Yu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17374
122
Citation mentions
54
Cited references
7
Sections
7,361
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 Chernozhukov and Hong 2003 10 4 17.0 0.082 1.000 100%
2 van der Vaart 1998 5 5 8.5 0.041 1.000 100%
3 van der Vaart and Wellner 1996 5 3 10.0 0.041 1.000 100%
4 Ichimura and Lee 2010 7 4 14.0 0.057 1.000 100%
5 Agarwal and Somaini 2018 4 3 6.0 0.033 0.928 100%
6 Ghosal and van der Vaart 2017 4 4 5.5 0.033 0.928 100%
7 Newey 1994 4 3 5.0 0.033 0.928 100%
8 Petrin and Train 2010 5 2 9.0 0.041 0.874 100%
9 McFadden 1989 3 3 5.0 0.025 0.843 100%
10 Lee, Kosorok, and Fine 2005 4 2 3.5 0.033 0.811 100%
11 Ghosh and Ramamoorthi 2002 4 2 8.0 0.033 0.811 100%
12 Train 2009 3 2 5.0 0.025 0.737 100%
13 Hajivassiliou and McFadden 1998 3 2 5.0 0.025 0.737 100%
14 Imai and Van Dyk 2005 3 2 6.0 0.025 0.737 100%
15 Chen, Lee, and Sung 2014 3 2 6.0 0.025 0.737 100%
16 Murphy and Topel 2002 2 2 3.0 0.016 0.644 100%
17 Kleijn and van der Vaart 2012 2 2 2.5 0.016 0.644 100%
18 Muller 2013 2 2 2.5 0.016 0.644 100%
19 Kim 2014 2 2 2.5 0.016 0.644 100%
20 Newey and McFadden 1994 2 2 2.5 0.016 0.644 100%
21 Chen, Linton, and Van Keilegom 2003 2 2 4.0 0.016 0.644 100%
22 Pakes and Pollard 1989 2 2 4.0 0.016 0.644 100%
23 Chang, Chen, and Schorfheide 2024 3 1 6.0 0.025 0.585 100%
24 Eldar and Magnolfi 2020 3 1 6.0 0.025 0.585 100%
25 Cheng and Kosorok 2008 2 1 1.0 0.016 0.511 100%
26 Efron 1979 2 1 4.0 0.016 0.511 100%
27 Blei, Kucukelbir, and McAuliffe 2017 2 1 4.0 0.016 0.511 100%
28 Keane 1992 2 1 4.0 0.016 0.511 100%
29 Chen, Christensen, and Tamer 2018 2 1 4.0 0.016 0.511 100%
30 Heckman and Robb 1985 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
31 Wooldridge 2015 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
32 Hausman, Leonard, and Zona 1994 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
33 Kim 2002 1 1 0.5 0.008 0.406 100%
34 Chib, Shin, and Simoni 2018 1 1 0.5 0.008 0.406 100%
35 Hansen 2022 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
36 Chen, Wang, and Erosheva 2018 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
37 Lee 2010 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
38 Albert and Chib 1993 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
39 McCulloch and Rossi 1994 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
40 Nobile 1998 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
41 Anceschi, Fasano, Durante, and Zanella 2023 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
42 Hajivassiliou, McFadden, and Ruud 1996 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
43 McCulloch, Polson, and Rossi 2000 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
44 Chen 2007 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
45 Burgette and Nordheim 2012 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
46 Johndrow, Dunson, and Lum 2013 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
47 Munkin 2023 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
48 Manski 1975 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
49 Fox 2007 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
50 Jun, Pinkse, and Wan 2015 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
51 Hayfield and Racine 2008 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
52 Imai and Van Dyk 2005 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
53 Croissant 2020 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
54 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
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.