Citation Analysis

Estimating Demand with Recentered Instruments
Kirill Borusyak, Mauricio Caceres Bravo, Peter Hull
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.04056
141
Citation mentions
60
Cited references
8
Sections
8,017
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 Berry, Levinsohn and Pakes 1995 7 3 12.0 0.050 1.000 100%
2 Berry, Levinsohn and Pakes 1999 9 3 15.0 0.064 1.000 100%
3 Borusyak and Hull (self) 2023 8 4 14.0 0.057 1.000 100%
4 Borusyak, Hull and Jaravel (self) 2022 5 3 8.0 0.035 1.000 100%
5 Borusyak and Hull (self) 2025 6 4 10.0 0.043 1.000 100%
6 Gandhi and Houde 2020 13 6 20.0 0.092 0.946 85%
7 Goldberg and Verboven 2001 4 3 7.0 0.028 0.928 100%
8 Miller and Weinberg 2017 3 3 5.0 0.021 0.843 100%
9 Salanie and Wolak 2022 4 3 4.5 0.028 0.843 75%
10 Newey and McFadden 1994 3 3 5.0 0.021 0.843 100%
11 Ad\ ao, Costinot and Donaldson 2017 3 3 5.0 0.021 0.843 100%
12 Barahona, Otero and Otero 2023 3 3 5.0 0.021 0.843 100%
13 Nakamura and Zerom 2010 4 2 7.0 0.028 0.811 100%
14 Ackerberg and Crawford 2009 4 2 6.0 0.028 0.811 100%
15 Nevo 2001 4 2 5.0 0.028 0.811 100%
16 Ad\ ao, Kolesar and Morales 2019 4 2 6.0 0.028 0.811 100%
17 Conlon and Gortmaker 2020 4 4 5.0 0.028 0.737 50%
18 Li 2016 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
19 Berry and Haile 2014 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
20 Borusyak, Hull and Jaravel (self) 2024 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
21 Gandhi and Nevo 2021 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
22 Villas-Boas 2007 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
23 Grieco, Murry and Yurukoglu 2024 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
24 Petrin, Ponder and Seo 2022 2 1 2.0 0.014 0.511 100%
25 Reynaert and Verboven 2014 2 1 2.0 0.014 0.511 100%
26 Ad\ ao, Costinot and Donaldson 2024 2 1 2.0 0.014 0.511 100%
27 Berry 1994 2 2 2.5 0.014 0.511 50%
28 Armstrong 2016 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
29 Chamberlain 1987 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
30 Chamberlain 1992 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
31 Sweeting 2013 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
32 Moon, Shum and Weidner 2018 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
33 Crawford, Shcherbakov and Shum 2019 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
34 Fan 2013 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
35 Lu, Shi and Tao 2023 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
36 Wang 2023 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
37 Ad\ ao, Arkolakis and Esposito 2023 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
38 Borusyak, Dix-Carneiro and Kovak (self) 2022 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
39 Andrews, Barahona, Gentzkow, Rambachan and Shapiro 2025 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
40 Costinot, Donaldson and Smith 2016 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
41 Couture and Handbury 2020 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
42 Fajgelbaum, Goldberg, Kennedy and Khandelwal 2020 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
43 Ad\ ao, Carrillo, Costinot, Donaldson and Pomeranz 2022 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
44 Fujiy, Ghose and Khanna 2024 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
45 Town and Liu 2003 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
46 Aguiar and Waldfogel 2018 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
47 Berry and Haile 2021 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
48 McFadden 1978 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
49 Backus, Conlon and Sinkinson 2021 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
50 Dearing 2022 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
51 Imbens and Angrist 1994 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
52 Kilian and Taylor 2003 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
53 Rothenberg 1971 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
54 Houde 2012 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
55 Bresnahan, Stern and Trajtenberg 1997 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
56 Dekle, Eaton and Kortum 2008 1 1 0.5 0.007 0.087 0%
57 Newey and Powell 2003 1 1 0.5 0.007 0.087 0%
58 Kocis and Whiten 1997 1 1 0.5 0.007 0.087 0%
59 Varadhan and Roland 2008 1 1 0.5 0.007 0.087 0%
60 Halchenko, Trembovetska, Tychkov and Storchak 2020 1 1 0.5 0.007 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.