← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

\LARGE Robust Inference when Nuisance Parameters may be Partially Identified with Applications to Synthetic Controls
Joseph Fry
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.00307
140
Citation mentions
59
Cited references
7
Sections
10,312
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 Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller 2010 9 5 17.0 0.064 1.000 100%
2 Li 2020 5 3 9.0 0.036 1.000 100%
3 Chernozhukov, Wüthrich, and Zhu 2024 12 5 22.0 0.086 1.000 100%
4 Cao and Dowd 2019 6 4 11.0 0.043 1.000 100%
5 Andersson 2019 10 3 19.0 0.071 1.000 100%
6 Sun 2013 11 4 22.0 0.079 1.000 100%
7 Chernozhukov, Wüthrich, and Zhu 2021 4 3 7.0 0.029 0.928 100%
8 Chernozhukov, Hong, and Tamer 2007 5 2 9.0 0.036 0.874 100%
9 Andrews and Cheng 2012 4 2 5.0 0.029 0.811 100%
10 Carvalho, Masini, and Medeiros 2018 3 2 4.0 0.021 0.737 100%
11 Vives-i Bastida and Gulek 2025 3 2 4.0 0.021 0.737 100%
12 Phillips 2005 3 2 6.0 0.021 0.737 100%
13 Fry (self) 2024 5 1 10.0 0.036 0.693 100%
14 Andrews 1999 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
15 Andrews 2003 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
16 Han and McCloskey 2019 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
17 Belloni, Chernozhukov, Chetverikov, Hansen, and Ka... 2018 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
18 Mackey, Syrgkanis, and Zadik 2018 2 2 3.0 0.014 0.644 100%
19 Andrews 1991 4 1 8.0 0.029 0.644 100%
20 Abadie and Gardeazabal 2003 2 2 4.0 0.014 0.644 100%
21 Chernozhukov, Chetverikov, Demirer, Duflo, Hansen,... 2018 3 1 3.0 0.021 0.585 100%
22 Arkhangelsky, Athey, Hirshberg, Imbens, and Wager 2021 2 1 2.0 0.014 0.511 100%
23 Shi, Li, Miao, Hu, and Tchetgen 2023 2 1 4.0 0.014 0.511 100%
24 Dendramis, Giraitis, and Kapetanios 2021 2 1 4.0 0.014 0.511 100%
25 Geyer 1994 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
26 Romano and Shaikh 2010 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
27 Hansen 1996 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
28 Chaudhuri and Zivot 2011 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
29 Cox 2022 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
30 Neyman 1959 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
31 Ning and Liu 2017 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
32 Chernozhukov, Hansen, and Spindler 2015 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
33 Belloni, Chernozhukov, and Hansen 2014 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
34 Singh, Hosanagar, and Gandhi 2020 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
35 Ketz 2018 1 1 1.0 0.007 0.406 100%
36 Newey and West 1987 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
37 Vogelsang and Kiefer 2002 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
38 Hwang and Sun 2018 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
39 Sun 2014 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
40 Sun 2014 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
41 Lazarus, Lewis, and Stock 2021 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
42 Vogelsang and Kiefer 2005 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
43 Zhang, Li, Miao, and Tchetgen Tchetgen 2023 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
44 Powell 2021 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
45 Abadie, Diamond, and Hainmueller 2015 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
46 Ferman and Pinto 2021 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
47 Andrews and Guggenberger 2010 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
48 Hahn and Shi 2017 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
49 Gavish and Donoho 2014 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
50 Belloni, Chen, Chernozhukov, and Hansen 2012 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
51 Hansen and Kozbur 2014 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
52 Berry, Levinsohn, and Pakes 1995 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
53 Chalak and Kim 2024 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
54 Santos 2011 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
55 Florens, Johannes, and Van Bellegem 2012 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
56 Babii and Florens 2017 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
57 Chen and Pouzo 2009 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
58 Herrndorf 1985 1 1 2.0 0.007 0.406 100%
59 Newey and McFadden 1994 1 1 2.0 0.007 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.

Citation intensity data generated from LaTeX source analysis.