Citation Analysis

Testing Inequalities Linear in Nuisance Parameters
Gregory Fletcher Cox, Xiaoxia Shi, Yuya Shimizu
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.27633
68
Citation mentions
44
Cited references
14
Sections
20,842
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 Federico Bugni and Ivan Canay and Xiaoxia Shi (self) 4 4 7.0 0.059 0.928 100%
2 Isaiah Andrews and Jonathan Roth and Ariel Pakes 2023 4 3 7.0 0.059 0.928 100%
3 Zheng Fang and Andres Santos and Azeem Shaikh and ... 3 3 5.0 0.044 0.843 100%
4 Joohwan Cho and Thomas M. Russell 4 4 5.5 0.059 0.843 75%
5 Xiaohong Chen and Timothy M. Christensen and Elie ... 4 2 6.0 0.059 0.811 100%
6 Joachim Freyberer and Joel Horowitz 4 2 7.0 0.059 0.811 100%
7 Bulat Gafarov 3 2 5.0 0.044 0.737 100%
8 Goff, Leonard and Eric Mbakop 2025 3 2 5.0 0.044 0.737 100%
9 Federico Bugni and Ivan Canay and Xiaoxia Shi (self) 2 2 3.0 0.029 0.644 100%
10 Bei, Xinyue 2023 2 2 3.0 0.029 0.644 100%
11 Voronin, Andrei 2025 2 2 3.0 0.029 0.644 100%
12 Gregory Cox and Xiaoxia Shi (self) 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
13 Alex Belloni and Federico Bugni and Victor Chernoz... 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
14 Hiroaki Kaido and Francesca Molinari and Joerg Sto... 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
15 Yuehao Bai and Andres Santos and Azeem Shaikh 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
16 Amit K. Gandhi and Zhentong Lu and Xiaoxia Shi (self) 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
17 Magne Mogstad and Andres Santos and Alexander Torg... 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
18 Patrick Kline and Melissa Tartari 1 1 1.0 0.015 0.406 100%
19 Ivan A. Canay and Azeem Shaikh 2017 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
20 Kate Ho and Adam Rosen 2017 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
21 Francesca Molinari 2020 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
22 Charles F. Manski and Elie Tamer 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
23 Xiaoxia Shi and Matthew Shum and Wei Song (self) 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
24 Myrto Kalouptsidi and Yuichi Kitamura and Lucas Li... 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
25 Vasilis Syrgkanis and Elie Tamer and Juba Ziani 2021 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
26 Thomas Permutt and J. Richard Hebel 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
27 Josh Angrist and Alan Krueger 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
28 Angrist, Joshua and Evans, William 1998 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
29 N. Karmarkar 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
30 Yinyu Ye and Edison Tse 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
31 Patrik Guggenberger and Jinyong Hahn and Kyooil Ki... 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
32 Hiroaki Kaido and Andres Santos 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
33 Ariel Pakes and Jack Porter and Kate Ho and Joy Is... 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
34 Hiroaki Kaido and Francesca Molinari and Joerg Sto... 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
35 James H. Stock and Jonathan H. Wright 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
36 Frank Kleibergen 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
37 Isaiah Andrews and Anna Mikusheva 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
38 Saraswata Chaudhuri and Eric Zivot 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
39 Andrews, Isaiah 2018 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
40 Patrik Guggenberger and Frank Kleibergen and Sopho... 2024 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
41 Patrik Guggenberger and Frank Kleibergen and Sopho... 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
42 Cox, G. (self) 2025 1 1 2.0 0.015 0.406 100%
43 Jean-Pierre Aubin and H\'e 2009 1 1 0.5 0.015 0.087 0%
44 Jorge Nocedal and Stephen Wright 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.