← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

\huge Back to Feedback
Stephane Bonhomme
https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17576
161
Citation mentions
85
Cited references
12
Sections
8,583
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 Arellano and Bond 1991 5 4 9.0 0.031 1.000 100%
2 Chamberlain 2022 8 5 15.0 0.050 1.000 100%
3 Bonhomme (self) 2012 5 3 9.0 0.031 1.000 100%
4 Bonhomme, Dano, and Graham (self) 2023 7 4 13.0 0.043 1.000 100%
5 Alvarez and Arellano 2003 8 3 16.0 0.050 1.000 100%
6 Bonhomme (self) 2025 4 3 7.0 0.025 0.928 100%
7 Ghanem, Sant'Anna, and Wuthrich 2022 4 4 8.0 0.025 0.928 100%
8 Bonhomme, Dano, and Graham (self) 2025 5 2 9.0 0.031 0.874 100%
9 Abadie 2005 3 3 5.0 0.019 0.843 100%
10 Arellano 2003 3 3 5.0 0.019 0.843 100%
11 Marx, Tamer, and Tang 2024 3 3 5.0 0.019 0.843 100%
12 Robins 1986 3 3 6.0 0.019 0.843 100%
13 Lee 2020 4 2 7.0 0.025 0.811 100%
14 Chamberlain 1992 3 2 5.0 0.019 0.737 100%
15 Arellano and Bover 1995 3 2 6.0 0.019 0.737 100%
16 Arellano and Bonhomme (self) 2012 3 2 6.0 0.019 0.737 100%
17 Goodman-Bacon 2021 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
18 Blundell and Bond 1998 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
19 De Chaisemartin and d’Haultfoeuille 2020 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
20 Sun and Abraham 2021 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
21 Callaway and Sant’Anna 2021 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
22 Borusyak, Jaravel, and Spiess 2024 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
23 Honore and Tamer 2006 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
24 Abowd, Kramarz, and Margolis 1999 2 2 3.0 0.012 0.644 100%
25 Ashenfelter and Card 1985 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
26 Marx, Tamer, and Tang 2024 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
27 Chamberlain 1992 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
28 Chesher, Rosen, and Zhang 2024 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
29 Botosaru, Loh, and Muris 2024 2 2 4.0 0.012 0.644 100%
30 Hayashi 2011 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
31 Acemoglu, Naidu, Restrepo, and Robinson 2019 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
32 Alvarez and Arellano 2004 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
33 Moral-Benito 2013 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
34 Hahn and Kuersteiner 2002 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
35 Graham and Powell 2012 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
36 Kuersteiner and Prucha 2020 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
37 Bonhomme, Lamadon, and Manresa (self) 2019 2 1 4.0 0.012 0.511 100%
38 Imbens and Angrist 1994 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
39 Hendry 1995 1 1 1.0 0.006 0.406 100%
40 Engle, Hendry, and Richard 1983 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
41 Torgovitsky 2019 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
42 Chamberlain 1982 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
43 Rust 1987 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
44 Keane and Wolpin 1997 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
45 Chabe-Ferret 2015 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
46 de Chaisemartin and d'Haultfoeuille 2022 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
47 Mikusheva and S\olvsten 2023 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
48 Nickell 1981 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
49 Roth 2022 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
50 Freyaldenhoven, Hansen, and Shapiro 2019 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
51 Rambachan and Roth 2023 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
52 LaLonde 1986 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
53 Klosin 2024 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
54 Holtz-Eakin, Newey, and Rosen 1988 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
55 Wooldridge 2010 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
56 Kiviet 1995 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
57 Ahn and Schmidt 1995 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
58 Hsiao, Pesaran, and Tahmiscioglu 2002 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
59 Mundlak 1978 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
60 Moral-Benito, Allison, and Williams 2019 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
61 Bun, Carree, and Juodis 2017 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
62 Arellano and Hahn 2007 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
63 Dhaene and Jochmans 2015 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
64 Bun and Carree 2005 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
65 Bonhomme and Denis (self) 2025 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
66 Botosaru and Liu 2025 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
67 de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfoeuille 2025 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
68 Arkhangelsky and Imbens 2024 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
69 Azriel and Schwartzman 2020 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
70 Fernandez-Val and Lee 2013 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
71 Arellano and Honore 2001 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
72 Blundell, Griffith, and Windmeijer 2002 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
73 Wooldridge 1997 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
74 Al-Sadoon, Li, and Pesaran 2017 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
75 Woutersen 2000 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
76 Rasch 1960 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
77 Chamberlain 2023 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
78 Honore and Weidner 2024 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
79 Honore, Muris, and Weidner 2025 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
80 Dano 2023 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
81 Arellano and Bonhomme (self) 2016 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
82 Hu and Schennach 2008 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
83 Hu and Shum 2012 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
84 Di Addario, Kline, Saggio, and S\olvsten 2023 1 1 2.0 0.006 0.406 100%
85 Mikusheva, S\olvsten, and Jing 2025 1 1 2.0 0.006 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.