← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

\textbfEvent-Study Designs for Discrete Outcomes under Transition Independence
Young Ahn, Hiroyuki Kasahara
https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.07914
92
Citation mentions
46
Cited references
12
Sections
11,964
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 Hvide and Jones 2018 11 4 20.0 0.120 1.000 100%
2 Charoenwong, Kwan and Umar 2019 12 4 21.0 0.130 1.000 100%
3 Acemoglu and Angrist 2001 4 2 6.0 0.043 0.811 100%
4 Lise, Pastorino and Pistaferri 2023 4 2 7.0 0.043 0.811 100%
5 Callaway and Sant'Anna 2021 6 3 7.5 0.065 0.794 50%
6 Robins 1986 3 2 5.0 0.033 0.737 100%
7 Bustos 2011 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
8 Anderson and Sallee 2011 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
9 Roth, Sant'Anna, Bilinski and Poe 2023 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
10 Angrist and Pischke 2009 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
11 Ding and Li 2019 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
12 Bonhomme and Manresa 2015 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
13 Hernan and Robins 2025 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
14 Marx, Tamer and Tang 2025 2 2 3.0 0.022 0.644 100%
15 Roth 2022 2 2 4.0 0.022 0.644 100%
16 Heckman, Ichimura and Todd 1997 2 1 2.0 0.022 0.511 100%
17 Carroll, Chen and Hu 2010 2 2 2.5 0.022 0.511 50%
18 Roth and Sant'Anna 2023 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
19 Card and Sullivan 1988 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
20 Heckman, Ichimura, Smith and Todd 1998 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
21 Athey and Imbens 2006 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
22 Wooldridge 2023 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
23 Di Francesco and Mellace 2025 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
24 Graves, Fry, McWilliams and Hatfield 2022 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
25 Callaway, Li and Oka 2018 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
26 Callaway and Li 2019 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
27 Ghanem, Kedagni and Mourifie 2023 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
28 Bonhomme, Lamadon and Manresa 2022 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
29 Arkhangelsky, Athey, Hirshberg, Imbens and Wager 2021 1 1 1.0 0.011 0.406 100%
30 Anderson 1954 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
31 Madansky 1960 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
32 Hu 2008 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
33 Kasahara and Shimotsu (self) 2009 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
34 Hu and Shum 2012 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
35 Ishimaru 2025 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
36 Freyaldenhoven, Hansen and Shapiro 2019 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
37 Kahn-Lang and Lang 2020 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
38 Rambachan and Roth 2023 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
39 Kasahara and Shimotsu (self) 2015 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
40 Hotchkiss 2003 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
41 United States Census Bureau 1990 1 1 2.0 0.011 0.406 100%
42 Newey and McFadden 1994 2 1 1.0 0.022 0.110 0%
43 Higgins and Jochmans 2023 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.087 0%
44 Sun and Abraham 2021 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.087 0%
45 Cameron, Gelbach and Miller 2008 1 1 0.5 0.011 0.087 0%
46 MacKinnon and Webb 2017 1 1 0.5 0.011 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.

Citation intensity data generated from LaTeX source analysis.