This map shows the geographic impact of Peter Lucas's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Peter Lucas with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Peter Lucas more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Peter Lucas. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Peter Lucas. The network helps show where Peter Lucas may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Peter Lucas
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Peter Lucas.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Peter Lucas based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Peter Lucas. Peter Lucas is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Hommersom, Arjen, et al.. (2013). Inference for a new probabilistic constraint logic. Radboud Repository (Radboud University). 2540–2546.5 indexed citations
7.
Lappenschaar, Martijn, Arjen Hommersom, & Peter Lucas. (2012). Qualitative Chain Graphs and their Use in Medicine. 179–186.2 indexed citations
8.
Groot, P. & Peter Lucas. (2012). Gaussian Process Regression with Censored Data Using Expectation Propagation. Radboud Repository (Radboud University). 115–122.9 indexed citations
9.
Lucas, Peter, et al.. (2012). Probabilistic Reasoning with Temporal Indeterminacy. 131–138.1 indexed citations
10.
Lucas, Peter & Arjen Hommersom. (2010). Modelling the interactions between discrete and continuous causal factors in Bayesian networks. Radboud Repository (Radboud University). 185–192.1 indexed citations
11.
Benazzi, Stefano, et al.. (2010). A symmetric virtual reconstruction of OH5.. American Journal of Physical Anthropology.1 indexed citations
12.
Heskes, Tom, et al.. (2006). Noisy Threshold Functions for Modelling Causal Independence in Bayesian Networks. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).3 indexed citations
13.
Hommersom, Arjen, et al.. (2006). Checking Guideline Conformance of Medical Protocols using Modular Model Checking. Radboud Repository (Radboud University). 173–180.1 indexed citations
14.
Heskes, Tom, Peter Lucas, L.G. Vuurpijl, & Wim Wiegerinck. (2003). BNAIC'03: Proceedings of the 15th Belgium-Netherlands Artificial Intelligence Conference. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).1 indexed citations
15.
Lucas, Peter. (1996). Knowledge Acquisition for Decision-theoretic Expert Systems. Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University).10 indexed citations
16.
Lucas, Peter. (1996). A theory of diagnosis as hypothesis refinement. Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS).1 indexed citations
17.
Lucas, Peter. (1986). Knowledge representation and inference in rule-based systems. Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI), the national research institute for mathematics and computer science in the Netherlands. 1–17.4 indexed citations
Lucas, Peter. (1971). Formal Definition of Programming Languages and Systems.. IFIP Congress. 291–297.8 indexed citations
20.
Lucas, Peter. (1961). Die Strukturanalyse von Formelübersetzern.. 3. 159–167.2 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.