_{\text{BCCH}}$)       -0.6762            0.0114
  Post double Lasso (1.5$\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$)       -0.6778            0.0114
  OLS with all covariates                              -0.6694            0.0115
  OLS without covariates                               -0.8538            0.0105

  : Results based on original data

[1.25]{}[1.4]{}

To investigate the impact of under-selection, we draw random subsamples of size $n_s\in \{400,800,1600\}$ with replacement from the original dataset. In each sample, we estimate $\alpha^\ast$ using post double Lasso with $\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, $0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and $1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and compute the bias as the difference between the average estimate based on the subsamples and the estimate based on the original data with the same regularization parameters. The results are based on 2,000 simulation repetitions.

Figure \[fig:app\_test\] displays the bias and the ratio of bias to standard deviation. While the bias is decreasing in $n_s$, it can be substantial and larger than the standard deviation when $n_s$ is small. Moreover, the performance of post double Lasso is very sensitive to the choice of the regularization parameters. For $\lambda=0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, post double Lasso is approximately unbiased for all $n_s$, whereas, for $\lambda=1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, the bias is comparable to the standard deviation even when $n_s=1600$.

\[fig:app\_test\]

Theoretical analysis {#sec:inference}
====================

This section provides a theoretical explanation for the findings in Section \[sec:evidence\]. We first establish a new necessary result for the Lasso’s inclusion and then derive lower and upper bounds on the OVBs of post double Lasso. These results hold for fixed $\left(n,\,p,\,k\right)$, and are also informative when $\frac{k\log p}{n}\rightarrow0$ or $\frac{k\log p}{n}\rightarrow\infty$. Throughout this section, we assume the regime where $p$ is comparable to or even much
_ { \text{BCCH}}$)        -0.6762             0.0114 
   Post double Lasso (1.5$\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$)        -0.6778             0.0114 
   OLS with all covariates                               -0.6694             0.0115 
   OLS without covariates                                -0.8538             0.0105 

  : Results based on original data 

 [ 1.25]{}[1.4 ] { } 

 To investigate the impingement of under - survival, we draw random subsamples of size $ n_s\in \{400,800,1600\}$ with replacement from the original dataset. In each sample, we calculate $ \alpha^\ast$ using post double Lasso with $ \lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, $ 0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and $ 1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and calculate the diagonal as the difference between the average estimate based on the subsamples and the estimate free-base on the original data with the same regulation parameters. The results are free-base on 2,000 simulation repetitions. 

 Figure \[fig: app\_test\ ] expose the bias and the ratio of bias to standard diversion. While the bias is decreasing in $ n_s$, it can be significant and larger than the standard diversion when $ n_s$ is small. furthermore, the performance of post double Lasso is very sensitive to the option of the regularization parameters. For $ \lambda=0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, post double Lasso is approximately unbiased for all $ n_s$, whereas, for $ \lambda=1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, the bias is comparable to the standard deviation even when $ n_s=1600$. 

 \[fig: app\_test\ ] 

 Theoretical analysis { # sec: inference } 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 This section provides a theoretical explanation for the findings in Section \[sec: evidence\ ]. We first establish a new necessary result for the Lasso ’s inclusion and then derive broken and upper bounds on the OVBs of post bivalent Lasso. These result accommodate for fixed $ \left(n,\,p,\,k\right)$, and are also enlightening when $ \frac{k\log p}{n}\rightarrow0 $ or $ \frac{k\log p}{n}\rightarrow\infty$. Throughout this section, we assume the regime where $ p$ is comparable to or even much
_{\texh{BCCH}}$)       -0.6762            0.0114
  Post double Lcwso (1.5$\lakbda_{\test{BCCH}}$)       -0.6778            0.0114
  OLS with ell xovaruates                              -0.6694            0.0115
  OLS wmfhout covariafcs                               -0.8538            0.0105

  : Xesults based on original data

[1.25]{}[1.4]{}

To invqstigatr hhe impact of onder-xqlecfpok, we draw random subsamples of sjze $n_s\ii \{400,800,1600\}$ with replacekent from the original datwset. In each sample, we estimate $\aopha^\wwt$ using posg double Lasso with $\lajbda_{\text{BCCH}}$, $0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and $1.5\lambba_{\text{BCCH}}$ qne clkpute the bmas as the differekbe betwaen the average estimste bawed on the subsamples and the estimate fased on dhz original data with rhw samg regglarkzatkon perajeters. Thx results ade based on 2,000 simulation repetiuiogw.

Figure \[fig:apl\_test\] qifplays the bias and the ratio of bias tm sfandard deviation. While the bias is decreasijg in $n_s$, yt can be substantial and larger than the standarg devmagiou when $b_s$ is small. Moreover, the performance of post dotglt Lssso is very scnsitive to the chpife jf the regulatizatiou pzrameters. For $\lambfa=0.5\lambdw_{\text{VCCH}}$, post dounle Lasso is approximately ynbiased for qll $n_s$, whereas, for $\lambda=1.5\lambba_{\text{NCCH}}$, yhe bias is comparable co the standard dfviation sxen when $n_s=1600$.

\[fig:apo\_text\]

Dheoretical analysis {#sec:inserence}
====================

Thms seetion pruvidgs a thqoretical fxplakdtion for the findlngs nn Sewtion \[sec:egidence\]. We first establish a nex necessary rgsunt xor the Jasso’x inclusion agd then derive lower cnd upoer bounds on the OVBs of poft double Lasvl. These resunts hold for fixwd $\left(v,\,o,\,k\right)$, and arr also inyjrmarive when $\frac{k\log p}{n}\tifhtarrow0$ or $\frae{y\oog p}{n}\rightarroe\inwty$. Tjrpudvout this sewtiov, wd assuoe the regind whrre $p$ is comparable do od even much
_{\text{BCCH}}$) -0.6762 0.0114 Post double Lasso (1.5$\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$) OLS all covariates 0.0115 OLS without based original data [1.25]{}[1.4]{} investigate the impact under-selection, we draw random subsamples of $n_s\in \{400,800,1600\}$ with replacement from the original dataset. In each sample, we estimate using post double Lasso with $\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, $0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and $1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and compute the bias the between average based on the subsamples and the estimate based on the original data with the same regularization The results are based on 2,000 simulation repetitions. \[fig:app\_test\] displays the bias the ratio of bias to deviation. the bias decreasing $n_s$, can be substantial larger than the standard deviation when $n_s$ is small. Moreover, the performance of post double Lasso is sensitive to of the parameters. $\lambda=0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, double Lasso is for all $n_s$, whereas, for $\lambda=1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, comparable to the standard deviation even when $n_s=1600$. Theoretical analysis ==================== This section provides a theoretical for the findings in Section \[sec:evidence\]. We first a new necessary result for the Lasso’s inclusion and then derive lower and upper bounds OVBs of post double These results hold fixed and also when $\frac{k\log or $\frac{k\log p}{n}\rightarrow\infty$. Throughout this section, we assume the regime where is comparable to or even much
_{\text{BCCH}}$)       -0.6762            0.0114
  Post double Lasso (1.5$\laMbda_{\text{BCcH}}$)       -0.6778            0.0114
  OLS WitH alL cOvarIateS                              -0.6694            0.0115
  OLS without covARiatEs                               -0.8538            0.0105

  : Results based on originAl datA

[1.25]{}[1.4]{}

TO InveSTiGate tHe impacT Of UNDer-SeLeCtiOn, WE dRaw raNdoM subsamPles of size $N_s\iN \{400,800,1600\}$ wIth replacemeNT fRom the origInaL dataset. In eaCh sAmple, wE eStiMAte $\alPha^\Ast$ usIng posT Double lasso with $\LaMBda_{\texT{bCCH}}$, $0.5\lamBDA_{\tExt{BcCH}}$ and $1.5\lambda_{\text{BccH}}$ ANd compute the biAs as thE dIFfEREncE beTween the avErAge esTImate baSEd ON THe sUBsamples and thE estimate baSEd oN the orIgInaL Data wiTh the SaME reGularizatioN parAmeters. ThE resulTS are basED on 2,000 simuLation RepEtiTionS.

fiGuRe \[fIg:APp\_tESt\] DisPLayS the bias AnD tHe ratIo of BIAS To stAndArd dEviatIon. While the biAs iS decREasIng in $N_s$, it cAn be SuBstanTial anD largEr Than the standard DeviAtion when $N_s$ iS sMalL. MOreovER, the peRfoRmaNce of poSt doublE lasSo IS VErY sensitive to the choIcE OF tHe regulaRizatiON pArAMeters. FoR $\lAmbDa=0.5\laMBDa_{\texT{BCCh}}$, PoSt double lasso iS ApPrOximateLy UnbiasEd For All $N_s$, wheREas, fOr $\lambDa=1.5\lambda_{\Text{BccH}}$, the bias is comPArable to the stANdARD dEViatIon Even when $n_s=1600$.

\[fIg:apP\_Test\]

theoREtIcaL AnalySis {#seC:iNFeREnce}
====================

This section provIdEs a theOretiCal explanatioN for the finDINGs in SectIon \[sEC:eVIdence\]. We first eStablIsh a new necESsary resUlt foR the LassO’s inclusiON And then dEriVe lOweR anD UPpEr bounds on the ovbs of PoSt doublE LaSso. ThesE reSulTs hOld FoR fixed $\lefT(n,\,p,\,k\righT)$, aNd ArE aLso InforMAtive wheN $\fRac{K\lOg p}{N}\righTArrow0$ oR $\frac{K\log P}{n}\RiGHtaRrow\infTY$. THROughOuT tHis sEctIoN, we asSume THe rEgime whEre $p$ is comParABle tO oR eVen much
_{\text{BCCH}}$)       -0. 6762          0. 011 4  Po st d ouble Lasso (1 . 5$\l ambda_{\text{BCCH}}$)     - 0 .677 8           0. 0 11 4   O LS  w ith  a l lcovar iat es                          -0 . 66 94          0.0115
  OL S w ithout  c ova r iates                          - 0 .8538       0 .010 5

  : Results ba s ed on original da ta

[1 .2 5 ]{ } [ 1.4 ]{} 

To inves ti gatet he impa c to f und e r-selection,we draw ran d omsubsam pl eso f size  $n_s \i n  \{ 400,800,160 0\}$  with rep laceme n t fromt he orig inal d ata set . In ea ch  sa mp l e,w eest i mat e $\alph a^ \a st$ u sing p o s t do ubl e La sso w ith $\lambda_ {\t ext{ B CCH }}$,$0.5\ lamb da _{\te xt{BCC H}}$an d $1.5\lambda_{ \tex t{BCCH}}$  an dcom pu te th e  biasasthe  differ ence be t wee nt h e  a verage estimate ba se d on  the sub sample s  a nd the esti ma tebase d on th e or i gi nal data  witht he  s ame reg ul arizat io n p ara meter s . Th e resu lts arebased on 2,000 simul a tion repetiti o ns . 
F i gure  \[ fig:app\_te st\] disp lays th e b i as an d the  r a ti o  of bias to standar ddeviat ion.While the bia s is decre a s i ng in $n _s$, it can be substan tialand larger than the  stan dard dev iation wh e n  $n_s$ i s s mal l.Mor e o ve r, the perfor m a nceof  post d oub le Lass o i s v ery  se ns itive tothe choi ce  o fth e r egula r izationpa ram et ers . For $\lamb da=0. 5\la mb da _ {\t ext{BCC H }} $ ,  pos tdo uble  La ss o isappr o xim ately u nbiased f ora ll $ n_ s$ , where as, for $\lam bd a=1.5\lamb da _{\ text{B C C H}}$, th e bias is comparable to the sta nda rd de viat ion evenwhe n $n_s =16 0 0$.

\ [fig:a pp\_t es t\] Theor e t ic alan alysis {#s e c :in feren ce }
== ======= ===========

Thiss ect ion providesa t heor e t ic ale xp l ana ti o n f o r  the findings i n Section\[ s ec :evidence\ ] . W efirst e stablis h a n e w neces sary resu lt for th eLass o ’ s i nclusion a nd thenderive lo w er an d  u pperbou nds on  t heOVBsof pos t  do ubleLasso.  T hese r esult shold for  fixed $\left(n,\,p,\,k \right )$, a ndare alsoinf o rma tive when  $\f rac{k\logp}{ n}\ right arr o w0$ o r $\ f ra c{k \ log p }{n} \ rightarro w \i nft y $ .Throughoutt h i s s ectio n,w e assu me t he regime where $ p $ is comparabl e to o r e ven much 
_{\text{BCCH}}$) _ _   -0.6762_ __ __  _  0.0114
_ Post double Lasso_(1.5$\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$)  __   -0.6778          __0.0114
 _OLS_with_all covariates   _    _ _       __  _       -0.6694 _     _  __0.0115
_ OLS without covariates_     _     _      _     _    _-0.8538 _    _  _ _0.0105

  :_Results based on original data

[1.25]{}[1.4]{}

To investigate_the impact of_under-selection, we draw random subsamples of_size_$n_s\in \{400,800,1600\}$ with_replacement_from_the original_dataset. In each_sample,_we estimate_$\alpha^\ast$_using post double Lasso with $\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$,_$0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$_and $1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$ and compute the bias as_the difference between the_average_estimate based on the_subsamples and the estimate based_on the original data with the_same regularization_parameters. The_results are based on 2,000 simulation repetitions.

Figure \[fig:app\_test\] displays the bias_and the ratio of bias to_standard deviation. While the_bias is_decreasing_in $n_s$, it_can_be substantial_and larger than the standard deviation when_$n_s$ is_small. Moreover, the performance of post_double Lasso is very_sensitive_to the choice of the regularization_parameters. For $\lambda=0.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, post double Lasso_is approximately unbiased for all_$n_s$,_whereas,_for $\lambda=1.5\lambda_{\text{BCCH}}$, the bias is_comparable to the standard deviation even_when $n_s=1600$.

\[fig:app\_test\]

Theoretical analysis_{#sec:inference}
====================

This section provides a theoretical explanation for_the_findings in Section \[sec:evidence\]. We first_establish_a new necessary result for the_Lasso’s_inclusion_and then derive lower and_upper bounds on the OVBs of_post double Lasso. These results hold for fixed $\left(n,\,p,\,k\right)$,_and are also_informative when $\frac{k\log p}{n}\rightarrow0$ or_$\frac{k\log_p}{n}\rightarrow\infty$._Throughout this section, we assume the regime where $p$ is_comparable to_or even much