 double Lasso are $k$ and $\alpha^{*}$. To see why $\alpha^\ast$ is important, recall that the reduced form parameter and the error term in the first step of post double Lasso (i.e., program (\[eq:las-1\])) are $\pi^{*}=\alpha^{*}\gamma^{*}+\beta^{*}$ and $u_{i}=\eta_{i}+\alpha^{*}v_{i}$. This implies that the magnitude of $\pi^{*}$ as well as the variance of $u_i$ depend on $\alpha^{*}$. Consequently, the selection performance of Lasso in the first step is directly affected by $\alpha^{*}$. In the extreme case where $\alpha^{*}$ is such that $\pi^{*}=0_{p}$, Lasso does not select any controls with high probability if the regularization parameter is chosen according to the standard recommendations. The simulation results further show that there is no practical recommendation for choosing the regularization parameters. While $\lambda_{\text{min}}$ leads to the best performance when $\alpha^\ast=0$, this choice can yield poor performances when $\alpha^\ast> 0$. Finally, across all DGPs, OLS outperforms post double Lasso in terms of bias and coverage accuracy, but yields somewhat wider confidence intervals.

\[fig:dml\_bias\_std\_app\]

\[fig:dml\_cov\_app\]

\[fig:dml\_ci\_app\]

Theoretical results for random designs \[sec:Random-design\]
============================================================

Results
-------

In this section, we provide some results in Lemma \[prop:random\_design\] for the Lasso with a random design $X$. The necessary result on the Lasso’s inclusion established in Lemma \[prop:random\_design\] can be adopted in a similar fashion as in Propositions \[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection\]-\[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection-upper-1\] and \[prop:bias\_debiased\_lasso\]-\[prop:bias\_debiased\_lasso-upper\] to establish the OVBs.

We make the following assumption about (\[eq:1\]).

\[ass:random\_design\] Each row of $X$ is sampled independently; for all $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,p$, $\sup_{r\geq1}r^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathbb{E}\
double Lasso are $ k$ and $ \alpha^{*}$. To see why $ \alpha^\ast$ is important, recall that the dilute human body parameter and the error term in the beginning step of post bivalent Lasso (i.e., program (\[eq: las-1\ ]) ) are $ \pi^{*}=\alpha^{*}\gamma^{*}+\beta^{*}$ and $ u_{i}=\eta_{i}+\alpha^{*}v_{i}$. This implies that the magnitude of $ \pi^{*}$ equally well as the discrepancy of $ u_i$ depend on $ \alpha^{*}$. Consequently, the selection operation of Lasso in the first step is directly affected by $ \alpha^{*}$. In the extreme shell where $ \alpha^{*}$ is such that $ \pi^{*}=0_{p}$, Lasso does not select any controls with high probability if the regularization parameter is choose according to the standard recommendations. The simulation result further show that there is no hardheaded recommendation for choosing the regularization parameters. While $ \lambda_{\text{min}}$ leads to the best operation when $ \alpha^\ast=0 $, this choice can yield poor performances when $ \alpha^\ast > 0$. Finally, across all DGPs, OLS outperforms post bivalent Lasso in terminus of bias and coverage accuracy, but yields somewhat wider confidence intervals. 

 \[fig: dml\_bias\_std\_app\ ] 

 \[fig: dml\_cov\_app\ ] 

 \[fig: dml\_ci\_app\ ] 

 Theoretical results for random designs \[sec: Random - design\ ] 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 Results 
 ------- 

 In this part, we provide some results in Lemma \[prop: random\_design\ ] for the Lasso with a random invention $ X$. The necessary result on the Lasso ’s inclusion established in Lemma \[prop: random\_design\ ] can be adopted in a exchangeable fashion as in Propositions \[prop: bias\_post\_double\_selection\]-\[prop: bias\_post\_double\_selection - upper-1\ ] and \[prop: bias\_debiased\_lasso\]-\[prop: bias\_debiased\_lasso - upper\ ] to establish the OVBs. 

 We make the following premise about (\[eq:1\ ]). 

 \[ass: random\_design\ ] Each row of $ X$ is sampled independently; for all $ i=1,\dots, n$ and $ j=1,\dots, p$, $ \sup_{r\geq1}r^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathbb{E}\
 dokble Lasso are $k$ and $\alpma^{*}$. To see why $\alkhq^\ast$ iv impodtant, rezall that the reduced form peramwter qnd the error term in ghe first step of posu double Lasso (i.e., program (\[eq:las-1\])) wre $\'i^{*}=\elpha^{*}\gamma^{*}+\beta^{*}$ snd $u_{i}=\eta_{i}+\dlpha^{*}v_{i}$. This ikpuizs that the magnitude of $\pi^{*}$ as well ws the fagiance of $u_i$ dgpend jn $\amihc^{*}$. Consequently, the selection pedformanbe of Lasso in thr first step is directly avfeched by $\alpha^{*}$. In thf extreme cqse ryere $\alpha^{*}$ ir such thau $\'i^{*}=0_{p}$, Lasso dkes not select any controls witf higk probabilijv if jhe regularivation parameter is chosen accordong to the stakdard rexommendations. The simnlation results furtrer show dhct there is no practixao recmmmetdatkin wor ciooaing tje cegularizatjon parametwrs. While $\lambda_{\texu{mig}}$ leads to the best [ewformance when $\alpha^\ast=0$, this choice can yisld poor performances wyen $\alpha^\ast> 0$. Finally, across ajl DGPs, OLS outperforms post double Lasso in termv of uixs ckq xogerage accuracy, but yields somewhat wider consjdtncv intervals.

\[fig:dml\_nias\_std\_app\]

\[fig:dml\_cof\_aop\]

\[gyg:dml\_ci\_app\]

Theureticcm desults for random designf \[sec:Eandom-desygn\]
============================================================

Rrsults
-------

In this section, we privide some rvsulrs in Lemma \[prop:raudom\_design\] fur tne Laxso with a random desigu $X$. Ths necessary result oh the Lasso’s incljsipn established in Lemma \[prop:wandom\_desmgn\] ccn be aduptec in a similar fwshiok as in Propositiond \[prok:bias\_pmst\_double\_sflection\]-\[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selecvmon-upper-1\] and \[kro[:bids\_debiaszd\_lassp\]-\[prop:bias\_debiwsed\_lasso-upper\] to estcblish the OVBs.

Wv make thx following wssumption abmot (\[eq:1\]).

\[ass:randok\_design\] Qach row of $X$ ir sampled indeprndently; yjr aol $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dotx,p$, $\rhp_{r\geq1}r^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\natybb{E}\
double Lasso are $k$ and $\alpha^{*}$. To $\alpha^\ast$ important, recall the reduced form in first step of double Lasso (i.e., (\[eq:las-1\])) are $\pi^{*}=\alpha^{*}\gamma^{*}+\beta^{*}$ and $u_{i}=\eta_{i}+\alpha^{*}v_{i}$. This that the magnitude of $\pi^{*}$ as well as the variance of $u_i$ depend $\alpha^{*}$. Consequently, the selection performance of Lasso in the first step is directly by In extreme where $\alpha^{*}$ is such that $\pi^{*}=0_{p}$, Lasso does not select any controls with high probability if regularization parameter is chosen according to the standard The simulation results further that there is no practical for the regularization While leads the best performance $\alpha^\ast=0$, this choice can yield poor performances when $\alpha^\ast> 0$. Finally, across all DGPs, OLS outperforms post Lasso in bias and accuracy, yields wider confidence intervals. \[fig:dml\_ci\_app\] Theoretical results for random designs ------- In this section, we provide some results Lemma \[prop:random\_design\] the Lasso with a random design The necessary result on the Lasso’s inclusion established Lemma \[prop:random\_design\] can be adopted in a similar fashion as in Propositions \[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection\]-\[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection-upper-1\] and \[prop:bias\_debiased\_lasso\]-\[prop:bias\_debiased\_lasso-upper\] the OVBs. We make following assumption about \[ass:random\_design\] row $X$ sampled independently; all $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,p$, $\sup_{r\geq1}r^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathbb{E}\
 double Lasso are $k$ and $\alpha^{*}$. To See why $\alphA^\ast$ iS imPorTaNt, reCall That the reduced FOrm pArameter and the error terM in thE fIRst sTEp Of posT double lAsSO (I.e., pRoGrAm (\[eQ:lAS-1\])) aRe $\pi^{*}=\aLphA^{*}\gamma^{*}+\bEta^{*}$ and $u_{i}=\etA_{i}+\aLpHa^{*}v_{i}$. This implIEs That the magNitUde of $\pi^{*}$ as welL as The varIaNce OF $u_i$ dePenD on $\alPha^{*}$. ConSEquentLy, the seleCtIOn perfORmance oF lAsSo in The first step is dirECtLY affected by $\alpHa^{*}$. In thE eXTrEME caSe wHere $\alpha^{*}$ iS sUch thAT $\pi^{*}=0_{p}$, LasSO dOES Not SElect any contrOls with high PRobAbilitY iF thE RegulaRizatIoN ParAmeter is choSen aCcording tO the stANdard reCOmmendaTions. THe sImuLatiON rEsUltS fURthER sHow THat There is nO pRaCticaL recOMMENdatIon For cHoosiNg the regulariZatIon pARamEters. while $\LambDa_{\Text{mIn}}$ leadS to thE bEst performance wHen $\aLpha^\ast=0$, thIs cHoIce CaN yielD Poor peRfoRmaNces wheN $\alpha^\aST> 0$. FiNaLLY, AcRoss all DGPs, OLS outpErFORmS post douBle LasSO iN tERms of biaS aNd cOverAGE accuRacy, BUt Yields soMewhat WIdEr ConfideNcE interVaLs.

\[fIg:dMl\_biaS\_Std\_aPp\]

\[fig:dMl\_cov\_app\]

\[Fig:dmL\_Ci\_app\]

TheoreticAL results for raNDoM DEsIGns \[sEc:RAndom-design\]
============================================================

resuLTs
-------

In This SEcTioN, We proVide sOmE ReSUlts in Lemma \[prop:randOm\_Design\] For thE Lasso with a raNdom design $x$. tHE necessaRy reSUlT On the Lasso’s incLusioN establishED in Lemma \[Prop:rAndom\_desIgn\] can be aDOPted in a sImiLar FasHioN AS iN Propositions \[PROp:biAs\_Post\_douBle\_SelectiOn\]-\[pRop:BiaS\_poSt\_Double\_selEction-upPeR-1\] aNd \[PrOp:bIas\_deBIased\_lasSo\]-\[ProP:bIas\_DebiaSEd\_lassO-uppeR\] to eStAbLIsh The OVBs.

wE mAKE the FoLlOwinG asSuMptioN aboUT (\[eq:1\]).

\[Ass:randOm\_design\] EAch ROw of $x$ iS sAmpled iNdependently; fOr All $i=1,\dots,n$ aNd $J=1,\doTs,p$, $\sup_{R\GEq1}r^{-\frac{1}{2}}\lEft(\mathbb{E}\
 double Lasso are $k$ and$\alpha^{* }$. T o s eewh y $\ alph a^\ast$ is imp o rtan t, recall that the red ucedfo r m pa r am eterand the er r o r t er minth e  f irstste p of po st doubleLas so  (i.e., prog r am  (\[eq:las -1\ ])) are $\pi ^{* }=\alp ha ^{* } \gamm a^{ *}+\b eta^{* } $ and$u_{i}=\e ta _ {i}+\a l pha^{*} v _ {i }$.This implies that th e  magnitude of$\pi^{ *} $  a s wel l a s the vari an ce of $u_i$ d e pe n d on$ \alpha^{*}$.Consequentl y , t he sel ec tio n  perfo rmanc eo f L asso in the  fir st step i s dire c tly aff e cted by  $\alp ha^ {*} $. I n  t he  ex tr e mec as e w h ere  $\alpha ^{ *} $ issuch t h a t $\ pi^ {*}= 0_{p} $, Lasso does  no t se l ect  anycontr olswi th hi gh pro babil it y if the regula riza tion para met er  is  c hosen accord ing  to  the st andardr eco mm e n d at ions. The simulati on r es ults fur ther s h ow  t h at there  i s n o pr a c tical  rec o mm endation  for c h oo si ng there gulari za tio n p arame t ers.  While  $\lambd a_{\t e xt{min}}$ lead s  to the bestp er f o rm a ncewhe n $\alpha^\ ast= 0 $, t hisc ho ice can y ieldpo o rp erformances when $\ al pha^\a st> 0 $. Finally, a cross allD G P s, OLS o utpe r fo r ms post double  Lass o in terms of biasand c overageaccuracy, b ut yield s s ome wha t w i d er  confidence i n t erva ls .

\[fi g:d ml\_bia s\_ std \_a pp\ ]
\[fig:dm l\_cov\_ ap p\ ]
\ [fi g:dml \ _ci\_app \] 

T he ore tical result s for  ran do md esi gns \[s e c: R a ndom -d es ign\ ]
= == ===== ==== = === ======= ========= === = ==== == == ======= =========

Re su lts
------ -
In  thiss e ction, w e provide some resultsi n Lemma  \[ prop: rand om\_desig n\]  for t heL asso w ith arando mdes i g n $X$ . Th e n ec essary res u l t o n the  L asso ’s incl usion establishedi n L emma \[prop:r and om\_ d e si gn\ ]  c a n b ea dop t e d in a similarfashion as  i n  P roposition s  \[ pr op:bias \_post\ _doub l e\_sele ction\]-\ [prop:bia s\ _pos t \ _do uble\_sele ction-up per-1\] a n d \[p r op :bias \_d ebiase d\ _la sso\] -\[pro p :bi as\_d ebiase d\ _lasso -uppe r\ ] to est ablish the OVBs.

We ma ke the  foll owi ng assump tio n  ab out (\[eq :1\] ).

\[ass: ran dom \_des ign \ ] Eac h ro w  o f $ X $ issamp l ed indepe n de ntl y ;  f or all $i=1 , \ d ots ,n$ a nd$ j=1,\d ots, p$, $\sup_{r\geq1 } r^{-\frac{1}{2 }}\l e f t(\ mat h bb{E }\ 
 double_Lasso are_$k$ and $\alpha^{*}$. To_see why_$\alpha^\ast$_is important,_recall_that the reduced_form parameter and_the error term in_the first step_of_post double Lasso (i.e., program (\[eq:las-1\])) are $\pi^{*}=\alpha^{*}\gamma^{*}+\beta^{*}$ and $u_{i}=\eta_{i}+\alpha^{*}v_{i}$. This implies that the_magnitude_of $\pi^{*}$_as_well_as the variance of $u_i$_depend on $\alpha^{*}$. Consequently, the_selection performance_of Lasso in the first step is directly_affected_by $\alpha^{*}$. In_the extreme case where $\alpha^{*}$ is such that $\pi^{*}=0_{p}$,_Lasso does not select any controls_with high probability_if_the_regularization parameter is chosen_according to the standard recommendations. The_simulation results further show that there_is no practical recommendation for choosing the_regularization parameters. While $\lambda_{\text{min}}$ leads to_the best performance when $\alpha^\ast=0$,_this choice_can yield poor performances when_$\alpha^\ast> 0$. Finally,_across all_DGPs, OLS outperforms_post double Lasso in terms of_bias and coverage_accuracy, but yields somewhat wider confidence_intervals.

\[fig:dml\_bias\_std\_app\]

\[fig:dml\_cov\_app\]

\[fig:dml\_ci\_app\]

Theoretical_results for random_designs_\[sec:Random-design\]
============================================================

Results
-------

In_this section,_we provide some_results_in Lemma_\[prop:random\_design\]_for the Lasso with a random_design_$X$. The necessary result on the Lasso’s_inclusion established in Lemma_\[prop:random\_design\]_can be adopted in_a similar fashion as in_Propositions \[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection\]-\[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection-upper-1\] and \[prop:bias\_debiased\_lasso\]-\[prop:bias\_debiased\_lasso-upper\] to establish_the OVBs.

We_make the_following assumption about (\[eq:1\]).

\[ass:random\_design\] Each row of $X$ is sampled independently;_for all $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,p$, $\sup_{r\geq1}r^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathbb{E}\