B}}\theta)}_2^2$, which may be interpreted as searching for the parameter $\theta$ which complies ‘best’ with the hypothesis $\tilde{H}_0(\theta) : {\mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y - B(X)^\top \theta)] = 0$. For finitely many data, following the idea introduced in [@jakobsen2020distributional], we propose to choose the value for $\lambda$ such that $\tilde{H}_0(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is just accepted (e.g., at a significance level $\alpha = 0.05$). That is, among all $\lambda \geq 0$ which result in an estimator that is not rejected as a candidate for the causal parameter, we chose the one which yields maximal contribution of the OLS loss to the objective function. More formally, let for every $\theta \in {\mathbb{R}}^k$, $T(\theta) = (T_n(\theta))_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a statistical test at (asymptotic) level $\alpha$ for $\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ with rejection threshold $q(\alpha)$. That is, $T_n(\theta)$ does not reject $\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ if and only if $T_n(\theta) \leq q(\alpha)$. The penalty $\lambda^\star_n$ is then chosen in the following data-driven way $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^\star_n := \inf \{\lambda \geq 0 : T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})\leq q(\alpha)\}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, $\lambda^\star_n$ is not guaranteed to be finite for an arbitrary test statistic $T_n$. Even for a reasonable test statistic it might happen that $T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu} ) > q(\alpha)$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$; see [@jakobsen2020distributional] for further details. We can remedy the problem by reverting to another well-defined and consistent estimator, such as the TSLS (which minimizes the TSLS loss above) if $\lambda^\star_n$ is not finite. Furthermore, if $\lambda \mapsto T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is monotonic,
B}}\theta)}_2 ^ 2 $, which may be interpreted as searching for the parameter $ \theta$ which complies ‘ good ’ with the guess $ \tilde{H}_0(\theta): { \mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y - B(X)^\top \theta) ] = 0$. For finitely many data, following the theme introduce in [ @jakobsen2020distributional ], we propose to choose the value for $ \lambda$ such that $ \tilde{H}_0(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is just accept (e.g., at a significance degree $ \alpha = 0.05 $). That is, among all $ \lambda \geq 0 $ which result in an estimator that is not reject as a candidate for the causal parameter, we choose the one which give maximal contribution of the OLS loss to the objective function. More formally, let for every $ \theta \in { \mathbb{R}}^k$, $ T(\theta) = (T_n(\theta))_{n \in { \mathbb{N}}}$ be a statistical test at (asymptotic) level $ \alpha$ for $ \tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ with rejection doorway $ q(\alpha)$. That is, $ T_n(\theta)$ does not reject $ \tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ if and only if $ T_n(\theta) \leq q(\alpha)$. The penalty $ \lambda^\star_n$ is then choose in the following data - driven manner $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \lambda^\star_n: = \inf \{\lambda \geq 0: T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})\leq q(\alpha)\}.\end{aligned}$$ In general, $ \lambda^\star_n$ is not guaranteed to be finite for an arbitrary test statistic $ T_n$. Even for a reasonable test statistic it might find that $ T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu }) > q(\alpha)$ for all $ \lambda \geq 0 $; see [ @jakobsen2020distributional ] for further details. We can remedy the problem by reverting to another well - defined and reproducible estimator, such as the TSLS (which minimizes the TSLS loss above) if $ \lambda^\star_n$ is not finite. Furthermore, if $ \lambda \mapsto T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is monotonic,
B}}\thfta)}_2^2$, which may be interprtted as searching for thx paramster $\thega$ which complies ‘best’ with vhe yypotyesis $\tilde{H}_0(\theta) : {\matfbb{E}}[C(A)(Y - H(X)^\top \thwta)] = 0$. For finitxmy many data, rlllociig the idea inttoduced in [@jdkobsen2020distribgtkoual], we propose to choose the value fjr $\lambca$ such that $\tilqe{H}_0(\hse \thsna^k_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is just accepted (s.g., at a significance level $\alpha = 0.05$). That is, amojg apl $\lambda \geq 0$ whifh result ib an wstimator thxt is not gzjected as z candidate for the causal paraoeter, we chose jkw ojg which yielvs maxpmal contribubpon of dhe OLS loss to the onjectmve dunction. More formallb, let for every $\thetw \in {\mathtb{X}}^k$, $T(\theta) = (T_n(\theta))_{n \ib {\nathbt{N}}}$ ba a rratkstjcel fest ah (aaymptotic) mevel $\alpha$ for $\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ wiuh wvkection threahold $z(\ajpha)$. That is, $T_n(\theta)$ does not reject $\tinde{G}_0(\theta)$ if and only if $T_b(\theta) \leq q(\alpha)$. The penalty $\jambda^\star_n$ is then chosen in the following data-dsiven day $$\bcgin{xoihned}
\lambda^\star_n := \inf \{\lambda \geq 0 : T_n(\hat \theta^g_{\makbca, \eta, \mu})\leq q(\clpha)\}.\end{aligned}$$ On grgeral, $\lambda^\sjar_n$ is nof guaranteed to be finite for qn arbitrwry yest statistic $T_n$. Even for q reasonable rest statistic it light happeu that $T_n(\hay \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu} ) > q(\allha)$ for all $\lambda \gsd 0$; see [@jakobsen2020dkstgibudional] for further details. We can rxmedy the prublek by rqverting tl anobver well-defined anf condivtent estilator, such as the TSLS (which miimmizes the TSKS lovs above) if $\lsmbda^\star_n$ is not finite. Futthermore, if $\lxmbda \mapsno T_n(\hat \vheta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is motltonic,
B}}\theta)}_2^2$, which may be interpreted as searching parameter which complies with the hypothesis \theta)] 0$. For finitely data, following the introduced in [@jakobsen2020distributional], we propose to the value for $\lambda$ such that $\tilde{H}_0(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is just accepted at a significance level $\alpha = 0.05$). That is, among all $\lambda \geq which in estimator is not rejected as a candidate for the causal parameter, we chose the one which yields contribution of the OLS loss to the objective More formally, let for $\theta \in {\mathbb{R}}^k$, $T(\theta) = \in be a test (asymptotic) $\alpha$ for $\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ rejection threshold $q(\alpha)$. That is, $T_n(\theta)$ does not reject $\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ if and only if $T_n(\theta) \leq q(\alpha)$. penalty $\lambda^\star_n$ chosen in following way \lambda^\star_n := \inf 0 : T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})\leq $\lambda^\star_n$ is not guaranteed to be finite for arbitrary test $T_n$. Even for a reasonable test it might happen that $T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu} > q(\alpha)$ for all $\lambda \geq 0$; see [@jakobsen2020distributional] for further details. We can remedy by reverting to another and consistent estimator, as TSLS minimizes TSLS loss if $\lambda^\star_n$ is not finite. Furthermore, if $\lambda \mapsto T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \mu})$ is monotonic,
B}}\theta)}_2^2$, which may be interpretEd as searchIng foR thE paRaMeteR $\theTa$ which complieS ‘Best’ With the hypothesis $\tilde{h}_0(\thetA) : {\mAThbb{e}}[c(A)(y - B(X)^\toP \theta)] = 0$. FOR fINIteLy MaNy dAtA, FoLlowiNg tHe idea iNtroduced iN [@jaKoBsen2020distribuTIoNal], we propoSe tO choose the vaLue For $\lamBdA$ suCH that $\TilDe{H}_0(\haT \theta^N_{\Lambda, \Eta, \mu})$ is juSt ACcepteD (E.g., at a siGNIfIcanCe level $\alpha = 0.05$). That iS, AmONg all $\lambda \geq 0$ Which rEsULt IN An eStiMator that iS nOt rejECted as a CAnDIDAte FOr the causal paRameter, we chOSe tHe one wHiCh yIElds maXimal CoNTriBution of the oLS lOss to the oBjectiVE functiON. More foRmally, Let For EverY $\ThEtA \in {\MaTHbb{r}}^K$, $T(\TheTA) = (T_n(\Theta))_{n \in {\MaThBb{N}}}$ be A staTISTIcal TesT at (aSymptOtic) level $\alphA$ foR $\tilDE{H}_0(\tHeta)$ wIth reJectIoN threShold $q(\Alpha)$. thAt is, $T_n(\theta)$ does Not rEject $\tildE{H}_0(\tHeTa)$ iF aNd onlY If $T_n(\thEta) \Leq Q(\alpha)$. THe penalTY $\laMbDA^\STaR_n$ is then chosen in thE fOLLoWing data-Driven WAy $$\BeGIn{aligneD}
\lAmbDa^\stAR_N := \inf \{\lAmbdA \GeQ 0 : T_n(\hat \thEta^n_{\laMBdA, \eTa, \mu})\leq Q(\aLpha)\}.\enD{aLigNed}$$ in genERal, $\lAmbda^\sTar_n$ is noT guarANteed to be finitE For an arbitrarY TeST StATistIc $T_N$. Even for a reAsonABle tEst sTAtIstIC it miGht haPpEN tHAt $T_n(\hat \theta^n_{\lambda, \EtA, \mu} ) > q(\alPha)$ foR all $\lambda \geq 0$; See [@jakobseN2020DIStributiOnal] FOr FUrther details. WE can rEmedy the prOBlem by reVertiNg to anotHer well-deFINed and coNsiSteNt eStiMAToR, such as the TSLs (WHich MiNimizes The tSLS losS abOve) If $\lAmbDa^\Star_n$ is noT finite. FUrThErMoRe, iF $\lambDA \mapsto T_N(\hAt \tHeTa^n_{\LambdA, \Eta, \mu})$ iS monoToniC,
B}}\theta)}_2^2$, which ma y be inter prete d a s s ea rchi ng f or the paramet e r $\ theta$ which complies‘best ’w itht he  hypo thesis$ \t i l de{ H} _0 (\t he t a)  : {\ mat hbb{E}} [C(A)(Y -B(X )^ \top \theta) ]  =  0$. For f ini tely many da ta,  follo wi ngt he id eaintro ducedi n [@ja kobsen202 0d i stribu t ional], w eprop ose to choose the va l ue for $\lambd a$ suc ht ha t $\t ild e{H}_0(\ha t\thet a ^n_{\la m bd a , \et a , \mu})$ is j ust accepte d  (e .g., a ta s i gnific ancele v el$\alpha = 0 .05$ ). That i s, amo n g all $ \ lambda\geq 0 $ w hic h re s ul tinan est i ma tor tha t is not  r ej ected  asa c a ndid ate  for  thecausal parame ter , we cho se th e one  whi ch  yiel ds max imalco ntribution of t he O LS loss t o t he  ob je ctive functi on.  Mo re form ally, l e t f or e v er y $\theta \in {\ma th b b {R }}^k$, $ T(\the t a)  = (T_n(\th et a)) _{n\ i n {\m athb b {N }}}$ bea stat i st ic al test  a t (asy mp tot ic)  leve l  $\a lpha$for $\ti lde{H } _0(\theta)$ wi t h rejection t h re s h ol d  $q( \al pha)$. That  is, $T_n (\th e ta )$d oes n ot re je c t$ \tilde{H}_0(\theta) $if and  only  if $T_n(\the ta) \leq q ( \ a lpha)$.Thep en a lty $\lambda^\ star_ n$ is then chosen i n the  followi ng data-d r i ven way$$\ beg in{ ali g n ed }
\lambda^\st a r _n : =\inf \{ \la mbda \g eq0 :  T_ n(\ ha t \theta^ n_{\lamb da ,\e ta , \ mu})\ l eq q(\al ph a)\ }. \en d{ali g ned}$$  In g ener al ,$ \la mbda^\s t ar _ n $ is  n ot  gua ran te ed to  bef ini te foran arbitr ary test  s ta tistic$T_n$. Even f or  a reasona bl e t est st a t istic it  might happen that $T_n ( \hat \t het a^n_{ \lam bda, \eta , \ mu} )> q ( \alpha )$ for  all$\ lam b d a \ge q 0$ ; s ee  [@jakobse n 2 020 distr ib utio nal] fo r further details. Wecan remedy th e p robl e m  b y r e ve r tin gt o a n o ther well-defin ed and con si s te nt estimat o r,su ch as t he TSLS  (whi c h minim izes theTSLS loss  a bove ) if$\lambda^\ star_n$is not fi n ite.F ur therm ore , if $ \l amb da \m apstoT _n( \hat\theta ^n _{\lam bda,\e ta, \mu} )$ is monotonic,
B}}\theta)}_2^2$, which_may be_interpreted as searching for_the parameter_$\theta$_which complies_‘best’_with the hypothesis_$\tilde{H}_0(\theta) : {\mathbb{E}}[C(A)(Y_- B(X)^\top \theta)] =_0$. For finitely_many_data, following the idea introduced in [@jakobsen2020distributional], we propose to choose the value for_$\lambda$_such that_$\tilde{H}_0(\hat_\theta^n_{\lambda,_\eta, \mu})$ is just accepted_(e.g., at a significance level_$\alpha =_0.05$). That is, among all $\lambda \geq 0$_which_result in an_estimator that is not rejected as a candidate for_the causal parameter, we chose the_one which yields_maximal_contribution_of the OLS loss_to the objective function. More formally,_let for every $\theta \in {\mathbb{R}}^k$,_$T(\theta) = (T_n(\theta))_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ be a_statistical test at (asymptotic) level $\alpha$_for $\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ with rejection threshold_$q(\alpha)$. That_is, $T_n(\theta)$ does not reject_$\tilde{H}_0(\theta)$ if and_only if_$T_n(\theta) \leq q(\alpha)$._The penalty $\lambda^\star_n$ is then chosen_in the following_data-driven way $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^\star_n := \inf \{\lambda_\geq_0 : T_n(\hat_\theta^n_{\lambda,_\eta,_\mu})\leq q(\alpha)\}.\end{aligned}$$_In general, $\lambda^\star_n$_is_not guaranteed_to_be finite for an arbitrary test_statistic_$T_n$. Even for a reasonable test statistic_it might happen that_$T_n(\hat_\theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu} )_> q(\alpha)$ for all $\lambda_\geq 0$; see [@jakobsen2020distributional] for further_details. We_can remedy_the problem by reverting to another well-defined and consistent estimator, such_as the TSLS (which minimizes the_TSLS loss above) if_$\lambda^\star_n$ is_not_finite. Furthermore, if_$\lambda_\mapsto T_n(\hat_\theta^n_{\lambda, \eta, \mu})$ is monotonic,