 (or, $\alpha^{*}\gamma_{j}^{*}\in[-\beta_{j}^{*},\,0)$, $\beta_{j}^{*}>0$ for $j\in K$), then for some positive universal constants $c^{\dagger},c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c^{*},c_{0}^{*}$, (\[eq:22\]) holds with $\mathbb{P}\left(\mathcal{M}\right)\geq1-c^{*}k\exp\left(-c_{0}^{*}\log p\right)$.

To motivate the next proposition, note that as long as $\hat{I}_{1}=K$ or $\hat{I}_{2}=K$, the final OLS step (\[eq:double\]) corresponds to the oracle estimator. Under sufficient variability in $X_{K}$, when $\left|\pi_{K}^{*}\right|$ are small enough (so $\hat{I}_{1}=\emptyset$ with high probability), but $\left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ in (\[eq:21-1\]) are large enough (so $\hat{I}_{2}=K$ with high probability), post double Lasso coincides with the oracle estimator while OLS post (the single) Lasso (\[eq:las-1\]) omits the relevant controls with high probability. As we will show below, if $\left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ are also small enough, then like the OLS post (\[eq:las-1\]), post double Lasso can also yield substantial OVBs relative to the standard deviation.

\[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection-1\] Let Assumptions \[ass:inference\_normality\] and \[ass:inference\_sparsity\_incoherence\] hold. Suppose $\phi^{-1}\precsim1$ in (\[eq:14\]); the regularization parameters in (\[eq:las-1\]) and (\[eq:las-2\]) are chosen in a similar fashion as in Lemma \[prop:fixed\_design\] such that $\lambda_{1}\asymp\frac{\left(\sigma_{\eta}+\left|\alpha^{*}\right|\sigma_{v}\right)}{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$ and $\lambda_{2}\asymp\phi^{-1}\sigma_{v}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$; for all $j\in K$, $\left|\
(or, $ \alpha^{*}\gamma_{j}^{*}\in[-\beta_{j}^{*},\,0)$, $ \beta_{j}^{*}>0 $ for $ j\in K$), then for some positive universal constants $ c^{\dagger},c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c^{*},c_{0}^{*}$, (\[eq:22\ ]) holds with $ \mathbb{P}\left(\mathcal{M}\right)\geq1 - c^{*}k\exp\left(-c_{0}^{*}\log p\right)$. 

 To motivate the future suggestion, note that as long as $ \hat{I}_{1}=K$ or $ \hat{I}_{2}=K$, the final OLS footstep (\[eq: double\ ]) corresponds to the oracle calculator. Under sufficient variability in $ X_{K}$, when $ \left|\pi_{K}^{*}\right|$ are small enough (so $ \hat{I}_{1}=\emptyset$ with eminent probability), but $ \left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ in (\[eq:21 - 1\ ]) are large enough (indeed $ \hat{I}_{2}=K$ with high probability), post bivalent Lasso coincides with the oracle estimator while OLS post (the single) Lasso (\[eq: las-1\ ]) omits the relevant controls with eminent probability. As we will show below, if $ \left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ are also little enough, then like the OLS post (\[eq: las-1\ ]), post double Lasso can also give way substantial OVBs relative to the standard deviation. 

 \[prop: bias\_post\_double\_selection-1\ ] Let Assumptions \[ass: inference\_normality\ ] and \[ass: inference\_sparsity\_incoherence\ ] hold. presuppose $ \phi^{-1}\precsim1 $ in (\[eq:14\ ]); the regularization parameters in (\[eq: las-1\ ]) and (\[eq: las-2\ ]) are chosen in a similar fashion as in Lemma \[prop: fixed\_design\ ] such that $ \lambda_{1}\asymp\frac{\left(\sigma_{\eta}+\left|\alpha^{*}\right|\sigma_{v}\right)}{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$ and $ \lambda_{2}\asymp\phi^{-1}\sigma_{v}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$; for all $ j\in K$, $ \left|\
 (or, $\alpha^{*}\gamma_{j}^{*}\in[-\beta_{j}^{*},\,0)$, $\beta_{m}^{*}>0$ for $j\in K$), then for soke posjtive unkversal constants $c^{\dagger},c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},r^{*},c_{0}^{*}$, (\[ew:22\]) holes with $\mathbb{P}\left(\matfcal{M}\righn)\geq1-c^{*}k\exp\oeft(-r_{0}^{*}\log p\right)$.

To movjvate tmz nexf pro'owition, note thst as long as $\hat{I}_{1}=K$ or $\hdt{K}_{2}=K$, the final OLS step (\[eq:double\]) corres[onds tp hhe oracle estymatpw. Unsvr sufficient variability in $X_{K}$, when $\ltft|\pi_{K}^{*}\right|$ are smsll enough (so $\hat{I}_{1}=\emptyset$ witj high probability), but $\left|\ganma_{K}^{*}\wught|$ in (\[eq:21-1\]) afe large enough (so $\hat{J}_{2}=K$ with high probability), post duuble Lasso coibcuded with the ocacle vstimator while OLS pmst (the single) Lasso (\[cq:las-1\]) omuts the relevant contcols with high probafility. As wz will show below, if $\oedt|\gamka_{K}^{*}\rhght|$ qre alao sjall ejoujh, then liks the OLS pist (\[eq:las-1\]), post doubke Oasso can alsk yielq fubstantial OVBs relative to the standagd dsviation.

\[prop:bias\_post\_douvle\_selection-1\] Let Assulptions \[afs:inference\_normality\] and \[ass:inference\_sparsity\_incoverenre\] hood. Rypoose $\phi^{-1}\precsim1$ in (\[eq:14\]); the regularization paraisttrs in (\[eq:las-1\]) and (\[cq:las-2\]) are chosen im w xymilar fashiov as iu Lsmma \[prop:fixed\_desihn\] such that $\lambda_{1}\asrmp\ftac{\left(\sigma_{\eta}+\left|\alpha^{*}\rigyt|\sigma_{v}\righn)}{\phi}\wqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\pog p}{n}}$ and $\uambca_{2}\asykp\phi^{-1}\sigma_{v}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqxt{\frac{\mog p}{n}}$; for wll $j\in K$, $\ueft|\
(or, $\alpha^{*}\gamma_{j}^{*}\in[-\beta_{j}^{*},\,0)$, $\beta_{j}^{*}>0$ for $j\in K$), then positive constants $c^{\dagger},c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c^{*},c_{0}^{*}$, holds with $\mathbb{P}\left(\mathcal{M}\right)\geq1-c^{*}k\exp\left(-c_{0}^{*}\log proposition, that as long $\hat{I}_{1}=K$ or $\hat{I}_{2}=K$, final OLS step (\[eq:double\]) corresponds to oracle estimator. Under sufficient variability in $X_{K}$, when $\left|\pi_{K}^{*}\right|$ are small enough (so with high probability), but $\left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ in (\[eq:21-1\]) are large enough (so $\hat{I}_{2}=K$ with probability), double coincides the oracle estimator while OLS post (the single) Lasso (\[eq:las-1\]) omits the relevant controls with high As we will show below, if $\left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ are small enough, then like OLS post (\[eq:las-1\]), post double can yield substantial relative the deviation. \[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection-1\] Let \[ass:inference\_normality\] and \[ass:inference\_sparsity\_incoherence\] hold. Suppose $\phi^{-1}\precsim1$ in (\[eq:14\]); the regularization parameters in (\[eq:las-1\]) and (\[eq:las-2\]) are chosen a similar in Lemma such $\lambda_{1}\asymp\frac{\left(\sigma_{\eta}+\left|\alpha^{*}\right|\sigma_{v}\right)}{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log and $\lambda_{2}\asymp\phi^{-1}\sigma_{v}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$; $j\in K$, $\left|\
 (or, $\alpha^{*}\gamma_{j}^{*}\in[-\beta_{j}^{*},\,0)$, $\beta_{j}^{*}>0$ For $j\in K$), theN for sOme PosItIve uNiveRsal constants $c^{\DAggeR},c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c^{*},c_{0}^{*}$, (\[eq:22\]) holds with $\mathbB{P}\lefT(\mAThcaL{m}\rIght)\gEq1-c^{*}k\exp\LEfT(-C_{0}^{*}\Log P\rIgHt)$.

TO mOTiVate tHe nExt propOsition, notE thAt As long as $\hat{I}_{1}=k$ Or $\Hat{I}_{2}=K$, the fiNal oLS step (\[eq:douBle\]) CorresPoNds TO the oRacLe estImator. uNder suFficient vArIAbilitY In $X_{K}$, wheN $\LEfT|\pi_{K}^{*}\Right|$ are small enouGH (sO $\Hat{I}_{1}=\emptyset$ wiTh high PrOBaBILitY), buT $\left|\gamma_{k}^{*}\rIght|$ iN (\[Eq:21-1\]) are laRGe ENOUgh (SO $\hat{I}_{2}=K$ with higH probabilitY), PosT doublE LAssO CoinciDes wiTh THe oRacle estimaTor wHile OLS poSt (the sINgle) LasSO (\[eq:las-1\]) oMits thE reLevAnt cONtRoLs wItH HigH PrObaBIliTy. As we wiLl ShOw belOw, if $\LEFT|\GammA_{K}^{*}\rIght|$ Are alSo small enough, TheN likE The oLS poSt (\[eq:lAs-1\]), poSt DoublE Lasso Can alSo Yield substantiaL OVBS relative To tHe StaNdArd deVIation.

\[ProP:biAs\_post\_dOuble\_seLEctIoN-1\] lET ASsumptions \[ass:inferEnCE\_NoRmality\] aNd \[ass:iNFeReNCe\_sparsiTy\_IncOherENCe\] holD. SupPOsE $\phi^{-1}\precSim1$ in (\[eQ:14\]); ThE rEgulariZaTion paRaMetErs In (\[eq:lAS-1\]) and (\[Eq:las-2\]) aRe chosen In a siMIlar fashion as iN lemma \[prop:fixeD\_DeSIGn\] SUch tHat $\Lambda_{1}\asymp\Frac{\LEft(\sIgma_{\ETa}+\LefT|\Alpha^{*}\Right|\SiGMa_{V}\Right)}{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sQrT{\frac{\lOg p}{n}}$ aNd $\lambda_{2}\asymp\Phi^{-1}\sigma_{v}\sQRT{\Frac{s}{n}}\sqRt{\frAC{\lOG p}{n}}$; for all $j\in K$, $\lEft|\
 (or, $\alpha^{*}\gamma_{j }^{*}\in[- \beta _{j }^{ *} ,\,0 )$,$\beta_{j}^{*} > 0$ f or $j\in K$), then for  some  p o siti v eunive rsal co n st a n ts$c ^{ \da gg e r} ,c_{1 },c _{2},c_ {3},c^{*}, c_{ 0} ^{*}$, (\[eq : 22 \]) holdswit h $\mathbb{P }\l eft(\m at hca l {M}\r igh t)\ge q1-c^{ * }k\exp \left(-c_ {0 } ^{*}\l o g p\rig h t )$ .

T o motivate the ne x tp roposition, no te tha ta sl o ngas$\hat{I}_{ 1} =K$ o r  $\hat{ I }_ { 2 } =K$ ,  the final OL S step (\[e q :do uble\] )cor r espond s toth e  or acle estima tor.  Under su fficie n t varia b ility i n $X_{ K}$ , w hen$ \l ef t|\ pi _ {K} ^ {* }\r i ght |$ are s ma ll  enou gh ( s o $ \hat {I} _{1} =\emp tyset$ with h igh  pro b abi lity) , but  $\l ef t|\ga mma_{K }^{*} \r ight|$ in (\[eq :21- 1\]) arelar ge  en ou gh (s o  $\hat {I} _{2 }=K$ wi th high pro ba b i l it y), post double La ss o co incideswith t h eor a cle esti ma tor  whi l e  OLSpost (t he singl e) Las s o(\ [eq:las -1 \]) om it s t herelev a nt c ontrol s with h igh p r obability. Asw e will show b e lo w ,  i f  $\l eft |\gamma_{K} ^{*} \ righ t|$a re  al s o sma ll en ou g h, then like the OLS p os t (\[e q:las -1\]), post d ouble Lass o c an alsoyiel d  s u bstantial OVBs  rela tive to th e  standar d dev iation.
\[prop:b i a s\_post\ _do ubl e\_ sel e c ti on-1\] Let As s u mpti on s \[ass :in ference \_n orm ali ty\ ]and \[ass :inferen ce \_ sp ar sit y\_in c oherence \]  ho ld . S uppos e  $\phi ^{-1} \pre cs im 1 $ i n (\[eq : 14 \ ] ); t he  r egul ari za tionpara m ete rs in ( \[eq:las- 1\] )  and  ( \[ eq:las- 2\]) are chos en  in a simi la r f ashion a s in Lem ma \[prop:fixed\_design \ ] suchtha t $\l ambd a_{1}\asy mp\ frac{\ lef t (\sigm a_{\et a}+\l ef t|\ a l pha^{ * } \r igh t| \sigma_{v} \ r igh t)}{\ ph i}\s qrt{\fr ac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\fr a c{\ log p}{n}}$ a nd$\la m b da _{2 } \a s ymp \p h i^{ - 1 }\sigma_{v}\sqr t{\frac{s} {n } }\ sqrt{\frac { \lo gp}{n}}$ ; for a ll $j \ in K$,$\left|\
 (or,_$\alpha^{*}\gamma_{j}^{*}\in[-\beta_{j}^{*},\,0)$, $\beta_{j}^{*}>0$_for $j\in K$), then_for some_positive_universal constants_$c^{\dagger},c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c^{*},c_{0}^{*}$,_(\[eq:22\]) holds with_$\mathbb{P}\left(\mathcal{M}\right)\geq1-c^{*}k\exp\left(-c_{0}^{*}\log p\right)$.

To motivate_the next proposition, note_that as long_as_$\hat{I}_{1}=K$ or $\hat{I}_{2}=K$, the final OLS step (\[eq:double\]) corresponds to the oracle estimator. Under_sufficient_variability in_$X_{K}$,_when_$\left|\pi_{K}^{*}\right|$ are small enough (so_$\hat{I}_{1}=\emptyset$ with high probability), but_$\left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ in_(\[eq:21-1\]) are large enough (so $\hat{I}_{2}=K$ with high_probability),_post double Lasso_coincides with the oracle estimator while OLS post (the_single) Lasso (\[eq:las-1\]) omits the relevant_controls with high_probability._As_we will show below,_if $\left|\gamma_{K}^{*}\right|$ are also small enough,_then like the OLS post (\[eq:las-1\]),_post double Lasso can also yield substantial_OVBs relative to the standard deviation.

\[prop:bias\_post\_double\_selection-1\]_Let Assumptions \[ass:inference\_normality\] and \[ass:inference\_sparsity\_incoherence\]_hold. Suppose_$\phi^{-1}\precsim1$ in (\[eq:14\]); the regularization_parameters in (\[eq:las-1\])_and (\[eq:las-2\])_are chosen in_a similar fashion as in Lemma_\[prop:fixed\_design\] such that_$\lambda_{1}\asymp\frac{\left(\sigma_{\eta}+\left|\alpha^{*}\right|\sigma_{v}\right)}{\phi}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$ and $\lambda_{2}\asymp\phi^{-1}\sigma_{v}\sqrt{\frac{s}{n}}\sqrt{\frac{\log p}{n}}$; for_all_$j\in K$, $\left|\