Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Causal Parameters

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1608.00060 v7 pith:WRQ37Q7A submitted 2016-07-30 stat.ML econ.EM

classification stat.MLecon.EM
keywords parametersauxiliarymethodscausalpredictionproblemsveryaverage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Most modern supervised statistical/machine learning (ML) methods are explicitly designed to solve prediction problems very well. Achieving this goal does not imply that these methods automatically deliver good estimators of causal parameters. Examples of such parameters include individual regression coefficients, average treatment effects, average lifts, and demand or supply elasticities. In fact, estimates of such causal parameters obtained via naively plugging ML estimators into estimating equations for such parameters can behave very poorly due to the regularization bias. Fortunately, this regularization bias can be removed by solving auxiliary prediction problems via ML tools. Specifically, we can form an orthogonal score for the target low-dimensional parameter by combining auxiliary and main ML predictions. The score is then used to build a de-biased estimator of the target parameter which typically will converge at the fastest possible 1/root(n) rate and be approximately unbiased and normal, and from which valid confidence intervals for these parameters of interest may be constructed. The resulting method thus could be called a "double ML" method because it relies on estimating primary and auxiliary predictive models. In order to avoid overfitting, our construction also makes use of the K-fold sample splitting, which we call cross-fitting. This allows us to use a very broad set of ML predictive methods in solving the auxiliary and main prediction problems, such as random forest, lasso, ridge, deep neural nets, boosted trees, as well as various hybrids and aggregators of these methods.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Shrinkage-Based Regressions with Many Related Treatments

    econ.EM 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A customized ridge regression with an unpenalized focal treatment effect produces lower-variance estimates for many sparse sub-treatments and exactly recovers the single-treatment estimator.

  2. Revolutionizing Clinical Trials: A Manifesto for AI-Driven Transformation

    cs.CY 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    The paper is a collaborative position statement advocating for the integration of causal inference and digital twins into clinical trials, including a proposed validation framework, without any new experimental or the...

Pith tools