Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Estimating Causal Effects with Double Machine Learning -- A Method Evaluation

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 2403.14385 v2 pith:EHUPATW5 submitted 2024-03-21 stat.ML cs.LGecon.EMstat.ME

classification stat.MLcs.LGecon.EMstat.ME
keywords causaleffectslearningmachineassumptionsdataestimationmethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The estimation of causal effects with observational data continues to be a very active research area. In recent years, researchers have developed new frameworks which use machine learning to relax classical assumptions necessary for the estimation of causal effects. In this paper, we review one of the most prominent methods - "double/debiased machine learning" (DML) - and empirically evaluate it by comparing its performance on simulated data relative to more traditional statistical methods, before applying it to real-world data. Our findings indicate that the application of a suitably flexible machine learning algorithm within DML improves the adjustment for various nonlinear confounding relationships. This advantage enables a departure from traditional functional form assumptions typically necessary in causal effect estimation. However, we demonstrate that the method continues to critically depend on standard assumptions about causal structure and identification. When estimating the effects of air pollution on housing prices in our application, we find that DML estimates are consistently larger than estimates of less flexible methods. From our overall results, we provide actionable recommendations for specific choices researchers must make when applying DML in practice.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Debiased Machine Learning for Partially Linear Accelerated Failure Time Models

    stat.ME 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A debiased machine learning estimator for partially linear accelerated failure time models achieves valid inference on a target exposure under right censoring via an orthogonalized rank-based U-statistic and block-pai...

  2. Do we actually understand the impact of renewables on electricity prices? A causal inference approach

    stat.AP 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Local double machine learning on UK 2018-2024 data shows wind generation has a U-shaped price-reducing effect and solar generation mainly cuts prices at low penetration.

  3. Analytical and Bootstrap Confidence Intervals of Double Machine Learning: Simulation studies and an application to rural-urban difference in obesity prevalence

    stat.ML 2026-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    DML confidence-interval coverage is highly sensitive to the nuisance learner, with rates from 0% to 100% across simulations, and bootstrap intervals do not consistently fix under-coverage.

Pith tools