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

Confounding bias is a key challenge in causal effect estimation from observational data. Double Machine Learning (DML) addresses this issue by estimating treatment and outcome nuisance functions, constructing treatment and outcome residuals, and estimating causal effects from the residuals. However, DML often produces biased and unstable estimates in highdimensional or finite-sample scenarios. One reason is that DML estimates nuisance functions using all covariates without disentangling distinct latent factors, resulting in unreliable nuisance function estimation. Another is that imprecise nuisance estimation further introduces residual dependence between the treatment residual and the remaining outcome error, undermining the accuracy of causal effect estimates. To address these issues, in this paper, we propose Disentangled Double Machine Learning (DDML), a novel algorithm that integrates two key strategies. First, a causal role disentanglement strategy decomposes covariates into confounders, treatment-specific factors, and outcomespecific factors for enabling reliable nuisance function estimation. And second, a residual dependence orthogonalization strategy mitigates residual dependence caused by nuisance estimation errors for enhancing the precision of causal effect estimates. Experimental results on synthetic, semi-synthetic, and real-world datasets demonstrate that DDML significantly outperforms 13 state-of-the-art baseline algorithms in both MAE and RMSE.

Double-machine-learning pipelines for the Average Dose-Response Function rely on kernel-weighted local-linear smoothers, which inherit unbounded functional influence: a single outlier within a kernel window biases the curve across the entire window. We introduce SHIFT (Self-calibrated Heavy-tail Inlier-Fit with Tempering), a robust DML estimator combining cross-fit nuisance orthogonalization with a kernel-local Welsch-loss second stage optimized by Graduated Non-Convexity, and -- the principal design choice -- a defensive OLS refit whose inlier cutoff is scaled by post-GNC residual MAD rather than the raw-outcome MAD. On a localized-contamination stress test at $p=0.25$ this design choice drops level-RMSE from 1.03 to 0.33 while leaving clean and uniformly-contaminated runs unchanged. Across 1,400 main-sweep fits, SHIFT has competitive worst-case shape recovery (RMSE $0.325$ at $p=0.25$, second to Huber-DML's $0.276$); among the three methods with worst-case RMSE below $0.35$, only SHIFT emits a non-uniform per-sample weight vector, recovering the ground-truth outlier mask at mean $F_1 \approx 0.96$ (range $0.945$--$0.968$) on Gaussian-jump DGPs. We pair the estimator with a six-technique Extreme Value Theory diagnostic suite (Hill, GPD-MLE/PWM, GEV, Mean Excess, parameter stability, causal tail coefficient) that lets a practitioner distinguish Frechet from Weibull regimes and choose between SHIFT and L1 alternatives on empirical grounds. Extensions to binary-treatment CATE (Huber pseudo-outcome X-Learner) and time-series ADRF (block-CV + rolling MAD) are included. A counter-intuitive ablation: linear nuisance models (Ridge, Lasso) outperform gradient-boosted nuisances for robust DML under uniform contamination, inverting the usual more-flexible-is-better heuristic.

Prediction error is widely used to evaluate nuisance-function estimators in causal inference, but its relationship with causal estimator performance may differ across performance measures. We studied this question in a partially linear model using Monte Carlo simulations. We compared ordinary least squares (OLS), generalized additive models (GAMs), XGBoost, and Double Machine Learning with XGBoost (DML-XGBoost), evaluating nuisance-function prediction error, bias, RMSE, and 95% confidence interval coverage. We also examined a simple joint-error measure based on the absolute cross-product of estimation errors from the exposure and outcome nuisance functions. Across the simulated settings, XGBoost had the lowest RMSE among the non-oracle methods, while DML-XGBoost generally provided better confidence interval coverage. Prediction error did not consistently track causal bias across methods and settings, and the method with the best point-estimation performance did not necessarily have the best confidence interval coverage. The joint-error measure was only weakly associated with causal bias and did not provide a useful standalone measure of causal performance. These results suggest that prediction error is useful for assessing nuisance-function estimation, but it should not be treated as a direct measure of the quality of the resulting causal estimator.