Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Double ML is a valid approach for debiasing confounding effects.


I disagree. It's vulnerable to all sorts of mishaps. You're now having to worry about data leakage between your treatment group AND your target variable. Casual inference without experiment data is all just a mathematical exercise to make a one size fits all approach to identifying relationships. Yes, correlation has weaknesses. But the name "causal inference" is grossly misleading. It's "well if we assume X, Y, and Z then the effect which we have already assumed is causal is probably around this order of magnitude". And hey, maybe that will help you identify cases where a confounding variable is actually the thing that matters. But you're not going to do better than just doing an analysis on the variables and their interactions. You don't have the brainpower to do this at a scale larger than pretty much all causal methods will begin to fail. It does not offer you the legitimacy the name implies.

I think it confuses far more than it helps.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: