  The class of doubly-robust (DR) functionals studied by Rotnitzky et al.
(2021) is of central importance in economics and biostatistics. It strictly
includes both (i) the class of mean-square continuous functionals that can be
written as an expectation of an affine functional of a conditional expectation
studied by Chernozhukov et al. (2022b) and (ii) the class of functionals
studied by Robins et al. (2008). The present state-of-the-art estimators for DR
functionals $\psi$ are double-machine-learning (DML) estimators (Chernozhukov
et al., 2018). A DML estimator $\widehat{\psi}_{1}$ of $\psi$ depends on
estimates $\widehat{p} (x)$ and $\widehat{b} (x)$ of a pair of nuisance
functions $p(x)$ and $b(x)$, and is said to satisfy "rate double-robustness" if
the Cauchy--Schwarz upper bound of its bias is $o (n^{- 1/2})$. Were it
achievable, our scientific goal would have been to construct valid,
assumption-lean (i.e. no complexity-reducing assumptions on $b$ or $p$) tests
of the validity of a nominal $(1 - \alpha)$ Wald confidence interval (CI)
centered at $\widehat{\psi}_{1}$. But this would require a test of the bias to
be $o (n^{-1/2})$, which can be shown not to exist. We therefore adopt the less
ambitious goal of falsifying, when possible, an analyst's justification for her
claim that the reported $(1 - \alpha)$ Wald CI is valid. In many instances, an
analyst justifies her claim by imposing complexity-reducing assumptions on $b$
and $p$ to ensure "rate double-robustness". Here we exhibit valid,
assumption-lean tests of $H_{0}$: "rate double-robustness holds", with
non-trivial power against certain alternatives. If $H_{0}$ is rejected, we will
have falsified her justification. However, no assumption-lean test of $H_{0}$,
including ours, can be a consistent test. Thus, the failure of our test to
reject is not meaningful evidence in favor of $H_{0}$.
