[14] M. De-Arteaga, R. Fogliato, and A. Chouldechova. A case for humans-in-the-loop: Decisions in the presence of erroneous algorithmic scores. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-12, 2020.
[15] J. L. Doleac and M. T. Stevenson. Algorithmic risk assessments in the hands of humans. *Salem Center*, 2020.
[16] A. Finkelstein, S. Taubman, B. Wright, M. Bernstein, J. Gruber, J. P. Newhouse, H. Allen, K. Baicker, and O. H. S. Group. The oregon health insurance experiment: evidence from the first year. The Quarterly journal of economics, 127(3):1057-1106, 2012.
[17] D. J. Foster and V. Syrgkanis. Orthogonal statistical learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09036, 2019.
[18] Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. Journal of computer and system sciences, 55(1):119-139, 1997.
[19] B. Green and Y. Chen. Disparate interactions: An algorithm-in-the-loop analysis of fairness in risk assessments. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, pages 90–99, 2019.
[20] B. Green and Y. Chen. Algorithmic risk assessments can alter human decision-making processes in high-stakes government contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2):1-33, 2021.
[21] K. Heard, E. O'Toole, R. Naimpally, and L. Bressler. Real world challenges to randomization and their solutions. Boston, MA: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, 2017.
[22] M. A. Hernán and J. M. Robins. Causal inference.
[23] K. Imai, Z. Jiang, J. Greiner, R. Halen, and S. Shin. Experimental evaluation of algorithm-assisted human decision-making: Application to pretrial public safety assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.02845, 2020.
[24] Z. Jiang, S. Yang, and P. Ding. Multiply robust estimation of causal effects under principal ignorability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.01615, 2020.
[25] N. Kallus and A. Zhou. Confounding-robust policy improvement. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 9269–9279, 2018.
[26] N. Kallus and A. Zhou. Assessing disparate impact of personalized interventions: identifiability and bounds. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
[27] N. Kallus and A. Zhou. Fairness, welfare, and equity in personalized pricing. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 296-314, 2021.
[28] N. Kallus, X. Mao, and A. Zhou. Assessing algorithmic fairness with unobserved protected class using data combination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00285, 2019.
[29] K. Kim, E. Kennedy, and J. Zubizarreta. Doubly robust counterfactual classification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:34831-34845, 2022.
[30] T. Kitagawa and A. Tetenov. Empirical welfare maximization. 2015.
[31] W. Lin, S.-H. Kim, and J. Tong. Does algorithm aversion exist in the field? an empirical analysis of algorithm use determinants in diabetes self-management. An Empirical Analysis of Algorithm Use Determinants in Diabetes Self-Management (July 23, 2021). USC Marshall School of Business Research Paper Sponsored by iORB, No. Forthcoming, 2021.
[32] L. Liu, Z. Shahn, J. M. Robins, and A. Rotnitzky. Efficient estimation of optimal regimes under a no direct effect assumption. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 116(533): 224-239, 2021.