IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2605.06686.html

Robustness of Refugee-Matching Gains to Off-Policy Evaluation Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Kirk Bansak
  • Elisabeth Paulson
  • Dominik Rothenhausler
  • Jeremy Ferwerda
  • Jens Hainmueller
  • Michael Hotard

Abstract

Previous research has investigated the potential of refugee matching for boosting refugee outcomes, first considered by Bansak et al. (2018). This paper demonstrates the stability of counterfactual impact evaluation results in the context of refugee matching in the United States using a range of off-policy evaluation methods. In order to estimate counterfactual impact and test the robustness of our results, we employ several evaluation methods, including inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multiple variants of augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW). We also consider various modifications, including alternative modeling architectures and different assignment procedures. The impact estimates remain consistent in magnitude in all scenarios as well as statistically significant in most cases. Furthermore, the estimates are also consistent with the results originally presented in Bansak et al. (2018).

Suggested Citation

  • Kirk Bansak & Elisabeth Paulson & Dominik Rothenhausler & Jeremy Ferwerda & Jens Hainmueller & Michael Hotard, 2026. "Robustness of Refugee-Matching Gains to Off-Policy Evaluation Choices," Papers 2605.06686, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2605.06686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.06686
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2605.06686. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.