Elisabeth Paulson

Kirk Bansak, Elisabeth Paulson, Dominik Rothenhäusler

Many existing approaches for generating predictions in settings with distribution shift model distribution shifts as adversarial or low-rank in suitable representations. In various real-world settings, however, we might expect shifts to arise through the superposition of many small and random changes in the population and environment. Thus, we consider a class of random distribution shift models that capture arbitrary changes in the underlying covariate space, and dense, random shocks to the relationship between the covariates and the outcomes. In this setting, we characterize the benefits and drawbacks of several alternative prediction strategies: the standard approach that directly predicts the long-term outcome of interest, the proxy approach that directly predicts a shorter-term proxy outcome, and a hybrid approach that utilizes both the long-term policy outcome and (shorter-term) proxy outcome(s). We show that the hybrid approach is robust to the strength of the distribution shift and the proxy relationship. We apply this method to datasets in two high-impact domains: asylum-seeker assignment and early childhood education. In both settings, we find that the proposed approach results in substantially lower mean-squared error than current approaches.

Kirk Bansak, Elisabeth Paulson

This study proposes two new dynamic assignment algorithms to match refugees and asylum seekers to geographic localities within a host country. The first, currently implemented in a multi-year randomized control trial in Switzerland, seeks to maximize the average predicted employment level (or any measured outcome of interest) of refugees through a minimum-discord online assignment algorithm. The performance of this algorithm is tested on real refugee resettlement data from both the US and Switzerland, where we find that it is able to achieve near-optimal expected employment compared to the hindsight-optimal solution, and is able to improve upon the status quo procedure by 40-50%. However, pure outcome maximization can result in a periodically imbalanced allocation to the localities over time, leading to implementation difficulties and an undesirable workflow for resettlement resources and agents. To address these problems, the second algorithm balances the goal of improving refugee outcomes with the desire for an even allocation over time. We find that this algorithm can achieve near-perfect balance over time with only a small loss in expected employment compared to the employment-maximizing algorithm. In addition, the allocation balancing algorithm offers a number of ancillary benefits compared to pure outcome maximization, including robustness to unknown arrival flows and greater exploration.