For the time being, all the evidence suggests UBI does not work.

From Household Responses to Guaranteed Income: Experimental Evidence from Compton, California by Sidhya Balakrishnan, Sewin Chan, Sara Constantino, Johannes Haushofer and Jonathan Morduch.  

UBI, like Marxism and all its derivatives (postmodernism, Social Justice Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.), is perennially enticing to the naive.  Replace all the various social transfer programs with a single lump sum monthly payment to individuals.  The theory is that the simplicity of the transfer will help pay for the entitlement and that the minimum will be sufficiently high to cover the routine shocks.

People will be better off spending the money as they determine is utility maximizing to them without the interference and inefficiency of government.  

To the critical eye, UBI looks like a subsidy for living.  To the skeptical eye, it looks like a subsidy to bad human behaviors.  To the jaundiced eye, it looks like stealing from the productive to subsidize the unproductive.

Every few years or decade there is another experiment to test whether the ideal of UBI would actually work in the wild.  Lots of time and money have so far been spent serially proving that it doesn't.  But there are always valid criticisms.  The UBI amount was insufficient.  The time frame was too short.  There were insufficient participants.  And on and on.

This is one more trial.  Larger, longer, more participants, more rigorous.  

From the Abstract.  Emphasis added.

We study the effects of a two-year unconditional cash transfer program for lowincome households in Compton, California between 2021 and 2023. 695 households were randomly assigned to receive transfers averaging about $500 per month over a two year period, with 1,402 households randomly assigned to a control group. To measure the impact of transfer frequency, half of the recipients were paid twice per month and the other half received quarterly transfers. We surveyed 1,074 respondents 18 months after the beginning of transfers. Receiving guaranteed income had no impact on the labor supply of full-time workers, but part-time workers (at baseline) had lower labor market participation by 13 percentage points. Income (excluding the transfer) was reduced by $333 per month on average relative to control households, and expenditures were reduced by $302 per month. At the same time, average non-housing debt balances declined by $2,190 over 18 months relative to the control group, although the drop is not statistically significant. We find a significant improvement in housing security, but no overall effects on indices of psychological and financial well-being. The recipients of twice-monthly transfers were more likely to own a car, had lower credit card debt and greater food security than recipients of quarterly transfers, but otherwise transfer frequency had little impact. Compared to male recipients, female recipients reported a greater increase in financial security, and a smaller reduction in earned income and expenditures.

Another UBI experiment bites the dust.  The same criticisms will be raised and in a few years, and another experiment, larger, more money, lasting longer, more rigorous will be run.  And very likely once again fail to find the desired benefits.

It is most likely a problem with human nature and the UBI idea rather than in the rigor of the study.  

As attractive and enticing as UBI sounds, for the time being, all the evidence suggests it does not work.