测试难易与流程设计需根据被测者是伪装还是提升能力来决定。
Multi-dimensional Test Design
- 区分伪装与投资两类行为，设计不同测试策略
- 伪装时：严测+顺序测试最优；投资时：松测+同时测试最优
- 随机顺序测试在特定条件下可媲美复杂流程
为解决如何联合设计测试内容与测试机构安排（即测试流程）的问题，本文研究了一个委托人需通过多项测试筛选具有多维类型代理人的模型，且代理人可通过付出成本改变自身类型。我们发现一种新的权衡：测试难度与流程复杂性之间的取舍。比较两种情形：(1) 代理人仅伪装其类型（操纵）；(2) 代理人实际提升自身类型（投资）。应用包括面试、监管审查与数据分类。结果表明，在操纵情境下，严格测试搭配简单流程（固定顺序逐项测试）为最优；而在投资情境下，非严格测试搭配复杂流程（同时提供所有测试）最优；在温和条件下，随机顺序的逐项测试也可达到相似效果。结论表明，代理人的行为模式（操纵或投资）决定了最优机构安排方式。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
How should one jointly design tests and the arrangement of agencies to administer these tests (testing procedure)? To answer this question, we analyze a model where a principal must use multiple tests to screen an agent with a multi-dimensional type, knowing that the agent can change his type at a cost. We identify a new tradeoff between setting difficult tests and using a difficult testing procedure. We compare two settings: (1) the agent only misrepresents his type (manipulation) and (2) the agent improves his actual type (investment). Examples include interviews, regulations, and data classification. We show that in the manipulation setting, stringent tests combined with an easy procedure, i.e., offering tests sequentially in a fixed order, is optimal. In contrast, in the investment setting, non-stringent tests with a difficult procedure, i.e., offering tests simultaneously, is optimal; however, under mild conditions offering them sequentially in a random order may be as good. Our results suggest that whether the agent manipulates or invests in his type determines which arrangement of agencies is optimal.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。