ConvApparel: A Benchmark Dataset and Validation Framework for User Simulators in Conversational Recommenders

As NLP evaluation shifts from static benchmarks to multi-turn interactive settings, LLM-based simulators have become widely used as user proxies, serving two roles: generating user turns and providing evaluation signals. Yet, these simulations are frequently assumed to be faithful to real human behaviors, often without rigorous verification. We formalize the Sim2Real gap in user simulation and present the first study running the full $τ$-bench protocol with real humans (451 participants, 165 tasks), benchmarking 31 LLM simulators across proprietary, open-source, and specialized families using the User-Sim Index (USI), a metric we introduce to quantify how well LLM simulators resemble real user interactive behaviors and feedback. Behaviorally, LLM simulators are excessively cooperative, stylistically uniform, and lack realistic frustration or ambiguity, creating an "easy mode" that inflates agent success rates above the human baseline. In evaluations, real humans provide nuanced judgments across eight quality dimensions while simulated users produce uniformly more positive feedback; rule-based rewards are failing to capture rich feedback signals generated by human users. Overall, higher general model capability does not necessarily yield more faithful user simulation. These findings highlight the importance of human validation when using LLM-based user simulators in the agent development cycle and motivate improved models for user simulation.

LLM-based user simulation is the primary mechanism for end-to-end agent evaluation, yet simulated users are poor proxies for real humans: unconstrained LLM defaults produce a Formalism Ceiling (style match rates of 6-8% against real users), while hand-crafted behavioral directives trigger Directive Amplification, where models hyper-interpret instructions into unnatural behavioral extremes that vary dramatically across simulator models. We present RealUserSim, the first user simulation framework grounded in real behavioral data. From 14,000+ authentic human-LLM conversations (WildChat), we extract 7,275 executable behavioral profiles and use them to ground LLM simulators. A fidelity benchmark (PT3) on 600 conversations across 71+ domains with anti-leakage controls shows that grounded simulation raises match rate from 24.2% to 45.3% across five behavioral dimensions. Agent evaluation on TauBench with 6 simulator models and extensive analysis shows that grounded simulation acts as a realistic stress test, surfacing three failure mechanisms invisible to cooperative simulators (mean -3.2% to -3.5% task success degradation), while Directive Amplification in existing benchmarks produces unrealistic behavior that compromises the validity of agent evaluation.

Conversational recommender systems (CRSs) are a core component of next-generation intelligent recommender systems because they enable users to actively elicit preferences, clarify intentions, and adapt recommendations in real time. However, there are two key obstacles in the CRS domain: evaluation and access to training data. Evaluating CRSs through real human studies is more critical than for traditional recommender systems, yet such studies are both costly and time-consuming. Moreover, CRS interaction data are often difficult to obtain for model training due to privacy concerns. Large language model (LLM)-based user simulators have shown promise in addressing both challenges by generating synthetic user interactions for evaluation and training. However, existing approaches suffer from systematic positive bias, data leakage, and limited behavioral diversity, and they rely on brittle manual prompt engineering that requires extensive domain expertise. In this paper, we propose a framework to automatically optimize prompts for LLM-based user simulators in CRSs, simultaneously mitigating these issues. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves improved behavioral alignment with human interaction patterns compared to baseline methods across diverse prompt settings.