As user simulators are increasingly used for interactive training and evaluation of AI assistants, it is essential that they represent the diverse behaviors of real users. While existing works train user simulators to generate human-like responses, whether they capture the broad and heterogeneous distribution of real user behaviors remains an open question. In this work, we introduce a method to measure the distributional gap between real and simulated user behaviors, validated through a human study and ablations. Given a dataset of real and simulated conversations, our method extracts representations of user behavior from each conversation, quantizes them into discrete distributions via clustering, then computes divergence metrics. We provide the first systematic evaluation of 24 LLM-based user simulators on coding and writing tasks, and reveal a large distributional gap from real users that varies across model families, scales, and behavioral facets. Pairwise comparisons show that most simulators behave similarly, while a few stand apart. Combining behaviorally complementary simulators brings the resulting distribution closer to real users compared to either simulator on its own. Finally, a TF-IDF analysis of the clusters surfaces interpretable patterns of behaviors that simulators capture, miss, and hallucinate.
User simulators are increasingly leveraged to build interactive AI assistants, yet how to measure the quality of these simulators remains an open question. In this work, we show how simulator quality can be quantified in terms of its downstream utility: how an LLM assistant trained with this user simulator performs in the wild when interacting with real humans. In a controlled experiment where only the user simulator varies, we train LLM assistants via reinforcement learning against a spectrum of simulators, from an LLM prompted to role-play a user to one fine-tuned on human utterances from WildChat. As evaluation, we measure pairwise win rates in a user study with 283 participants and on WildBench, a benchmark derived from real human--AI conversations. Training against the role-playing LLM yields an assistant statistically indistinguishable from the initial assistant in our user study (51% win rate), whereas training against the fine-tuned simulator yields significant gains (58% over the initial and 57% over the one trained against role-playing). Closer inspection reveals three further patterns: methods for making role-playing LLMs more realistic (e.g., persona conditioning) improve trained assistants but do not close the gap to the fine-tuned simulator; scaling the simulator's model size benefits the fine-tuned simulator but yields no gain for role-playing ones; and assistants trained against role-playing simulators fail to generalize when paired with other simulators at test time, while the one trained against fine-tuned simulator does. Together, these results argue for grounding user simulators in real human behavior and measuring their quality by their downstream effect on real users.
LLM-based user simulators are increasingly used to evaluate autonomous agents at scale, in place of costly human evaluations. Despite this promise, these simulators exhibit "assistant bias," a tendency to cooperate and pursue task goals. They rarely reproduce the frustration or disengagement that real users exhibit, compromising evaluation validity. Prior work outlines that this bias is baked in during model training, which role-playing prompts fail to override. We analyze this bias from model activations, extracting a user role vector by contrasting how the model represents user versus assistant perspectives on the same dialogue. We observe two findings: (i) the user direction is identifiable in activations, elicits user-like behaviors, and captures characteristics distinct from assistant traits; and (ii) although user-role activation associates with simulation realism and steering strengthens it, it can exaggerate user behaviors and override individual user profiles. Together, our findings provide a representation-level analysis of LLM user simulators, confirming that assistant bias is structurally identifiable and that user behavior can be directionally analyzed.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in settings where they interact with a wide variety of people, including users who are unclear, impatient, or reluctant to share information. However, collecting real interaction data at scale remains expensive. The field has turned to LLM-based user simulators as stand-ins, but these simulators inherit the behavior of their underlying models: cooperative and homogeneous. As a result, agents that appear strong in simulation often fail under the unseen, diverse communication patterns of real users. To narrow this gap, we introduce Persona Policies (PPol), a plug-and-play control layer that induces realistic behavioral variation in user simulators while preserving the original task goals. Rather than hand-crafting personas, we cast persona generation as an LLM-driven evolutionary program search that optimizes a Python generator to discover behaviors and translate them into task-preserving roleplay policies. Candidate generators are guided by a multi-objective fitness score combining human-likeness with broad coverage of human behavioral patterns. Once optimized, the generator produces a diverse population of human-like personas for any task in the domain. Across tau^2-bench retail and airline domains, evolved PPol programs yield 33-62% absolute gains in fitness score over the baseline simulator. In a blinded evaluation, annotators rated PPol-conditioned users as human 80.4% of the time, close to real human traces and nearly twice as frequently as baseline simulators. Agents trained with PPol are more robust to challenging, out-of-distribution behaviors, improving task success by +17% relative to training only on existing simulated interactions. This offers a novel approach to strengthen simulator-based evaluation and training without changing tasks or rewards.