Wrong Together: Shared Bias in User Simulation

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 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.

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.