User Simulation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior in business, economics, and the social sciences, offering a low-cost complement to laboratory experiments, field studies, and surveys. This paper evaluates how well LLMs replicate human behavior in operations management. Using nine published behavioral-operations experiments, we assess LLM performance along two dimensions: whether LLM-generated data reproduce the original hypothesis-test outcomes, and whether their full response distributions align with human data, measured by Wasserstein distance. We find that LLMs often replicate hypothesis-level effects, suggesting that they can capture salient decision biases and behavioral regularities. However, their response distributions frequently diverge from human data, even for strong proprietary models, with dispersion mismatch playing an important role. We also examine two lightweight mitigation strategies: chain-of-thought prompting and hyperparameter tuning. Both can reduce distributional misalignment, and appropriate tuning can sometimes allow smaller or open-source models to match or outperform larger proprietary systems.

This study introduces a Large Language Model (LLM) scheme for generating key attributes of travel diaries in agent-based transportation models, including purpose, mode and distance, to assess the underlying viability of LLMs for activity generation tasks. While traditional approaches rely on large quantities of proprietary household travel surveys, our method generates personas stochastically from open-source American Community Survey (ACS) and Smart Location Database (SLD) data, then synthesizes diaries through direct prompting. Our study features a novel one-to-cohort realism score: a composite of four metrics (Trip Count Score, Interval Score, Purpose Score, and Mode Score) validated against the Connecticut Statewide Transportation Study (CSTS) diaries, matched across demographic variables. Our validation utilizes Jensen-Shannon Divergence to measure distributional similarities between generated and real diaries. When compared to diaries generated with classical methods (Negative Binomial for trip generation; Multinomial Logit for mode/purpose) calibrated on the validation set, LLM generated diaries achieve comparable overall realism (LLM mean: 0.692 vs. 0.628). The LLM excels in determining trip purpose, and its trip mode predictions demonstrate greater consistency (a narrower Realism Score distribution). Meanwhile, classical models lead to better numerical estimates of trip count and activity duration. Aggregate validation confirms the LLM's statistical representativeness (LLM mean: 0.779 vs. 0.706), demonstrating LLM's zero-shot viability and establishing a quantifiable metric of diary realism for future synthetic diary evaluation systems.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into social simulation has generated considerable enthusiasm, but also raises substantial methodological and epistemological challenges. This critical review examines the use of LLMs as cognitive or decision-making components of simulated agents from a computational social science perspective. Rather than treating the psychological evaluation of LLMs as separate from simulation mechanics, we argue that their behavioural and epistemic limitations can become systemic vulnerabilities when scaled to multi-agent societies. We first map the rapidly evolving landscape of LLM-driven platforms, ranging from small narrative sandboxes to population-scale and spatially structured simulations. We then develop a unified critical framework for analyzing the Micro-to-Macro Validity Gap: the propagation and amplification of micro-level limitations, including hallucinations, stochastic inconsistency, representational biases, and alignment effects, into macro-level risks such as the Fluency Fallacy, convergence toward an average persona, and automation bias. We identify contexts in which LLM-based agents offer genuine operational value, including serious games, participatory environments, and exploratory modelling, while distinguishing these uses from confirmatory research and precise social forecasting. Finally, we examine theory-driven hybrid architectures that embed LLMs within explicit, mechanistic, and reproducible Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) frameworks. We argue that such architectures offer a promising but not sufficient path toward improving epistemic control: their validity depends on multi-level evaluation of environmental dynamics, individual behaviour, cross-level interactions, and aggregate outcomes, and they remain vulnerable to the risk of physics washing.

Evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutor feedback before deployment requires anticipating student engagement, typically assessed through real interaction data. We introduce ParaStudent, a fine-tuning framework for simulating novice programming revisions to support AI tutor evaluation. Compared with prompted baselines, ParaStudent's revisions more closely match real student code distributions across functional, stylistic, and semantic metrics. Our best variant achieves AUCs of 0.80 for both feedback relevance and successful uptake when distinguishing streams with real engagement above versus at or below the median, while prompted baselines remain near chance on successful uptake. These findings demonstrate the promise of simulated engagement for pre-deployment feedback triage.

Autonomous agents navigating human society must master both production activities and social interactions, yet existing benchmarks rarely evaluate these skills simultaneously. To bridge this gap, we introduce StarDojo, a novel benchmark based on Stardew Valley, designed to assess AI agents in open-ended production-living simulations. In StarDojo, agents are tasked to perform essential livelihood activities such as farming and crafting, while simultaneously engaging in social interactions to establish relationships within a vibrant community. StarDojo features 1,000 meticulously curated tasks across five key domains: farming, crafting, exploration, combat, and social interactions. Additionally, we provide a compact subset of 100 representative tasks for efficient model evaluation. The benchmark offers a unified, user-friendly interface that eliminates the need for keyboard and mouse control, supports all major operating systems, and enables the parallel execution of multiple environment instances, making it particularly well-suited for evaluating the most capable foundation agents, powered by multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Extensive evaluations of state-of-the-art MLLMs agents demonstrate substantial limitations, with the best-performing model, GPT-4.1, achieving only a 12.7% success rate, primarily due to challenges in visual understanding, multimodal reasoning and low-level manipulation. As a user-friendly environment and benchmark, StarDojo aims to facilitate further research towards robust, open-ended agents in complex production-living environments.

This position paper argues that LLM-based social simulations require clear boundaries to make meaningful contributions to social science. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for simulating human behavior, their tendency to produce homogeneous outputs, acting as an "average persona", fundamentally limits their ability to capture the behavioral diversity essential for complex social dynamics. We examine why heterogeneity matters for social simulations and how current LLMs fall short, analyzing the relationship between mean alignment and variance in LLM-generated behaviors. Through a systematic review of representative studies, we find that validation practices often fail to match the heterogeneity requirements of research questions: while most papers include ground truth comparisons, fewer than half explicitly assess behavioral variance, and most that do report lower variance than human populations. We propose that researchers should: (1) match validation depth to the heterogeneity demands of their research questions, (2) explicitly report variance alongside mean alignment, and (3) constrain claims to collective-level qualitative patterns when variance is insufficient. Rather than dismissing LLM-based simulation, we advocate for a boundary-aware approach that ensures these methods contribute genuine insights to social science.

Understanding the dynamic evolution of complex social phenomena requires both high-fidelity modeling of human behavior and large-scale simulations. Traditional agent-based models (ABMs) have been employed to study these dynamics, but are constrained by simplified agent behaviors. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable agents to exhibit sophisticated social behaviors, yet face significant scaling challenges. We present Light Society, an agent-based simulation framework that advances both fronts. Light Society formalizes social processes as structured transitions of agent and environment states, governed by a set of LLM-powered simulation operations. Joint algorithmic and system optimizations, particularly a mixture-of-models engine that combines full LLMs with distilled surrogates, enable Light Society to efficiently simulate societies with over one billion agents. Grounded in real-world demographic profiles from the World Values Survey, simulations of Trust Games and opinion diffusion at up to one billion agents demonstrate Light Society's high fidelity and efficiency in modeling diverse social phenomena, providing researchers with a practical foundation for hypothesis testing and the study of emergent collective behaviors at planetary scale.

Multi-agent large language model simulations have the potential to model complex human behaviors and interactions. If the mechanics are set up properly, unanticipated and valuable social dynamics can surface. However, it is challenging to consistently enforce simulation mechanics while still allowing for rich and emergent dynamics. We present AgentDynEx, an AI system that helps set up, track, and repair simulations. Specifically, AgentDynEx introduces milestones that act as checkpoints and failure conditions that act as guardrails to ensure dynamics are relevant and mechanics are respected as the simulation progresses. It also introduces a method called nudging, where the system dynamically reflects on simulation progress and gently intervenes if it begins to deviate from intended outcomes. A technical evaluation found that nudging enables simulations to progress further without reducing the presence notable dynamics compared to simulations without nudging. A case study with AgentDynEx documented instances where real users were able to simulate lived experiences. We discuss the importance of nudging as a technique for guiding agents towards desirable behaviors while preserving their freedom of choice.

This paper presents a hybrid modeling approach that couples an Agent-Based Model (ABM) with a partial differential equation (PDE) model in an epidemic setting to simulate the spatial spread of infectious diseases using a compartmental structure with seven health states. The goal is to reduce the computational complexity of a full-ABM by introducing a coupled ABM-PDE model that offers significantly faster simulations while maintaining comparable accuracy. Our results demonstrate that the hybrid model not only reduces the overall simulation runtime (defined as the number of runs required for stable results multiplied by the duration of a single run) but also achieves smaller errors across both 25% and 100% population samples. The coupling mechanism ensures consistency at the model interface: agents crossing from the ABM into the PDE domain are removed and represented as density contributions, while surplus density in the PDE domain is used to generate agents with plausible trajectories derived from mobile phone data. We evaluate the hybrid model using real-world mobility and infection data for the Berlin-Brandenburg region in Germany, showing that it captures the core epidemiological dynamics while enabling efficient large-scale simulations. These results demonstrate that the proposed ABM-PDE framework provides a robust and computationally efficient alternative to full-scale agent-based simulations, making it suitable for realistic epidemic modeling and scenario analysis.

Scenario-based testing with driving simulators is extensively used to identify failing conditions of automated driving assistance systems (ADAS). However, existing studies have shown that repeated test execution in the same as well as in distinct simulators can yield different outcomes, which can be attributed to sources of flakiness or different implementations of the physics. In this paper, we present MultiSim, a novel approach to multi-simulation ADAS testing based on a search-based testing approach that leverages an ensemble of simulators to identify failure-inducing, simulator-agnostic test scenarios. During the search, each scenario is evaluated jointly on multiple simulators. Scenarios that produce consistent results across simulators are prioritized for further exploration, while those that fail on only a subset of simulators are given less priority, as they may reflect simulator-specific issues rather than generalizable failures. Our empirical study, which involves testing three lane-keeping ADAS on different pairs of three widely used simulators, demonstrates that MultiSim outperforms single-simulator testing by achieving, on average, a higher rate of simulator-agnostic failures by 66%. Compared to a state-of-the-art multi-simulator approach that combines the outcome of independent test generation campaigns obtained in different simulators, MultiSim identifies, on average, up to 3.4X more simulator-agnostic failing tests and higher failure rates. To avoid the costly execution of test inputs on which simulators disagree, we propose to predict simulator disagreements and bypass test executions. Our results show that utilizing a surrogate model during the search retains the average number of valid failures and also improves efficiency. Our findings indicate that combining an ensemble of simulators is a promising approach for the automated cross-replication in ADAS testing.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed for simulating human behaviors across diverse domains. However, our position is that current LLM-based human simulations remain insufficiently reliable, as evidenced by significant discrepancies between their outcomes and authentic human actions. Our investigation begins with a systematic review of LLM-based human simulations in social, economic, policy, and psychological contexts, identifying their common frameworks, recent advances, and persistent limitations. This review reveals that such discrepancies primarily stem from inherent limitations of LLMs and flaws in simulation design, both of which are examined in detail. Building on these insights, we propose a systematic solution framework that emphasizes enriching data foundations, advancing LLM capabilities, and ensuring robust simulation design to enhance reliability. Finally, we introduce a structured algorithm that operationalizes the proposed framework, aiming to guide credible and human-aligned LLM-based simulations. To facilitate further research, we provide a curated list of related literature and resources at https://github.com/Persdre/awesome-llm-human-simulation.

Machine learning can predict human behavior well when substantial structured data are available for well-defined outcomes. Such models are typically outcome-specific, however, requiring training data for each target outcome, limiting their applicability to new domains. We test whether large language models (LLMs) can relax these requirements by using self-report data to build attitudinal and behavioral simulations, or "generative agents," that can predict responses across outcomes without outcome-specific training data. Using data from a diverse national sample of 1,052 Americans, we built agents from (i) two-hour, semi-structured interviews elicited using the American Voices Project interview schedule, (ii) structured surveys including General Social Survey items and the Big Five personality inventory, or (iii) both sources combined. On held-out General Social Survey items, interview-only, survey-only, and combined agents achieved accuracies equal to 83%, 82%, and 86% of participants' own two-week test-retest consistency benchmark, respectively, compared with 74% for demographics-only agents. Combining interviews and surveys produced the highest accuracy, though gains over either source alone were modest, suggesting that predictive benefits from data begin to asymptote once the model has observed sufficient evidence within a domain. We find that these agents also predict personality traits, economic-game behavior, and experimental responses, while reducing accuracy disparities across racial and ideological groups relative to demographics-only agents. Together, these results show that LLM agents grounded in qualitative or quantitative self-reports can support general-purpose simulation of individuals across outcomes, without requiring task-specific training data.

While modern Autonomous Vehicle (AV) systems can develop reliable driving policies under regular traffic conditions, they frequently struggle with safety-critical traffic scenarios. This difficulty primarily arises from the rarity of such scenarios in driving datasets and the complexities associated with predictive modeling of multiple vehicles. Effectively simulating safety-critical traffic situations is therefore a crucial challenge. In this paper, we introduce TrafficGamer, which facilitates game-theoretic traffic simulation by viewing common road driving as a multi-agent game. When we evaluate the empirical performance across various real-world datasets, TrafficGamer ensures both the fidelity, exploitability, and diversity of the simulated scenarios, guaranteeing that they not only statically align with real-world traffic distribution but also efficiently capture equilibria for representing safety-critical scenarios involving multiple agents compared with other methods. Additionally, the results demonstrate that TrafficGamer provides highly flexible simulations across various contexts. Specifically, we demonstrate that the generated scenarios can dynamically adapt to equilibria of varying tightness by configuring risk-sensitive constraints during optimization. We have provided a demo webpage at: https://anonymous.4open.science/api/repo/trafficgamer-demo-1EE0/file/index.html.

Can AI Agents simulate real-world trading environments to investigate the impact of external factors on stock trading activities (e.g., macroeconomics, policy changes, company fundamentals, and global events)? These factors, which frequently influence trading behaviors, are critical elements in the quest for maximizing investors' profits. Our work attempts to solve this problem through large language model based agents. We have developed a multi-agent AI system called StockAgent, driven by LLMs, designed to simulate investors' trading behaviors in response to the real stock market. The StockAgent allows users to evaluate the impact of different external factors on investor trading and to analyze trading behavior and profitability effects. Additionally, StockAgent avoids the test set leakage issue present in existing trading simulation systems based on AI Agents. Specifically, it prevents the model from leveraging prior knowledge it may have acquired related to the test data. We evaluate different LLMs under the framework of StockAgent in a stock trading environment that closely resembles real-world conditions. The experimental results demonstrate the impact of key external factors on stock market trading, including trading behavior and stock price fluctuation rules. This research explores the study of agents' free trading gaps in the context of no prior knowledge related to market data. The patterns identified through StockAgent simulations provide valuable insights for LLM-based investment advice and stock recommendation. The code is available at https://github.com/MingyuJ666/Stockagent.

Simulating human conversations using large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a scalable methodology for modeling human social interaction. This paper reconsiders the evaluation of simulated conversations by explicitly recognizing that human conversations inherently involve inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors, such as misunderstandings and interruptions. Since these behaviors contribute to the complexity of human social interaction, we argue that LLM-simulated conversations should reproduce them at frequencies comparable to those observed in human conversations. To support a detailed and interpretable evaluation of these behaviors, we introduce CoCoEval, a framework consisting of an evaluation scheme based on turn-level detection of 10 types of inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors and a benchmark for simulating conversations in professional scenarios involving collaboration and conflict. Using CoCoEval, we compare human conversations with those simulated by GPT-4.1, GPT-5.1, and Claude Opus 4. The results show that (1) LLM-simulated conversations exhibit far fewer inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors than human conversations under vanilla prompting, and (2) prompt engineering and supervised fine-tuning do not provide reliable control over these behaviors, often leading to the overproduction of specific behaviors. CoCoEval identifies gaps between human and LLM-simulated conversations that are not captured by conventional evaluation based on conversation-level Likert scales, raising concerns about the use of LLMs as proxies for human social interaction.

Simulatability is an evaluation protocol for explanations that quantifies their usefulness by how well they help a user predict a task model's outputs. Since human evaluation is costly, automated simulatability replaces human explainees with LLM simulators, as proposed in ConSim (Poch'e et al., 2025) for large-scale experiments. We qualitatively replicate and extend ConSim's ranking of explanation methods across the tested datasets, explanation families, and simulator LLMs, and identify two limitations. First, when class names are meaningful, simulators can obtain high simulatability by solving the classification task directly, without relying on the explanations. Second, class anonymization can reward explanations for leaking the hidden label mapping, a limitation we expose with a new classes-as-concepts baseline. These results are consistent with a shortcut hypothesis: in the tested settings, simulator predictions mainly rely on task priors, while explanations produce small changes. We derive recommendations for more robust automated simulatability evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet claims that such simulations are human-like remain largely untested. We conducted a systematic audit (pre-registered on OSF) of LLM-based social simulations across four databases (Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and arXiv). Across 576 studies reported in 350 recent papers, we applied six methodological evaluations: agent Profile, Interaction, Memory, Minimal-Control, Unawareness, and Realism (PIMMUR). Coding every study against pre-specified rules, we revealed that PIM were met more often than MUR. Frontier LLMs correctly identified the underlying social experiment in 65.2% of cases, and 50.6% of prompts imposed constraints that pre-determined the outcome. These compliance rates are upper bounds, because incomplete methodological reporting (for example, unreleased prompts) limits the available evidence. Reproducing five representative experiments (e.g., opinion dynamics), we found that reported collective phenomena often vanish or reverse once PIMMUR principles are enforced, indicating that many "emergent" behaviors are methodological artifacts rather than genuine social dynamics. Current LLM simulations may therefore capture model-specific biases rather than universal features of human social behavior, raising concerns about their use as scientific proxies for human society.

Multi-agent traffic simulation seeks diverse, coordinated, and physically realistic futures from maps and observed history. Long-horizon closed-loop generation must reconcile multiple decision time scales while its context evolves with generated states. Existing methods often unfold long futures from an initial scene and resolve intent, interaction, and motion monolithically, weakening cross-scale consistency and adaptation. Multimodal rollout poses a further consistency problem: independently reselecting modes across agents or commits can stitch together incompatible futures instead of preserving a coherent joint branch. We present Hi-FLoop, a branch-consistent multi-timescale state-feedback framework. Eight scene-level Worlds represent joint hypotheses; all agents share one selected World identity throughout all 16 commits of an 8-second rollout, while Goal, Preview, and Control states adapt within that branch. An 8-second Goal anchors intent, a 2-second Preview coordinates interactions, and 1-second Control produces physical motion. Every 0.5-second commit feeds back only its executed prefix as new facts, while unexecuted hypotheses never enter factual memory. Joint Preview Interaction induces a sparse directed future graph and uses conflict probabilities and signed arrival-time differences to refine interaction-aware motion. For generated-state recovery, a prefix-frozen A-to-B cascade transfers typed physical state and the branch index--but no latent state--from a frozen prefix model to an independently parameterized recovery model. On the full H-D public-validation split of 955 scenarios, the S2.1 cascade obtains an 8-second scene-joint ADE-at-joint-minFDE@8/joint-minFDE@8 of 2.048/6.384 m when one World must explain all evaluated agents. Agent-centric oracle-minADE@8 is 0.526 m at 6 seconds and 0.875 m at 8 seconds.