User Simulation

LLM-based user simulators aim to bridge the offline-online gap in recommender evaluation by emulating users through injected traits, where preference attributes determine what a user engages with and a behavioral activity trait governs how long they browse. However, we show this intended trait independence collapses during simulation, causing two failures: (i) Trait Interference, where amplified activity distorts preference boundaries and forces interactions with mismatched items to sustain browsing, and (ii) Evaluation Invalidity, where satisfaction scores inflate with activity-driven page counts despite taste mismatches, biasing evaluation toward trait distributions rather than recommender performance. To resolve this, we propose PQA, a page-level quality anchoring method that guides simulators using a personalized anchor reflecting each user's intrinsic preference standard. By assessing whether a page meets this standard before further browsing, PQA enables proactive exits from low-quality pages, letting the activity trait retain its intended role of modulating browsing depth within preference-conforming pages. Experiments show PQA mitigates trait interference and improves the reliability of LLM-based simulator evaluation under activity shifts. Our code is available at https://github.com/chaehyun1/PQA

Validation of generative social simulators often stops at face validity: emergent network structure is compared descriptively, without quantified parameter uncertainty or an adequacy check. We present an adequacy-aware calibration protocol that couples amortized posterior estimation with a synthetic identifiability assessment, a matched-sample-size adequacy check (prior-predictive reachability plus per-statistic posterior-predictive localization), a diagnosis-guided repair, and a statistic-held-out audit. We demonstrate it on a real second-hand luxury resale market with four channel-by-residency cells, each a bipartite buyer-brand network, using a forward model built from persona profiles elicited once, offline, by a language model. The behavioural parameters are recoverable in all four cells, though calibration is approximate and overconfident for one parameter. The observed summary falls outside the simulator's reachability reference in every cell, with the mean purchased tier as the pervasive discrepancy. The repair meets the value-block criterion in two of four cells but does not restore adequacy, and the held-out audit surfaces a buyer-breadth-dispersion miss no earlier diagnostic detected. A profile-source ablation finds the language-model profiles beat a flat rule baseline in all four cells, yet within-category brand relabelling causes no consistent degradation, so the profiles are a partially validated input whose value rests on structure, not brand identity. Making no causal claim, we conclude that an independent-aggregation account, without agent interaction or a buyer-breadth mechanism, cannot jointly reproduce the market's purchased-tier level, head-brand concentration, community structure and buyer-breadth heterogeneity.

Recent advancements in large language models have revolutionized the field of psychological counseling, especially in the context of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). While the success of CBT relies heavily on dynamic decision-making informed by the client's real-time mental state, this aspect has often been overlooked in current research, limiting both flexibility and therapeutic outcomes. In this paper, we introduce StratCBT, a dataset specifically designed for psychological counseling conversations with CBT Strategies, consisting of 9,688 sessions and around 256K utterances, with each counselor's response aligned with one of eight distinct strategies. The creation of StratCBT involves modeling clients based on their negative thoughts and generating high-quality counseling conversations through self-chat, incorporating realistic sessions as guidance, thereby significantly surpassing existing datasets in both general counseling and CBT-specific skills. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of strategy-aligned generation and evaluate its efficacy in delivering professional and effective counseling with LLM-simulated clients to reflect real-world scenarios. The dataset can be obtained from https://github.com/zimuwangnlp/StratCBT.

Simulations based on large language models (LLMs) have proven to be powerful for understanding human behavior, making them valuable additions to the social scientific toolkit. However, LLMs are ultimately black boxes based on deep neural networks which limits their value for social science. This is because of a lack of (i) interpretability: i.e. the ability to assign clear mechanisms driving observed behavior; and a lack of (ii) steerability: i.e. the ability to mute or amplify specific theoretically meaningful mechanisms of action to drive specific model behavior. Here, we demonstrate how the black box could be opened up to further enrich LLM-based simulations. Specifically, we compare three types of methods: (1) prompt-based manipulation, (2) SAE-derived feature steering, and (3) probe-based direction steering and examine their utility for LLM-based social scientific simulations. We do so by interpreting and steering two foundational components of human behaviors, namely preferences (risk attitudes, altruism) and capabilities (divergent creativity, product innovation), operationalized using four classic economic and creative tasks implemented as natural-language interactions. Overall, our results show that SAE- and probe-based techniques often outperform basic prompt-based methods for steering LLM agents, although this advantage depends on the specific prompting strategy involved. Together, SAEs and probes constitute an effective pipeline for social scientists seeking to interpret and steer agents in social simulations: SAEs decompose agents' internal representations into human-readable features, after which probes can reliably shift agents' behaviors in specified directions. We discuss implications of these methods for future work using LLM agents for social scientific simulations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as user simulators, but their ability to reproduce evolving individual financial decisions remains unclear. We present a preliminary study in a controlled paper-trading environment with 120 volunteers. Participants used non-redeemable virtual funds under real-time market conditions; no real brokerage accounts, real-money positions, or real transaction records were accessed. Given only information available before a prediction cutoff, a simulator predicts the participant's next-trading-day action, traded security, and transaction quantity. We evaluate temporally aligned rolling predictions and compare settings with and without point-in-time market information. Market context improves action and ticker prediction in the controlled ablation, while transaction sizing remains difficult. We also observe systematic behavioral compression: models overproduce hold actions, underpredict sell decisions, and simplify multi-security transactions. These results provide an initial empirical characterization and motivate larger-scale evaluation of individual, temporal, and portfolio-level behavioral fidelity.

Companion robots face everyday situations in which several feasible behaviors may be appropriate, yet different people prefer different responses. We introduce InterSocialBench, a benchmark of 210 domestic scenarios and 18 high-level behaviors, pairing judgments from 100 human participants with 23,520 responses from seven large language models under 16 personality conditions. Each human annotation preserves a preferred action alongside explicitly appropriate and inappropriate candidates. A structured construction pipeline covers behavioral alternatives, competing situational cues, and relevant history and future tasks. Evaluation distinguishes preferred-choice agreement from explicit rejection, using scenario-grouped splits for trainable predictors. Simple frequency and persona-voting baselines illustrate these objectives. Across the tested prompts, model and human behavior distributions differ, and the diversity gap remains after matching response counts: humans exhibit 4.68 distinct choices per scenario, compared with 2.06--3.46 for the models. Human scenario-level plurality agreement is 51.5%, describing disagreement rather than a universal prediction ceiling. InterSocialBench supports evaluating social behavior selection without replacing individual judgments with a single consensus label.

Language-model agents are increasingly used as synthetic people in surveys and social simulations, yet their apparent realism is often judged from population averages or distributional similarity. We tested what such evidence actually establishes by comparing Claude, Codex and Kimi under four prespecified prompt designs with matched farmer decisions from China and four African countries. Some configurations reproduced observed means and adoption rates. However, their person-level predictions were weak; their decisions clustered around typical values and policy-relevant extremes were largely missing. Most strikingly, a simple generator fitted only to the observed marginal dis- tribution, and given no information about any farmer, achieved greater distributional similarity than every language-model configuration. Prompt additions produced conditional gains rather than uni- versal improvement: results varied with model, outcome, population and validation target. We call this the average-farmer illusion: a synthetic population can look realistic while failing to repro- duce who does what or how behaviour varies. We provide a claim-matched validation framework and reusable modular prompts that turn prompt construction into an auditable experimental process. Population-level resemblance should therefore be treated as the start of validation, not as evidence of individual simulation.

Simulated students generated by computational models provide a practical way to evaluate tutoring strategies and pedagogical approaches used by human and AI tutors. However, such simulations should account for disengaged behaviors, including gaming the system, wheel-spinning, and off-task behavior, because tutors may need different responses for different learner states. We present Disengagement-Aware Student Simulators (DAS2), a reproducible pre-deployment protocol that models five learner-engagement states: engaged, gaming, wheel-spinning, off-task, and mixed, and evaluates AI tutor performance across these states. Using ASSISTments09, two coders independently labeled 100 sampled tutoring sessions based on anonymized interaction-log summaries. They achieved 84% agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.78), and among agreed cases, human consensus labels matched DAS2 rule-based labels in 81% of cases (kappa = 0.75). Conditioning simulations on intended learner states reduced the correctness-rate gap between simulated and authentic sessions from 0.54 to 0.20 for gaming and from 0.51 to 0.18 for wheel-spinning. Fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B better matched authentic response-time distributions, while prompt-only GPT-4o generated more distinguishable learner states. Evaluation of five AI tutors from the Claude, Llama, Gemini, Qwen, and GPT families showed that relative rankings remained stable across learner states and interaction lengths, while absolute performance varied, revealing state-specific differences in tutor support. Human validation further showed that automated tutor evaluation does not fully align with human judgment. DAS2 provides a pre-deployment framework for evaluating how AI tutors respond to diverse learner-engagement states before deployment.

Evaluating tool-augmented LLM agents requires diverse, realistic user inputs yet most evaluation frameworks use flat role descriptions ("you are an angry customer") that produce near-identical conversations regardless of the underlying scenario. In this paper, we propose a three-tier persona vector with 23 operationalized dimensions: 6 categorical demographics (jurisdiction, age, channel, device, language proficiency, time availability), 12 continuous behavioral traits (patience, assertiveness, digital literacy, etc.) sampled with Gaussian noise around curated profile base vectors, and 5 continuous emotional states (frustration, anxiety, trust, confidence, stress) that shift in response to scenario context. Orthogonal to the persona, a 4-level query-complexity overlay controls utterance phrasing from direct to deliberately vague. We evaluate the persona model inside a synthetic data generation pipeline across 64,698 multi-turn conversations spanning 8 named profiles and 3 production corpora. Key findings: (i) a 15.8 percentage-point spread in agent goal-achievement across personas confirms trait vectors produce measurably different user behavior; (ii) the same persona behaves differently across scenarios due to scenario-reactive emotional state shifts, validating the scenario-reactive design; (iii) domain-specific projects show persona sensitivity on booking-flow compliance (~15-20 percentage points gap between tier-aware and pressure-test personas), demonstrating the model faithfully reproduces real-world difficulty distributions; (iv) seven rule-described trait correlations produce auditable co-occurrence patterns without requiring learned covariance matrices. The persona model is fully specified for reproduction.

Behavioral foundation models have been proposed as stand-ins for human participants across settings, but it is unclear whether theories discovered on them generalize to humans or merely characterize the simulator. We ran the Automated Cognitive Scientist (\textsc{AutoCog}), a closed-loop discovery system in which LLM agents design theory-discriminating experiments, collect responses, arbitrate between competing theories, and synthesize successors, entirely on behavior simulated by Centaur, a foundation model of human behavior. In a multi-attribute decision-making setting, the theories \textsc{AutoCog} found on Centaur generalized to human data: they outperformed canonical theories on ten held-out experiments and were rivaled only by theories found by running the same loop on people. We argue that this succeeds despite the simulator's inevitable imperfections because a discovery loop that arbitrates between competing theories demands less of its simulator than estimation does. The simulator only needs to capture the regularities that distinguish the theories, and not necessarily reproduce behavior precisely. Imperfect simulators can therefore widen the search over theories, with human data then testing whether the surfaced theories generalize.

LLM-based digital twins promise to reduce repeated human data collection by generating person- specific responses, yet existing evaluations provide little evidence about whether they can reduce human measurement while preserving valid inference. To address this, we introduce statistical substitutability, an inferential criterion that evaluates the extent to which twin predictions can reduce human measurement for a particular estimand while preserving valid inference. We develop a framework, grounded in mixed-subject and prediction-powered inference, that evaluates statistical substitutability along four dimensions: aggregate fidelity, paired respondent-level signal, finite-sample human-label recovery, and stability across populations. Across two empirical evaluations spanning behavioral experiments, multiple models, and alternative respondent representations, we find that digital twins can reproduce average human effects while providing little information about which individuals differ from those averages. Newer models and richer respondent information improve some dimensions of performance but do not reliably translate into human-data savings. Human calibration can reduce aggregate prediction error, yet limited labeled samples often fail to produce stable precision gains. Importantly, these findings demonstrate that behavioral fidelity is neither necessary nor sufficient for statistical substitutability. More broadly, they suggest that AI-generated evidence should be evaluated based on its ability to support valid scientific inference rather than its ability to reproduce human outcomes alone. Digital twins should therefore be judged for confirmatory use by whether they reduce uncertainty about human quantities, not merely by whether they reproduce human means, distributions, or effects.

Demographic synthetic survey panels are often validated by matching aggregate answers to published surveys. We test what that certificate establishes across six multiselect batteries from four survey organisations in three countries. The headline analysis is restricted to three instruments whose synthetic cohort and human target share the stated population frame; three other batteries remain sensitivity analyses. The response contract dominates measured fidelity. In the aligned instruments, committed sets leave 66 of 128 model-battery option slots empty in panels of up to 500 respondents, versus 0 of 128 under per-option probability elicitation. Across eight uncapped model-instrument comparisons, probabilities reduce option-marginal MAE by 4.53 to 7.30 points. The capped instrument reverses on two models until the vectors are projected onto its stated maximum. These are measurement effects: human targets are realised check-all responses, whereas the vectors are latent inclusion propensities. Published marginal agreement also fails to discriminate respondent simulation from direct population estimation. On nine aligned model-battery pairs, a no-persona population-prevalence query averages 6.27 MAE versus 12.39 for committed panels and wins all nine comparisons. Constraint-aware probability vectors average 5.34 and beat the query on four of nine, so the baseline challenges the validation criterion rather than proving direct estimation uniformly best. On three unpublished demographic cells, neither approach beats reciting the national distribution. Population-marginal agreement is therefore evidence about an elicitation contract and an estimand obtainable without simulated respondents, not evidence of individual simulation.

Writing proficiency manifests in how students develop content, organize ideas, choose words, and use language. Despite growing interest in LLM-based student simulation, whether LLMs can reproduce such multidimensional variation in extended writing remains largely unexplored. In this work, we explore if language models can realistically simulate student writing, and introduce SWIM, a task that formulates Student Writing sIMulation as proficiency-conditioned essay generation. We evaluate prompting, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL) methods for writing simulation using automated essay scoring as a measure of profile alignment. Extensive experiments reveal that prompting provides limited proficiency control, even for strong proprietary LLMs with rubric-grounded strategies. In particular, while models can adjust content-oriented traits, they struggle to reproduce the lexical, grammatical, and organizational variation in different proficiency levels. SFT substantially improves alignment, while RL with the proposed proficiency-alignment reward yields further gains across all writing traits and essay prompts. Our findings suggest that explicit supervision enables substantially stronger profile alignment than prompting alone, while authentic low-proficiency writing remains challenging to reproduce.

AI tutors are most useful when they adapt to each student's strengths, weaknesses, and preferred guidance, but evidence about which guidance works for which student is sparse, slow, and costly to collect from real learners. Student simulators can provide this signal as a proxy, yet existing approaches are limited: state-tracking models fit student behavior but struggle to process explanations or corrections, while LLM role-play follows guidance fluently but does not reliably match the competence of the student being imitated. We present StudentSim, a training framework that turns sparse per-student data into individualized simulators through pooled training followed by per-student specialization. The resulting simulators both mirror a student's own responses and update them under tutor guidance. We also introduce StudentSimEval, a standardized protocol covering 60 students across chess, second-language English writing, and mathematics, using public learner datasets with de-identified records shared for research. StudentSimEval measures behavioral fidelity (F), or how well a simulator matches a student's responses, and guidance responsiveness (R), or how readily it updates under tutor guidance, with all methods fit and evaluated on the same records. Across all three domains, StudentSim outperforms GPT-5.4 on both metrics. In chess, StudentSim reaches F=0.51 and R=0.91, compared with 0.23 and 0.72 for GPT-5.4 and 0.45 and 0.27 for Maia2. As a proof of concept, using StudentSim as a reward model for tutor reinforcement learning produces a chess tutor that expert humans rate as more accurate, better-guided, and more personalized than a no-RL baseline and a tutor trained against a GPT-5.4 simulator reward. Code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/StudentSim.

As LLM-based human simulators are increasingly used for policy, evaluation, and training, they must faithfully reproduce real behavioral patterns. While prior work has examined behavioral fidelity in survey responses and dialogue, longer-horizon real-world activity remains largely unexplored. We introduce a framework for evaluating behavioral fidelity in long-horizon activity simulations across temporal granularities and levels of analysis. As a case study, we collect a 43-hour multi-camera dataset of in-the-wild office activity and compare trace-derived conditioning mechanisms: persona descriptors, few-shot exemplars, and statistical transition and time-of-day priors. We find that behavioral fidelity is not uniform across metrics: statistical priors bring activity and sequence distributions closest to real behavior, yet over-fragment routines and suppress within-person variability. These findings motivate a more holistic evaluation that spans multiple metrics, temporal granularities, and levels of analysis.

Large language models can produce locally plausible social turns, but fluent next-turn generation is not enough for social simulation. Human encounters such as restaurant lunches and hotel check-ins are bounded social episodes with roles, scripts, material state, obligations, commitments, timing, and closure conditions. We present EpisodeSim, a hybrid LLM-agent architecture that represents classic-AI structures as natural-language control state interpreted by LLM calls. A World Master maintains shared reality, constructs scenes, adjudicates proposed actions, tracks effects and obligations, and controls closure. Experiments with small qualitative ablations on two held-out settings support a design claim: LLM fluency supplies local texture, but coherent social simulation benefits from persistent classic-AI-style scaffolding that organizes behavior over time.

A/B testing is the gold standard for evaluating product changes, but each experiment requires real user traffic, engineering effort, and weeks of measurement. We propose a simulation framework that predicts A/B test outcomes using LLM-powered agents conditioned on data-driven personas grounded in real user behavioral signals. Unlike prior work that relies on synthetic or rule-based personas, our agents are constructed from anonymized behavioral data-activity patterns, engagement signals, and inferred demographics-enabling more faithful population modeling. We frame A/B test simulation as a structured question task and systematically study (i) question design formats, (ii) the impact of persona data source and domain alignment, (iii) the trade-off between per-persona behavioral depth and population diversity, and (iv) efficient population subsampling. On a benchmark of 40 A/B tests spanning two metric types, our best configuration achieves 0.75-0.90 directional accuracy depending on the test metric, demonstrating that data-driven personas are a viable path toward fast, low-cost experiment pre-screening.

Using a large language model to play the user is now standard in scalable evaluation. It has a repeatedly diagnosed failure: the simulated user is excessively cooperative, so a system under test can score by the sheer number of questions it asks rather than by making the user willing to speak. We answer with a disclosure gate conditioning information release on the companion agent's behaviour: its state is a ladder of five ordered gates, merged onto three observable depth layers. We specify, ablate, and audit it, and train a user simulator against that specification. Gating behaviour is learned from the training corpus's synthetic branch, while the real branch supplies how people speak and react; after training, the simulator need not be told at runtime which gate each item sits behind. The gate is a load-bearing component of the environment: on the English corpus of a published companion-agent benchmark (CompanionBench), once training no longer states per example which gate each item sits behind, the largest rank displacement across 12 systems under test exceeds the noise band set by re-running that environment under a new seed, while per-system scores show no detectable change. We state two acceptance criteria: a ranking must be order-preserving, and absolute scores must be scale-stable. Of the candidates we examine, only one passes both -- the simulator we release -- and its leaderboard correlates at 0.993 with the benchmark's original simulator. By contrast, prompting a frontier model as the simulator barely moves the ranking while shifting every score upward -- a shift invisible to anyone checking the ranking alone. The environment we specify is the one that benchmark already used. That publication describes the mechanism in about four hundred words, and we supply what it lacked: specification, ablations, human studies, negative controls, and downstream sensitivity analysis.

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.

Many people now see AI systems as not just productivity tools but as social companions. Researchers are eager to study the consequences of AI companionship behaviors, such as validation, which evoke trust, empathy, and attachment in human-human interaction. However, human-AI interaction data is limited and unreliable, slowing research progress. We scale small amounts of real-world data by simulating multi-turn human-chatbot dialogue across a range of chatbot behaviors and use cases. We release CompanionSim: a simulation framework with 2,240 simulated human-chatbot conversations representing 16 chatbot behaviors across seven use cases. Human participants annotated the simulated conversations and real-world conversations in two experiments probing perceptions of companionship behaviors. We conducted Study 1 with a U.S. representative sample ($N_{1}~=~628$) and Study 2 across the U.S., U.K., India, and Nigeria ($N_{2}~=~3,646$). Surprisingly, we find that companionship behaviors reduced likability, humanlikeness, and trust in AI chatbots. These effects were larger in particular subgroups: women and older participants saw companionship chatbots as less likable, humanlike, and trustworthy. We encourage researchers to leverage real-world and synthetic data together to study the differential impacts of AI companions and to create benchmark evaluations of AI chatbots.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior but frequently fail to exhibit realistic cognitive constraints, suffering from a "superhuman bias." Using a dataset of over 71,000 reading comprehension responses from 2,359 primary-school students (grades 4--6), we demonstrate that standard persona prompting yields near-perfect, deterministic performance, failing to capture the natural variance of developing readers. To address this, we introduce the Cognitively Bounded User Simulator (CBUS), an architectural framework that explicitly models the restricted working memory of young readers through an episodic bottleneck. Within this framework, we formalize two distinct test-taking strategies to emulate different reading behaviors. Our evaluation shows that explicitly modeling cognitive bounds significantly narrows the simulation gap across multiple LLM backbones, demonstrating that enforcing architectural constraints is more effective for high-fidelity simulation than simply scaling raw model capabilities.

LLM-generated search queries are widely used to augment IR evaluation, yet they may contain concepts that presuppose answer-side document knowledge, violating the information-access boundary of pre-search users. Existing validation metrics, including overlap, diversity, and effectiveness, cannot distinguish rare human-tail variation from candidate answer-side intrusion. We introduce concept provenance, a framework that assigns query concepts to backstory-supported, human-central, human-tail, and candidate answer-side zones, operationalizing a boundary that retrieval metrics alone cannot detect. Applying concept provenance to 77,004 queries across 100 UQV100 topics, 8 LLMs, and 5 prompt conditions with two extraction pipelines, we obtain a cross-pipeline token-HCIR Spearman rho of 1.0 over five condition means. Candidate answer-side concepts constitute 7.40 percent of non-generic concepts and appear in 97 of 100 topics, with topic explaining approximately 67 percent of variance. Human validation yields 68.2 percent relaxed precision, revealing two mechanisms: knowledge intrusion at 45.5 percent and deployment intrusion at 45.0 percent. Diagnostic probes show disproportionate localized retrieval effects, with deletion effect size d = -0.47 compared with d = -0.34 for random deletion, but these concepts explain less than 2 percent of aggregate evaluation variance. Concept provenance therefore serves as a boundary-compliance diagnostic rather than an evaluation-shift predictor. Under the tested conditions, no prompt condition eliminates intrusion; post-generation concept-provenance selection achieves 99 percent elimination.

Reliable deployment of LLM agents in user-facing products depends not on raw task-solving ability but on consistency and limit-awareness: behaving the same way across repeated trials, and recognizing when a request cannot, or cannot yet, be safely fulfilled. CAR-bench exposes this reliability gap in the domain of in-car assistants: an LLM-simulated user issues incomplete or ambiguous requests, requiring the agent to resolve uncertainty through multi-turn dialogue and tool use while strictly adhering to domain policies. Even frontier models show a substantial gap between what they can solve at least once (Pass@3) and what they solve consistently across trials (Pass^k). We bridge this gap with TRACE (TRAjectory-Contrastive Evolution), which iteratively improves a skill-based agent's behavioral knowledge without modifying model weights. This knowledge is organized as a Skill Bank of modular, retrievable skills, each encoding a self-contained set of tool-use rules and behavioral guidelines. TRACE evolves this bank through an agentic self-evolution loop: after each evaluation round, it groups trajectories by the skills invoked and refines each skill by contrasting successful and failed behaviors. The updated bank then guides subsequent rounds, while during deployment the Actor performs state-conditioned skill orchestration at every turn. On GPT-5.5, TRACE improves consistency (Pass^3) by 34.6 points, from 59.9% to 94.5%, while shrinking the gap between potential and reliable performance to just 4.0 points. On the official hidden set, TRACE achieved first place using GPT-5.6-Sol, attaining a Pass^3 score of 70%-a 40% relative improvement over the baseline. These results show that TRACE converts high model potential into stable, consistent performance gain. Project homepage: https://darwin-agent.github.io/Car-bench-TRACE.

LLM-based simulated clients are increasingly used to train novice counselors, evaluate LLM therapists, and generate synthetic data. However, current simulators produce overly cooperative clients that disclose too readily, accept therapeutic reframes without resistance, and resolve core issues within a single session. We trace these issues to profiles that lack causal depth and behavioral mechanisms that treat all content as equally accessible. We present PatientAct, a framework for client simulation grounded in established clinical theories. Our profiles integrate the 5Ps clinical case formulation, providing causal depth without tying the design to any single therapeutic modality. During simulation, profiles include a dynamic memory layer in which items carry trust thresholds (e.g., symptoms are available early, whereas formative memories require a sustained therapeutic alliance). At each turn, the client's emotional reaction and behavior are modeled before generating a response. If the therapist approaches gated content, PatientAct expresses resistance in terms of quantity, content, and style rather than defaulting to cooperation or a single resistance pattern. We evaluate our framework on 40 clinical situations and demonstrate that it generates diverse profiles with high clinical plausibility. Moreover, PatientAct significantly outperforms the baselines, yielding substantial gains in resistance quality and behavioral realism. Our code and data will be publicly available via github.com/Sahandfer/PatientHub.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulators often reproduce observable actions but fail to capture the underlying reasoning behind them. In education, where student simulation is increasingly used for various applications such as evaluating tutoring systems, this gap is especially pronounced. Two students may submit identical submissions for entirely different reasons. We present INTERNAL STUDENT DIALOGUE (INSIDE), a student modeling framework that fine-tunes LLMs not only to act like students but also to think like them. INSIDE generates internal dialogue grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy across cognitive, affective, and action dimensions, and fine-tunes models on paired think traces and actions. We baseline against different prompting frameworks and evaluate on two axes: fidelity of simulated actions and quality of generated internal dialogue. Our evaluations show that INSIDE improves simulation fidelity in both action fidelity, matching code generation of real students, and reasoning alignment, achieving the highest alignment across models up to 57.9%.

Online credit card discussions provide a natural setting for studying how consumers communicate about financial products. Simulating these discussions requires more than just generating individual comments, the generated threads should also match how real users express themselves and interact with others. We introduce CARD, a framework for generating realistic credit card discussion threads. Given a credit card post and its matched real thread, CARD uses non-verbatim guidance on reply structure, comment function, stance, tone, and conversational variation. A planner organizes these controls, a writer generates the discussion, and a calibration loop updates comments' populations that contribute to differences between the generated and real thread distributions. We evaluate CARD on real Reddit credit card discussions using lexical, semantic, behavioral, and structural metrics. CARD matches the distributions of real credit card discussions better than simulation baselines across multiple LLMs and also demonstrates smaller effect sizes and distribution distances across metrics. These results show that structured planning and targeted revision can generate the realism of simulated credit card discussions.

User simulators are widely used as scalable environments for training and evaluating interactive assistants. Generating the next user turn is inherently one-to-many: the same profile and dialogue context may support multiple plausible continuations with different local interaction intents. A fluent response may therefore advance the dialogue through an inappropriate intent, such as acceptance rather than repair. Our key insight is that controllable user simulation should separate which local interaction intent the next user turn should realize from how that intent is expressed in language. We introduce UserIDA (User Intent-Directive Alignment), which exposes interaction intent as an explicit per-turn directive. UserIDA defines a six-way intent interface, learns directive-conditioned generation through supervised fine-tuning, and uses intent-calibrated policy optimization during group-based reinforcement learning. The reward preserves composite response quality while ensuring that intent-violating candidates rank below compliant alternatives in mixed groups. On LMSYS-USP, UserIDA achieves 86.6% intent accuracy, outperforming the strongest dedicated user-simulator baseline by 24.3 percentage points while improving semantic and stylistic similarity. In within-context interventions, it realizes at least four of the six target intents in 91.7% of evaluated dialogue states, compared with 22.9% for the strongest external baseline. These results establish per-turn intent control as a complementary dimension to response fidelity in user simulation.

Predicting how a population will answer a new question is a long-standing goal. Statistical methods succeed at the level of the mass but falter at the level of the individual. Large language model simulators inherit this gap. They recover a population's central tendencies while flattening its heterogeneity, and they carry social biases and prompt brittleness that distort individual predictions. This paper introduces Anacreon, an audience simulation model that targets the individual level within a narrow, well-specified domain. Anacreon learns an authorship embedding that separates individuals, clusters a real qualitative corpus around seed people, and trains a dedicated adapter for each cluster, a mixture of minds, on a Gemma~4 12B base. It harvests demographics, psychological traits, and survey responses from public text, and augments each record with a chain-of-emotion. It reduces prompt brittleness by shuffling response options and reduces positive bias by balancing the training distribution. On a large, externally sourced survey, Anacreon reaches a state-of-the-art ordinal alignment of 0.775, the individual-level accuracy measure on which the field has converged, with a small residual bias. The work is a step toward drawing aggregate insight from faithfully simulated individuals.

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human opinions, but prior work reports conflicting results: some studies find promising alignment with human survey data, while others find persona collapse and weak demographic sensitivity. We propose that much of this conflict stems from conflating two distinct tasks. We call the first task emulation, in which models generate individual responses that aggregate into a population distribution. We call the second task estimation, in which models directly predict the population distribution. Evaluating six matched base and post-trained models on the Pew American Trends Panel, we find that base models are the stronger emulators: they produce response distributions closer to human ground truth and better preserve demographic structure. Post-trained models are generally the stronger estimators, producing more accurate distributional predictions when asked directly. We argue that model selection for human simulation should be guided by whether the task requires generating text or predicting distributions.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as proxies for human study participants in social science experiments, yet the fidelity of this practice has rarely been tested directly. We test whether six LLMs can simulate individual human belief updates, comparing LLM outputs 1-to-1 against ground truth data from 391 UK participants on Prolific, who updated their stances on three discussion topics after reading Reddit comments. Each participant was simulated by an LLM conditioned on a persona derived from their demographic and personality trait data. We find that some LLMs (Qwen3-32B and GPT-5-Mini) can match the human post-stance distribution, but only when given participants' actual initial stances. All six models fail to simulate initial stances themselves and to produce faithful belief updates from self-generated stances. Three systematic biases emerge across all models: overrepresentation of neutral positions, more frequent but smaller belief shifts than humans, and a failure to rank comments by convincingness. Demographic and personality trait personas had no consistent effect on fidelity. LLM simulations of human belief dynamics are only reliable when grounded in realistic starting conditions, that current multi-round social media simulations rarely provide.

Role-playing agents (RPAs) have become one of the most important consumer applications of large language models. Users engage in multi-turn conversations with RPAs for experiences such as emotional comfort, making reliable evaluation essential for measuring capability, comparing systems, and guiding further improvement. Existing benchmarks, however, typically require an RPA to continue a fixed dialogue history and then evaluate the continuation using a fixed rubric detached from the user. We identify and empirically demonstrate two limitations of this design. First, an RPA's output is shaped by the preceding dialogue history, preventing a scientifically grounded assessment of its role-playing ability in real multi-turn settings. Second, user experience varies substantially across individuals, and conventional fixed rubrics need not align with user satisfaction. We therefore introduce PALATE (Person-Aligned LLM-Simulated-User Assessment with Tailored Evaluation), a scalable RPA benchmark built on user simulators. PALATE is accompanied by a pool of 300 character profiles. Its main evaluation trains five per-user simulators and lets them engage candidate RPAs in free-form, multi-turn conversations over a pre-frozen panel of character profiles. Alongside a general quality rubric, we construct personalized rubrics to measure user satisfaction; on held-out annotated data, the personalized rubrics show higher agreement with human judgments than the general rubric. In the main evaluation of 16 candidates, PALATE separately characterizes generic turn quality, long-horizon session capability, and per-user experience on multi-turn trajectories co-constructed by each candidate. It thereby produces interpretable evaluations of specific user-RPA pairs rather than compressing systems into a single user-independent ranking.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

Large language models are increasingly used as social simulators, including as synthetic survey respondents. Most evaluations ask whether simulated outcomes resemble human outcomes. We argue that this is necessary but too weak: a simulator can match the final answer while using the wrong rationale-derived reason pattern. We study this problem through a 94-person sunscreen concept test in which each respondent evaluated three product concepts and wrote open-ended rationales. We map those rationales into signed reason states $Z$, where positive signs support adoption and negative signs block it. This gives a practical audit: holding respondent descriptors $D$, category context $K$, and concept treatment $X$ fixed, do human rationale-derived reasons help predict behavior $Y$, and can an LLM simulate the same reason state without seeing the human rationale or outcome? Human rationale-derived reasons substantially improve held-out prediction of purchase intent. LLM-simulated reasons are more brittle: they often sound plausible, but frequently echo the concept board rather than recover the respondent's acceptance or rejection path. The paper contributes an evaluation framework for social simulators. Reason states do not identify natural causal effects by themselves, but they provide an interpretable test of whether a simulator's stated reasons align with human evidence.

Recent studies use Large language models (LLMs) to simulate human opinions and decisions by prompting models with demographic, attitudinal, or persona-based descriptions. Yet such simulations rarely model the practical, cognitive, or social frictions that shape how people respond to policy interventions. Perceived transaction cost (PTC) provides a useful lens for modeling the practical frictions that shape policy responses, such as information burden, administrative effort, coordination demands, and perceived uncertainty. We use this lens to develop a friction-aware persona modeling approach for LLM-based simulation. In the context of energy-efficient renovation (EER), tenants are represented not only by who they are demographically, but by how they perceive the costs, benefits, barriers, and uncertainties associated with proposed renovation plans. Using survey data collected from 1,068 citizens in the Netherlands, comprising approximately 40,548 survey question and answer pairs, we compare prompt-only and fine-tuned settings across GPT-3.5-turbo, Ministral-8B-Instruct, and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and evaluate supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) for local open-weight models. Results show that incorporating PTC-based personas and reasoning consistently improves model performance across both prompt-only and fine-tuned settings, suggesting that PTC-based persona design provides a useful bridge between institutional policy theory and interpretable LLM-based policy simulation. Code is available at https://github.com/xiaweijie1996/socialagent.

Smartphone personal assistants reason over longitudinal personal data, yet evaluating them requires context-rich evaluation data whose correct answers are known, and real device traces are too privacy-sensitive to share. To address this challenge, we present SenWorld, a physically grounded, deterministic, event-sourced digital-twin simulation that generates such data with ground truth fixed by construction. In SenWorld, personas live through a full day in a world built from real map, weather, holiday, and network data; every observable signal is archived in full-system snapshots; and each evaluation case is labeled by a pointer to an existing record rather than by post-hoc annotation or a large language model (LLM) judge. We evaluate this method with 16 personas in Beijing. The generated data closely matches the held-out real-user benchmark in category distribution (Jensen--Shannon divergence (JSD) 0.070) and in the daily rhythm of communication records (JSD below 0.1), though generated records remain shorter than real ones. Without scripted interaction, personas form a fully reciprocated dialogue subgraph and differentiated behavioral repertoires. Projected into 717 evaluation cases, the generated data exposes 78 failures in a production smartphone assistant, concentrating on call and Short Message Service (SMS) records while contacts, schedules, and alarms never fail. The snapshot pointer confirms each failure as an assistant-side retrieval error, with no LLM judge involved. Overall, SenWorld offers a privacy-safe, reproducible, and distribution-checked path to evaluation data whose labels are fixed by construction.

Large language model (LLM) agents offer a generative approach to simulating human behavior under conditions that may have few or no direct historical analogues, a common challenge in disaster and infrastructure-disruption planning. However, this generative capacity creates a validity problem: individually plausible agent reasoning may fail to reproduce empirical population behavior. We evaluate whether empirical grounding improves the statistical realism of LLM-agent simulations during disruptions. Specifically, we develop an empirically grounded LLM-agent framework that embeds demographic profiles from the American Community Survey, baseline routines from the American Time Use Survey, and urban spatial context into agent initialization, memory, decision prompts, and activity execution. An independent household survey conducted during the July 2024 Philadelphia heatwave is reserved as an external validation benchmark. Compared with an ungrounded LLM-agent baseline, the grounded model improved reconstruction of normal daily routines, increasing mean correlation with empirical activity profiles from 0.528 to 0.912 and reducing mean squared error from 0.066 to 0.008. Under heatwave conditions, the grounded model better reproduced survey-derived activity profiles, increasing mean correlation from 0.349 to 0.836 and reducing mean squared error from 0.098 to 0.012. The grounded model captured 46.4% of observed heatwave response amplitude, compared with 20.6% for the ungrounded baseline. These findings show that empirical grounding can make LLM agents more statistically credible simulators of population behavior while revealing remaining gaps in modeling human adaptation during disruptions.

This paper introduces EvolvingWorld, a framework and benchmark for character and world co-evolution in interactive literary worlds. Existing systems either treat interactive literary simulation as static persona imitation or isolated scene generation, failing to capture how characters and worlds evolve together over time. To address this, EvolvingWorld models literary simulation as a long-horizon process where characters interact, scenes progress, and character and world states are persistently updated. Unlike prior systems relying on fixed schemas, EvolvingWorld adopts an open-schema framework to support simulation across diverse literary worlds. The framework consists of two coupled modules: a Character Agent for multi-character role-play and persistent profile evolution, and an LLM-based World Model for global and location/entity-level state maintenance and scene progression. Based on this architecture, we formulate 7 trainable tasks for scene initialization, interaction generation, and state update. We construct a dataset from 57 books, producing 138,596 supervised training samples and 222 snapshots for testing. Furthermore, we introduce a trajectory-level LLM-as-Judge evaluation protocol spanning 10 dimensions and 20 metrics. Experiments show that EvolvingWorld can improve long-horizon simulation by effectively maintaining persistent, coherent character and world development.

Training agents that generalize to unseen, stateful environments requires a massive dataset of state-changing trajectories covering a vast and diverse set of APIs. However, scaling this broad supervision is severely bottlenecked by the immense effort required to implement and populate fully-executable environments across a broad spectrum of domains. To bypass this barrier, we introduce a data generation pipeline that decouples data synthesis from environment construction by leveraging LLMs as digital world models. Starting from only a list of broad domain names, our automated pipeline synthesizes diverse APIs and tasks. To produce trajectories, a teacher agent iteratively solves these tasks while an LLM simulator dynamically tracks state and provides coherent API responses on-the-fly. Finally, an automated judge filters the trajectories for quality. Fine-tuning on our broad synthetic dataset yields significant performance gains on AppWorld and OfficeBench, two challenging stateful benchmarks featuring environments completely unseen during training. These results establish our LLM world model-based synthesis approach as a highly scalable path for training generalizable, stateful API-calling agents.

Decision support systems (DSS) increasingly run retention what-if analysis on synthetic customer populations, because privacy constraints preclude unrestricted use of real data. Such a system is trustworthy only if the synthetic data lead managers to the same decisions as the real data would; yet prevailing criteria certify distributional similarity, not decision alignment, so a synthetic population can match every marginal distribution while still steering a marketing team toward the wrong campaigns. We close this decision-alignment gap with three contributions: strategy simulation fidelity (SSF), a criterion measuring how often the synthetic population yields the same go/no-go campaign decision as the real population; PolicySynth, a DSS framework whose generator is conditioned on the production churn scorer to align decision-relevant structure; and a three-axis reporting standard of decision alignment, membership-inference resistance, and novel-record rate as the minimum deployment quality gate. On a telecommunications churn corpus and a banking acquisition corpus, PolicySynth attains a mean SSF of 0.923 and 0.960, with seed-to-seed variance roughly ten times tighter than CTGAN on telecommunications and 2.5 times on banking. This stability is the deployable property: go/no-go recommendations shift by at most 1.2 percentage points between monthly retraining cycles, against 11.5 for CTGAN, a reversed recommendation on one campaign in nine. A bootstrap baseline matches PolicySynth on SSF yet copies real records verbatim and fails membership inference, evidence that no single axis suffices. PolicySynth reliably supports directional go/no-go screening; its ROI estimates diverge from real outcomes by 70 to 78% and require the volume correction we document.

We present Anamnesis, an interactive system for demographically controllable survey simulation using large language models. Open-source and designed for non-technical users/researchers, Anamnesis enables the prototyping and stress-testing of survey instruments on virtual populations rather than real human subjects. The platform operationalizes the recently introduced Anthology and Alterity frameworks, which use structured narrative backstories to condition model responses, within a unified web interface. It supports open-ended generation, probabilistic demographic resampling, and multimodal (image and audio) surveys. We evaluate the system through two case studies: (1) replicating segments of Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel (ATP) on political typology and biomedical issues and (2) emulating human preference in the New Yorker Caption Contest. In both cases, Anamnesis produces opinion distributions that more closely match real-world survey data than standard persona-prompting baselines, offering a transparent, reproducible, and open-source alternative to proprietary simulation services.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) as multi-turn conversational partners requires probing capabilities that single-turn benchmarks miss: persona consistency, evolving intent tracking, emotional dynamics, and goal completion. We introduce EYT-Bench, a human-centered benchmark built around a three-party decoupled design: a persona-grounded user simulator, a target model that separates intent perception from response generation, and an independent third-party LLM judge with optional multi-judge ensembling. Personas are sampled from public human-curated corpora, Nemotron-Personas-USA and PersonaMem-v2, rather than synthesized, reducing LLM-induced persona bias. EYT-Bench also introduces two trajectory-level metrics: embedding-based intent drift and final-intent completion rate (FICR), inspired by tau-bench. In a 17-target x 200-dialogue evaluation, EYT-Bench reveals four findings: (i) state-of-the-art closed- and open-source models are statistically close on subjective dimensions (empathy / persona / anthropomorphism vary within <= 0.3), but differ by up to 9x on objective intent tracking; (ii) reasoning ("thinking on") sharply improves objective tracking on long-context personas (+0.47-0.50 latent-intent accuracy on Gemma-4) while leaving subjective scores nearly unchanged; (iii) persona format dominates trajectory spread, with FICR saturating above 0.95 on Nemotron-USA but spreading from 0.53 to 0.88 on PersonaMem-v2; and (iv) the warm-up effect is robust on 16/17 models (one outlier, GPT-5.5, reverses the effect), with stable rankings across alpha in [0.05, 0.15]. A cross-judge ablation using deepseek-v4-pro confirms that target rankings and final-intent satisfaction are preserved across judges.

Preparing for job interviews is important for securing desired positions, yet realistic practice remains difficult to access: real interviews are infrequent, expert mock coaching is costly, and self-practice offers neither adaptive dialogue nor structured assessment. Existing systems typically address only parts of this need through fixed question sequences, limited communication channels, or feedback with little supporting evidence. We present PolyInterview, an LLM-based platform for immersive mock interview practice with comprehensive multimodal assessment. PolyInterview uses the target job description and CV to generate questions tailored to the role and candidate, conducts multi-turn spoken interviews with a lip-synced digital human interviewer that asks answer-aware follow-up questions, and evaluates response content, vocal delivery, and non-verbal behavior. Four parallel evaluators produce 13 behavior-level features that are aggregated into 10 assessment aspects and two competency tracks. Guided by the KSA and STAR frameworks, the report links each score to behavioral evidence and actionable recommendations. PolyInterview is publicly accessible. Its current all-account snapshot contains 101 accounts, 1,564 interview sessions, 7,665 generated questions, and 1,422 five-stage question sets. Generated questions are more closely aligned with their matched job description than with cross-role job descriptions in 93.7% of sessions. An evaluation by ten experts found strong question plans and actionable feedback.

LLM-agent simulations make natural-language social scenarios easy to instantiate, but their outputs can be overread as predictions and are often difficult to compare with explicit social dynamics. We present AgoraSim, a hybrid agent-based modeling framework for scenario-oriented social reaction analysis. AgoraSim resolves textual or multimodal artifacts into editable ABM configurations, runs ratio-controlled populations that mix LLM, vision-language, custom-endpoint, random, and classical agents, and compares the same scenario against matched classical reference dynamics. All agents emit a shared structured decision object, enabling common action spaces, interaction protocols, metrics, and audit records. Exposed through a local UI, Python SDK/CLI, and REST API, AgoraSim helps users inspect scenario trajectories, compare modeling assumptions, and identify cases that warrant empirical validation.

Modern data-driven marketing relies on large amounts of consumer data, yet collecting such data can be costly, time-consuming, and difficult to scale. This research examines whether large language models (LLMs) can be used to generate synthetic consumer data for projective techniques, a set of methods designed to elicit consumer associations, emotions, wants, and needs. We test LLM-generated responses across multiple projective tasks, LLMs, prompting strategies, and temperature settings, and compare them with human responses from a primary research study on perceptions of city tourism destinations. Human and LLM responses were analyzed using linguistic measures, diversity and concentration metrics, topic models, and top-term analyses. The results show substantial overlap between human and LLM responses in broad topics and associations, but also important differences in style, linguistic structure, and the way diversity is generated. Recommendations are given on how to best utilize LLMs for generating synthetic consumer data, how model and prompt choices shape response quality, and on recognizing the limitations of LLM synthetic consumer data generation.

The rapid integration of large language model-based agents into recommender systems has driven a shift from static, ranking-based pipelines toward autonomous and interactive systems that can reason, plan, and act. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of this emerging landscape by introducing a unified taxonomy grounded in the level of autonomy and three core paradigms of agentic recommender systems: agent-assisted recommendation, agent-as-recommender, and agent-as-user-simulator. The autonomy framework organizes existing methods along increasing capabilities in proactivity, context awareness, interaction flexibility, and adaptivity. Building on this framework, the survey analyzes how each paradigm adopts different agentic architectures and how agents enhance key components such as profiles, memory, tool use, workflows, and optimization mechanisms. We further examine evaluation methodologies for agentic recommendation, covering automated metrics, LLM-based judging, and simulation-based assessment, and discuss their limitations in capturing reasoning quality, user experience, and system behavior. Beyond existing evaluation protocols, we further discuss unresolved issues in evaluating agentic recommender systems, including trajectory-level assessment, agent contribution analysis, and calibration of user simulation. Lastly, the survey outlines open challenges in lifelong user modeling, contextual abstraction, multimodal alignment, controllability, trustworthiness, privacy, scalability, and efficiency. Together, these analyses establish a unified foundation for understanding the current progress of agentic recommender systems and highlight promising opportunities for developing more autonomous, reliable, and human-aligned recommendation agents.

Large Language Model (LLM) social simulations are a promising research method, but they are not yet faithful enough to be adopted widely. In this work, we investigate whether the current scaling paradigm in language modeling is likely to close these gaps, or whether simulation fidelity is orthogonal to general capabilities and therefore deserving of more research attention. We use scaling laws to study the relationship between LLMs' compute scale, general capability benchmarks, and the fidelity of social simulation in three representative sub-domains: opinion modeling, behavioral simulation, and longitudinal forecasting. Surprisingly, we discover strong compute scaling in all three settings, using a suite of 85 transformer LLMs with the Qwen3 architecture pre-trained on the DCLM web text corpus under fixed-compute budgets from $10^{18}$ to $10^{20}$ FLOPs. Then we evaluate 35 larger and more capable open-weight models up to 70B parameters, allowing us to predict downstream accuracy from loss. This reveals that the majority of behavioral and opinion simulation tasks will rapidly improve with scale, particularly when they involve populations that are well-represented in English web corpora. Longitudinal forecasting and underrepresented opinions scale more slowly, especially when they are less correlated with general knowledge and reasoning benchmarks like MMLU. In behavior simulation, scaling fails to improve model calibration with human cognitive biases like risk aversion, as well as human heuristics like learning correlated rewards from related tasks. On these tasks, even fine-tuned models fail to noticeably scale up performance from 0.5B to 8B parameters. Taken together, we conclude that scale will improve social simulations in most settings, but outliers exist, and improvements will be less reliable in low-resource domains.

Generative Synthetic Populations (GSP) -- the convergence of population synthesis, agent-based modelling, and LLM agents -- are attracting growing interest for urban simulation and institutional communication research. Before any GSP instrument is used on a real population, a more basic question must be answered: does it respond to stimuli of known valence in an ordered, replicable, group-structured way? We call this controllability. We ask not whether a synthetic population tracks humans, but whether it tracks itself: whether the latent structure we impose on it is recovered in its own responses. This internal-validity question is logically prior to any claim about external validity, just as characterising an instrument's response function must precede using it to test a theory. We report SIVE (Synthetic Instrument Validation Experiment): a fictional municipality (Montelago) with 120 synthetic personas of known latent structure, exposed to seven conditions spanning strongly positive to strongly negative institutional communications about a water network. Seven pre-registered criteria, evaluated across a temperature sweep, jointly assess fidelity, stability, noise floor, specificity, sensitivity, and ordering. All seven pass at every temperature. A central finding turns a calibration failure into a diagnostic success: a message designed as "weakly positive" was identified by the instrument as functionally negative, traced to unresolved problems, uncertainty, and institutional passivity in its text; a redesigned version restored the expected ordering and interacts with agents' latent trust in unanticipated ways. A noise sub-experiment shows the instrument's intrinsic noise is roughly half the cross-agent estimate and stable across temperatures. Individual trajectories reveal coherent micro-dynamics that summary statistics obscure. Full data are available via an interactive explorer.

Consumer confidence is typically modeled as a persistent macroeconomic index, yet its movements arise from households that interpret economic information through heterogeneous constraints, exposures, prior beliefs, and attention. We introduce ConsumerSim, a generative Human--Environment response framework that reconstructs Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) dynamics from a microdata-calibrated synthetic population, time-stamped macroeconomic, financial, policy, and news signals, survey-like response generation, post-stratified belief expansion, and behavioral inertia alignment. Across U.S., EU27, and Japanese official CCI target series, ConsumerSim ranks first among persistence, time-series, regression, and information-augmented baselines on the reported reconstruction metrics, with clear gains around high-salience shocks. Its reconstructed signal also improves short-horizon prediction of real activity, most consistently for housing outcomes. Mechanism analyses show that CCI movements concentrate around salient events; subgroup trajectories often align in direction while differing in magnitude; and signal sensitivity varies across income, homeownership, education, and political-alignment groups. Population-expansion and ablation results indicate that representative aggregation, situational signals, persona heterogeneity, and inertia are necessary for both accuracy and diagnosis. The findings support a behavioral view of consumer confidence as an interpretable Human--Environment response process rather than a purely aggregate time series.

AI companions powered by large language models increasingly interact with cognition-developing users, including children and adolescents, creating risks that may accumulate over time. Existing safety evaluations largely rely on single-turn or short-session tests, which cannot capture risks that emerge only through prolonged interaction. To address this gap, we propose TSJ (Theater-Stage-Judge), a longitudinal framework combining persona-driven user simulation, dynamic psychological-state updating and retrospective evaluation. We evaluate six mainstream models across four developmental stages, twenty-four risk dimensions and three psychological-vulnerability personas, covering 12,960 simulated person-day interactions. TSJ shows that short-horizon testing systematically underestimates developmental risks, for which TSJ yields a stable risk estimate only after 140 turns within prolonged simulated relationships. Applying TSJ further identifies early childhood and emerging adulthood as the most vulnerable stages, with cognitive trust and emotional dependency as the weakest domains. TSJ provides a scalable methodology for longitudinal cognitive developmental risk evaluation in AI companion systems.

Epidemiological models often rely on survey data to represent how individuals make health-related decisions, such as whether to vaccinate or adopt protective behaviors. However, repeated large-scale surveys are costly, time-consuming, and limited in the range of scenarios they can capture. In this work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate synthetic survey responses that reproduce patterns observed in real populations. Using longitudinal data from the FluPaths surveys, we first identify groups associated with broadly positive or negative attitudes toward vaccination through clustering analysis. We then evaluate several LLMs using a cluster-informed prompting approach to generate synthetic survey responses across multiple epidemic waves. Across models, the synthetic data generally reproduce the distributions of demographic characteristics, vaccination-related beliefs, risk perceptions, and health behaviors observed in the survey data. However, they are less successful at capturing how these factors vary together within respondents. Some models reproduce group-level vaccination trends more reliably than others, although performance varies across waves. We also trained a classifier to distinguish real from synthetic records and found that the generated responses remained identifiable as synthetic. Overall, our findings suggest that LLM-generated survey data may provide a useful tool for exploratory data augmentation and we hope that it could support agent-based epidemic modeling approaches. However, the generated data should not be treated as a substitute for human survey data without further methodological improvements and validation.

Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more. Existing approaches generally do so by training a large language model (LLM) to match a single ground truth response, either by maximizing the log probability or by using a similarity reward. We instead propose Turing-RL: a Turing-Test-based reinforcement learning approach for training user simulator models. Turing-RL uses a discriminative Turing reward with an LLM judge to score how indistinguishable a generated response is from the real user's given the user's history, and the user simulator LLM learns to produce responses indistinguishable from what the user could have said with such rewards. Across two different domains--conversational chat and Reddit forum discussion--we find that Turing-RL consistently outperforms baseline methods on both LLM and human evaluation metrics. Our study suggests that optimizing for indistinguishability, rather than response matching, is effective for learning user simulators.

Civil litigation is inherently a life-cycle process: what a lawyer drafts on day one constrains what unfolds at trial months later. Yet existing legal benchmarks evaluate isolated subtasks, and prior legal-agent simulators reinitialize each scenario from shared ground truth, leaving cross-stage causal dependencies unmodeled. We present LegalWorld, a life-cycle interactive environment that models Chinese civil litigation as a causally connected state chain of five stages (seven sub-scenarios), grounded in 75,309 paired Chinese civil judgments. We pair it with reusable infrastructure (local memory, global case memory, a Skill/Tool library) that keeps each dispute consistent across its full life cycle. Building on this environment, we construct LongJud-Bench to evaluate agent capability across all five connected stages. 18,992 ratings from 217 legal-background evaluators confirm that LegalWorld trajectories are procedurally faithful and role-consistent; and a capability-level cross-model evaluation reveals sharp divergences that aggregate scores cannot expose, with no single backbone leading across consultation, drafting, and courtroom advocacy. Detailed resources will be released publicly.

People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's $α$-$β$ model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.

LLM-as-user-simulation has become core infrastructure for conversational AI: agent benchmarks (tau-bench), training pipelines, and a growing body of fidelity studies all rely on LLMs role-playing the human side of dialogue. Existing frameworks measure communicative fidelity -- whether simulators talk like humans -- against ground truth from paid participants role-playing assigned goals. We argue this has a structural blind spot: when the goal is assigned, the user's willingness is exogenous, so no framework can test whether simulators make decisions like real users whose motivation is endogenous, latent, and decaying. We introduce decision fidelity -- whether a simulated population reproduces the decision-state dynamics of real users facing real, consequential choices -- and measure it on a unique testbed: 2,790 production conversations between an LLM sales agent and real customers, including 793 with verified payment outcomes. Using a teacher-forced probe protocol that holds context and instrument fixed, we find a systematic, outcome-correlated failure we call the disengagement deficit: simulators reproduce eventual buyers almost exactly (depth bias +0.09) but inflate eventual non-buyers toward the purchase frame (depth bias +0.40; d=0.38, p<0.001), halving expressed resistance (25.1% to 13.5%) and nearly doubling deliberation (21.9% to 40.1%) while fabricating no purchases. The deficit replicates across model families (DeepSeek: d=0.41, p=0.002) and resists the obvious fix: instructing the simulator that it may disengage cuts marginal bias five-fold but barely moves the outcome-conditioned contrast (d=0.34, p=0.008). Real non-buyers say "not now" and stop; simulated non-buyers ask about price. Evaluating or training sales and persuasion agents against such simulators overstates funnel progress exactly where it matters most -- the customers who walk away.

We develop an LLM-powered virtual population model that simulates demand for pricing decisions, in settings where products are described by rich unstructured information, such as text descriptions and images, and where decision makers need not only mean-demand predictions but also uncertainty estimates for counterfactual prices. Our model represents exposed customers as draws from a finite mixture of customer personas. For each persona, product, and candidate price, an LLM elicits a persona-level purchase probability using both structured persona information and unstructured product information. These probabilities are aggregated through calibrated mixture weights to form a predictive distribution of aggregate demand. The resulting simulator can evaluate counterfactual prices under various pricing objectives, including expected revenue and risk-aware criteria such as conditional value at risk. We test the framework on an online H&M fashion dataset with product descriptions and images. The calibrated LLM-based simulator achieves the best overall predictive performance among the models considered, and supports sample-efficient pricing decisions. Our framework provides a practical way to use LLMs as demand simulators for products with limited historical demand data but rich product information. By producing a full predictive demand distribution rather than only a point forecast, it enables managers to compare candidate prices, quantify demand uncertainty, and choose prices that target either average-case revenue or risk-aware objectives.

Emotional intelligence (EI) in Large Language Models (LLMs) is often evaluated through static understanding tasks or single-response dialogue generation. However, emotion management is interactive: a good model should not only recognize a user's emotion, but also improve the user's emotional and relational state over several turns. We introduce EIBench, a simulator-based benchmark for interactive emotion management. EIBench contains 2,222 scenarios, with 2,009 for training and 213 for held-out testing. The scenarios are organized by a 2x2 taxonomy covering Support, Defense, Repair, and Charm, which together capture different forms of support, boundary maintenance, trust repair, and rapport building. In each scenario, an LLM simulator plays the user, updates an emotion-relation state after each turn, and maps the final state to an anchor-based score. This design makes EIBench both an evaluation benchmark and a training environment: the final state gives the outcome reward, while the per-turn state updates provide dense feedback for RL. We evaluate 15 open- and closed-source LLMs. Current models perform well on support and rapport-building scenes, but struggle with boundary maintenance under user pressure. To improve the EI ability of LLMs, we propose Centered Turn-Credit GRPO (CTC-GRPO), a GRPO extension that reuses the simulator's per-turn state updates as dense turn-level feedback while preserving the final outcome reward. CTC-GRPO improves Qwen3-8B from -22.4 to +22.4 on EIBench and also improves on out-of-distribution evaluations including SAGE (+12.4) and EQBench3 (+20.9%). Our results show that simulator-tracked user states can support both evaluation and training for multi-turn emotion management.

Large-scale learner-task interaction data are crucial for intelligent educational systems but are costly to collect and constrained by privacy and learner engagement. Learner simulators play a critical role in simulating scalable learner behavior without the need for continuous involvement of real learners. However, existing methods are predominantly \textbf{individual-centric}, pairing a simulator with each learner to iteratively infer latent knowledge states from dense interaction histories, which is both data- and computation-intensive, and fragile in cold-start scenarios. We propose a \textbf{cohort-aware roll-call simulation paradigm} that first constructs cohort-level proficiency priors and refines individual learner states through a small number of targeted diagnostic queries. Based on this paradigm, we introduce \textbf{Edu-Theater}, an LLM-powered agent system that performs cohort-aware learner simulation via a teacher agent and retrospective roll-call probing over learner logs. Edu-Theater enables scalable future behavior simulation without the need for dense per-learner histories. Experiments on two real-world datasets demonstrate that Edu-Theater achieves higher simulation accuracy with significantly fewer LLM calls, producing synthetic data that enhances downstream applications such as adaptive testing.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as human simulators for interactive evaluation and social simulation. Yet helpfulness-driven post-training pulls them toward a homogeneous, overly agreeable assistant register, creating a behavioral Sim2Real gap. We present OdysSim, the largest open systematic investigation of behavioral foundation models, i.e., models trained to simulate human behavior at scale. We propose SOUL, a taxonomy of five capability axes (CONV, SS, COG, ROLE, EVAL) that unifies 62 datasets and 23 benchmark tasks under one framework. Specifically, we curate the OdysSim corpus (21.4M interactions, 10B tokens, retrofitted with back-generated social contexts), construct the SOUL-Index benchmark, and develop an end-to-end training recipe combining midtraining, task-specific RL, and expert distillation. The resulting open 8B OSim model ranks first or tied-first on 8 of 23 tasks, outperforming any individual frontier model by this count, with the strongest gains on conversational and social tasks. Its outputs are also more human-like in length, formatting, and word choice, and it transfers zero-shot to out-of-distribution user simulation on $τ$-bench, nearly matching real users on reaction alignment (93.2 vs. 93.5). We further show that LLM-as-judge RL induces reward-hacking patterns, and that our detectors can mitigate them during post-training. Together, our findings suggest that behavioral foundation models require rethinking the LLM training paradigm. We release all artifacts to support future research.

Understanding student errors in the programming is a cornerstone of programming education, yet obtaining a representative set of student errors for any newly designed task remains slow and costly, since authentic submissions only accumulate after extensive classroom deployment. This paper explores whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as scalable proxies for students by simulating realistic logical errors in code submissions. Using the CodeWorkout dataset of 74,000+ unique student Java submissions across 37 problems, we evaluate five LLMs under three mainstream prompting strategies: Input-Output (IO), Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and iterative Self-Refine. We assess performance along two key dimensions: diversity (the range of distinct error patterns) and alignment (alignment with authentic student mistakes), and examine how these vary by struggling level of programming tasks. Our quantitative findings reveal that while all models generate diverse errors, their alignment to human submissions diverges: Claude Sonnet 4 achieves the most balanced performance. In addition, we conducted a blinded expert annotation study (N = 401) comparing synthetic and authentic errors. This qualitative analysis confirms that the generated errors are functionally indistinguishable from authentic student errors. Moreover, higher-struggling-level problems elicit more diverse but less student-like errors. These results highlight trade-offs in using LLMs to simulate human learners and suggest design considerations for integrating synthetic errors into teachable agents, intelligent tutoring systems, and large-scale learning analytics.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shown strong potential for end-to-end autonomous driving by jointly modeling visual perception, language reasoning, explainability and action prediction. However, their large vision-language backbones and reasoning modules introduce substantial inference latency and thereby prevent their deployment in the unforgiving reality of the road networks. We propose RT-VLA, a lightweight, distilled VLA model that transfers the driving and reasoning capabilities of the state-of-the-art SimLingo model into a compact student through multi-level supervised distillation. RT-VLA preserves language-based reasoning and supports post-hoc explanation through offline language analysis of safety-critical driving moments without adding latency to real-time control. Compared to the SimLingo teacher, RT-VLA maintains competitive closed-loop driving and language reasoning performance while reducing inference time by 44.8X in vision-only mode and 7.9X in vision+language mode. These results suggest that supervised distillation is a practical approach for building real-time, explainable VLA-style autonomous driving models.