User Simulation

AI coding agents have rapidly transformed software engineering, powering widely used interactive coding assistants. Despite their interactive real-world use, existing benchmarks evaluate them as fully-autonomous systems. In this work, we introduce Dialogue SWE-Bench, an automatic benchmark dataset for evaluating the ability of coding agents to resolve real-world software engineering problems through dialogue with a user. We design a novel, persona-grounded user simulator to support our task evaluation, and augment our task evaluation with automatic evaluations of dialogue quality. We also propose a new schema-guided agent, aimed at improving the dialogue capabilities of off-the-shelf coding agents, which improves over strong baselines by 3-14%. Our results indicate that better coding models do not always correspond to better dialogue models, suggesting that dialogue capability is a distinct and currently understudied dimension of coding agent performance.

LLM-based generative agents are increasingly used in urban simulators, yet it remains unclear whether they reproduce empirically realistic human mobility patterns or merely generate plausible mobility narratives. We introduce a validation framework for evaluating the mobility of generative agents of LLM-based urban simulators against real-world mobility data. For this, we use mobility laws, temporal rhythms, network motifs, semantic activity transitions, and behavioral mobility profiles. Using datasets from the Greater Paris region and Shanghai, we evaluate AgentSociety and CitySim across multiple dimensions of mobility realism. Our analysis reveals a substantial gap between narrative plausibility and empirical mobility realism. Although the simulators capture some high-level semantic activity distributions, they struggle to reproduce core spatial and temporal constraints, including realistic trip-length distributions, origin-destination flows, dwell times, and transition dynamics. We further observe that realistic mobility diversity is unstable across default prompting configurations and may require explicit profile-aware initialization. To support reproducible evaluation, we also contribute scalable and open LLM-driven infrastructure for regional-scale map generation, observability-enhanced simulation, mobility-metric computation, and traffic simulation. Our findings highlight the need for rigorous empirical validation of LLM-based urban simulators and provide practical tools for building more realistic and reproducible urban simulation systems.

Evaluation remains a critical bottleneck for interactive agent development. Existing evaluation methods often rely on static benchmarks, which fail to capture the dynamic, multi-step nature of agentic behavior and struggle to expose meaningful failure modes. While user-simulation-based evaluation offers a promising alternative, existing simulation frameworks suffer from two major limitations. First, they provide limited mechanisms for evaluating the quality and comprehensiveness of simulated interactions, making it difficult to assess whether a simulator sufficiently explores an agent's capabilities and failure modes. Second, most frameworks are restricted to either UI-only actions or API-only actions, limiting their ability to model the full range of realistic user behaviors. To address these limitations, we propose VISTA, a Versatile Interactive user Simulation Toolkit for Agent evaluation. Our toolkit includes a suite of six metrics for measuring the realism, capability coverage, and interaction effectiveness of simulated interactions. In addition, we develop a hybrid user simulator that integrates both UI-based interactions and API-based interactions, enabling more realistic and comprehensive evaluation across diverse interactive environments. We evaluate VISTA in e-commerce shopping and education customer service settings and demonstrate that it produces more realistic and comprehensive evaluations than existing methods.

Open-pit mine scheduling is a critical process for maximizing economic return under complex geotechnical and operational constraints. While Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) provides mathematically optimal baselines, its exponential computational complexity and inability to adapt in real time limit its practical deployment in dynamic industrial environments. This work introduces a simulator-driven Large Language Model (LLM) scheduling framework in which the LLM acts as an autonomous decision-making agent, guided at each step by a custom simulator that encodes geotechnical precedence, extraction-processing coupling, and dynamic capacity constraints directly into the action generation mechanism. Operating entirely zero-shot within a closed, data-secure environment, the framework produces complete, interpretable extraction and processing schedules without cloud-based inference, domain-specific fine-tuning, or retraining. To provide a trustworthy performance benchmark, a novel MILP formulation is developed that incorporates realistic operational and geotechnical constraints. Evaluated across mining instances of varying scale and time periods, the LLM-based framework recovers between 94% and 99% of the MILP optimal NPV while scaling linearly in computation time. These results position simulator-constrained LLM agents as a practical and scalable alternative to classical optimization for long-horizon industrial scheduling under complex operational constraints.

Court simulation bridges legal education and judicial practice, yet human-based simulations are costly and difficult to scale. Large language models (LLMs) offer a scalable alternative, but existing court-simulation research mainly focuses on criminal cases. Civil litigation is more common in practice and harder to simulate because its claims, liability, and remedies are more flexible. We present a multi-agent court simulation framework for Chinese civil cases. The framework organizes role-based interaction through a five-stage civil trial procedure and integrates memory module and statute retrieval to support long-process adjudication. Experiments show that the framework produces reliable civil judgments, with clear strengths in liability allocation and multi-item adjudication. Further experiments show that memory quality substantially affects downstream simulation quality. Through a five-layer factor framework, we analyze how legal grounding, information conditions, judicial capability and role orientation, organizational pressure, and social context affect the framework's reliability and behavior. These results support the effectiveness of the proposed framework for civil court simulation. The dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/Civil-Court.

Deep Research agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited extraordinary potential in automated paper writing tasks. However, existing systems rely heavily on literature retrieval and synthesis through internet and local knowledge bases, often resulting research in lacking insight and creativity in social science. To address this issue, we propose "Memory-Augmented Social Simulation (MASS)", an innovative paradigm that leverages highly realistic and research-oriented social simulations to enhance the creativity and empirical founding of LLMs-generated research. Specifically, MASS integrates three core components: dynamic goal-path planning with multi-level social norm restraint to guide the simulation, a multi-disciplinary behavior dataset for agent memory cold-start, and a structured forgetting mechanism inspired by the Ebbinghaus curve. Together, these ensure simulation authenticity and provide a robust empirical foundation for generating innovative scholarly papers. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, showing a 6.81% improvement in generation overall quality over foundation LLMs and 17.19% gain in Insight over strong baselines.

Humans learn from social life. Simulating this process with LLM-powered agents represents a promising research direction, raising a natural question: whether LLMs can learn from such simulated social experience to better understand and replicate human behavior. However, prior agent society simulations typically operate at the scale of days, limiting the depth of social interactions and long-term growth. In this paper, we study long-term life simulation and LLM learning in agent societies, with two goals: (1) investigating social behaviors that emerge from life-long simulation, and (2) developing anthropomorphic capabilities in LLMs, particularly intelligence in social life, through years of simulated social experience. Specifically, we present Agentopia, a comprehensive framework for long-term life simulation in multi-agent societies, where 100 agents autonomously pursue personal growth, develop social relationships, and fulfill their needs and goals over 10 simulated years. We define life reward to mirror human well-being, and leverage this reward to train LLMs via rejection sampling. Extensive experiments show that agents exhibit rich emergent social behaviors. Furthermore, life reward training effectively enhances the underlying LLM, which leads to improved agent well-being in simulation, and generalizes to downstream role-playing benchmarks with +15.6% improvement.

We introduce UnpredictaBench, an evaluation that tests the ability of large language models (LLMs) to capture true underlying distributions. As LLMs are increasingly used as substitutes for other entities (e.g., for humans in economic simulations), the tendency of many models to collapse towards a single plausible answer means a failure to capture the unpredictability of real systems. Recent work on improving output diversity is insufficient for this setting: simulation requires samples that are calibrated to a target distribution, not merely varied outputs. UnpredictaBench isolates a simplified but fundamental version of this problem: sampling outcomes from individual target distributions, including canonical statistical distributions, distributions induced by stochastic programs, and natural-language scenarios that describe random processes. We introduce 448 such problems together with KS@N, a general-purpose evaluation metric that quantifies how well a model outputs approximate black-box target distributions via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test. This is the rate at which we fail to reject model samples of size N against ground-truth samples, with larger N indicating greater difficulty. Tested across open and proprietary models, we find a large spread in distributional capabilities. For instance, when models generate samples of size 100 (KS@100, our standard metric), scores range from near 0 to over 20%. No model is able to achieve over 40% at KS@100, showing significant headroom in distributional sampling as a capability. Although adding reasoning can somewhat increase scores, we find no immediate solution for this issue. UnpredictaBench shows that even simple distributional simulation remains challenging, making it a necessary first step toward using LLMs as stand-ins for complex systems. Project website and resources are available at https://unpredictabenchmark.github.io/.

While LLM-based agents excel at individual tasks, effective collaboration with realistic human partners remains challenging. Most of the existing conversation-level collaborative studies lack grounded interaction and behavioral execution, motivating the need for cooperative game environments that enable contextualized and immersive collaboration. To this end, this paper proposes CollabBench, a benchmark for evaluating and training collaborative agents in cooperative games. CollabBench features a Diverse Player Profile Simulation pipeline to model varied players behaviors, and a Collaborative Agentic Training paradigm that unifies reasoning, communication, and action via agentic rollouts, optimized with a hybrid reward balancing task efficiency and affective adaptation. We further extend classic environments to CWAH-MultiPlayer and Cook-MultiPlayer for systematic evaluation under diverse personalities. Experiments with efficiency and affective metrics show that our trained models outperform base models, achieving 19.5% higher efficiency and 24.4% improved affective performance. Further analysis reveals key collaborative limitations of existing models and offers insights for future collaborative training.

LLM-based digital twins promise to scale and accelerate market research, but most published twins are either coarse persona bots conditioned on a few demographic questions or detailed individual-level twins built on purpose-collected surveys and interview transcripts. Neither setup speaks to the operationally most relevant case for marketing practice: building detailed individual twins from the pre-existing heterogeneous panel data that firms already accumulate through CRM systems, loyalty programs, and repeat surveys. We construct detailed individual-level twins from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and evaluate them across a $3 \times 5 \times 2 \times 2$ construction-method grid that covers three open-weights LLMs, five cumulative information depths ranked by normalized Shannon entropy, two embedding methods, and two reasoning modes, scoring over 2.1 million twin responses on 500 participants and 183 held-out questions. Twin quality rises with information depth but with diminishing returns past the 75 percent entropy quartile, which acts as a cost-efficient Pareto point relative to the best-performing 100 percent cells. Switching the embedding from a narrative persona summary to a raw dialog history of past responses raises hold-out accuracy in every model-by-reasoning cell at the 100 percent depth, while an explicit thinking mode raises rank-order correlation without moving accuracy. Best-cell accuracy reaches 78.8 percent and Fisher-$z$ correlation reaches $r = 0.590$ on the SOEP held-out evaluation set. The findings suggest that twin-based market research is no longer gated by data design, but by item volume, model selection, and a small set of construction-level decisions that this paper now maps.

LLM-based multi-agent simulation offers a promising way to study social interaction, deliberation, and collective opinion dynamics. However, many existing dialogue simulation frameworks represent interaction mainly as observable turn exchange or aggregated outputs, leaving the internal evaluative processes behind silence, speaking intention, and public expression difficult to examine. We introduce TBS (Think-Before-Speak), an interval-based multi-agent simulation framework that separates agents' private reasoning from public utterance generation. At each interval, all agents update structured internal states based on the shared dialogue history and their own memory. These states include dissonance-related appraisal, perceived opinion climate, perceived isolation risk, response strategy, and willingness to speak. The orchestrator then resolves competing speaking intentions and commits one utterance to the public dialogue, allowing internal evaluation and public interaction to co-evolve over time. We evaluate TBS in simulated town hall discussions on a climate-related policy issue. Results show that TBS produces coherent internal-state traces and that these traces vary systematically across turn-allocation, silence, and memory conditions. Dissonance-related appraisal increases agents' willingness to speak, whereas silence-pressure appraisal decreases it. Once speaking intention is formed, public expression is shaped mainly by turn-allocation rules. These findings suggest that TBS supports mechanism-sensitive social simulation by making the pathway from internal evaluation to public expression observable and analyzable.

Many decision-support settings require systems that adapt to individual users, but evaluation data for this problem remain limited. Existing benchmarks for user understanding often rely on simulated users or model-generated behavior, even though recent work cautions that model-based simulations can diverge systematically from human behavior. We introduce \textsc{BehaviorBench}, a benchmark for evaluating personalized decision modeling from real-world behavioral traces. \textsc{BehaviorBench} reconstructs wallet-level decision histories from observed public prediction-market and on-chain records, and organizes them into two complementary task layers: \emph{Belief prediction}, which predicts a user's final revealed stance and confidence in a market, and \emph{Trade prediction}, which predicts the direction and amount of individual transactions. Across 2,000 evaluation wallets, the benchmark contains 141,445 Belief instances and 1,485,972 Trade instances, with disjoint support pools for retrieval-based evaluation. We evaluate frontier and open-weight generative models under four history interfaces: no personalization, direct recent history, generated user profiles, and retrieved support-wallet evidence. Personalization improves Belief prediction more consistently than Trade prediction, model rankings change across task layers and metrics, and different history interfaces expose different failure modes. \textsc{BehaviorBench} provides an evaluation setting for studying whether personalized methods can use real-world behavioral evidence rather than simulated users alone.

Evaluating LLM agents in realistic service scenarios requires complex task dependencies, imperfect user behavior, and an evaluation that accommodates multiple valid solutions. We introduce CRAB-Bench (Constraint-based Realistic Agent Benchmark) and RUSE (Realistic User Simulation Engine) to address this gap. CRAB-Bench generates tasks via a constraint graph over multiple interdependent entities with structured distractors, requiring agents to reason carefully over thousands of misleading candidates where only a tiny fraction of solutions are valid. RUSE replaces cooperative, template-like simulators with realistic users grounded in human behavioral studies, instantiated across diverse personas and four behavioral dimensions. Experiments on four frontier LLM agents show that the best model achieves only 61% pass@1 on CRAB-Bench, and switching to RUSE causes further drops of up to 57%, concentrated in task-solving ability rather than conversational quality. Information Disclosure is the most damaging behavioral dimension, and agents interacting with RUSE are less likely to admit mistakes, instead masking errors through implicit corrections.

LLMs are increasingly deployed to simulate social interactions, yet many of the existing simulators remain ad hoc and monolithic. This lack of architectural standardization prevents reproducible research and complicates downstream evaluation. We advance a rigorous science of LLM-based multi-agent simulation by modularizing core components into Environments, Agents, Simulation engines, and Evaluation metrics (EASE). We demonstrate the utility of EASE configuration by wrapping it in an experimental study schema for orchestrating workflows centered around answering explicit research questions in generated scenarios. We contribute SiliSocS, an open-source, research-ready Silicon Society Sandbox implementing a study-structured EASE configuration to enable highly configurable and reproducible LLM-based social simulations. Using SiliSocS and EASE, we present three case studies, showcasing the system's comprehensive assessment of existing questions, ability to dive deeper into complex questions, and elaboration of existing studies, respectively. Together, these case studies highlight the limitations of current modeling approaches and isolate the impacts of design choices on key results.

A key part of developing large language model (LLM)-powered, automated tutoring tools is student simulation, i.e., using LLMs to role-play as students, which can facilitate tutor model evaluation and training. Existing work mostly focuses on within-dialogue simulation, which lacks context on student knowledge and behavior, partly due to not grounding in past student question-answering or dialogue interactions. In this work, we introduce the task of history-conditioned student simulation, where the goal is to accurately predict student dialogue turns by leveraging information in the student's learning history. We propose a two-component framework in which a profile generator summarizes a student's history and a simulator predicts student turns conditioned on the resulting profile. We train both components with reinforcement learning (RL), yielding profiles optimized for faithful student simulation. We evaluate our method and baselines on the first-of-its-kind real-world dataset of student dialogues and question responses that we collect from a math learning platform. Extensive experiments show that our method significantly outperforms baselines, and demonstrate the importance of history, profiles, and RL training.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate a remarkable capacity to adopt different personas and roles; however, it remains unclear whether they can manifest behavior that adheres to a coherent, human-like value structure. In this work, we draw on established psychological value theory to induce human-like values in LLMs and assess their alignment with patterns observed in human studies. Using validated psychological questionnaires, we conduct large-scale experiments -- over 5 million questions -- to evaluate value structures and value-behavior relationships in leading LLMs and compare them to humans. Our findings reveal strong agreement between value-prompted LLMs and humans across both dimensions. Moreover, incorporating human value distributions enhances population-level simulations with value-induced LLMs. These findings highlight the potential of value-induced LLMs as effective, psychologically grounded tools for simulating human behavior.

AI tools to support real world decision making must be able to build simulation models that inform their recommendations and render them interpretable. Tools that can automate aspects of modeling practice must complement human expertise, not replace it. The BEAMS Initiative aims to guide the development of AI tools for modeling and simulation toward forms that are responsible and ethical by establishing benchmarks for human centered modeling and simulation practices. The initiative uses open digital and organizational infrastructure to collaboratively evaluate AI tools for modeling and simulation. The open source sd ai project hosted by the initiative establishes transparency and enables contributions to be shared broadly. A steering group focuses on prioritizing potential benchmarks, while a technical group focuses on implementing the benchmarks in the form of automated tests. Tests for several distinct categories of evaluation have been implemented and applied to AI tools that support qualitative model building, quantitative model building, and model discussion. These include tests for causal translation, model iteration, causal reasoning, conformance, model behavior explanation, suggested model building steps, and suggested model fixes. When engines from the sd ai project are coupled with different LLMs, their performance on these evaluations reveals variability across different AI tools. The evaluations implemented by the initiative demonstrate that AI enabled modeling tools perform better at discussion and basic qualitative tasks than with causal reasoning and quantitative error fixing. No single LLM dominates across engine types, highlighting the importance of specific tasks and tradeoffs between speed and accuracy. Ongoing efforts of the initiative aim to incorporate benchmarks that address concerns about bias by considering alternative perspectives and human centered use cases.

Faithful modeling of hateful content propagation on online platforms remains an open problem for moderation research. Classical cascade models that do not explicitly represent the profile, community, and content factors associated with hateful-content propagation may yield moderation strategies that behave less effectively when deployed in real-world scenarios. Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can, in principle, make each reshare decision depend on the user's profile, the surrounding community, and the post's content, but it remains unclear whether this added flexibility actually reproduces real hateful cascades more faithfully than classical baselines. We study three hateful Bluesky cascades and a size-matched benign control. In the empirical Bluesky data, we found that: 97.4--99.7% of reposters take a hostile stance; toxicity-engagement homophily is higher on the diffusion tree than on the follower graph for hateful cascades; topology is star-like for the hateful cascades (most reposts come directly from the root) versus tree-like for the benign cascade (reposts propagate through multi-hop chains). In simulation, a multi-LLM-agent simulator reproduces the stance monoculture and the toxicity-delta direction. A structured ablation identifies agent heterogeneity as the leading fidelity factor, and amplifier targeting on dense networks yields 7.5--12.9% reduction at 5.7% benign collateral.

Large language models (LLMs) show potential as simulators of human behavior, offering a scalable way to study responses to interventions. However, because LLMs are trained largely on observational data, interventions in experiments with LLM-simulated synthetic users can induce unintended shifts in latent user attributes, causing user drift where the implicit simulated population differs across treatment conditions, potentially distorting effect estimates. We formalize the confounding or selection bias that can arise due to user drift and show how intervention-dependent shifts can inflate or attenuate observed differences in user responses under intervention. To diagnose confounding, we propose using negative control outcomes--attributes that should remain invariant under intervention--to identify distribution shifts across intervention conditions, providing evidence of user drift. To mitigate drift, we study adjusting the persona specification by eliciting additional confounders, finding that targeted, setting-relevant confounders can substantially reduce bias across survey-style and multi-turn agent evaluations.

Humans learn social norms and behaviors from verbal feedback (e.g., a parent saying "that was rude" or a friend explaining "here's why that hurt"). Yet, learning from feedback for LLMs has largely focused on domains like code and math, where RL rewards are directly verifiable and condensed into scalar values. As LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, e.g., standing in for users, patients, students, and other personas, there is a pressing need to make them more human-like, which requires embracing a fundamentally different kind of signal: feedback that is verbal, subjective, and multi-faceted. We present DITTO, a model trained by treating verbal feedback as a first-class signal in reinforcement learning. After each rollout, DITTO receives verbal feedback and generates a feedback-conditioned improved rollout; both outputs are jointly optimized with GRPO, distilling verbal guidance into the base policy without requiring feedback at test time. We also introduce SOUL (Simulation gym Of hUman-Like behavior), a unified benchmark and training data suite spanning 10 tasks across six categories: Theory of Mind, character role play, social skill, learner simulation, user simulation, and persona simulation. DITTO achieves an average 36% improvement over the base model and exceeds GPT-5.4 on 6 of 10 SOUL benchmarks, demonstrating that RL with verbal feedback is a promising direction for training LLMs to simulate human behavior.

LLM-agent simulation offers a flexible computational tool for studying population response trajectories that depend on scenario events, memory, demographics, and evolving social context. However, full multi-round simulation scales linearly with both population size and horizon, requiring every agent to query the LLM at every round. We propose Adaptive Prototype Simulation (APS), a framework that reframes scalable LLM-based simulation as a recurrent oracle-allocation problem. APS retains the designated LLM as the online transition oracle while querying adaptive core prototypes, selected singleton-tail agents, and shadow-audit agents. Prototype responses induce local response surfaces for nearby agents, reducing online LLM calls without replacing the underlying transition model. To control approximation bias, shadow-audit residual correction estimates propagation residuals for aggregate correction and future budget allocation, while tail-protected singleton routing directly queries selected isolated, heterogeneous, or high-curvature regions that are vulnerable to smoothing. Theoretically, we treat APS as an estimator for full-scale high-precision individual social simulation and decompose its errors into prototype-coverage error, shadow-audit residual-correction error, local-propagation bias, and temporal context mismatch. Under the reported protocols, APS gives lower reference-aligned distributional discrepancy than scale-oriented and same-budget baselines while reducing online LLM calls, with ablations and compact robustness checks diagnosing the main bias-control mechanisms. In a 10M-agent, multi-round public-opinion simulation, APS achieves a 381.1-fold reduction over full simulation, with reference-aligned final-round JSD of 0.094 against the corresponding full-LLM reference.

A/B testing remains the gold standard for evaluating modifications to e-commerce storefronts, yet it diverts traffic, requires weeks to reach statistical significance, and risks degrading user experience. We present SimGym, a framework for simulating A/B tests on e-commerce storefronts using vision-language model (VLM) agents operating in a live browser. The framework comprises three key components: (a) a traffic-grounded persona generation pipeline that derives per-shop buyer archetypes and intents from production clickstream data; (b) a live-browser agent architecture that combines multimodal perception over visual and browser-structured observations with episodic memory and guardrails to conduct coherent shopping sessions across control and treatment storefronts; and (c) an evaluation protocol that compares simulated outcome shifts with observed shifts in real buyer behavior. We validate SimGym on A/B tests of visually driven UI theme changes from a major e-commerce platform across diverse storefronts and product categories. Empirical results show that SimGym agents achieve strong agreement with observed outcome shifts, attaining 77% directional alignment with add-to-cart shifts observed across interface variants in real-buyer traffic. It reduces experimental cycles from weeks to under an hour, enabling rapid experimentation without exposing real buyers to candidate variants.

Equipping LLMs with tool-use capabilities via Agentic Reinforcement Learning (Agentic RL) is bottlenecked by two challenges: the lack of scalable, robust execution environments and the scarcity of realistic training data that captures implicit human reasoning. Existing approaches depend on costly real-world APIs, hallucination-prone LLM simulators, or synthetic environments that are often single-turn or depend on pre-collected documents. Moreover, synthetic trajectories are frequently over-specified, resembling instruction sequences rather than natural human intents, reducing their effectiveness for RL training. We introduce EnvFactory, a fully automated framework that addresses both challenges. EnvFactory autonomously explores and verifies stateful, executable tool environments from authentic resources, and synthesizes natural multi-turn trajectories through topology-aware sampling and calibrated refinement, producing grounded queries with implicit intents. Using only 85 verified environments across 7 domains, EnvFactory generates 2,575 SFT and RL trajectories. Despite using significantly fewer environments than prior work, which are often 5 times more, EnvFactory achieves superior training efficiency and downstream performance, improving Qwen3-series models by up to +15% on BFCLv3, +8.6% on MCP-Atlas, and +6% on conversational benchmarks including $τ^2$-Bench and VitaBench. By fully automating both environment construction and trajectory synthesis, EnvFactory provides a scalable, extensible, and robust foundation for Agentic RL.

The scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations should be no stronger than the robustness audits that support them. Generative agents bring new expressive power to agent-based modeling, enabling simulations of collective social processes like cooperation, polarization, and norm formation. Yet they also introduce complexity through additional architectural choices, such as agent specification, memory representation, interaction protocols, and environment design. Small perturbations that appear minor to researchers can cascade into macro-level outcomes through repeated interaction, creating a "butterfly effect." Consequently, scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations may reflect implementation artifacts rather than the social mechanisms being modeled. We support this position with two case studies: a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma and a social media echo chamber simulation. Across multiple models, minor perturbations in persona format and game-instruction framing shift cooperation rates by up to 76 percentage points, while network homophily and hub assignment produce significant and consistent shifts in polarization metrics. We also find that sensitivity is unevenly distributed across both architectural choices and model families: the same perturbation that produces the 76 pp shift in one frontier model only shifts another by 1 pp. Robustness is therefore a property that should be measured per claim and per model, not assumed. To address this validation gap, we introduce TRAILS (Taxonomy for Robustness Audits In LLM Simulations), a robustness-audit taxonomy spanning three levels of simulation design: agent (micro-level), interaction (meso-level), and system (macro-level). We call for robustness to become a first-order validation requirement before LLM social simulations are used to explain mechanisms, evaluate interventions, or inform decisions.

LLMs are increasingly used as ``digital consumers'' to simulate public opinion, pre-test marketing decisions, and anticipate audience response. However, existing evaluations rarely ask whether a model can reconstruct the concrete reaction patterns that real consumers surface in public discourse. We introduce ConsumerSimBench, a benchmark built from 1,553 real Chinese social-media topics and 23,122 atomic, rule-audited criteria spanning four reaction families. Rather than scoring open-ended generations with a holistic preference judge, ConsumerSimBench decomposes each task into auditable yes-no decisions over concrete reaction points, raising three-judge agreement from 65.8% to 92.1% with 98.4% agreement between pointwise judge decisions and human-majority labels. Across 13 frontier generators, the strongest model, Gemini-3.1-Pro, covers only 47.8% of real reaction criteria, while GPT-5.2 and Claude-4.6 trail far behind despite their strength on technical benchmarks. The failures reveal a sharp gap between technical-benchmark performance and socially grounded consumer intuition. A direct structured reasoning prompt decreases coverage, while a generate--reflect multi-agent pipeline improves MiMo-V2.5-Pro from 32.9% to 37.6% on a subset. ConsumerSimBench reframes consumer simulation as a forecasting problem over real public-discourse reactions, showing that frontier LLMs remain far from reliably predicting what consumers will actually care about in high-context Chinese consumer discourse.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human opinions and survey responses, but their ability to reproduce population responses across cultures remains limited. Existing persona-based prompting methods typically rely on sociodemographic or personality traits, which are only indirect proxies for the values that shape human responses. We propose a value-based persona construction method that derives textual descriptors from survey responses capturing core cultural dimensions. By sampling value profiles from target populations and aggregating LLM responses across personas, we obtain population-level predictions grounded in observed value distributions. We further introduce a calibration procedure that improves response diversity while preserving estimated opinions. We show that our approach reduces prediction error across countries, with the largest improvements observed in underrepresented populations. This substantially narrows the performance gap between countries aligned with dominant LLM priors and those that are less represented in training data, while also yielding response distributions that closely match human diversity.

Personalisation is a standard feature of conversational AI systems used by millions; yet, the efficacy of personalisation methods is often evaluated in academic research using simulated users rather than real people. This raises questions about how users and their simulated counterparts differ in interaction patterns and judgements, as well as whether personalisation is best achieved through context-based prompting or weight-based fine-tuning. Here, in a large-scale within-subject experiment, we re-recruit 530 participants from 52 countries two years after they gave their preferences in the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al., 2024) to evaluate personalised and non-personalised language models in blinded multi-turn conversations. We find preference fine-tuning (P-DPO, Li et al., 2024) significantly outperforms both a generic model and personalised prompting but adapting to individual preference data yields marginal gains over training on pooled preferences from a diverse population. Beyond length biases, fine-tuning amplifies sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours that people reward in short-term evaluations but which may introduce deleterious long-term consequences. Replicating this within-subject experiment with simulated users recovers aggregate model hierarchies but simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements, discuss different topics, exhibit amplified position biases, and produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in settings where they interact with a wide variety of people, including users who are unclear, impatient, or reluctant to share information. However, collecting real interaction data at scale remains expensive. The field has turned to LLM-based user simulators as stand-ins, but these simulators inherit the behavior of their underlying models: cooperative and homogeneous. As a result, agents that appear strong in simulation often fail under the unseen, diverse communication patterns of real users. To narrow this gap, we introduce Persona Policies (PPol), a plug-and-play control layer that induces realistic behavioral variation in user simulators while preserving the original task goals. Rather than hand-crafting personas, we cast persona generation as an LLM-driven evolutionary program search that optimizes a Python generator to discover behaviors and translate them into task-preserving roleplay policies. Candidate generators are guided by a multi-objective fitness score combining human-likeness with broad coverage of human behavioral patterns. Once optimized, the generator produces a diverse population of human-like personas for any task in the domain. Across tau^2-bench retail and airline domains, evolved PPol programs yield 33-62% absolute gains in fitness score over the baseline simulator. In a blinded evaluation, annotators rated PPol-conditioned users as human 80.4% of the time, close to real human traces and nearly twice as frequently as baseline simulators. Agents trained with PPol are more robust to challenging, out-of-distribution behaviors, improving task success by +17% relative to training only on existing simulated interactions. This offers a novel approach to strengthen simulator-based evaluation and training without changing tasks or rewards.

Large language models (LLMs) can fluently generate student-like responses, making them attractive as simulated students for training and evaluating AI tutors and human educators. Yet such simulators are typically evaluated by output similarity to real students, not by whether they behave like students with coherent misconceptions during interaction. We introduce a controlled framework for evaluating misconception faithfulness, whether a simulator maintains a misconception-driven belief state and updates selectively when feedback addresses the underlying misconception. Central to our framework is a misconception-contrastive feedback protocol that compares targeted feedback against two controls: misaligned feedback (targeting a different but plausible misconception) and generic feedback (only identifying answer is wrong). We propose Selective Flip Score (SFS), which quantifies how much more often a simulator flips its answer under targeted feedback than under contrastive controls. Across seven LLMs (4B-120B), multiple datasets, and prompting strategies, simulators exhibit near-zero SFS, correcting their answers at similarly high rates regardless of feedback relevance. Further analyses reveal a sycophantic failure mode: models behave less like students with misconceptions but more like problem-solvers who treat any corrective signal as a cue to abandon the simulated belief and re-solve from internal knowledge. To address this, we develop a post-training pipeline spanning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), preference optimization, and reinforcement learning (RL) with an SFS-aligned reward; SFT yields notable gains up to +0.56, and SFS-aligned RL provides more consistent improvements than preference optimization. Our results establish misconception faithfulness as a challenging yet trainable property, motivating a shift from static output matching toward interactive, belief-aware student modeling.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, but their ability to simulate $individual$ privacy decisions is not well understood. In this paper, we address the problem of evaluating whether a core set of user persona attributes can drive LLMs to simulate individual-level privacy behavior. We introduce PrivacySIM, an evaluation suite that benchmarks LLM simulation of user privacy behavior against the ground-truth responses of 1,000 users. These users are drawn from five published user studies on privacy spanning LLM healthcare consultations, conversational agents, and chatbots. Drawing on these user studies, we hypothesize three persona facets as plausible predictors of privacy decision-making: demographics, previous experiences, and stated privacy attitudes. We condition nine frontier LLMs on subsets of these three facets and measure how often each model's response to a data-sharing scenario matches the user's actual response. Our findings show that (1) privacy persona conditioning consistently improves simulation quality over no-persona conditioning, but even the strongest model (40.4% accuracy) remains far from faithfully simulating individual privacy decisions. (2) A user's stated privacy attitudes alone may not be the best predictor because they often diverge from the user's actual privacy behavior. (3) Users with high AI/chatbot experience but low stated privacy attitudes are the most challenging to simulate. PrivacySIM is a first step toward understanding and improving the capabilities of LLMs to simulate user privacy decisions. We release PrivacySIM to enable further evaluation of LLM privacy simulation.

Using offline datasets to evaluate conversational agents often fails to cover rare scenarios or to support testing new policies. This has motivated the use of controllable user simulators for targeted, counterfactual evaluation, typically implemented by prompting or fine-tuning large language models. In this work, we formalize controllable simulation as a causal inference problem. By bridging natural language evaluation with off-policy evaluation methodology, we show that the standard practice of training simulators via supervised fine-tuning on post-hoc trajectory labels yields a structurally biased model. Specifically, these labels are inextricably coupled to the data-generating behavior policy, injecting a look-ahead bias that breaks causal consistency. Furthermore, we prove that under policy shift this failure causes the variance of evaluation metrics to explode geometrically, a phenomenon we term controllability collapse. To restore causal consistency, we establish theoretical conditions for accurate simulation and propose practical training mitigations: a priori controls, step-wise dynamic controls, and direct policy-conditioned learning. Empirical evaluation confirms that while standard global controls distort conversational distributions and collapse behavioral diversity, our causally grounded simulators eliminate look-ahead bias, preserve natural variance, and exhibit robust zero-shot generalization to unseen agent behaviors.

Agent-based modeling (ABM) has long been used in economics to study human behavior, and large language model (LLM) agents now enable new forms of social and economic simulation. While prior work has discovered strategic deception by LLM agents in financial trading and auction markets, e-commerce remains underexplored despite its distinctive information asymmetry: sellers privately observe product quality, whereas buyers rely on advertised claims and reputation signals. We introduce TruthMarketTwin, a controlled simulation framework for studying LLM-agent behavior in e-commerce markets. The framework is one of the first to model bilateral trade under asymmetric information sharing, where agents make strategic listing, purchasing, rating, and recourse-related decisions to optimize seller profit and buyer utility. We find that LLM agents released into traditional markets autonomously exploit weaknesses in reputation-based governance, while warrant enforcement reduces deception and reshapes strategic reasoning. Our results position LLM-agent simulation as a tool for studying institution-governed autonomous markets.

User simulators are increasingly leveraged to build interactive AI assistants, yet how to measure the quality of these simulators remains an open question. In this work, we show how simulator quality can be quantified in terms of its downstream utility: how an LLM assistant trained with this user simulator performs in the wild when interacting with real humans. In a controlled experiment where only the user simulator varies, we train LLM assistants via reinforcement learning against a spectrum of simulators, from an LLM prompted to role-play a user to one fine-tuned on human utterances from WildChat. As evaluation, we measure pairwise win rates in a user study with 283 participants and on WildBench, a benchmark derived from real human--AI conversations. Training against the role-playing LLM yields an assistant statistically indistinguishable from the initial assistant in our user study (51% win rate), whereas training against the fine-tuned simulator yields significant gains (58% over the initial and 57% over the one trained against role-playing). Closer inspection reveals three further patterns: methods for making role-playing LLMs more realistic (e.g., persona conditioning) improve trained assistants but do not close the gap to the fine-tuned simulator; scaling the simulator's model size benefits the fine-tuned simulator but yields no gain for role-playing ones; and assistants trained against role-playing simulators fail to generalize when paired with other simulators at test time, while the one trained against fine-tuned simulator does. Together, these results argue for grounding user simulators in real human behavior and measuring their quality by their downstream effect on real users.

LLM agents are increasingly used to simulate real world interactions, but it remains unclear whether simulated behaviors preserve the content patterns and interaction dynamics of real human behaviors. Existing evaluations remain fragmented, which makes it difficult to compare systems or measure progress. In this paper, we focus on Reddit discussions as a concrete first step toward evaluating real-world social simulation. Reddit threads provide public, topic-grounded, multi-party interactions where people share experiences, debate, seek advice, express emotion, and collectively respond to products, events, and social issues. These discussions offer an observable window into broader social behavior, making them a useful setting for testing whether LLM agents can reproduce not only fluent text, but also the distributional patterns and interaction dynamics of real online communities. We introduce MiroBench, a benchmark for Reddit discussion simulation built from 4,292 real Reddit threads. MiroBench uses statistical tests to compare generated and real discussions across four major aspects: repetition and semantic uniformity, narrative content, toxicity and aggression, and structural complexity. Experiments across five domains and five models show that current simulators remain distributionally mismatched with real Reddit threads, while a lightweight prompt-based improvement procedure provides only limited gains. MiroBench offers a concrete benchmark for measuring, diagnosing, and improving realism in LLM-based social simulation.

We present SalesSim, a framework and testbed for evaluating the ability of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to simulate realistic, persona-driven customer behavior in multi-turn, multi-modal, tool-augmented online retail conversations. Unlike prior work that treat user simulation as surface-level dialogue generation, SalesSim models retail interaction and decision-making as a grounded, agentic process, where shoppers with diverse backgrounds, preferences, and dealbreakers interact with a sales agent, seek clarifications, and make informed purchasing decisions. For evaluation, we design a suite of metrics centered on decision alignment, measuring the consistency between the simulator's actions and its persona specifications, as well as conversational quality. We find several behavioral gaps after benchmarking 6 open and closed-source state-of-the-art models. First, while models produce fluent conversations, they display significantly lower lexical diversity and overdisclosure of criteria across personas compared to human conversations. Second, models tend to be persuaded by sales agent suggestions and drift from persona specifications. Even the strongest model achieves less than 79% average alignment with its underlying persona specifications. To make progress on these limitations, we propose UserGRPO, a multi-turn, multi-objective reinforcement learning recipe to optimize both conversational fluency and decision alignment under persona specifications. Our experiments demonstrate that UserGRPO boosts decision alignment of the baseline model by 13.8% while improving conversational quality. By introducing SalesSim, we provide a new testbed for the community to investigate and improve the adherence of user simulators in goal-oriented settings.

As user simulators are increasingly used for interactive training and evaluation of AI assistants, it is essential that they represent the diverse behaviors of real users. While existing works train user simulators to generate human-like responses, whether they capture the broad and heterogeneous distribution of real user behaviors remains an open question. In this work, we introduce a method to measure the distributional gap between real and simulated user behaviors, validated through a human study and ablations. Given a dataset of real and simulated conversations, our method extracts representations of user behavior from each conversation, quantizes them into discrete distributions via clustering, then computes divergence metrics. We provide the first systematic evaluation of 24 LLM-based user simulators on coding and writing tasks, and reveal a large distributional gap from real users that varies across model families, scales, and behavioral facets. Pairwise comparisons show that most simulators behave similarly, while a few stand apart. Combining behaviorally complementary simulators brings the resulting distribution closer to real users compared to either simulator on its own. Finally, a TF-IDF analysis of the clusters surfaces interpretable patterns of behaviors that simulators capture, miss, and hallucinate.

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

Can LLMs simulate how humans form and change beliefs in social networks? We put this to the test by replicating an established study on belief dynamics, evaluating 12 LLMs across multiple model families and parameter sizes. The answer is a clear no, and in systematic ways. LLMs fail to capture initial human belief distributions and tend to be overall more conformist than humans, shifting their responses to align with those around them. They also take a nuanced approach to emulating human homophilic tendencies within networks. Our findings carry a double payoff: they highlight fundamental properties of LLM behavior, and they raise a sharp warning against deploying LLMs as human proxies in social simulations.

Conversational recommender systems (CRS) increasingly rely on user simulators for automated evaluation of sales agents. A key requirement for such simulators is the ability to model human decision-making. However, most existing simulation frameworks do not explicitly model the internal decision process, and LLM-based simulators often exhibit unrealistically strong information-processing capabilities, rarely exhibit the hesitation or decision deferral commonly observed in real consumer behavior, resulting in overly high acceptance probabilities. To address this limitation, we propose Hesitator, a theory-grounded user simulation framework that explicitly models human decision-making under choice overload. The framework introduces a modular Decision Module that separates utility-based item selection from overload-aware commitment decisions. Experiments across multiple user simulation frameworks, domains, sales modes, and LLM backbones show that integrating our module consistently mitigates unrealistic behaviors under increasing overload conditions. Furthermore, Hesitator reproduces established behavioral patterns from psychological economics, demonstrating its ability to model human decision behavior.

There is growing interest in exploring user simulation as an alternative to gathering and scoring real user-chatbot interactions for AI chatbot evaluation. For this purpose, it is important to ensure the realism of the simulation, i.e., the extent to which simulated dialogues reflect real dialogues users have with chatbots. Most existing methods evaluating simulation realism produce coarse quality signal and remain solely at the level of individual dialogues. To support more rigorous evaluation in this area, we propose realsim, an evaluation framework that enables practitioners to take a distributional view of real vs. simulated dialogues along 8 dimensions, covering attributes related to the communicative functions of the interaction, user states, and the surface form of user messages. We then instantiate the framework with a curated dataset of 1K multi-turn task-focused real user-chatbot dialogues that cover 16 domains of chatbot applications. Overall, we find that simulated users tend to struggle at capturing communication frictions that real users introduce to interactions, which could make evaluations based on such simulations overly optimistic. We also observe variability in performance across different domains, which may indicate a need for domain-specific user simulators.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on objective tasks such as video understanding and reasoning. However, it remains unclear whether they can approximate subjective human responses, which depend not only on content comprehension but also on individuals' social contexts. To address this gap, we evaluate MLLMs as synthetic participants in an emerging task: assessing perceived sensory engagement with short videos. Grounded in the Perceived Message Sensation Value (PMSV) framework, we compare ratings from recruited human participants and profile-conditioned MLLM simulations (n=673) using a 17-item scale measuring emotional arousal, dramatic impact, and novelty. We find that even leading MLLMs (Gemini 3 Flash and Qwen 3 Omni) show limited agreement with human participants. The models exhibit distinct downward mean-shift and central-tendency biases in their rating distributions. They both introduce and flatten subgroup differences, while showing inconsistent sensitivity to participant profiles. Prompting strategies affect these metrics differently, modestly improving some aspects while worsening others. These results highlight both the challenges and opportunities of developing MLLMs as synthetic participants in video-based research. Data and code: https://github.com/MINDLab25/mllm-human-simulation-eval

Studies attempting to simulate human behavior with $\textit{Silicon Societies}$ grow in numbers while LLM-only social networks have started appearing outside of controlled settings. However, the design space of these networks remains under-studied, which contributes to a gap in validating model realism. To enable future works to make more informed design decisions, we perform a systematic analysis of the consequences and interactions of key design choices in simulated social networks, including the choice of base model used to model individual agents, and how they are connected to each other. Using surveys as a proxy for agent opinions, our findings suggest that the geometry of the design space is non-trivial, with some parameters behaving in additive ways while others display more complex interactions. In particular, the choice of the base LLM is the most important variable impacting the simulation outcomes.

To enhance LLMs' impact on math education, we need data on their mathematical prowess and biases across prompts. To fill this gap, we introduce MEDS (Math Education Digital Shadows) as a dataset mapping how large language models reason about and report mathematics across human- and AI-like conditions. MEDS involves 28,000 personas from 14 LLMs (from families like Mistral, Qwen, DeepSeek, Granite, Phi and Grok) shadowing either humans or AI assistants. Each record/shadow includes a set of prompts along with psychological/sociodemographic persona metadata and four types of math tasks: (i) open math interview, (ii) three psychometric tests about math perceptions with explanations, (iii) cognitive networks capturing math attitudes, and (iv) 18 high-school math test questions together with their reasoning and confidence scores. MEDS differs from traditional score-only math benchmarks because it integrates concepts of self-efficacy, math anxiety, and cognitive network science besides math proficiency scores. Data validation shows that the sampled LLMs exhibit schema integrity and consistent personas, together with family-specific peculiarities like human-like negative math attitudes, logical fallacies, and math overconfidence. MEDS will benefit learning analytics experts, cognitive scientists, and developers of safer AI tutors in mathematics.

User simulation has long played a vital role in computer science due to its potential to support a wide range of applications. Language, as the primary medium of human communication, forms the foundation of social interaction and behavior. Consequently, simulating conversational behavior has become a key area of study. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly catalyzed progress in this domain by enabling high-fidelity generation of synthetic user conversation. In this paper, we survey recent advancements in LLM-based conversational user simulation. We introduce a novel taxonomy covering user granularity and simulation objectives. Additionally, we systematically analyze core techniques and evaluation methodologies. We aim to keep the research community informed of the latest advancements in conversational user simulation and to further facilitate future research by identifying open challenges and organizing existing work under a unified framework.

When users seek social support from chatbots, they disclose their situation gradually, yet most evaluations of supportive LLMs rely on single-turn, fully specified prompts. We introduce a multi-turn simulation framework that closes this gap. Support-seeking narratives from five Reddit communities are decomposed into ordered fragments and revealed turn by turn to a language model. Each response is coded with the Social Support Behavior Code (SSBC), an established multi-label taxonomy that captures the composition of support, rather than a single quality score. To ask whether support choices track the model's own construal of user distress, we use linear probes on hidden representations to estimate this internal signal without altering the generation context. Across two mid-scale models (Llama-3.1-8B, OLMo-3-7B) and more than 6,200 turns, support composition shifts systematically with estimated distress: teaching declines as estimated distress rises, a finding that replicates across architectures, while increases in affective and esteem-oriented strategies (such as validation) are suggestive but model-specific and rest on noisier annotations. Community context independently shapes behavior, tracking topic and discourse norms rather than demographic categories. These trajectory-level dynamics, invisible to single-turn evaluation, motivate multi-turn auditing frameworks for socially sensitive applications.

Static benchmarks for harmful content detection face limitations in scalability and diversity, and may also be affected by contamination from web-scale pre-training corpora. To address these issues, we propose a framework for synthesizing harmful content, leveraging persona-guided large language model (LLM) agents. Our approach constructs two-dimensional user personas by integrating demographic identities and topical interests with situational harmful strategies, enabling the simulation of diverse and contextually grounded harmful interactions. We evaluate the framework along three dimensions: harmfulness, challenge level, and diversity. Both human and LLM-based evaluations confirm that our framework achieves a high harmful generation success rate. Experiments across multiple detection systems reveal that our synthetic scenarios are more challenging to detect than those in existing benchmarks. Furthermore, a multi-faceted analysis confirms that our approach achieves linguistic and topical diversity comparable to human-curated datasets, establishing our framework as an effective tool for robust stress-testing of harmful content detection systems.

LLM-based simulators offer a promising path for generating complex synthetic data where traditional differentially private (DP) methods struggle with high-dimensional user profiles. But can LLMs faithfully reproduce statistical distributions from DP-protected inputs? We evaluate this using PersonaLedger, an agentic financial simulator, seeded with DP synthetic personas derived from real user statistics. We find that PersonaLedger achieves promising fraud detection utility (AUC 0.70 at epsilon=1) but exhibits significant distribution drift due to systematic LLM biases--learned priors overriding input statistics for temporal and demographic features. These failure modes must be addressed before LLM-based methods can handle the richer user representations where they might otherwise excel.

Generative Agents, owing to their precise modeling and simulation capabilities of human behavior, have become a pivotal tool in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd) for uncovering complex cognitive processes of learners. However, existing educational agents predominantly rely on static personas to simulate student learning behaviors, neglecting the decisive role of deep cognitive capabilities in learning outcomes during practice interactions. Furthermore, they struggle to characterize the dynamic fluidity of knowledge internalization, transfer, and cognitive state transitions. To overcome this bottleneck, this paper proposes a human-like educational agent capable of simulating student cognitive evolution: CogEvolution. Specifically, we first construct a cognitive depth perceptron based on the Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (ICAP) taxonomy from cognitive psychology, achieving precise quantification of learner cognitive engagement. Subsequently, we propose a memory retrieval method based on Item Response Theory (IRT) to simulate the connection and assimilation of new and prior knowledge. Finally, we design a dynamic cognitive update mechanism based on evolutionary algorithms to simulate the real-time integration of student learning behaviors and cognitive evolution processes. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that CogEvolution not only significantly outperforms baseline models in behavioral fidelity and learning curve fitting but also uniquely reproduces plausible and robust cognitive evolutionary paths consistent with educational psychology expectations, providing a novel paradigm for constructing highly interpretable educational agents.

LLM-empowered agent simulations are increasingly used to study social emergence, yet the micro-to-macro causal mechanisms behind macro outcomes often remain unclear. This is challenging because emergence arises from intertwined agent interactions and meso-level feedback and nonlinearity, making generative mechanisms hard to disentangle. To this end, we introduce \textbf{\textsc{CAMO}}, an automated \textbf{Ca}usal discovery framework from \textbf{M}icr\textbf{o} behaviors to \textbf{M}acr\textbf{o} Emergence in LLM agent simulations. \textsc{CAMO} converts mechanistic hypotheses into computable factors grounded in simulation records and learns a compact causal representation centered on an emergent target $Y$. \textsc{CAMO} outputs a computable Markov boundary and a minimal upstream explanatory subgraph, yielding interpretable causal chains and actionable intervention levers. It also uses simulator-internal counterfactual probing to orient ambiguous edges and revise hypotheses when evidence contradicts the current view. Experiments across four emergent settings demonstrate the promise of \textsc{CAMO}.

Attitude change - the process by which individuals revise their evaluative stances - has been explained by a set of influential but competing verbal theories. These accounts often function as mechanism sketches: rich in conceptual detail, yet lacking the technical specifications and operational constraints required to run as executable systems. We present a generative actor-based modelling workflow for "rendering" these sketches as runnable actor - environment simulations using the Concordia simulation library. In Concordia, actors operate by predictive pattern completion: an operation on natural language strings that generates a suffix which describes the actor's intended action from a prefix containing memories of their past and observations of the present. We render the theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), self-consistency (Aronson 1969), and self-perception (Bem 1972) as distinct decision logics that populate and process the prefix through theory-specific sequences of reasoning steps. We evaluate these implementations across classic psychological experiments. Our implementations generate behavioural patterns consistent with known results from the original empirical literature. However, we find that achieving stable reproduction requires resolving the inherent underdetermination of the verbal accounts and the conflicts between modern linguistic priors and historical experimental assumptions. We document how this manual process of iterative model "stabilisation" surfaces specific operational and socio-ecological dependencies that were largely undocumented in the original verbal accounts. Ultimately, we argue that the manual stabilisation process itself should be regarded as a core part of the methodology functioning to clarify situational and representational commitments needed to generate characteristic effects.

Instructional alignment, the match between intended cognition and enacted activity, is central to effective instruction but hard to operationalize at scale. We examine alignment in cybersecurity simulations using multimodal traces from 23 teams (76 students) across five exercise sessions. Study 1 codes objectives and team emails with Bloom's taxonomy and models the completion of key exercise tasks with generalized linear mixed models. Alignment, defined as the discrepancy between required and enacted Bloom levels, predicts success, whereas the Bloom category alone does not predict success once discrepancy is considered. Study 2 compares predictive feature families using grouped cross-validation and l1-regularized logistic regression. Text embeddings and log features outperform Bloom-only models (AUC0.74 and 0.71 vs. 0.55), and their combination performs best (Test AUC0.80), with Bloom frequencies adding little. Overall, the work offers a measure of alignment for simulations and shows that multimodal traces best forecast performance, while alignment provides interpretable diagnostic insight.

Social actors do not observe a common social world: each individual forms judgments from a partial and potentially distorted view of the surrounding network. We study whether graph-local evidence and credibility-weighted communication can generate persistent distortions in perceived academic standing, even when agents repeatedly receive objective performance signals. We introduce a data-constrained multi-agent framework in which LLM agents operate through individualized subjective graphs that determine peer visibility, evidence access, and interaction opportunities. Agents exchange uncertainty-annotated assessments, evaluate message credibility, and maintain explicit Gaussian belief states updated through Bayesian fusion. We evaluate the framework on 12 middle-school classrooms comprising 482 students, using questionnaire-derived social information and six consecutive examinations. On the Social-Observed subset (n=419), collective ranking error increases from 0.066 \pm 0.008 to 0.124 \pm 0.009 across six epochs despite repeated exam-based anchoring. Ablations associate individualized visibility and LLM-based trust gating with more stable long-horizon behavior, while constrained retrieval primarily safeguards against global-information leakage. Compared with evaluated DeGroot configurations, the proposed framework achieves lower final ranking error; those DeGroot configurations exhibit near-zero terminal opinion diversity. These findings establish subjective-graph LLM agents as a mechanism-oriented framework for data-constrained simulated social perception. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Rashomonomon-0126.

Situated reasoning often relies on active exploration, yet in many real-world scenarios such exploration is infeasible due to physical constraints of robots or safety concerns of visually impaired users. Given only a limited observation, can an agent mentally simulate a future trajectory toward a target situation and answer spatial what-if questions? We introduce WanderDream, the first large-scale dataset designed for the emulative simulation of mental exploration, enabling models to reason without active exploration. WanderDream-Gen comprises 15.8K panoramic videos across 1,088 real scenes from HM3D, ScanNet++, and real-world captures, depicting imagined trajectories from current viewpoints to target situations. WanderDream-QA contains 158K question-answer pairs, covering starting states, paths, and end states along each trajectory to comprehensively evaluate exploration-based reasoning. Extensive experiments with world models and MLLMs demonstrate (1) that mental exploration is essential for situated reasoning, (2) that world models achieve compelling performance on WanderDream-Gen, (3) that imagination substantially facilitates reasoning on WanderDream-QA, and (4) that WanderDream data exhibit remarkable transferability to real-world scenarios.

Simulating large-scale human mobility is fundamental to understanding population movement patterns and supporting real-world geospatial applications such as urban planning, epidemic response, and transportation analysis. Recent works treat large language models (LLMs) as human agents to simulate realistic mobility behaviors using structured reasoning, but their high computational cost limits scalability. To address this, we design a mobility-aware cache framework named MobCache that leverages reconstructible caches to enable efficient large-scale human mobility simulations. It consists of: (1) a reasoning component that encodes each reasoning step as a latent-space embedding and uses a latent-space evaluator to enable the reuse and recombination of reasoning steps; and (2) a decoding component that employs a lightweight decoder trained with mobility law-constrained distillation to translate latent-space reasoning chains into natural language, thereby improving simulation efficiency while maintaining fidelity. Experiments show that MobCache significantly improves efficiency across multiple dimensions while maintaining performance comparable to state-of-the-art LLM-based methods.

Geospatial applications such as urban planning, epidemic forecasting, and transportation demand modeling depend on individual mobility data, but such data are costly to collect, uneven in coverage, and privacy-sensitive. Human mobility simulation offers a scalable alternative. A recent line of work treats large language models (LLMs) as human agents, modeling individual cognitive processes to generate realistic trajectories. Yet because each agent is simulated in isolation, these methods provide no population-level coordination mechanism, and the collective regularities of real mobility - how trip distances, visited locations, and flows distribute across a population - fail to emerge. We close this gap with COMPASS, which turns empirical mobility scaling laws into a feedback signal that guides prompt construction. COMPASS starts from coarse, population-level adjustments driven by these scaling laws and progressively refines them into individual prompts, jointly satisfying multiple aggregate objectives while keeping individual trajectories realistic. Across two public datasets, COMPASS outperforms state-of-the-art LLM-based simulators.

Reinforcement learning (RL)-based biomechanical simulations have the potential to revolutionise HCI research and interaction design, but currently lack usability and interpretability. Using the Human Action Cycle as a design lens, we identify key limitations of biomechanical RL frameworks and develop MyoInteract, a novel framework for fast prototyping of biomechanical HCI tasks. MyoInteract allows designers to setup tasks, user models, and training parameters from an easy-to-use GUI within minutes. It trains and evaluates muscle-actuated simulated users within minutes, reducing training times by up to 98%. A workshop study with 12 interaction designers revealed that MyoInteract allowed novices in biomechanical RL to successfully setup, train, and assess goal-directed user movements within a single session. By transforming biomechanical RL from a days-long expert task into an accessible hour-long workflow, this work significantly lowers barriers to entry and accelerates iteration cycles in HCI biomechanics research.

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.

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.

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.