User Simulation

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

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

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

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

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