User Simulation

Augmented reading systems aim to adapt text presentation to improve comprehension and task performance, yet existing approaches rely heavily on heuristics, opaque data-driven models, or repeated human involvement in the design loop. We propose framing augmented reading as a simulation-based optimization problem grounded in resource-rational models of human reading. These models instantiate a simulated reader that allocates limited cognitive resources, such as attention, memory, and time under task demands, enabling systematic evaluation of text user interfaces. We introduce two complementary optimization pipelines: an offline approach that explores design alternatives using simulated readers, and an online approach that personalizes reading interfaces in real time using ongoing interaction data. Together, this perspective enables adaptive, explainable, and scalable augmented reading design without relying solely on human testing.

In the rapidly evolving field of digital libraries, the development of large language models (LLMs) has opened up new possibilities for simulating user behavior. This innovation addresses the longstanding challenge in digital library research: the scarcity of publicly available datasets on user search patterns due to privacy concerns. In this context, we introduce Agent4DL, a user search behavior simulator specifically designed for digital library environments. Agent4DL generates realistic user profiles and dynamic search sessions that closely mimic actual search strategies, including querying, clicking, and stopping behaviors tailored to specific user profiles. Our simulator's accuracy in replicating real user interactions has been validated through comparisons with real user data. Notably, Agent4DL demonstrates competitive performance compared to existing user search simulators such as SimIIR 2.0, particularly in its ability to generate more diverse and context-aware user behaviors.

Evaluating web usability typically requires time-consuming user studies and expert reviews, which often limits iteration speed during product development, especially for small teams and agile workflows. We present Avenir-UX, a user-experience evaluation agent that simulates user behavior on websites and produces standardized usability. Unlike traditional tools that rely on DOM parsing, Avenir-UX grounds actions and observations, enabling it to interact with real web pages end-to-end while maintaining a coherent trace of the user journey. Building on Avenir-Web, our system pairs this robust interaction with simulated user behavior profiles and a structured evaluation protocol that integrates the System Usability Scale (SUS), step-wise Single Ease Questions (SEQ), and concurrent Think Aloud. Subsequently, a comprehensive User Experience (UX) report will be generated. We discuss the architecture of Avenir-UX and illustrate how its multimodal grounding improves robustness for web-based interaction and UX evaluation scenarios, paving the way for a new era of continuous, scalable, and data-driven usability testing that empowers every developer to build web interfaces that are usable. Code is available at: https://github.com/Onflow-AI/Avenir-UX

The promise of LLM-based user simulators to improve conversational AI is hindered by a critical "realism gap," leading to systems that are optimized for simulated interactions, but may fail to perform well in the real world. We introduce ConvApparel, a new dataset of human-AI conversations designed to address this gap. Its unique dual-agent data collection protocol -- using both "good" and "bad" recommenders -- enables counterfactual validation by capturing a wide spectrum of user experiences, enriched with first-person annotations of user satisfaction. We propose a comprehensive validation framework that combines statistical alignment, a human-likeness score, and counterfactual validation to test for generalization. Our experiments reveal a significant realism gap across all simulators. However, the framework also shows that data-driven simulators outperform a prompted baseline, particularly in counterfactual validation where they adapt more realistically to unseen behaviors, suggesting they embody more robust, if imperfect, user models.

We present a system for autonomous book ideation that replaces human focus groups with synthetic reader panels -- diverse collections of LLM-instantiated reader personas that evaluate book concepts through structured tournament competitions. Each persona is defined by demographic attributes (age group, gender, income, education, reading level), behavioral patterns (books per year, genre preferences, discovery methods, price sensitivity), and consistency parameters. Panels are composed per imprint to reflect target demographics, with diversity constraints ensuring representation across age, reading level, and genre affinity. Book concepts compete in single-elimination, double-elimination, round-robin, or Swiss-system tournaments, judged against weighted criteria including market appeal, originality, and execution potential. To reject low-quality LLM evaluations, we implement five automated anti-slop checks (repetitive phrasing, generic framing, circular reasoning, score clustering, audience mismatch). We report results from deployment within a multi-imprint publishing operation managing 6 active imprints and 609 titles in distribution. Three case studies -- a 270-evaluator panel for a children's literacy novel, and two 5-person expert panels for a military memoir and a naval strategy monograph -- demonstrate that synthetic panels produce actionable demographic segmentation, identify structural content issues invisible to homogeneous reviewers, and enable tournament filtering that eliminates low-quality concepts while enriching high-quality survivors from 15% to 62% of the evaluated pool.

LLM-based client simulation provides a scalable approach to novice counselor training, counseling-dialogue synthesis, and interactive evaluation of automated counseling systems. However, existing approaches are limited by insufficient profile diversity, weak behavioral grounding, and the lack of open Chinese-language resources for simulated counseling clients. We propose PsyCLIENT, a framework that conditions simulated-client responses on client profiles, dialogue histories, and conversational trajectories specifying target behaviors and content constraints at each client turn. We also construct PsyCLIENT-CP, a dataset of 120 Chinese client profiles spanning 60 counseling topics. Evaluations involving 24 professional counselors show that PsyCLIENT receives higher ratings of perceived authenticity and training utility than the comparison methods. In a separate source-identification study, PsyCLIENT dialogues were more frequently misclassified as human-client interactions than those generated by the baselines. These results suggest that conversational trajectory modeling can transform static client profiles into behavior-guided, dynamically unfolding counseling interactions.

Task-oriented proactive dialogue agents play a pivotal role in recruitment, particularly for steering conversations towards specific business outcomes, such as acquiring social-media contacts for private-channel conversion. Although supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning have proven effective for training such agents, their performance is heavily constrained by the scarcity of high-quality, goal-oriented domain-specific training data. To address this challenge, we propose SimRPD, a three-stage framework for training recruitment proactive dialogue agents. First, we develop a high-fidelity user simulator to synthesize large-scale conversational data through multi-turn online dialogue. Then we introduce a multi-dimensional evaluation framework based on Chain-of-Intention (CoI) to comprehensively assess the simulator and effectively select high-quality data, incorporating both global-level and instance-level metrics. Finally, we train the recruitment proactive dialogue agent on the selected dataset. Experiments in a real-world recruitment scenario demonstrate that SimRPD outperforms existing simulator-based data selection strategies, highlighting its practical value for industrial deployment and its potential applicability to other business-oriented dialogue scenarios.

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.