[2601.17087] Lost in Simulation: LLM-Simulated Users are Unreliable Proxies for Human Users in Agentic Evaluations
Abstract:Agentic benchmarks increasingly rely on LLM-simulated users to scalably evaluate agent performance, yet the robustness, validity, and fairness of this approach remain unexamined. Through a user study with participants across the United States, India, Kenya, and Nigeria, we investigate whether LLM-simulated users serve as reliable proxies for real human users in evaluating agents on {\tau}-Bench retail tasks. We find that user simulation lacks robustness, with agent success rates varying up to 9 percentage points across different user LLMs. Furthermore, evaluations using simulated users exhibit systematic miscalibration, underestimating agent performance on challenging tasks and overestimating it on moderately difficult ones. African American Vernacular English (AAVE) speakers experience consistently worse success rates and calibration errors than Standard American English (SAE) speakers, with disparities compounding significantly with age. We also find simulated users to be a differentially effective proxy for different populations, performing worst for AAVE and Indian English speakers. Additionally, simulated users introduce conversational artifacts and surface different failure patterns than human users. These findings demonstrate that current evaluation practices risk misrepresenting agent capabilities across diverse user populations and may obscure real-world deployment challenges.
View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Agentic benchmarks increasingly rely on LLM-simulated users to scalably evaluate agent performance, yet the robustness, validity, and fairness of this approach remain unexamined. Through a user study with participants across the United States, India, Kenya, and Nigeria, we investigate whether LLM-simulated users serve as reliable proxies for real human users in evaluating agents on {\tau}-Bench retail tasks. We find that user simulation lacks robustness, with agent success rates varying up to 9 percentage points across different user LLMs. Furthermore,…
saved by
related reading
- Quantifying the Utility of User Simulators for Building Collaborative LLM Assistantsarxiv.org
- LLMs Get Lost in Evolving User Intentarxiv.org
- Simulating Users with State Alignment Beats Response Imitationhumanlm.stanford.edu
- [2508.19227] Generative Interfaces for Language Modelsarxiv.org
- user_interactions.pdfself-distillation.github.io
- [2304.03442] Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorarxiv.org
- [2304.03442] Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorarxiv.org
- Training and Evaluating User Language Modelsarxiv.org
- [2606.06614] Re-Centering Humans in LLM Personalizationarxiv.org
- HumanLM: Simulating Users with State Alignment Beats Response Imitationarxiv.org
- Evaluating LLMs for Impersonationarxiv.org
- Agent Evaluation: A Detailed Guidecameronrwolfe.substack.com