@inproceedings{seshadri-etal-2026-lost,
    title = "Lost in Simulation: {LLM}-Simulated Users are Unreliable Proxies for Human Users in Agentic Evaluations",
    author = "Seshadri, Preethi  and
      Cahyawijaya, Samuel  and
      Odumakinde, Ayomide  and
      Singh, Sameer  and
      Goldfarb-Tarrant, Seraphina",
    editor = "Liakata, Maria  and
      Moreira, Viviane P.  and
      Zhang, Jiajun  and
      Jurgens, David",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, United States",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl/2026.acl-long.2192/",
    pages = "47423--47439",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-390-6",
    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 {\ensuremath{\tau}}-Bench retail tasks. We find that user simulators lack robustness, with agent success rates varying up to 9 percentage points across different user LLMs. Furthermore, simulated users systematically miscalibrate performance, underestimating success on challenging tasks while overestimating 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. 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."
}