Recent research shows that LLM Agents can generate “believable” human behaviors via prompt-only methods, and such agents have been increasingly adopted in downstream applications. However, existing evaluation of these agents only focuses on qualitative believability (whether human raters think they are accurate), leaving open questions of whether LLM agents can accurately generate step-by-step actions mimicking a particular human’s behavior in a multi-turn interaction task. In this work, we take shopping as a case study and present the first large-scale quantitative evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs’ ability to accurately simulate human behavior. Using real-world data from 31,865 online shopping sessions containing 230,965 user actions, our evaluation reveals that prompt-based LLMs (DeepSeek-R1, Llama, Claude) achieve only 11.86% accuracy in generating human actions, highlighting a substantial gap in actual behavioral accuracy. Through experiments, we also showcase that strategies as simple as fine-tuning LLMs on real human click-through data augmented with synthesized reasoning traces can greatly enhance models’ performance. The fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B achieves 17.26% action generation accuracy and 33.86% F1 score on final purchase prediction, representing substantial improvements of 5.4% and 13.85% over prompt-only baselines. This work establishes the first rigorous benchmark and dataset for human behavior simulation and provides actionable insights for developing more accurate LLM agents for future downstream applications.

Alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values and preferences, often achieved through fine-tuning based on human feedback, is essential for ensuring safe and responsible AI behaviors. However, the process typically requires substantial data and computation resources. Recent studies have revealed that alignment might be attainable at lower costs through simpler methods, such as in-context learning. This leads to the question: Is alignment predominantly superficial? In this paper, we delve into this question and provide a quantitative analysis. We formalize the concept of superficial knowledge, defining it as knowledge that can be acquired through easily token restyling, without affecting the model’s ability to capture underlying causal relationships between tokens. We propose a method to extract and isolate those superficial knowledge from aligned models, focusing on the shallow modifications to the final token selection process. By comparing models augmented only with superficial knowledge to fully aligned models, we quantify the superficial portion of alignment. Our findings reveal that while superficial knowledge constitutes a significant portion of alignment, particularly in safety and detoxification tasks, it is not the whole story. Tasks requiring reasoning and contextual understanding still rely on deeper knowledge. Additionally, we demonstrate two practical advantages of isolated superficial knowledge: (1) it can be transferred between models, enabling efficient offsite alignment of larger models using extracted superficial knowledge from smaller models, and (2) it is recoverable, allowing for the restoration of alignment in compromised models without sacrificing performance.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning, which breaks down complex tasks into intermediate reasoning steps, has significantly enhanced the performance of large language models (LLMs) on challenging tasks. However, the detailed reasoning process in CoT often incurs long generation times and high computational costs, partly due to the inclusion of unnecessary steps. To address this, we propose a method to identify critical reasoning steps using perplexity as a measure of their importance: a step is deemed critical if its removal causes a significant increase in perplexity. Our method enables models to focus solely on generating these critical steps. This can be achieved through two approaches: refining demonstration examples in few-shot CoT or fine-tuning the model using selected examples that include only critical steps. Comprehensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our method, which achieves a better balance between the reasoning accuracy and efficiency of CoT.