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.

Nearly all human work is collaborative; thus, the evaluation of real-world NLP applications often requires multiple dimensions that align with diverse human perspectives. As real human evaluator resources are often scarce and costly, the emerging "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm sheds light on a promising approach to leverage LLM agents to believably simulate human evaluators. Yet, to date, existing LLM-as-a-judge approaches face two limitations: persona descriptions of agents are often arbitrarily designed, and the frameworks are not generalizable to other tasks. To address these challenges, we propose MAJ-EVAL, a Multi-Agent-as-Judge evaluation framework that can automatically construct multiple evaluator personas with distinct dimensions from relevant text documents (e.g., research papers), instantiate LLM agents with the personas, and engage in-group debates with multi-agents to generate multi-dimensional feedback. Our evaluation experiments in both the educational and medical domains demonstrate that MAJ-EVAL can generate evaluation results that better align with human experts’ ratings compared with conventional automated evaluation metrics and existing LLM-as-a-judge methods.

Can Large Language models (LLMs) accurately simulate the next web action of a specific user? While LLMs have shown promising capabilities in generating believable human behaviors, evaluating their ability to mimic real user behaviors remains an open challenge, largely due to the lack of high-quality, publicly available datasets that capture both the observable actions and the internal reasoning of an actual human user. To address this gap, we introduce OPeRA, a novel dataset of Observation, Persona, Rationale, and Action collected from real human participants during online shopping sessions. **OPeRA is the first public dataset that comprehensively captures: user personas, browser observations, fine-grained web actions, and self-reported just-in-time rationales**. We developed both an online questionnaire and a custom browser plugin to gather this dataset with high fidelity. Using OPeRA, we establish **the first benchmark to evaluate how well current LLMs can predict a specific user’s next action** and rationale with a given persona and <observation, action, rationale> history. This dataset lays the groundwork for future research into LLM agents that aim to act as personalized digital twins for human.

Tool-calling agents are increasingly deployed in real-world customer-facing workflows. Yet most studies on tool-calling agents focus on idealized settings with general, fixed, and well-specified tasks.In real-world applications, user requests are often (1) ambiguous, (2) changing over time, or (3) infeasible due to policy constraints, and training and evaluation data that cover these diverse, complex interaction patterns remain under-represented.To bridge the gap, we present Trajectory2Task a verifiable data generation pipeline for studying tool use at scale under three realistic user scenarios: ambiguous intent, changing intent, and infeasible intents.The pipeline first conducts multi-turn exploration to produce valid tool-call trajectories. It then converts these trajectories into user-facing tasks with controlled intent adaptations. This process yields verifiable task that support closed-loop evaluation and training. We benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on the generated complex user scenario tasks and observe frequent failures.Finally, using successful trajectories obtained from task rollouts, we fine-tune lightweight LLMs and find consistent improvements across all three conditions, along with better generalization to unseen tool-use domains, indicating stronger tool-calling ability.

While most existing works on LLM prompting techniques focus only on how to select a better set of data samples inside one single prompt input (In-Context Learning or ICL), why can not we design and leverage multiple prompts together to further improve the LLM’s performance? In this work, we propose In-Context Sampling (ICS), a low-resource LLM prompting technique to produce confident predictions by optimizing the construction of multiple ICL prompt inputs. Extensive experiments with three open-source LLMs (FlanT5-XL, Mistral-7B, and Mixtral-8x7B) on four NLI datasets (e-SNLI, Multi-NLI, ANLI, and Contract-NLI) and one QA dataset (CommonsenseQA) illustrate that ICS can consistently enhance LLMs’ performance. An in-depth evaluation with three data similarity-based ICS strategies suggests that these strategies can further elevate LLM’s performance, which sheds light on a new yet promising future research direction.

Interactive story reading is common in early childhood education, where teachers expect to teach both language skills and real-world knowledge beyond the story. While many story reading systems have been developed for this activity, they often fail to infuse real-world knowledge into the conversation. This limitation can be attributed to the existing question-answering (QA) datasets used for children’s education, upon which the systems are built, failing to capture the nuances of how education experts think when conducting interactive story reading activities. To bridge this gap, we design an annotation framework, empowered by existing knowledge graph to capture experts’ annotations and thinking process, and leverage this framework to construct StorySparkQA dataset, which comprises 5, 868 expert-annotated QA pairs with real-world knowledge. We conduct automated and human expert evaluations across various QA pair generation settings to demonstrate that our StorySparkQA can effectively support models in generating QA pairs that target real-world knowledge beyond story content. StorySparkQA is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/NEU-HAI/StorySparkQA.

Real-world domain experts (e.g., doctors) rarely annotate only a decision label in their day-to-day workflow without providing explanations. Yet, existing low-resource learning techniques, such as Active Learning (AL), that aim to support human annotators mostly focus on the label while neglecting the natural language explanation of a data point. This work proposes a novel AL architecture to support experts’ real-world need for label and explanation annotations in low-resource scenarios. Our AL architecture leverages an explanation-generation model to produce explanations guided by human explanations, a prediction model that utilizes generated explanations toward prediction faithfully, and a novel data diversity-based AL sampling strategy that benefits from the explanation annotations. Automated and human evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating explanations into AL sampling and the improved human annotation efficiency and trustworthiness with our AL architecture. Additional ablation studies illustrate the potential of our AL architecture for transfer learning, generalizability, and integration with large language models (LLMs). While LLMs exhibit exceptional explanation-generation capabilities for relatively simple tasks, their effectiveness in complex real-world tasks warrants further in-depth study.