Sean Welleck

As NLP evaluation shifts from static benchmarks to multi-turn interactive settings, LLM-based simulators have become widely used as user proxies, serving two roles: generating user turns and providing evaluation signals. Yet, these simulations are frequently assumed to be faithful to real human behaviors, often without rigorous verification. We formalize the Sim2Real gap in user simulation and present the systematic study running the full $\tau$-bench protocol with real humans (451 participants, 165 tasks), benchmarking 31 LLM simulators across proprietary, open-source, and specialized families using the User-Sim Index (USI), a metric we introduce to quantify how well LLM simulators resemble real user interactive behaviors and feedback. Behaviorally, LLM simulators are excessively cooperative, stylistically uniform, and lack realistic frustration or ambiguity, creating an "easy mode" that inflates agent success rates above the human baseline. In evaluations, real humans provide nuanced judgments across eight quality dimensions while simulated users produce uniformly more positive feedback; rule-based rewards are failing to capture rich feedback signals generated by human users. Overall, higher general model capability does not necessarily yield more faithful user simulation. These findings highlight the importance of human validation when using LLM-based user simulators in the agent development cycle and motivate improved models for user simulation.

Despite rapid progress, current AI agents are primarily optimized for isolated task completion. We argue for a paradigm shift toward training agents as collaborators that communicate and adapt to people. To facilitate this shift in real-world complex applications, we first formalize three dimensions of collaborative AI agents: Productivity, Proactivity, and Personalization (PPP). We then introduce UserVille, an interactive environment with configurable LLM-based user simulators and user-centric feedback to evaluate these dimensions. Building on this setup, we present a multi-objective reinforcement learning framework that optimizes all three dimensions using rewards from task outcomes, question effort, and preference adherence. On two consequential real-world agentic tasks (namely, SWE Bench and BrowseComp Plus), PPP trained agents outperform strong LLM baselines (including GPT-5) with an average gain of 16.7 points, ask targeted questions, and generalize to unseen preferences and tasks. A follow-up user study further validates the importance of incorporating user centric feedback in training AI agents, and building such collaborative agents is not only important for making agents more effective, but also easier to supervise.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a central post-training paradigm for large language models (LLMs), but its performance is highly sensitive to the quality of training problems. This sensitivity stems from the non-stationarity of RL: rollouts are generated by an evolving policy, and learning is shaped by exploration and reward feedback, unlike supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with fixed trajectories. As a result, prior work often relies on manual curation or simple heuristic filters (e.g., accuracy), which can admit incorrect or low-utility problems. We propose GradAlign, a gradient-aligned data selection method for LLM reinforcement learning that uses a small, trusted validation set to prioritize training problems whose policy gradients align with validation gradients, yielding an adaptive curriculum. We evaluate GradAlign across three challenging data regimes: unreliable reward signals, distribution imbalance, and low-utility training corpus, showing that GradAlign consistently outperforms existing baselines, underscoring the importance of directional gradient signals in navigating non-stationary policy optimization and yielding more stable training and improved final performance.