Abstract
Simulating human conversations using large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a scalable methodology for modeling human social interaction. This paper reconsiders the evaluation of simulated conversations by explicitly recognizing that human conversations inherently involve inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors, such as misunderstandings and interruptions. Since these behaviors contribute to the complexity of human social interaction, we argue that LLM-simulated conversations should reproduce them at frequencies comparable to those observed in human conversations. To support a detailed and interpretable evaluation of these behaviors, we introduce CoCoEval, a framework consisting of an evaluation scheme based on turn-level detection of 10 types of inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors and a benchmark for simulating conversations in professional scenarios involving collaboration and conflict. Using CoCoEval, we compare human conversations with those simulated by GPT-4.1, GPT-5.1, and Claude Opus 4. The results show that (1) LLM-simulated conversations exhibit far fewer inconsistent and uncollaborative behaviors than human conversations under vanilla prompting, and (2) prompt engineering and supervised fine-tuning do not provide reliable control over these behaviors, often leading to the overproduction of specific behaviors. CoCoEval identifies gaps between human and LLM-simulated conversations that are not captured by conventional evaluation based on conversation-level Likert scales, raising concerns about the use of LLMs as proxies for human social interaction.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17094
