aiqbench analysis
This research introduces CoCoEval, a benchmark designed to measure how well LLMs replicate the inherent inconsistencies and interruptions found in real human dialogue. The study reveals that current models, including GPT-4.1 and Claude Opus 4, fail to naturally exhibit these behaviors under standard prompting or fine-tuning, raising significant concerns about their validity as proxies for complex social interaction.
Evaluating LLM-Simulated Conversations in Modeling Inconsistent and Uncollaborative Behaviors in Human Social Interaction
arXiv:2603.17094v2 Announce Type: replace 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: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.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2603.17094 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2603.17094v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.17094 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 302 words
Related coverage
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026

Presentation: From AI Agent Demo to Production: Automated Testing and Evaluation
InfoQ · Sep 7, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Mastering Agentic Techniques: AI Agent Reinforcement Learning
NVIDIA · Jul 1, 2026