Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Learning User Simulators with Turing Rewards

Yingshan Susan Wang, Cedegao E. Zhang, Linlu Qiu, Zexue He, Pengyuan Li, Alex Pentland, Roger P. Levy, Yoon Kim · Jun 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more. Existing approaches generally do so by training a large language model (LLM) to match a single ground truth response, either by maximizing the log probability or by using a similarity reward. We instead propose {Turing-RL}: a Turing-Test-based reinforcement learning approach for training user simulator models. {Turing-RL} uses a discriminative Turing reward with an LLM judge to score how indistinguishable a generated response is from the real user's given the user's history, and the user simulator LLM learns to produce responses indistinguishable from what the user could have said with such rewards. Across two different domains--conversational chat and Reddit forum discussion--we find that {Turing-RL} consistently outperforms baseline methods on both LLM and human evaluation metrics. Our study suggests that optimizing for indistinguishability, rather than response matching, is effective for learning user simulators.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Human evaluation

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Across two different domains--conversational chat and Reddit forum discussion--we find that {Turing-RL} consistently outperforms baseline methods on both LLM and human evaluation metrics."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Human evaluation
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Learning to simulate human users in interactive settings could advance the training of agent assistants, evaluation of personalization systems, research in the social sciences, and more.
  • Existing approaches generally do so by training a large language model (LLM) to match a single ground truth response, either by maximizing the log probability or by using a similarity reward.
  • We instead propose {Turing-RL}: a Turing-Test-based reinforcement learning approach for training user simulator models.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Human evaluation) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.