Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multi-agent settings that require coordination without communication, from human–AI interaction to safety-critical scenarios. Humans often overcome the absence of communication through focal points: salient solutions that naturally stand out to all participants. We present the first large-scale evaluation of how, when, and why focal points emerge in LLMs, comparing their behaviour with humans across cooperative and competitive games, including realistic search rescue scenarios, demonstrating when focal points enable effective coordination. Across more than 20 open- and closed-source models, we find that LLMs exhibit a remarkable ability to coordinate without communication, often matching or outperforming humans. However, the same models consistently fail in tasks requiring numerical common sense or culturally nuanced notions of salience. We additionally evaluate simple learning-free strategies that substantially improve coordination both among LLMs and between humans and LLMs. Our results reveal striking coordination capabilities, as well as social limitations in modern LLMs, and offer new insight into the latent notions of salience encoded within them. Our findings caution against assuming that LLMs share humans’ cultural and perceptual substrate when deployed in coordination settings.

We study how large language models (LLMs) reason about memorized knowledge through simple binary relations such as equality (=), inequality (<), and inclusion (⊂). Unlike in-context reasoning, the axioms (e.g., a < b, b < c) are only seen during training and not provided in the task prompt (e.g., evaluating a < c). The tasks require one or more reasoning steps, and data aggregation from one or more sources, showing performance change with task complexity. We introduce a lightweight technique, out-of-context representation learning, which trains only new token embeddings on axioms and evaluates them on unseen tasks. Across reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity tests, LLMs mostly perform statistically significant better than chance, making the correct answer extractable when testing multiple phrasing variations, but still fall short of consistent reasoning on every single query. Analysis shows that the learned embeddings are organized in structured ways, suggesting real relational understanding. Surprisingly, it also indicates that the core reasoning happens during the training, not inference.