Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled the emergence of multi-agent systems where LLMs interact, collaborate, and make decisions in shared environments. While individual model behavior has been extensively studied, the dynamics of peer influence in such systems remain underexplored. In this paper, we investigate herd behavior, the tendency of agents to align their outputs with those of their peers, within LLM-based multi-agent interactions. We present a series of controlled experiments that reveal how herd behaviors are shaped by multiple factors. First, we show that the gap between self-confidence and perceived confidence in peers significantly impacts an agent's likelihood to conform. Second, we find that the format in which peer information is presented plays a critical role in modulating the strength of herd behavior. Finally, we demonstrate that the degree of herd behavior can be systematically controlled, and that appropriately calibrated herd tendencies can enhance collaborative outcomes. These findings offer new insights into the social dynamics of LLM-based systems and open pathways for designing more effective and adaptive multi-agent collaboration frameworks.

This study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) perform when tackling quantitative management decision problems in a zero-shot setting. Drawing on 900 responses generated by five leading models across 20 diverse managerial scenarios, our analysis explores whether these base models can deliver accurate numerical decisions under varying presentation formats, scenario complexities, and repeated attempts. Contrary to prior findings, we observed no significant effects of text presentation format (direct, narrative, or tabular) or text length on accuracy. However, scenario complexity -- particularly in terms of constraints and irrelevant parameters -- strongly influenced performance, often degrading accuracy. Surprisingly, the models handled tasks requiring multiple solution steps more effectively than expected. Notably, only 28.8\% of responses were exactly correct, highlighting limitations in precision. We further found no significant ``learning effect'' across iterations: performance remained stable across repeated queries. Nonetheless, significant variations emerged among the five tested LLMs, with some showing superior binary accuracy. Overall, these findings underscore both the promise and the pitfalls of harnessing LLMs for complex quantitative decision-making, informing managers and researchers about optimal deployment strategies.

Motivated by the use of LLM as a scientific assistant, our paper assesses the domain knowledge of LLMs We are beginning to see progress in language through their understanding of different mathematical model assisted scientific discovery. Motivated skills required to solve problems. Understanding by the use of LLMs as a general scientific can be measured in two ways: the degree to which it assistant, this paper assesses the domain solves problems correctly; and the degree to which it knowledge of LLMs through its understanding enables fast adaptation to new knowledge. Similarly, of different mathematical skills required "understanding" in an LLM has two facets: on the one to solve problems. In particular, we look at hand, pre-trained LLMs possess knowledge that allows not just what the pre-trained model already remarkable performance in zero-shot tasks; on the knows, but how it learned to learn from other hand, pre-trained LLMs can learn new knowledge, information during in-context learning or either by leveraging in-context learning or by instruction-tuning through exploiting the instruction-tuning from base parameters as initialization.

The development of highly fluent large language models (LLMs) has prompted increased interest in assessing their reasoning and problem-solving capabilities. We investigate whether several LLMs can solve a classic type of deductive reasoning problem from the cognitive science literature. The tested LLMs have limited abilities to solve these problems in their conventional form. We performed follow up experiments to investigate if changes to the presentation format and content improve model performance. We do find performance differences between conditions; however, they do not improve overall performance. Moreover, we find that performance interacts with presentation format and content in unexpected ways that differ from human performance. Overall, our results suggest that LLMs have unique reasoning biases that are only partially predicted from human reasoning performance.

Much of the recent work developing formal methods techniques to specify or learn the behavior of autonomous systems is predicated on a belief that formal specifications are interpretable and useful for humans when checking systems. Though frequently asserted, this assumption is rarely tested. We performed a human experiment (N = 62) with a mix of people who were and were not familiar with formal methods beforehand, asking them to validate whether a set of signal temporal logic (STL) constraints would keep an agent out of harm and allow it to complete a task in a gridworld capture-the-flag setting. Validation accuracy was $45\% \pm 20\%$ (mean $\pm$ standard deviation). The ground-truth validity of a specification, subjects' familiarity with formal methods, and subjects' level of education were found to be significant factors in determining validation correctness. Participants exhibited an affirmation bias, causing significantly increased accuracy on valid specifications, but significantly decreased accuracy on invalid specifications. Additionally, participants, particularly those familiar with formal methods, tended to be overconfident in their answers, and be similarly confident regardless of actual correctness. Our data do not support the belief that formal specifications are inherently human-interpretable to a meaningful degree for system validation. We recommend ergonomic improvements to data presentation and validation training, which should be tested before claims of interpretability make their way back into the formal methods literature.