cs.MASep 16, 2026

Proxifield: Decentralized Multi-Agent Communication through Semantic Proximity

Authors: Pradyumna Tambwekar, Yenchia Feng, Deep Patel, Karime Maamari

Organizations: Distyl AI

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

As LLM capabilities have expanded, multi-agent communication has emerged as an increasingly active area of research. Prevailing protocols often adopt rigid structures that introduce coordination bottlenecks and can degrade as the number of agents increases. We introduce Proxifield, a round-adaptive multi-agent protocol with decentralized agent decision-making that constructs sparse communication graphs from the evolving semantic proximity of agents. Without model training or a centralized planner, Proxifield connects agents using four routing signals derived at inference time: direct address, information needs, plan alignment, and information complementarity. We compare Proxifield with two representative coordination baselines, a centralized Star protocol and a decentralized Shared Context protocol, across two domains: Drone Search and Rescue and the collective-reasoning benchmark HiddenBench. We first ablate base-model capability and find that, in both domains, the performance of Proxifield improves with model size (35B -> 397B parameter model) and Proxifield outperforms all baselines at the largest scale. As team size increases, Proxifield's task-reward advantage over Star widens from 5.4% at (N=5) to 53.0% at (N=25) and 59.5% at (N=50), while Shared Context consistently underperforms both protocols. Proxifield is also substantially more robust to permanent agent failure, retaining 73.6% of its no-failure task reward under the most severe condition, compared with 58.3% for Shared Context and 38.8% for Star. These results demonstrate that decentralized, semantically adaptive routing can improve the scalability and fault tolerance of multi-agent systems.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Comparing multi-agent coordination topologies: Star, Shared Context, and Proxifield.
Figure 2: Performance of each protocol in the DroneSwarm (left) and HiddenBench (right) environments. For DroneSwarm, Proxifield leads all baselines at both the smallest and largest model setting. For HiddenBench, shared context elicits more effective collaboration at the smaller scale, however Proxifield overtakes this baseline when deployed with the 397B parameter model.
Figure 3: Scaling behavior across swarm sizes ( N∈{5,25,50}N\in\{5,25,50\} agents), averaged over 5 seeds per condition. Proxifield’s reward advantage widens with scale while its participation rate stays roughly flat, whereas Star’s participation collapses as the single orchestrator saturates.
Figure 4: Robustness under permanent agent failure for a fixed swarm of N=25N=25 agents (5 scouts and 20 searchers) across cumulative failure probabilities q∈{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8}q\in\{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8\} , averaged over 5 seeds per condition. Proxifield maintains the highest task reward and participation as failures increase.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Figure 5: The DSSE search-and-rescue environment 10 steps into an episode, at swarm sizes N=5N=5 , 2525 , and 5050 . Cyan-bordered icons are scouts, yellow-bordered icons are searchers, and the red-to-green heatmap shows the probability field concentrating around each lost person’s likely location.
Figure 6: Comparing costs of each protocol in the DroneSwarm (left) and HiddenBench (right) environments.
Figure 7: Comparing the cost of each protocol across swarm sizes N∈{5,25,50}N\in\{5,25,50\} in the DroneSwarm environment.
Figure 8: Comparing the cost of each protocol under permanent agent failure across probabilities q∈{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8}q\in\{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8\} with N=25N=25 agents in the DroneSwarm environment.
Figure 9: Comparing task reward, participation rate, and cost across Qwen3.5 model sizes with N=5N=5 agents in the DroneSwarm environment.
Figure 10: HiddenBench post-discussion accuracy for each protocol at 5-round checkpoints across Qwen3.5 model sizes, averaged over 5 seeds. Arrows indicate whether accuracy increased or decreased from the previous checkpoint; gains are generally minimal after round 10.
Figure 11: Comparing task reward, participation rate, and cost across swarm sizes N∈{5,25,50}N\in\{5,25,50\} in the DroneSwarm environment.
Figure 12: Comparing task reward, participation rate, and cost under permanent agent failure across probabilities q∈{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8}q\in\{0,0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8\} with N=25N=25 agents in the DroneSwarm environment.
More in this topic

Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Multi-agent large language model systems coordinate multiple AI agents to solve tasks through communication, specialization, shared tools, and memory.

See all 1,001 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 17, 2026

A Technical Taxonomy of LLM Agent Communication Protocols

As large language models (LLMs) advance and multi-agent systems aim to overcome the limits of standalone agents, robust communication protocols are becoming essential infrastructure for distributed agent networks. Nonetheless, the fragmented protocol landscape presents a significant interoperability challenge. This study develops a technical taxonomy to classify and analyze LLM agent communication protocols. Following an established iterative method, we defined the taxonomy's purpose, meta-characteristic, and ending conditions, then performed five iterations, three empirical-to-conceptual and two conceptual-to-empirical, on nine actively maintained open-source protocols with demonstrable adoption. The taxonomy comprises five dimensions: counterparty, payload, interaction state, discovery mechanism, and schema flexibility. Classification reveals recurring architectural patterns: all sampled agent-to-agent protocols combine hybrid payloads with session-state persistence; most protocols support multiple predefined schemas, and two negotiate schemas at runtime, indicating a trend toward schema flexibility; decentralized discovery remains rare. Analysis suggests short-term convergence pressure toward protocols unifying agent-to-agent and agent-to-context (tool and data) communication. Long-term, however, no single protocol is likely to maximize versatility, efficiency, and portability simultaneously. The field will more likely evolve toward a federated, layered protocol stack. The framework guides protocol selection and highlights open research gaps such as privacy and policy enforcement.}

Linus Sander, Habtom Kahsay Gidey, Alexander Lenz +1

Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany.

Agent Communication ProtocolsMulti-Agent Communication
AskPDF
Jun 1, 2026

Dynamic Trust-Aware Sparse Communication Topology for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Consensus

Large language model-driven multi-agent systems enhance the reliability of complex reasoning tasks through multi-round deliberation, role specialization, and cross-validation. However, existing multi-agent debate and collaboration frameworks typically adopt fully connected communication, causing the number of messages, token costs, and end-to-end latency to grow approximately quadratically with the number of agents; although fixed sparse topologies reduce overhead, they cannot adapt communication relationships to different task instances or intermediate reasoning states, making them prone either to preserving low-value interactions or to losing critical error-correction information. To address this problem, this paper proposes DySCo (Dynamic Sparse Consensus), a dynamic trust-aware sparse consensus mechanism. In each round of reasoning, DySCo estimates the value of communication edges based on agent reliability, answer divergence, and task relevance, and selects a small number of high-value edges for message exchange under budget constraints; it then aggregates the answers of different agents through dynamic trust weights and terminates the discussion early once consensus stabilizes. This mechanism replaces universal broadcasting with on-demand communication, thereby reducing communication overhead while preserving essential cross-validation information. We further present analyses of communication complexity and consensus stability, and evaluate the performance of DySCo on mathematical reasoning, logical reasoning, and factual question-answering tasks.

Wanshuang Gou, Zihan Liu

Chengdu University

Multi-Agent LLM SystemsMulti-Agent System OptimizationMulti-Agent CoordinationMulti-Agent DebateMulti-Agent ConsensusCommunication Complexity+3
AskPDF
Mar 30, 2026

Beyond Message Passing: A Semantic View of Agent Communication Protocols

Agent communication protocols are becoming critical infrastructure for large language model (LLM) systems that must use tools, coordinate with other agents, and operate across heterogeneous environments. This work presents a human-inspired perspective on this emerging landscape by organizing agent communication into three layers: communication, syntactic, and semantic. Under this framework, we systematically analyze 18 representative protocols and compare how they support reliable transport, structured interaction, and meaning-level coordination. Our analysis shows a clear imbalance in current protocol design. Most protocols provide increasingly mature support for transport, streaming, schema definition, and lifecycle management, but offer limited protocol-level mechanisms for clarification, context alignment, and verification. As a result, semantic responsibilities are often pushed into prompts, wrappers, or application-specific orchestration logic, creating hidden interoperability and maintenance costs. To make this gap actionable, we further identify major forms of technical debt in today's protocol ecosystem and distill practical guidance for selecting protocols under different deployment settings. We conclude by outlining a research agenda for interoperable, secure, and semantically robust agent ecosystems that move beyond message passing toward shared understanding.

Dun Yuan, Fuyuan Lyu, Ye Yuan +11

Agent Communication ProtocolsMulti-Agent CommunicationMulti-Agent LLM Systems
AskPDF