LLM-based multi-agent systems typically communicate through text, incurring repeated generation and re-encoding costs. Although latent communication removes explicit verbalization, constructing latent messages may still require autoregressive latent trajectories. We therefore distinguish message representation from message construction and ask whether agents can directly construct useful continuation states without executing the trajectories that normally produce them. We formulate this problem as trajectory-to-state compilation and introduce Thought Blocks, fixed-size blocks of latent key--value (KV) continuation memory constructed in one shot. Thought Blocks achieve a 2.5 times average latency speedup over autoregressive latent communication. Compared with text-based multi-agent communication, Thought Blocks reduce text tokens by 45.7% and autoregressive steps by 84.8%, achieving an 8.6 times average latency speedup. These results demonstrate that trajectory-to-state compilation enables efficient inter-agent latent communication without sequential latent rollouts at inference.
Figures & tables
Method
Inter-agent communication
KV message
Sequential latent rollout
Iterative latent refinement
Direct post-trajectory state
Single-agent latent reasoning
Coconut Hao et al. (2024)
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
PCCoT Wu et al. (2025)
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
CoT2 Gozeten et al. (2026)
✗
✗
✓
✗
✗
LaDiR Kang et al. (2025)
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Trajectory-produced latent communication
Table 1: Comparison of latent reasoning and communication mechanisms.
Qwen2.5-7B
Qwen3-8B
Task
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Passes ∗
AR Steps †
Latency †
Acc.
Text Tokens
Passes ∗
AR Steps †
Latency †
Reasoning
Single Text
69.06
233
-
53
2.18
86.45
233
-
50
1.75
Text-MAS
74.91
1717
483
492
16.09
89.75
1546
375
380
16.80
Latent-MAS
73.85
751
12
30
3.85
89.62
752
12
16
3.99
Ours
73.77
737
3
6
0.85
89.24
738
3
10
1.23
Improve
-1.13
57.1%
99.4%
98.7%
18.88 ×
-0.51
52.3%
99.2%
97.3%
13.66 ×
Table 2: Main comparison across four LLM backbones and three task categories. Results are category means. Improve compares Ours with Text-MAS: accuracy is Ours − Text-MAS, efficiency metrics are relative reductions, and latency is speedup. Bold indicates the best multi-agent result.
Method
ARC-C
ARC-E
BoolQ
GPQA
GSM8K
MedQA(US)
MedQA(TW)
MedQA(ML)
MMLU
OpenBookQA
QuAIL
Ours
91.76
96.91
90.25
43.89
82.05
71.16
73.41
80.12
82.79
86.23
77.44
Zero E
83.00
84.96
83.89
32.54
70.40
68.01
71.72
79.22
80.09
82.71
71.25
Random E
80.70
83.25
79.52
30.37
70.56
66.35
68.81
76.43
77.61
78.74
69.28
R−only
79.11
78.63
71.39
15.31
58.94
54.66
57.98
68.25
65.72
64.43
59.67
C−only
82.63
82.94
76.08
19.15
66.36
60.32
64.57
75.61
72.43
73.65
64.98
Table 3: Ablation study of our method and its variants on the datasets. Accuracy (%) is reported.
Task Category
Metric
B=1
B=4
B=8
B=12
B=16
B=24
B=32
Reasoning
Accuracy
87.14
89.24
89.46
89.69
89.35
89.34
90.02
Latency (s)
1.13
1.23
1.26
1.27
1.21
1.25
1.29
KV Load (MB)
4.66
5.71
7.12
8.52
9.93
12.74
15.55
Question Answering
Accuracy
65.49
70.27
71.24
71.23
71.66
71.82
72.21
Latency (s)
3.12
3.20
3.23
3.27
3.23
3.20
3.34
KV Load (MB)
7.37
8.42
9.83
11.23
12.64
15.45
18.26
Table 4: Effect of Thought Block size on Qwen3-8B.
Method
ARC-C
ARC-E
BoolQ
GPQA
GSM8K
MedQA(ML)
MedQA(TW)
MedQA(US)
MMLU
OpenBookQA
QuAIL
Ours
6.25
5.66
8.61
10.13
5.61
6.78
7.28
10.76
7.17
5.33
18.26
Latent-MAS
41.96
39.95
59.48
71.42
38.99
47.08
51.14
75.68
52.87
36.42
126.18
Text-MAS
58.02
55.49
64.83
93.86
50.43
67.54
75.49
89.27
65.75
52.79
108.91
Table 5: Loaded KV-cache size (MB) during decoding on Qwen3-8B.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure A.1: Overview of our Thought Block framework for latent multi-agent communication. Each agent first encodes its local context together with the compressed communication history, where earlier interactions are retained through Beacon KV states while the most recent context preserves its raw-token states. During training, a frozen Beacon teacher autoregressively constructs a latent continuation trajectory, from which a fixed number of model-native continuation states are extracted to form the supervision target. The Thought Block Writer is then trained to predict these continuation-memory states directly from the pre-trajectory representation. At inference time, the teacher trajectory is removed entirely: the Writer generates the Thought Block in a single forward pass, and the resulting latent states are directly propagated to subsequent agents through the KV cache without decoding intermediate textual messages. This design preserves model-native latent information while substantially reducing the autoregressive communication overhead of conventional text-based multi-agent systems.
Dataset
Model
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Comm. Passes
AR Steps
Latency
ARC-C
Qwen2.5-7B
Ours
82.38
784
3
4
0.68
Latent-MAS
83.39
788
12
17
3.39
Text-MAS
83.96
1757
479
482
13.36
Single
81.19
199
-
5
0.09
Improve
-1.58
55.4%
99.4%
99.6%
19.6 ×
Qwen3-8B
Ours
91.76
769
3
4
0.61
Appendix
Table B.1: Main performance comparison on all models across benchmarks. For accuracy, Improve is computed as Ours − Text-MAS. For efficiency metrics, Improve reports the reduction or speedup of Ours relative to Text-MAS. The best and second-best results among Ours, Latent-MAS, and Text-MAS are highlighted in bold and underlined, respectively. For Improve rows with an accuracy difference greater than −1.5 points. (Part 1/6: ARC-C, ARC-E.)
Dataset
Model
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Comm. Passes
AR Steps
Latency
BoolQ
Qwen2.5-7B
Ours
84.19
1118
3
5
1.49
Latent-MAS
86.76
1119
12
16
3.35
Text-MAS
85.85
1938
400
404
13.92
Single
83.73
280
-
6
0.16
Improve
-1.66
42.3%
99.2%
99.3%
9.3 ×
Qwen3-8B
Ours
90.25
1121
3
6
0.68
Appendix
Table B.2: Main performance comparison on all models across benchmarks (continued; Part 2/6: BoolQ, GPQA).
Dataset
Model
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Comm. Passes
AR Steps
Latency
GSM8K
Qwen2.5-7B
Ours
44.05
740
3
14
0.91
Latent-MAS
44.87
787
12
73
6.34
Text-MAS
43.06
1823
530
552
18.60
Single
31.84
372
-
195
8.26
Improve
+0.99
59.4%
99.4%
97.5%
20.4 ×
Qwen3-8B
Ours
82.05
755
3
27
2.41
Appendix
Table B.3: Main performance comparison on all models across benchmarks (continued; Part 3/6: GSM8K, MedQA(ML)).
Dataset
Model
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Comm. Passes
AR Steps
Latency
MedQA(TW)
Qwen2.5-7B
Ours
60.20
960
3
5
0.86
Latent-MAS
59.46
971
12
26
3.91
Text-MAS
62.88
2092
565
580
19.85
Single
57.64
247
-
13
0.35
Improve
-2.68
54.1%
99.5%
99.5%
23.1 ×
Qwen3-8B
Ours
73.41
989
3
8
2.34
Appendix
Table B.4: Main performance comparison on all models across benchmarks (continued; Part 4/6: MedQA(TW), MedQA(US)).
Dataset
Model
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Comm. Passes
AR Steps
Latency
OpenBooKQA
Qwen2.5-7B
Ours
77.60
679
3
4
0.84
Latent-MAS
75.80
681
12
16
3.24
Text-MAS
80.40
1646
479
486
17.02
Single
71.42
176
-
7
0.23
Improve
-2.80
58.7%
99.4%
99.6%
20.3 ×
Qwen3-8B
Ours
86.23
687
3
6
1.21
Appendix
Table B.5: Main performance comparison on all models across benchmarks (continued; Part 5/6: OpenBooKQA, MMLU).
Dataset
Model
Method
Acc.
Text Tokens
Comm. Passes
AR Steps
Latency
QuAIL
Qwen2.5-7B
Ours
67.07
2388
3
9
1.74
Latent-MAS
71.87
2387
12
19
4.04
Text-MAS
68.88
3066
312
336
11.97
Single
65.60
599
-
7
0.32
Improve
-1.81
22.1%
99.0%
97.3%
6.9 ×
Qwen3-8B
Ours
77.44
2378
3
6
1.49
Appendix
Table B.6: Main performance comparison on all models across benchmarks (continued; Part 6/6: QuAIL).
Figure B.2: Cumulative token and latency scaling of our method versus autoregressive latent MAS on Qwen3-8B. The left panels show cumulative token consumption and latency, and the right panels show the corresponding differences, computed as ours minus latent MAS.
Multi-agent communication studies how autonomous agents exchange information to coordinate decisions, share knowledge, and act together under constraints.
LLM-based multi-agent systems (MAS) increasingly use latent collaboration to avoid the information loss and repeated encoding-decoding overhead of natural-language communication. However, directly forwarding all sender latents makes the receiver-side context scale with both the number of agents and the reasoning length, increasing computation, memory usage, and collaboration latency. A natural solution is latent compression. But we find that cross-agent redundancy remains unresolved in existing latent compression approaches, which typically compress each sender independently and then concatenate the results. We propose LatCom, a cross-agent latent compression framework for efficient multi-agent latent collaboration. LatCom maps multiple sender latents into a fixed number of receiver-readable and task-relevant slots. Rather than reconstructing all sender hidden states, it optimizes the compressed latents for receiver-side task utility. LatCom trains the compressor in two stages: single-sender readability learning first establishes a latent interface interpretable by the frozen receiver, and multi-sender fusion learning then trains the compressor to fuse complementary evidence and remove redundancy across agents. Experiments on multiple benchmarks with Qwen3-4B show that LatCom achieves an average 2.46x inference speed-up over LatentMAS and reduces output token usage by 70.3% while maintaining comparable average accuracy.
Shinan Zhang, Tao Zhang, Qihui Zhu +7
University of Science and Technology of China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Hefei Comprehensive National Science Center
Multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs) have become a prevailing paradigm for tackling complex reasoning, planning, and tool-use tasks. The dominant communication protocol in such systems is natural language: agents exchange messages token-by-token, verbalising their internal reasoning so that peers can read, verify, and respond. While convenient and interpretable, this protocol suffers from three structural drawbacks -- high inference cost, irreversible information loss during discretization, and ambiguity/redundancy of natural language. A growing body of work therefore explores an alternative protocol -- latent communication -- in which agents exchange continuous representations (embeddings, hidden states, or KV-caches) directly, bypassing the bottleneck of text generation. This paper presents a unified framework for organising the rapidly expanding literature on latent communication. We analyse existing methods along three orthogonal axes: (1) WHAT information is communicated (Embeddings, Hidden States, KV-Caches, or other continuous state); (2) WHICH sender-receiver alignment is used (latent-space alignment and layer alignment); and (3) HOW the communicated information is fused into the receiver (concatenation, prepending, mathematical operations, cross-attention, or cache restoration). Under this 3-axis framework, we systematically categorise eighteen representative methods proposed between 2024 and 2026, identify five major design patterns, and surface a set of open challenges -- including cross-architecture alignment, security of latent channels, compression for edge deployment, and the relationship between latent communication and latent chain-of-thought. We hope that this framework both lowers the barrier to entry for new researchers and provides a vocabulary for comparing future work.
While natural language is the de facto communication medium for LLM-based agents, it presents a fundamental constraint. The process of downsampling rich, internal latent states into discrete tokens inherently limits the depth and nuance of information that can be transmitted, thereby hindering collaborative problem-solving. Inspired by telepathy, which bypasses symbolic language in communication, we propose Interlat (Inter-agent Latent Space Communication), a paradigm that leverages the continuous last hidden states of an LLM as a representation of its thought for direct communication (termed latent communication). An additional learned compression process further compresses latent communication via latent space reasoning. Experiments demonstrate that Interlat outperforms both fine-tuned chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting and single-agent baselines, even across heterogeneous models, promoting more exploratory behavior and enabling genuine utilization of latent information. Further compression not only substantially accelerates inference by up to 24 times but also maintains competitive performance through an efficient information-preserving mechanism. We position this work as a feasibility study of entirely latent space inter-agent communication, and our results highlight its potential, offering valuable insights for future research. Our code is available at https://github.com/XiaoDu-flying/Interlat.
Zhuoyun Du, Runze Wang, Huiyu Bai +6
State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University · Zhejiang Key Laboratory of Medical Imaging Artificial Intelligence · Alibaba Group +3