CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ripple Effect Protocol: Coordinating Agent Populations

Chopra, Ayush, Sharma, Aman, Ahmad, Feroz, Muscariello, Luca, Pandey, Vijoy, Raskar, Ramesh·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2510.16572arXiv 2510.16572
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Modern AI agents can exchange messages using protocols such as A2A and ACP, yet these mechanisms emphasize communication over coordination. As agent populations grow, this limitation produces brittle collective behavior, where individually smart agents converge on poor group outcomes. We introduce the Ripple Effect Protocol (REP), a coordination protocol in which agents share not only their decisions but also lightweight sensitivities - signals expressing how their choices would change if key environmental variables shifted. These sensitivities ripple through local networks, enabling groups to align faster and more stably than with agent-centric communication alone. We formalize REP's protocol specification, separating required message schemas from optional aggregation rules, and evaluate it across scenarios with varying incentives and network topologies. Benchmarks across three domains: (i) supply chain cascades (Beer Game), (ii) preference aggregation in sparse networks (Movie Scheduling), and (iii) sustainable resource allocation (Fishbanks) show that REP improves coordination accuracy and efficiency over A2A by 41 to 100%, while flexibly handling multimodal sensitivity signals from LLMs. By making coordination a protocol-level capability, REP provides scalable infrastructure for the emerging Internet of Agents

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2510.16572

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the Ripple Effect Protocol, agents share not only their decisions but also lightweight sensitivities, which helps agents align faster and more stably than with agent-centric communication alone.

    “In the Ripple Effect Protocol (Chopra et al., 2025), agents share not only their decisions but also lightweight sensitivities which is shown to help agents align faster and more stably than with agent-centric communication alone.”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Chopra et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

  • Optimizing generative AI by backpropagating language model feedback

    Yuksekgonul, M., Bianchi, F., Boen, J., Liu, S., Lu, P., Huang, Z., Guestrin, C., & Zou, J. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08661-4 · Cited by 85 · cited 2×

    “REP builds on this lineage by leveraging textual sensitivity [36] as a coordination primitive, providing the missing layer above current messaging protocols and enabling large populations of LLM agents to coordinate without centralized control.”

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. K. J. Arrow. Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press, 1951. 2.2
  2. N. Attrapadung, K. Isayama, K. Sadakane, and K. Tozawa. Secure parallel computation with oblivious state transitions. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 2024. ACM. 2.3
  3. M. Castro and B. Liskov. Practical byzantine fault tolerance. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems (TOCS), 17(4):398-461, 1999. 1, 2.
  4. W. Chen, Y. Su, J. Zuo, C. Yang, C. Yuan, C.-M. Chan, H. Yu, Y. Lu, Y.-H. Hung, C. Qian, et al. Agentverse: Facilitating multi-agent collaboration and exploring emergent behaviors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10848, 2023. 1 · arXiv
  5. A. Chopra, A. Quera-Bofarull, N. Giray-Kuru, M. Wooldridge, and R. Raskar. Private agent-based modeling. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), page 10. IFAAMAS, 2024. 2.3
  6. A. Chopra, S. Kumar, N. G. Kuru, R. Raskar, and A. Quera-Bofarull. On the limits of agency in agent-based models. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2025), page 500-509, Detroit, Michigan, USA, 2025. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (IFAAMAS). 2.2
  7. R. Cooper, D. V. DeJong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross. Selection criteria in coordination games: Some experimental results. The American Economic Review, 80(1):218-233, 1990. 1
  8. P. Cramton, Y. Shoham, and R. Steinberg. Combinatorial Auctions. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006. 2.2
  9. A. Ehtesham, A. Singh, G. K. Gupta, and S. Kumar. A survey of agent interoperability protocols: Model context protocol (mcp), agent communication protocol (acp), agent-to- agent protocol (a2a), and agent network protocol (anp). arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02279, 2025. 2.1 · arXiv
  10. S. Hong, M. Zhuge, J. Chen, X. Zheng, Y. Cheng, C. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Wang, S. K. S. Yau, Z. Lin, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00352, 2023. 1, 2.2 · arXiv
  11. H. L. Lee, V. Padmanabhan, and S. Whang. Information distortion in a supply chain: The bullwhip effect. Management Science, 43(4):546-558, 1997. 1, 5
  12. Y. Louck, A. Stulman, and A. Dvir. Proposal for improving google a2a protocol: Safe- guarding sensitive data in multi-agent systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12490, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.12490. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12490. 2.2 · DOI
  13. S. Marro, E. L. Malfa, J. Wright, G. Li, N. Shadbolt, M. Wooldridge, and P. Torr. A scalable communication protocol for networks of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11905, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.11905. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.11905. 1, 2.1 · DOI · Paper page
  14. A. Nedic, A. Olshevsky, W. Shi, and Y. Zhang. Stochastic gradient-push for strongly convex optimization over a time-varying directed network. In Decision and Control (CDC), 2014 IEEE 53rd Annual Conference on, pages 3346-3351. IEEE, 2014. 2.3
  15. D. Ongaro and J. Ousterhout. In search of an understandable consensus algorithm. In 2014 USENIX annual technical conference (USENIX ATC 14), pages 305-319, 2014. 1, 2.2
  16. T. Rashid, M. Samvelyan, C. Schroeder, G. Farquhar, J. Foerster, and S. Whiteson. Qmix: Monotonic value function factorisation for deep multi-agent reinforcement learning. In International conference on machine learning, pages 4295-4304. PMLR, 2018. 1
  17. J. D. Sterman. Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a simple supply chain. Management Science, 35(3):321-339, 1989. 1, 5
  18. P. Stone and M. Veloso. Multiagent systems: A survey from a machine learning perspective. Autonomous Robots, 8(3):345-383, 2000. 1
  19. P. Sunehag, G. Lever, A. Gruslys, W. M. Czarnecki, V. Zambaldi, M. Jaderberg, M. Lanctot, N. Sonnerat, J. Z. Leibo, K. Tuyls, et al. Value-decomposition networks for cooperative multi-agent learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05296, 2017. 1 · arXiv
  20. Y. Wang, S. Guo, Y. Pan, Z. Su, F. Chen, T. H. Luan, P. Li, J. Kang, and D. Niyato. Internet of agents: Fundamentals, applications, and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.07176, 2025. 1 · arXiv
  21. Q. Wu, G. Bansal, J. Zhang, Y. Wu, B. Li, E. Zhu, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, J. Liu, A. H. Awadallah, R. W. White, D. Burger, and C. Wang. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08155. 2.2 · arXiv
  22. J. C. Yang, M. Korecki, D. Dailisan, C. I. Hausladen, and D. Helbing. Llm voting: Human choices and ai collective decision making. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2024. 2.2
  23. Y. Yang, M. Ma, Y. Huang, H. Chai, C. Gong, H. Geng, Y. Zhou, Y. Wen, M. Fang, M. Chen, S. Gu, M. Jin, C. J. Spanos, Y. Yang, P. Abbeel, D. Song, W. Zhang, and J. Wang. Agentic web: Weaving the next web with ai agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21206, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21206. 1 · arXiv
  24. B. Zhang, Y. Tan, Y. Shen, A. Salem, M. Backes, S. Zannettou, and Y. Zhang. Breaking agents: Compromising autonomous llm agents through malfunction amplification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.20859, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.20859. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2407.20859. 2.2 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chopra, A., Sharma, A., Ahmad, F., Muscariello, L., Pandey, V., & Raskar, R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2510.16572
arXiv
2510.16572
References
1
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review