PreprintCited by 1Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationAccess Control and TrustScientific Computing and Data Management

Mesh Memory Protocol: Semantic Infrastructure for Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Open access
Xu, Hongwei·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Teams of LLM agents increasingly collaborate on tasks spanning days or weeks: multi-day data-generation sprints where generator, reviewer, and auditor agents coordinate in real time on overlapping batches; specialists carrying findings forward across session restarts; product decisions compounding over many review rounds. This requires agents to share, evaluate, and combine each other's cognitive state in real time across sessions. We call this cross-session agent-to-agent cognitive collaboration, distinct from parallel agent execution. To enable it, three problems must be solved together. (P1) Each agent decides field by field what to accept from peers, not accept or reject whole messages. (P2) Every claim is traceable to source, so returning claims are recognised as echoes of the receiver's own prior thinking. (P3) Memory that survives session restarts is relevant because of how it was stored, not how it is retrieved. These are protocol-level properties at the semantic layer of agent communication, distinct from tool-access and task-delegation protocols at lower layers. We call this missing protocol layer "semantic infrastructure," and the Mesh Memory Protocol (MMP) specifies it. Four composable primitives work together: CAT7, a fixed seven-field schema for every Cognitive Memory Block (CMB); SVAF, which evaluates each field against the receiver's role-indexed anchors and realises P1; inter-agent lineage, carried as parents and ancestors of content-hash keys and realising P2; and remix, which stores only the receiver's own role-evaluated understanding of each accepted CMB, never the raw peer signal, realising P3. MMP is specified, shipped, and running in production across three reference deployments, where each session runs an autonomous agent as a mesh peer with its own identity and memory, collaborating with other agents across the network for collective intelligence.

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.2604.19540

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Cemri, M. et al. (2025). Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? arXiv:2503.13657. · arXiv
  2. Chhikara, P. et al. (2025). Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory. arXiv:2504.19413. · arXiv
  3. Du, Y. et al. (2023). Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate. ICML 2024. arXiv:2305.14325. · arXiv
  4. Ehtesham, A. et al. (2025). 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:2505.02279. · arXiv
  5. Finin, T. et al. (1994). KQML as an Agent Communication Language. Proc. CIKM '94, 456-463.
  6. FIPA (2002). FIPA ACL Message Structure Specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, SC00061G. fipa.org/specs/fipa00061.
  7. Froger, R. et al. (2026). Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments. arXiv:2602.11964. · arXiv
  8. Hasani, R., Lechner, M., Amini, A., Rus, D., & Grosu, R. (2022). Closed-form Continuous-time Neural Networks. Nature Machine Intelligence 4, 992-1003. arXiv:2106.13898. · arXiv
  9. Hohpe, G. & Woolf, B. (2003). Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley.
  10. Hong, S. et al. (2023). MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework. ICLR 2024 (Oral). arXiv:2308.00352. · arXiv
  11. Hu, Y. et al. (2025). Memory in the Age of AI Agents: Forms, Functions and Dynamics. arXiv:2512.13564. · arXiv
  12. Labrou, Y., Finin, T., & Peng, Y. (1999). Agent Communication Languages: The Current Landscape. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(2), 45-52.
  13. Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Penguin Press.
  14. Lewis, P. et al. (2020). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. NeurIPS 2020. arXiv:2005.11401. · arXiv
  15. Liang, T. et al. (2023). Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate. EMNLP 2024. arXiv:2305.19118. · arXiv
  16. Liu, J., Zhao, X., Shang, X., & Shen, Z. (2026). Dive into Claude Code: The Design Space of Today's and Future AI Agent Systems. arXiv:2604.14228 [cs.SE]. · arXiv
  17. Packer, C. et al. (2023). MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems. arXiv:2310.08560. · arXiv
  18. Park, J. S. et al. (2023). Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. UIST 2023. arXiv:2304.03442. · arXiv
  19. Riedl, C. (2025). Emergent Coordination in Multi-Agent Language Models. arXiv:2510.05174. · arXiv
  20. Shinn, N. et al. (2023). Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS 2023. arXiv:2303.11366. · arXiv
  21. Wang, G. et al. (2023). Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models. TMLR 2024. arXiv:2305.16291. · arXiv
  22. Wang, Z. et al. (2024). Agent Workflow Memory. arXiv:2409.07429. · arXiv
  23. Wu, Q. et al. (2023). AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation. COLM 2024. arXiv:2308.08155. · arXiv
  24. Xu, W. et al. (2025). A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents. arXiv:2502.12110. · arXiv
  25. Xu, H. (2026a). MeloTune: On-Device Arousal Learning and Peer-to-Peer Mood Coupling for Proactive Music Curation. arXiv:2604.10815. · arXiv
  26. Xu, H. (2026b). Symbolic-Vector Attention Fusion for Collective Intelligence. arXiv:2604.03955. · arXiv
  27. Yu, Z. et al. (2026). Multi-Agent Memory from a Computer Architecture Perspective: Visions and Challenges Ahead. arXiv:2603.10062. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xu, H.
Corresponding author
Xu, Hongwei
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7155224636
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
Keywords
multi-agent LLM systems, agent communication protocols, semantic infrastructure, collective intelligence, agent cooperation

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