Mesh Memory Protocol: Semantic Infrastructure for Multi-Agent LLM Systems
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Mesh Memory Protocol [29] distinguishes echoes from independent corroboration as a protocol but proves no Sybil-resistance guarantee.
“Mesh Memory Protocol [29] distinguishes echoes from independent corroboration as a protocol but proves no Sybilresistance guarantee.”
From Securing LLM-Agent Long-Term Memory Against Poisoning: Non-Malleable, Origin-Bound Authority with Machine-Checked Guarantees (2026) · cites this paper as [29]
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
- Cemri, M. et al. (2025). Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail? arXiv:2503.13657. · arXiv
- Chhikara, P. et al. (2025). Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory. arXiv:2504.19413. · arXiv
- Du, Y. et al. (2023). Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate. ICML 2024. arXiv:2305.14325. · arXiv
- 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
- Finin, T. et al. (1994). KQML as an Agent Communication Language. Proc. CIKM '94, 456-463.
- FIPA (2002). FIPA ACL Message Structure Specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, SC00061G. fipa.org/specs/fipa00061.
- Froger, R. et al. (2026). Gaia2: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Dynamic and Asynchronous Environments. arXiv:2602.11964. · arXiv
- 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
- Hohpe, G. & Woolf, B. (2003). Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Addison-Wesley.
- Hong, S. et al. (2023). MetaGPT: Meta Programming for A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework. ICLR 2024 (Oral). arXiv:2308.00352. · arXiv
- Hu, Y. et al. (2025). Memory in the Age of AI Agents: Forms, Functions and Dynamics. arXiv:2512.13564. · arXiv
- Labrou, Y., Finin, T., & Peng, Y. (1999). Agent Communication Languages: The Current Landscape. IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(2), 45-52.
- Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Penguin Press.
- Lewis, P. et al. (2020). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. NeurIPS 2020. arXiv:2005.11401. · arXiv
- Liang, T. et al. (2023). Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate. EMNLP 2024. arXiv:2305.19118. · arXiv
- 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
- Packer, C. et al. (2023). MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems. arXiv:2310.08560. · arXiv
- Park, J. S. et al. (2023). Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. UIST 2023. arXiv:2304.03442. · arXiv
- Riedl, C. (2025). Emergent Coordination in Multi-Agent Language Models. arXiv:2510.05174. · arXiv
- Shinn, N. et al. (2023). Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. NeurIPS 2023. arXiv:2303.11366. · arXiv
- Wang, G. et al. (2023). Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models. TMLR 2024. arXiv:2305.16291. · arXiv
- Wang, Z. et al. (2024). Agent Workflow Memory. arXiv:2409.07429. · arXiv
- Wu, Q. et al. (2023). AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation. COLM 2024. arXiv:2308.08155. · arXiv
- Xu, W. et al. (2025). A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents. arXiv:2502.12110. · arXiv
- Xu, H. (2026a). MeloTune: On-Device Arousal Learning and Peer-to-Peer Mood Coupling for Proactive Music Curation. arXiv:2604.10815. · arXiv
- Xu, H. (2026b). Symbolic-Vector Attention Fusion for Collective Intelligence. arXiv:2604.03955. · arXiv
- 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
Louck, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.24322
“SuperLocalMemory [18] scores Bayesian content-trust at write time, a trust score instance that our theorem and benchmark show is laundered, and Mesh Memory Protocol [29] distinguishes echoes from independent corroboration as a protocol but proves no Sybil-resistance guarantee.”
- Authors
- Xu, H.
- Corresponding author
- Xu, Hongwei
- ORCID
- Xu, Hongwei
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2604.19540
- OpenAlex
- W7155224636
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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