Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HEDGE: Gated Hypergraph Memory for Scalable Multi-Agent Debate

Amirhossein Abaskohi, Mahdi Mostajabdaveh, Zirui ZhouPublished Oct 28, 2026
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.

Multi-agent debate systems require agents to retain and revisit arguments across multiple rounds, yet limited context windows and unstructured memories make relevant information increasingly difficult to recover. Existing flat and pairwise-graph memories also struggle to capture higher-order relations, including multi-agent agreement, conflicting evidence, and evolving consensus. We introduce HEDGE, a selective memory framework that represents debate trajectories as semantic hypergraphs. Hyperedges connect related claims across agents, while intra-hyperedge relational graphs preserve fine-grained argumentative structure. A learned memory selection module (MSM), trained through supervised learning and reinforcement learning, routes each memory candidate to STORE, BACKUP, or OMIT, retaining useful information while limiting redundancy. Across seven diverse benchmarks, HEDGE consistently outperforms strong single-agent, multi-agent, and memory baselines, improving accuracy by 5.0 points on average over the strongest multi-agent system with GPT-4o-mini. The gains reach 8.2 points on conflict-heavy tasks, while HEDGE reduces memory usage by 48% and the number of debate rounds by 34%.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Multi-agent debate systems require agents to retain and revisit arguments across multiple rounds, yet limited context windows and unstructured memories make relevant information increasingly difficult to recover.
Task Dataset Metric Value Source
Representation learning MATH500 Accuracy 62.2 paper-derived
Representation learning GPQA Accuracy 47.7 paper-derived

Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Nov 2, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Agentic tool use

Methods

Reinforcement learning

Domains

AI Agents

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.