Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

BOUNDARY_SYNC: Measuring Communication-Induced Representational Coupling in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Zewen Liu · Jul 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent Tool Use
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge? We introduce BOUNDARY_SYNC, a protocol measuring representational coupling via the Coupling Amplification Factor (CAF = JSD_cond / JSD_baseline), where CAF < 1 indicates homogenization and CAF > 1 indicates diversification. In controlled GPT-4o experiments (N=30, ~9,900 API calls), we measure coupling in text and image communication. Key findings: (1) text communication causes significant homogenization (CAF=0.803 [0.740, 0.873], d=1.30, p<0.001), confirmed by no-communication ablation and prompt-perturbation controls; (2) image communication also homogenizes under within-modality baselines (CAF=0.834 [0.811, 0.858]), with comparable proportional effect; (3) group size moderates coupling direction -- K=5 produces homogenization while K=3 yields CAF > 1.0 (point estimates 1.14 and 1.06, CI pending), suggesting a directional shift toward diversification; (4) cross-model replication shows extreme variation (CAF 0.034-0.803), with DeepSeek dominated by format artifacts; (5) coupling is stateless -- driven by prompt context rather than cumulative updating, with continuous consensus producing monotonic convergence. These results establish LLM agent coupling as real, measurable, and controllable at the prompt level, with direct implications for multi-agent system design.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?"

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?"

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?"

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?"

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?"

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Tool Use, Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?
  • We introduce BOUNDARY_SYNC, a protocol measuring representational coupling via the Coupling Amplification Factor (CAF = JSD_cond / JSD_baseline), where CAF < 1 indicates homogenization and CAF > 1 indicates diversification.
  • In controlled GPT-4o experiments (N=30, ~9,900 API calls), we measure coupling in text and image communication.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Tool-use evaluation) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?
  • We introduce BOUNDARY_SYNC, a protocol measuring representational coupling via the Coupling Amplification Factor (CAF = JSD_cond / JSD_baseline), where CAF < 1 indicates homogenization and CAF > 1 indicates diversification.
  • These results establish LLM agent coupling as real, measurable, and controllable at the prompt level, with direct implications for multi-agent system design.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as communicating agents, does inter-agent communication cause outputs to converge?
  • These results establish LLM agent coupling as real, measurable, and controllable at the prompt level, with direct implications for multi-agent system design.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.