Skip to content
← Back to explorer

SafeSieve: From Heuristics to Experience in Progressive Pruning for LLM-based Multi-Agent Communication

Ruijia Zhang, Xinyan Zhao, Ruixiang Wang, Sigen Chen, Guibin Zhang, An Zhang, Kun Wang, Qingsong Wen · Aug 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead. Existing methods typically enhance efficiency through pretrained GNNs or greedy algorithms, but often isolate pre- and post-task optimization, lacking a unified strategy. To this end, we present SafeSieve, a progressive and adaptive multi-agent pruning algorithm that dynamically refines the inter-agent communication through a novel dual-mechanism. SafeSieve integrates initial LLM-based semantic evaluation with accumulated performance feedback, enabling a smooth transition from heuristic initialization to experience-driven refinement. Unlike existing greedy Top-k pruning methods, SafeSieve employs 0-extension clustering to preserve structurally coherent agent groups while eliminating ineffective links. Experiments across benchmarks (SVAMP, HumanEval, etc.) showcase that SafeSieve achieves 94.01% average accuracy while reducing token usage by 12.4%-27.8%. Results further demonstrate robustness under prompt injection attacks (1.23% average accuracy drop). In heterogeneous settings, SafeSieve reduces deployment costs by 13.3% while maintaining performance. These results establish SafeSieve as an efficient, GPU-free, and scalable framework for practical multi-agent systems. Our code can be found here: https://github.com/csgen/SafeSieve

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 page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

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

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Automatic metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Experiments across benchmarks (SVAMP, HumanEval, etc.) showcase that SafeSieve achieves 94.01% average accuracy while reducing token usage by 12.4%-27.8%."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics
  • Potential metric signals: Accuracy
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead.

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

Key Takeaways

  • LLM-based multi-agent systems exhibit strong collaborative capabilities but often suffer from redundant communication and excessive token overhead.
  • Existing methods typically enhance efficiency through pretrained GNNs or greedy algorithms, but often isolate pre- and post-task optimization, lacking a unified strategy.
  • To this end, we present SafeSieve, a progressive and adaptive multi-agent pruning algorithm that dynamically refines the inter-agent communication through a novel dual-mechanism.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) 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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.