mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Token Coherence: Adapting MESI Cache Protocols to Minimize Synchronization Overhead in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

arXiv 2603.15183 ↗First posted 16 Mar 2026cs.DC cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent LLM orchestration incurs synchronization costs scaling as O(n x S x |D|) in agents, steps, and artifact size under naive broadcast -- a regime I term broadcast-induced triply-multiplicative overhead. I argue this pathology is a structural residue of full-state rebroadcast, not an inherent property of multi-agent coordination. The central claim: synchronization cost explosion in LLM multi-agent systems maps with formal precision onto the cache coherence problem in shared-memory multiprocessors, and MESI-protocol invalidation transfers to artifact synchronization under minimal structural modification. I construct the Artifact Coherence System (ACS) and prove the Token Coherence Theorem: lazy invalidation attenuates cost by at least S/(n + W(d_i)) when S > n + W(d_i), converting O(n x S x |D|) to O((n + W) x |D|). A TLA+-verified protocol enforces single-writer safety, monotonic versioning, and bounded staleness across ~2,400 explored states. Simulation across four workload configurations yields token savings of 95.0% +/- 1.3% at V=0.05, 92.3% +/- 1.4% at V=0.10, 88.3% +/- 1.5% at V=0.25, and 84.2% +/- 1.3% at V=0.50 -- each exceeding the theorem's conservative lower bounds. Savings of ~81% persist at V=0.9, contrary to the predicted collapse threshold. Contributions: (1) formal MESI-to-artifact state mapping; (2) Token Coherence Theorem as savings lower bound; (3) TLA+-verified protocol with three proven invariants; (4) characterization of conditional artifact access semantics resolving the always-read objection; (5) reference Python implementation integrating with LangGraph, CrewAI, and AutoGen via thin adapter layers.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 0 of its 1 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Mar 2026.

Builds on

0 of 1 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026TokenDance: Scaling Multi-Agent LLM Serving via Collective KV Cache Sharing
  2. 2026Multi-Agent Memory from a Computer Architecture Perspective: Visions and Challenges Ahead
  3. 2026Governed Shared Memory for Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  4. 2026CoAgent: Concurrency Control for Multi-Agent Systems
  5. 2026Position: Multi-Agent Systems Should Prioritize Concurrency Control
  6. 2026CONCUR: High-Throughput Agentic Batch Inference of LLM via Congestion-Based Concurrency Control
  7. 2026LRAgent: Efficient KV Cache Sharing for Multi-LoRA LLM Agents
  8. 2025TokenCake: A KV-Cache-centric Serving Framework for LLM-based Multi-Agent Applications