mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Semantic Consensus: Process-Aware Conflict Detection and Resolution for Enterprise Multi-Agent LLM Systems

arXiv 2604.16339 ↗First posted 13 Mar 2026cs.AI cs.MA cs.SEcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems are rapidly emerging as the dominant architecture for enterprise AI automation, yet production deployments exhibit failure rates between 41% and 86.7%, with nearly 79% of failures originating from specification and coordination issues rather than model capability limitations. This paper identifies Semantic Intent Divergence--the phenomenon whereby cooperating LLM agents develop inconsistent interpretations of shared objectives due to siloed context and absent process models--as a primary yet formally unaddressed root cause of multi-agent failure in enterprise settings. We propose the Semantic Consensus Framework (SCF), a process-aware middleware comprising six components: a Process Context Layer for shared operational semantics, a Semantic Intent Graph for formal intent representation, a Conflict Detection Engine for real-time identification of contradictory, contention-based, and causally invalid intent combinations, a Consensus Resolution Protocol using a policy--authority--temporal hierarchy, a Drift Monitor for detecting gradual semantic divergence, and a Process-Aware Governance Integration layer for organizational policy enforcement. Evaluation across 600 runs spanning three multi-agent frameworks (AutoGen, CrewAI, LangGraph) and four enterprise scenarios demonstrates that SCF is the only approach to achieve 100% workflow completion--compared to 25.1% for the next-best baseline--while detecting 65.2% of semantic conflicts with 27.9% precision and providing complete governance audit trails. The framework is protocol-agnostic and compatible with MCP and A2A communication standards.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 3 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Mar 2026.

Builds on

3 of 23 references.

References · 3

  1. 2023AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversationcited by 1,906
  2. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 559
  3. 2026The Orchestration of Multi-Agent Systems: Architectures, Protocols, and Enterprise Adoptioncited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Architecting Agentic Communities using Design Patterns
  2. 2026When Agents Fail to Act: A Diagnostic Framework for Tool Invocation Reliability in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
  3. 2025Reliable agent engineering should integrate machine-compatible organizational principles
  4. 2026Beyond the All-in-One Agent: Benchmarking Role-Specialized Multi-Agent Collaboration in Enterprise Workflows
  5. 2025Z-Space: A Multi-Agent Tool Orchestration Framework for Enterprise-Grade LLM Automation
  6. 2025Empowering Real-World: A Survey on the Technology, Practice, and Evaluation of LLM-driven Industry Agents
  7. 2025Diagnose, Localize, Align: A Full-Stack Framework for Reliable LLM Multi-Agent Systems under Instruction Conflicts
  8. 2023Balancing Autonomy and Alignment: A Multi-Dimensional Taxonomy for Autonomous LLM-powered Multi-Agent Architectures