# Reliability-Contagion Feasibility in LLM Multi-Agent Networks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21912 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21912/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 12 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Agent Smith: A Single Image Can Jailbreak One Million Multimodal LLM Agents Exponentially Fast](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08567/) (2024)
- [Cut the Crap: An Economical Communication Pipeline for LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02506/) (2024)
- [Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14847/) (2025)
- [G-Designer: Architecting Multi-agent Communication Topologies via Graph Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.11782/) (2024)
- [Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17371/) (2023)
- [Improving Multi-Agent Debate with Sparse Communication Topology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11776/) (2024)
- [Debate or Vote: Which Yields Better Decisions in Multi-Agent Large Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.17536/) (2025)
- [Understanding the Information Propagation Effects of Communication Topologies in LLM-based Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23352/) (2025)
- [Collective Hallucination in Multi-Agent LLMs:Modeling and Defense](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.07941/) (2026)
- [Contagion Networks: Evaluator Preference Propagation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.20493/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Communication allows large language model agents to pool evidence, but it also creates paths along which an erroneous claim can spread. We formulate a correction-aware network model that tracks susceptible, exposed, infectious, and corrected agents and derive its early-invasion condition for heterogeneous communication networks. We then couple this propagation model to an analytic majority-vote benchmark in which a clean-task reliability target imposes a minimum connectivity requirement. Under fixed exposure per communication edge, reliability and error control impose opposing graph constraints. We characterize when their intersection is empty and when it contains an intermediate connectivity range, and identify regular graphs that attain the smallest invasion factor within the reliable graph class when such graphs exist. Under a fixed sender budget, the homogeneous first-order threshold is independent of network density, showing that the communication-budget convention determines whether added edges increase early propagation risk. Finite-network simulations on 21,000 trajectories illustrate these directional predictions. A controlled grok-4.3 experiment then evaluates three six-node topologies on 36 new closed-world tasks, with a balanced 12-task subset continued to full cascades. Mean first-generation offspring increased from 0.667 to 1.333 and 1.667 as degree increased from 2 to 4 and 5, while the adoption fraction among exposed neighbours remained 0.333. Mean non-seed erroneous adoption in the full-cascade subset was 0.200, 0.333, and 0.333. Together, these results provide a tractable basis for selecting connectivity under explicit reliability and propagation constraints.