# When Messages Go Wrong: Understanding Communication Faults in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.15459 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.15459/

## 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 15 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Oct 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, 15 of 15)

- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08155/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.19348/) (2026)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14161/) (2024)
- [MultiAgentBench: Evaluating the Collaboration and Competition of LLM agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01935/) (2025)
- [Red-Teaming LLM Multi-Agent Systems via Communication Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14847/) (2025)
- [ReliabilityBench: Evaluating LLM Agent Reliability Under Production-Like Stress Conditions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.06112/) (2026)
- [Chaos Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.05843/) (2017)
- [Don't Trust Your Upstream: Exploiting LLM Multi-Agent System via Topology-Guided Adversarial Propagation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.04129/) (2025)
- [AgentChaos: Chaos Engineering for Agent Systems via Programmatic Fault Injection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06790/) (2026)
- [Observability and Fault Injection for LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems in Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.24271/) (2026)
- [Data Agents Under Attack: Vulnerabilities in LLM-Driven Analytical Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08661/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) use specialized agents that exchange messages to accomplish complex tasks. Their reliance on networked protocols, remote tools, and model endpoints exposes communication to message loss, delay, and context expiration. Because agents often exchange open-ended natural language, anomalies can alter task-relevant information while leaving messages processable, allowing semantic errors to propagate through subsequent interactions. Systematic studies of faults in inter-agent communication remain limited. This paper presents a large-scale empirical study of how communication faults manifest, propagate, and affect task outcomes in LLM-MAS. We construct a cross-layer taxonomy linking lower-stack disturbances to application-visible faults and develop a fault-injection and tracing pipeline. Our evaluation covers more than 29,000 executions across 100 tasks, five domains, three workflow topologies, and three model configurations. We find that 20.7% of failures with complete detection records occur without an immediate failure signal, reaching 76.2% for partial-content faults. Flat maintains 53.0% task success under communication faults, compared with 3.3% and 3.2% for Sequential and Hierarchical, respectively. This advantage primarily arises when an alternative information path preserves the evidence required by downstream agents. We also evaluate execution-side and evidence protection mechanisms and find that they recover different failure cases. Evidence recovery depends on whether trustworthy information remains accessible through an unaffected path. These observations provide empirical insights into communication-fault propagation, workflow resilience, and protection design for LLM-MAS.