Governed Shared Memory for Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Multi-agent LLM environments require robust mechanisms for shared knowledge management. This paper formalizes the fleet-memory problem and identifies four foundational failure modes: unauthorized leakage, stale propagation, contradiction persistence, and provenance collapse. To address these, we define explicit systems-level primitives: scoped retrieval, temporal supersession, provenance tracking, and policy-governed memory propagation. These primitives are implemented in MemClaw, a production multi-tenant memory service, and evaluated via ArgusFleet, a reproducible harness testing four governance dimensions. Rather than a baseline comparison, this study measures a live production service, emphasizing real-world architectural insights and negative results. Key Evaluation Results Provenance: Successfully reconstructed 100% of depth-four derivation chains with correct writer identity at sub-second per-hop latency. Propagation: Demonstrated high intra-fleet visibility with zero cross-fleet leakage. Under strong write mode, write-to-visible latency was optimized to a single search round-trip. Production Architectural Issues Discovered Asymmetric Scope Enforcement: Tenant isolation held, but sub-tenant scope was initially bypassed on direct GET-by-id requests for agent-scoped credentials (disclosed and remediated during the study). Pipeline Ordering Conflict: While contradiction supersession works for admitted writes, a synchronous near-duplicate gate can prematurely reject contradictory writes before the asynchronous contradiction detector can evaluate them. Conclusion: Long-context retrieval alone is insufficient for production multi-agent memory. Governed shared memory demands explicit systems-level abstractions, and live evaluation is vital to expose enforcement and pipeline-ordering failures missed by design-only treatments.

PeerRank: Autonomous LLM Evaluation Through Web-Grounded, Bias-Controlled Peer Review

Evaluating large language models typically relies on human-authored benchmarks, reference answers, and human or single-model judgments, approaches that scale poorly, become quickly outdated, and mismatch open-world deployments that depend on web retrieval and synthesis. We introduce PeerRank, a fully autonomous end-to-end evaluation framework in which models generate evaluation tasks, answer them with category-scoped live web grounding, judge peer responses and aggregate dense peer assessments into relative performance estimates, without human supervision or gold references. PeerRank treats evaluation as a multi-agent process where each model participates symmetrically as task designer, respondent, and evaluator, while removing biased judgments. In a large-scale study over 12 commercially available models and 420 autonomously generated questions, PeerRank produces stable, discriminative rankings and reveals measurable identity and presentation biases. Rankings are robust, and mean peer scores agree with Elo. We further validate PeerRank on TruthfulQA and GSM8K, where peer scores correlate with objective accuracy. Together, these results suggest that bias-aware peer evaluation with selective web-grounded answering can scale open-world LLM assessment beyond static and human curated benchmarks.