Hallucination Cascade: Analyzing Error Propagation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07937v1
• Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2026 01:56:55 GMT
• Title: Hallucination Cascade: Analyzing Error Propagation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
• Abstract summary: We conduct 500 cascade experiments across 10 knowledge domains using GPT-5.3, DeepSeek-V3, and LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct.<n>We show that deeper cascades reduce the normalized hallucination score from 0.422 at the first agent to 0.272 at the final agent in 3-agent chains.<n>This reduction is accompanied by a decline in factual accuracy from 0.789 to 0.769, revealing a trade-off between hallucination suppression and factual preservation.
• Score: 6.047611029478951
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) generate fluent text but remain vulnerable to hallucinations, producing unsupported, inconsistent, and factually incorrect claims. Most prior work treats hallucination as a static property of isolated outputs. In multi-agent LLM systems, however, responses are exchanged across agents, revised through sequential stages, and reused as context for later reasoning. Hallucination, therefore, becomes a dynamic process shaped by interaction history, cascade depth, and model heterogeneity. This paper analyzes hallucination dynamics in multi-agent LLM cascades by tracking claim-level factual inconsistencies across sequential agent interactions. We conduct 500 cascade experiments across 10 knowledge domains using GPT-5.3, DeepSeek-V3, and LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct, yielding 1,250 evaluated responses. Results show that deeper cascades reduce the normalized hallucination score from 0.422 at the first agent to 0.272 at the final agent in 3-agent chains, with an amplification factor of 0.644, indicating net attenuation. This reduction is accompanied by a decline in factual accuracy from 0.789 to 0.769, revealing a trade-off between hallucination suppression and factual preservation. Transition-level analysis shows that each agent-to-agent refinement reduces hallucination by an average of 0.072, with small but consistent losses in factual consistency and response quality. Model-level results reveal reliability-efficiency trade-offs: LLaMA-3-70B-Instruct achieves the lowest hallucination score, whereas GPT-5.3 provides faster generation with a higher hallucination rate. Domain-level analysis shows that hallucination varies with topic complexity, with lower scores in well-grounded scientific domains and higher scores in more abstract domains.

Related papers

• Collective Hallucination in Multi-Agent LLMs:Modeling and Defense [0.5076419064097734]
  Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) create heightened risks in multi-agent settings.<n>This paper models hallucination as a system-level, time-evolving process across a network of interacting LLM agents.<n>We introduce an interaction-aware control method that combines confidence-weighted aggregation, adaptive impact regulation, external claim verification, and selective isolation of unreliable agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-06T02:04:03Z)
• HalluScan: A Systematic Benchmark for Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in Instruction-Following LLMs [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse natural language processing tasks.<n>Yet they remain susceptible to hallucinations -- generating content that is factually incorrect, unfaithful to provided context, or misaligned with user instructions.<n>We present HalluScan, a comprehensive benchmark framework that systematically evaluates hallucination detection and mitigation across 72 configurations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T10:43:27Z)
• Detecting AI Hallucinations in Finance: An Information-Theoretic Method Cuts Hallucination Rate by 92% [4.693270291878929]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce fluent but unsupported answers - hallucinations.<n>We propose ECLIPSE, a framework that treats hallucination as a mismatch between a model's semantic entropy and the capacity of available evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-02T05:25:48Z)
• The Geometry of Truth: Layer-wise Semantic Dynamics for Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models [0.0]
  We present Layer-wise Semantic Dynamics, a geometric framework for hallucination detection.<n>LSD operates intrinsically within the model's representational space.<n> evaluated on the TruthfulQA and synthetic factual-hallucination datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T15:41:22Z)
• SHALE: A Scalable Benchmark for Fine-grained Hallucination Evaluation in LVLMs [52.03164192840023]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) still suffer from hallucinations, i.e., generating content inconsistent with input or established world knowledge.<n>We propose an automated data construction pipeline that produces scalable, controllable, and diverse evaluation data.<n>We construct SHALE, a benchmark designed to assess both faithfulness and factuality hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T07:58:01Z)
• MIRAGE-Bench: LLM Agent is Hallucinating and Where to Find Them [52.764019220214344]
  Hallucinations pose critical risks for large language model (LLM)-based agents.<n>We present MIRAGE-Bench, the first unified benchmark for eliciting and evaluating hallucinations in interactive environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T17:38:29Z)
• MIRAGE: Assessing Hallucination in Multimodal Reasoning Chains of MLLM [58.2298313720146]
  Multimodal hallucinations are multi-sourced and arise from diverse causes.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to adequately distinguish between perception-induced hallucinations and reasoning-induced hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T05:54:36Z)
• HalluLens: LLM Hallucination Benchmark [49.170128733508335]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate responses that deviate from user input or training data, a phenomenon known as "hallucination"<n>This paper introduces a comprehensive hallucination benchmark, incorporating both new extrinsic and existing intrinsic evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T13:40:27Z)
• SelfCheckAgent: Zero-Resource Hallucination Detection in Generative Large Language Models [0.16385815610837165]
  SelfCheckAgent is a novel framework integrating three different agents.<n>These agents provide a robust multi-dimensional approach to hallucination detection.<n>The framework also incorporates a triangulation strategy, which increases the strengths of the SelfCheckAgent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T20:42:32Z)
• ANAH-v2: Scaling Analytical Hallucination Annotation of Large Language Models [65.12177400764506]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit hallucinations in long-form question-answering tasks across various domains and wide applications.<n>Current hallucination detection and mitigation datasets are limited in domains and sizes.<n>This paper introduces an iterative self-training framework that simultaneously and progressively scales up the hallucination annotation dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T17:56:38Z)
• Fine-grained Hallucination Detection and Editing for Language Models [109.56911670376932]
  Large language models (LMs) are prone to generate factual errors, which are often called hallucinations. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations and argue that hallucinations manifest in diverse forms. We propose a novel task of automatic fine-grained hallucination detection and construct a new evaluation benchmark, FavaBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T19:02:48Z)
• A Stitch in Time Saves Nine: Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations of LLMs by Validating Low-Confidence Generation [76.34411067299331]
  Large language models often tend to 'hallucinate' which critically hampers their reliability. We propose an approach that actively detects and mitigates hallucinations during the generation process. We show that the proposed active detection and mitigation approach successfully reduces the hallucinations of the GPT-3.5 model from 47.5% to 14.5% on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-08T14:25:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.