Hallucination Cascade: Analyzing Error Propagation in Multi-Agent LLM Systems
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Medical and scientific domain agents
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Medical and scientific domain agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 17 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jun 2026.
Builds on
17 of 25 references.
References · 17
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
- 2024A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in Large Language Modelscited by 269
- 2023Factuality Challenges in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 126
- 2024Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligencecited by 68
- 2022Don't Generate, Discriminate: A Proposal for Grounding Language Models to Real-World Environmentscited by 57
- 2025Hallucination Detection in LLMs Using Spectral Features of Attention Mapscited by 43
- 2024Knowledge Graphs, Large Language Models, and Hallucinations: An NLP Perspectivecited by 29
- 2024KnowHalu: Hallucination Detection via Multi-Form Knowledge Based Factual Checkingcited by 26
5 more
- 2025Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models with Metamorphic Relationscited by 24
- 2025H-Neurons: On the Existence, Impact, and Origin of Hallucination-Associated Neurons in LLMscited by 22
- 2025HalluciNot: Hallucination Detection Through Context and Common Knowledge Verificationcited by 13
- 2025Scientific Hypothesis Generation and Validation: Methods, Datasets, and Future Directionscited by 9
- 2025Loki's Dance of Illusions: A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 12.
12 papers.
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gapcited by 9
- 2026Delayed Verification Destabilizes Multi-Agent LLM Belief: Instability Thresholds and Optimal Corrector Placementcited by 4
- 2026Mitigating Fabrication in Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines for Hiring: An Empirical Evaluation of Prompt Guardrails and Human-in-the-Loop Checkpointscited by 1
- 2026Evidence-State Reliability Under Controlled Degradation: Parser-Validity Divergence in a Multi-Stage LLM Pipelinecited by 0
- 2026ATLAS: Dual-Horizon Diagnostic Evaluation for Industrial Tool-Use Agentscited by 0
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Studycited by 0
- 2026World Model Science: Self-Organized Criticality, Weak Chaos, and Metastable Belief Dynamics in Long-Horizon LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026Decomposition Buys Integrity, Not Yieldcited by 0
- 2026When Should a Human Take Back Control? Optimal Delegation under Turbulent AI Riskcited by 0
- 2026Maat: Independent Deterministic Contract-Based Governance for Multi-Agent LLM Workflowscited by 0
- 2026When Upstream Messages Override Correct Answers: A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent LLM Collaborationcited by 0
- 2026PHRBench: A Behavioral Evaluation of Post-Hallucination Reasoning in LLMscited by 0
- 2026PHRBench: A Behavioral Evaluation of Post-Hallucination Reasoning in LLMs7 Oct 2026
- 2026When Upstream Messages Override Correct Answers: A Controlled Study of Multi-Agent LLM Collaboration29 Sep 2026
- 2026Maat: Independent Deterministic Contract-Based Governance for Multi-Agent LLM Workflows27 Sep 2026
- 2026When Should a Human Take Back Control? Optimal Delegation under Turbulent AI Risk25 Sep 2026
- 2026Decomposition Buys Integrity, Not Yield15 Sep 2026
- 2026Uncertainty Quantification for LLM Agents: A Taxonomy, an Evaluation Protocol, and an Empirical Study7 Sep 2026
- 2026ATLAS: Dual-Horizon Diagnostic Evaluation for Industrial Tool-Use Agents31 Aug 2026
- 2026Evidence-State Reliability Under Controlled Degradation: Parser-Validity Divergence in a Multi-Stage LLM Pipeline21 Aug 2026
- 2026Mitigating Fabrication in Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines for Hiring: An Empirical Evaluation of Prompt Guardrails and Human-in-the-Loop Checkpoints22 Jul 2026
- 2026World Model Science: Self-Organized Criticality, Weak Chaos, and Metastable Belief Dynamics in Long-Horizon LLM Agents12 Jul 2026
- 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap29 Jun 2026
- 2026Delayed Verification Destabilizes Multi-Agent LLM Belief: Instability Thresholds and Optimal Corrector Placement25 Jun 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Collective Hallucination in Multi-Agent LLMs:Modeling and Defense
- 2024Towards Detecting LLMs Hallucination via Markov Chain-based Multi-agent Debate Framework
- 2026MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
- 2025Mitigating Hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs): An Application-Oriented Survey on RAG, Reasoning, and Agentic Systems
- 2025LLM-based Agents Suffer from Hallucinations: A Survey of Taxonomy, Methods, and Directions
- 2026The Hallucination Snowball: Modeling Error Propagation as State Transitions in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines
- 2026Tracing the Cascade: A Topology-Aware Evaluation Framework for Scientific Agent Hallucinations
- 2026Council Mode: A Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Consensus Framework for Reducing LLM Hallucination and Bias