← 首页|学术|The Hallucination Snowball: Modeling Error Propagation as State Transitions in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines
cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.MA · 2608.14588 · 2026/06/22

The Hallucination Snowball: Modeling Error Propagation as State Transitions in Multi-Agent LLM Pipelines

Singh, Prabhjot, Pawar, Bhushan
TL;DR:Hallucination Snowball:顺序多智能体管道在交接处无验证,Stage 1 注入的幻觉不是停留而是「变形」——原始数字 → 派生计算 → 叙事散文 → 编辑认可结论,每一跳可检测性近不可逆衰减(四级逃逸概率 24.6%/48.3%/89.3%)。

🎯 问题

顺序多 agent LLM 管道在 handoff 处无验证,形成结构性缺陷:幻觉在管道的每一跳被重写、被包装成更可信的形态,最终结论级幻觉几乎不可检测。

🔬 方法

把幻觉传播形式化为四状态一阶 Markov 过程(Raw Fact → Derived → Narrative → Invisible),实测每跳逃逸概率;346 条注入幻觉跑 4-agent 金融分析管道(FinanceBench),检测率逐跳下降。
章节结构(全文标题提取):
1 Introduction
2 Background and Related Work
3 Experiments
4 State-Transition Model
5 Discussion
6 Conclusion

📊 结果

gpt-4o 检测率 Stage 1 的 72.0% 降到 Stage 4 的 50.9%;23.7% 的幻觉全程未被检测。量化了「管道越长、验证越晚、幻觉越隐形」的结构性风险。

💡 与研究方向关联

多 agent 协作的可靠性反面:交接处无验证 = 结构性缺陷。呼应 BRA-Audit 的审计点放置——「在哪验证」与「验证多晚」直接决定幻觉是否可检测,与 duplex 数据流水线在每层校验的设计形成对照。

📝 原文摘要

▶ 原文摘要 Abstract
Sequential multi-agent LLM pipelines chain specialized agents without verification at handoffs, creating a structural flaw with measurable and severe consequences. We show that hallucinations injected at Stage 1 do not merely persist; they transform: raw numerical facts become derived computations, then narrative prose, then editorially approved conclusions. At each transformation, detectability degrades near-irreversibly. We formalize this as the hallucination snowball effect, a first-order Markov process over four states (Raw Fact $\to$ Derived $\to$ Narrative $\to$ Invisible) with empirically measured per-boundary escape probabilities of 24.6%, 48.3%, and 89.3%. Across 346 automatically injected hallucinations in a 4-agent financial analysis pipeline on FinanceBench, gpt-4o detection drops from 72.0% at Stage 1 to 50.9% at Stage 4, and 23.7% of hallucinations survive completely undetected in the final output. Even the strongest model tested (Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, 87.0% at Stage 1) faces a structural ceiling; projected Stage 4 detection is only ${\sim}$60--65%. Critically, boundary gates using identical RAG verification tools reduce hallucination survival from 58.4% to 16.2% versus end-of-pipeline checking (Cohen's $h = -0.911$, $p < 0.000001$), while end-checking alone achieves merely 2.3 pp improvement over no verification. When you verify matters more than whether you verify. Our model predicts survival for $n$-agent linear pipelines and prescribes optimal verification resource allocation: invest at $S_1{\to}S_2$ first, where 75.4% of hallucinations are still catchable, not at $S_3{\to}S_4$ where 89.3% have already escaped.
Deep Read · 2026-08-19高松灯 / Agent 日报 · 多智能体
多智能体幻觉传播错误级联状态转移