Hallucination as Context Drift: Synchronization Protocols for Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Multi-agent LLM systems routinely produce hallucinated outputs that cannot be explained by model deficiencies alone. A significant class of these failures arises not from model incapacity but from context drift: the divergence of internal knowledge states between concurrent agents. When agents enter a collaborative task with mismatched or stale representations of shared world state, their joint reasoning produces contradictions that manifest as hallucination. We define the Context Divergence Score (CDS), a lightweight scalar metric quantifying knowledge-state discrepancy between agent pairs across spatial, temporal, and task dimensions, and propose the Shared State Verification Protocol (SSVP), which lets agents periodically exchange compressed state summaries and flag high-divergence conditions before joint reasoning. We evaluate SSVP across two domains (multi-agent travel and software project planning) using Claude Haiku. In controlled experiments (n=30 per condition, travel; n=10, software) across 8 scenarios, naive full-broadcast synchronization increases hallucination rate by 34% above the no-sync baseline (HR: 0.658 vs. 0.492, p=0.0022, d=1.18), a contamination effect from propagating erroneous agent states. SSVP avoids this failure mode while showing modest, consistent reduction (HR: 0.463, d=0.30) and achieves significantly lower hallucination than full-broadcast (p=0.0005, d=1.47) using 58% fewer API calls. The contamination effect does not replicate in the software domain, where all conditions converge to low HR (<0.2), confirming it is specific to tasks where one erroneous shared belief cascades across evaluation dimensions. Our results reframe hallucination mitigation as a distributed systems problem and establish context synchronization as a first-class primitive in multi-agent LLM design.

When Is an LLM Worth It for Hyperparameter Optimization? A Budget-Matched Study on Tabular Data Finds the Warm-Start Is a Default Configuration, Not the Model

Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as hyperparameter-optimization (HPO) advisors that "warm-start" search from prior knowledge, proposing strong configurations in very few evaluations. We test that claim under a budget-matched, multi-seed protocol on eight PMLB tabular benchmarks, comparing an LLM advisor (LLM-OptFlow) against four classical baselines (random search, Optuna-TPE, Gaussian-process Bayesian optimization, and successive halving) over one shared search space, with paired tests and bootstrap 95% CIs across 8 x 5 = 40 (task, seed) units. The finding is cautionary. The advisor's strong first point is not an LLM output at all: like prior LLM-HPO systems the loop is seeded with a fixed default configuration, evaluated before any model call, which alone reaches 88.7% mean best-CV, identical to within 0.01 pp across all seven advisor models tested. The LLM's own proposals add only +0.40 pp of cross-validation accuracy over that seed and nothing on held-out test (LLM-Default = -0.01 pp, p = 0.92). When the same seed is granted to classical search, the apparent lead collapses: against seeded random search it leads by +0.20 pp at 2 evaluations, is tied by 5, and is behind by 12 (-0.37 pp). Without the seed, classical search ties the advisor by 12 evaluations and beats it by 40 (+0.6 to +0.8 pp, p <= 1e-4). Two LLM-specific behaviors survive: a single-task exploration failure (vehicle), and a rule-based confidence filter that removes ~33% of wasted compute without changing accuracy. The recommendation is deflationary: on tabular HPO, seed classical search with a sensible default; an LLM advisor adds no measurable generalization benefit and is overtaken within a handful of evaluations. We release the harness and a script that reproduces every statistic.