arxiv-2606-21666 · paper

Hallucination Is Generative Memory With Its Verifier Turned Down: One Constraint Axis Links Dreaming Sleep and LLM Confabulation

Created: 2026-09-05 · Ingested: 2026-09-09

Dreaming and large language model hallucination are usually studied apart, one as biology and the other as engineering. We argue they are two expressions of a single computation: generative reconstruction from distributed memory under incomplete constraints. Neither the sleeping brain nor an autoregressive model retrieves stored records; both synthesize output by recombining learned representations, and both produce fluent, structured content that can depart from fact. We organize the two systems with a four-stage account, encoding, latent representation, generative reconstruction, and reality

In brief

Making agents share their full context with each other can raise hallucination rather than lower it, because one agent's erroneous state propagates to all the others.

Three Claude Haiku agents (claude-haiku-4-5-20251001) collaborate on travel itineraries drawn from 8 destinations, with deliberate mismatches injected at initialization (wrong-month weather, wrong airport codes, truncated schedule). Conditions: no-sync, full-broadcast, and SSVP, which computes a pairwise cosine-distance Context Divergence Score on 384-dimensional summary embeddings and synchronizes only above a threshold of 0.25.

No-sync hallucination rate was 0.492; full-broadcast rose to 0.658, 34% higher (p = 0.0022, d = 1.18), and task coherence fell from 0.342 to 0.229 (p = 0.0024, d = 1.02). SSVP reached 0.463, not significant vs no-sync (p = 0.257, d = 0.30) but clearly below full-broadcast (p = 0.0005, d = 1.47) with 58% fewer API calls. Full-broadcast also had the lowest divergence score (0.097–0.107) alongside the worst outputs, and divergence did not predict hallucination in no-sync (r = -0.03).

The contamination effect is measured with matched scenarios and pairwise Welch tests, though full-broadcast ran only n = 15 on cost grounds and SSVP's own gain is within noise. It did not replicate in a software sprint-planning domain (n = 10/10/5; all conditions under 0.2), and only 3 agents, 1 model, and structured planning tasks were tested.

If you broadcast agent state indiscriminately, gate it on divergence instead.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-09, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.

supportsIn multi-agent LLM systems where one agent starts with an erroneous shared belief, broadcasting every agent's full context at every step raises the rate of false assertions above doing no synchronization at all, because the error propagates to agents that were previously correct — and the harm appears only in tasks where one wrong fact cascades across semantically linked dimensions (destination to airport to weather), not where agent contexts are largely orthogonal.