Hallucination as a Feature, not a Defect: Evaluating a multi-agent architecture to transform speculative language-model outputs into testable scientific hypotheses
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title:Hallucination as a Feature, not a Defect: Evaluating a multi-agent architecture to transform speculative language-model outputs into testable scientific hypotheses
Abstract:Contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly aligned to suppress hallucinations, prioritizing factual retrieval over combinatorial creativity. While crucial for mitigating misinformation, this alignment may also restrict speculative Research and Development (R&D) by encouraging what this work operationally treats as semantic overfitting and diversity collapse. In this paper, we propose a Rust-based multi-agent orchestration that uses the contrast between narrative daydreaming and executive control as a functional analogy, not as a neurocognitive claim. The system instigates an Epistemological Friction loop between a high-entropy generating agent and a web-grounded evaluating agent, mediated by a low-entropy semantic bottleneck intended to reduce noise and repetition. Initial experiments generated diverse, viability-rated hypotheses across physical and social-science domains. We additionally report an exploratory paired baseline and ablation study comparing the full system against direct prompting, self-reflection, removal of the semantic filter, removal of search grounding, and removal of lateral lenses. The results place direct prompting among the weakest conditions across most observed metrics, but they do not show a general superiority of the full system over simple self-reflection. Instead, they suggest that each architecture shifts the balance between originality, feasibility, diversity, and empirical grounding in different ways, and that the full system provides its main advantages when hypotheses must survive strong physical, empirical, or institutional constraints. These findings do not show that hallucination is useful in isolation; they suggest that speculative generation gains value only when constrained by architecture, empirical grounding, and explicit evaluation.
| Comments: | 25 pages. Bilingual: full English version followed by the complete Spanish version. Includes an exploratory paired baseline and ablation study (6 conditions). Code and data: this https URL |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA) |
| ACM classes: | I.2.7; I.2.11 |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2608.19206 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2608.19206v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19206
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
|
Submission history
From: Nicolas Rodriguez-Alvarez [view email][v1] Thu, 11 Jun 2026 21:33:35 UTC (192 KB)
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Recipes for Steering and Scaling LLMs via Sampling
Aug 28
-
Can a Model Catch Its Own Hallucinations for Free?: Label-Free Doubt Signals Hold Their Own Against a Labelled Dataset for Abstention
Aug 28
-
FIRSTPASS: A Multi-Domain, Multi-Round Peer Review Dataset Grounded in Real Editorial Outcomes
Aug 28
-
Interpretable, Fairly Evaluated Automated L2 Speaking Assessment that Beats the Single-Human Ceiling and Why Pause Encoding Does Not Change LLM Fluency Scores
Aug 28
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.