Beyond Single-Turn: Evaluating Multi-Turn Conversations in LLM Applications

Single-turn v.s. Multi-turn conversations

In my previous posts on evaluating LLM applications, I mostly focused on single-turn evaluation. Whether it was accuracy, robustness, bias, or safety, the examples I gave assumed a one-off interaction: the user provides an input, the model generates an output, and we measure correctness or compliance.

That framing is convenient for benchmarking — clean, reproducible, and ideal for atomic tasks like translation or summarization. But it misses something critical: real-world use of LLMs is rarely single-turn.

Why Multi-Turn Evaluation Matters

Multi-turn conversations add a different layer of complexity. In a chat setting, models don’t just answer once — they must remember, stay consistent, refine, and adapt across turns.

And when things go wrong, the impact compounds. In the tragic case of teenager Adam Raine, early safeguards worked in single prompts, but weakened as the conversation dragged on. The model gradually slipped out of safe boundaries, showing how dangerous context drift and “guardrail erosion” can be in long dialogues.

Evaluating single-turn safety is not enough. A model that looks safe in isolation may still fail in sustained conversations. The same applies to relevance, coherence, and user trust.

Real-world multi-turn conversations.

Examples Of Conversational Metrics

Here are some examples of conversational metrics that quantitatively measures conversation-level behavior:

• Knowledge Retention: Keeps facts consistent across turns.

• Conversation Completeness: Addresses all parts of a request.

• Conversation Relevancy: Stays on topic and responds meaningfully.

The Challenge of Conversational Evaluation

Evaluating conversations is important, but why aren’t more people doing it? Because it is difficult and expensive.

Complexity

Creating datasets for multi-turn evaluation is much harder than for single-turn:

• Synthetic data feels unnatural. Some research splits a complex prompt into smaller pieces, feeding them one at a time. It works for certain metrics, but the flow feels scripted, not like a real conversation.

• Coverage is limited. Conversations can branch endlessly based on clarifications, frustration, or exploration. Templates can’t capture that richness.

• Annotation is expensive. Judging a whole dialogue — for coherence or retention — takes more effort than scoring a single response.

Cost

Evaluating multi-turn conversations is also far more expensive. Instead of checking one prompt–response pair, evaluators often use a moving window approach — scoring segments step by step.

For example, DeepEval’s implementation of LLM-as-a-judge conversation completeness evaluation follows these steps:

1. Generate intents: Interpret user intent(s) at each stage using an evaluator model.

2. Generate verdicts: Determine if an intent from the user was addressed using an evaluator model.

3. Score: Based on verdicts, generate a score.

4. Reason: Based on intents (from #1) and verdicts (from #2), generate an explanation.

Step 1, 2, and 4 are model calls, which is 3 model calls per segments.

For some other metrics, instead of only scoring the final output, you evaluate sliding windows of context. That is, evaluating a 5-turn dialogue takes 5 model calls.

[Turn 1 → Turn 2]  → Score  
[Turn 1 → Turn 3]  → Score
[Turn 2 → Turn 4]  → Score
[Turn 3 → Turn 5]  → Score

It is usually recommended to:

• Sample only parts of conversations.

• Use cheaper models for first-pass scoring, with stronger models or humans for adjudication.

• Prioritize metrics tied to safety and business-critical outcomes.

Takeaway

Single-turn evaluation is still valuable, but if we stop there, we’re not testing how LLMs behave in the wild. Multi-turn evaluation — with metrics like retention, completeness, and relevancy — is how we close that gap.

---

This series from Data Science x AI is free. If you find the posts valuable, becoming a paid subscriber is a lovely way to show support! ❤