Large language models (LLMs) suffer significant performance degradation when user instructions and context are distributed over multiple conversational turns, yet multi-turn (MT) interactions dominate chat interfaces. The routine approach of appending full chat history to prompts rapidly exhausts context windows, leading to increased latency, higher computational costs, and diminishing returns as conversations extend. We introduce MT-OSC, a One-off Sequential Condensation framework that efficiently and automatically condenses chat history in the background without disrupting the user experience. MT-OSC employs a Condenser Agent that uses a few-shot inference-based Condenser and a lightweight Decider to selectively retain essential information, reducing token counts by up to 72% in 10-turn dialogues. Evaluated across 13 state-of-the-art LLMs and diverse multi-turn benchmarks, MT-OSC consistently narrows the multi-turn performance gap - yielding improved or preserved accuracy across datasets while remaining robust to distractors and irrelevant turns. Our results establish MT-OSC as a scalable solution for multi-turn chats, enabling richer context within constrained input spaces, reducing latency and operational cost, while balancing performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: MT-OSC framework with one-off sequential condensation of chat history (w turns/exchanges at a time). This figure illustrates the chat flow when the Condenser Agent initiates condensation of prior history.
Figure 2: Examples of Multi-Turn Chat Condensing with Reasoning (original chat in yellow; condensed chat below.)
Figure 3: Comparison of performance aggregated across various datasets on simple summarization (Summ) using our one-off sequential application approach and our MT-OSC approach with window sizes 2, 3, 4.
Performance
Chat history tokens
MT-baseline
MT-OSC*
MT-baseline
MT-OSC*
BFCL shrd
81.13%
86.79 %
165
124
GSM shrd
83.45%
84.80 %
1260
354
HEval shrd
74.67%
77.33 %
539
272
Spider shrd
76.95%
79.44 %
105
104
ToTTo shrd
0.19
0.19
2585
2585
Table 1: Average performance and total chat history tokens (per turn) comparing MT-baseline and MT-OSC (w=4) across datasets. Metrics: accuracy (BFCL, GSM, HEval, Spider, recoll), 10-point rating (refine, follow, expan), BLEU (ToTTo), and joint score (SoH).
Figure 4: Chat history tokens growth in MT-baseline compared to using Condenser ( w=4 ) showing reduction in token consumption in the user-facing chat.
Figure 5: Model performance scores for various Chat Models for conversations with 6 or more turns across baseline multi-turn and MT-OSC with window size w=4 . See Table 5 for broken down details in tabular form.
Figure 6: Total tokens consumed by chat history in the main chat + background condenser, showing overall cost benefit and overhead balancing as the chat grows.
Performance
Chat Hist Tokens
Dataset
w/ D
w/o D
w/ D
w/o D
ToTTo shrd
0.18
0.09
2585
1888
SoH shrd
0.13
0.08
7495
4086
Refin mtev
5.35
5.18
1342
593
Table 2: Performance and chat history tokens with and without Decider (D) across the datasets where Decider induces a performance or token count difference.
Figure 7: Comparison of performance between MT and MT-OSC, and reduction in chat history tokens, on the three different variants created for robustness testing (1. Repetition Infusion (RI); 2. Filler Injection (FI); 3. Contextual Diversion (CD)).
Figure 8: Performance of MT-baseline and MT-OSC under Contextual Diversion (CD) variants varied by number of distraction turns added.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Histogram showing the number of samples for each maximum number of turns per sample in sharded + MTEval datasets.
Dataset
Source
Success Metric
Size
Split (Dev, Val, Test)
Sharded BFCL
Laban et al. (2025)
Accuracy [Exact match (Action matching)]
105
(30.5%, 19%, 50.5%)
Sharded GSM8K
Laban et al. (2025)
Accuracy [Exact match (Final Answer)]
103
(-, 36%, 64%)
Sharded HumanEval
Laban et al. (2025)
Accuracy [Exact match (Code test passing)]
45
(-, -, 100%)
Sharded Spider
Laban et al. (2025)
Accuracy [Exact match (SQL execution output match)]
107
(-, -, 100%)
Sharded ToTTo
Laban et al. (2025)
BLEU Score
120
(15%, 12.5%, 72.5%)
Sharded Summary of Haystack
Laban et al. (2025)
LLMaaJ ("Joint Score") to measure info coverage & attribution F1
94
(-, -, 100%)
Appendix
Table 3: Dataset name, source, success metric for evaluation, size, and split. The sharded datasets were synthetically generated and manual inspection and validation by the authors of their respective sources cited above. The MT-EVAL datasets also went through human-in-the-loop creation, validation, and filtering process where the initial data generation utilized GPT-4.
Figure 10: These examples shows the original turns from a conversation (in darker color in each example) and the perturbed version with new random turns (shown in the lighter color in each example) added to the conversation.
Figure 11: Comparison of performance across datasets of simple summarization (Summ) using the one-off sequential application approach (window sizes 2, 3, and 4) and the MT-OSC (window sizes 2, 3, and 4). Chat model is Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct.
Llama-3.3-70B
GPT 4.1
MT-baseline
81.13%
61.54%
MT-OSC*
86.79%
69.23%
FIFO
80.77% ↓
51.92% ↓
Appendix
Table 4: FIFO compared to MT-baseline and MT-OSC for managing chat history shows that FIFO performs worse than the baseline (MT-baseline) approach on the Sharded BFCL dataset. *=ours
GSM
BFCL
HEval
Recoll
Spider
Expan
Refin
Avg
shrd
shrd
shrd
mte+
shrd *
mte+
mte
acc%
Metric
accuracy %
rating out of 10
GROK3
MT
0.82
0.67
0.51
0.96
0.5
9.01
6.26
0.75
MTOSC
0.86
0.71
0.62
0.95
0.5
8.38
6.22
0.79
GROK4
Appendix
Table 5: Results across datasets and chat models for samples with 6 turns or more using MT-baseline and MT-OSC. (*Spider has a very small sample size of 6 for >=6 turns. Average accuracy per LLM doesn’t include Spider due to this reason.)
BFCL shrd
Llama4-mav
GPT4.1
GPT4o
Condenser
N/A (MT-baseline)
83.61
67.44
55.74
Llama-3.3-70B
90.16 ↑
80.33 ↑
68.85 ↑
Llama-4-Mav
83.61
72.13 ↑
68.85 ↑
GPT 4.1
86.89 ↑
75.41 ↑
65.57 ↑
Appendix
Table 6: Across Condenser Models, performance in (%) of MT-OSC compared to MT-baseline for data samples with at least 6 turns or more in sharded BFCL and HumanEval sets.
1. Repetition Infusion
2. Filler Injection
3. Contextual Diversion
MT
MT-OSC
MT
MT-OSC
MT
MT-OSC
GSM shrd
85.80
86.63
84.77
87.86
82.92
84.77
BFCL shrd
63.45
70.64
64.02
69.89
59.77
67.24
HumanEval shrd
70.81
75.89
74.40
79.17
66.67
79.63
Spider shrd
67.68
70.20
63.13
66.67
57.07
61.62
refinement mte
5.67
5.66
5.7
5.64
5.01
5.00
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of performance between MT and MT-OSC on the three different variants created for robustness testing (1. Repetition Infusion; 2. Filler Injection; 3. Contextual Diversion).
Figure 12: Percentage reduction in chat history tokens in MT-OSC over MT-baseline across datasets with and without Decider component.
Figure 13: Sensitivity of the decider to γ and τ across datasets. Each panel corresponds to one dataset. Points show, for each ( γ , τ ) setting, the end-to-end task success score (y-axis; reported in the dataset’s native units) versus the number of samples that were routed to compression (x-axis). Color indicates γ and marker shape indicates τ . Flat panels indicate insensitivity to ( γ , τ ), while sloped panels highlight datasets where increased compression changes downstream success.
Figure 14: Example showing MT-baseline vs MT-OSC, where MT-OSC handles incorrect assumptions made by the model earlier in a chat.
Large Language Model (LLM) interactions are typically underspecified, with users clarifying all necessary details across multiple conversational turns. Yet recent work shows that LLMs perform far worse in this multi-turn setting than in a single turn with same information being available at once, a phenomenon termed "Lost-in-Conversation." However, bridging this gap effectively remains an open problem. Here we introduce Found in Conversation (FiC), a training framework where a model teaches itself to find and recover its single-turn competence given underspecified multi-turn prompts. We develop View-Asymmetric Self-Distillation, which distills across two views of the same task information--single-turn view for the teacher, multi-turn view for the student--transferring strong single-turn behavior into weak multi-turn behavior. This requires no stronger external teacher, which is unavailable as even frontier LLMs exhibit this gap. Across model families (Llama, Qwen, Phi, and OLMo) and sizes (3B-14B), FiC recovers at least 92% of single-turn performance and reaches 100% on two Llama backbones, yielding more efficient and helpful multi-turn conversations with single-turn capabilities intact.
Large language models (LLMs) excel on static benchmarks, but their performance across multi-turn conversations, which better reflect real-world usage, remains understudied. Addressing this gap is critical in high-stakes settings like healthcare, where patients and clinicians are turning to LLM chatbots to address their medical inquiries. Here, we introduce the "stick-or-switch" (SoS) framework, which partitions a question-answer space into multiple sequential presentations to model two safety-centric behaviors: conviction (i.e., sticking to a correct answer selection or abstention against incorrect suggestions) and flexibility (i.e., switching to a correct suggestion when it is introduced). Evaluating 17 LLMs across three clinical benchmarks, we observe a pervasive conversation tax, where partitioning an answer-space into sequential presentations reduces end-to-end accuracy and abstention against incorrect suggestions by an average of up to 30%, reaching 65% in certain models. We also observe blind switching, where models transition an initial abstention to incorrect and correct suggestions at near-identical rates reaching 50%. Finally, we show that increasing model scale mitigates some of these conversational inefficacies while exacerbating others, such as a higher propensity to adopt an incorrect suggestion from an initial abstention. Together our findings demonstrate that the general proficiency captured by static benchmarks do not translate over multi-turn dialogues.
Kevin H. Guo, Chao Yan, Avinash Baidya +5
Vanderbilt University · Vanderbilt University Medical Center · Intuit AI Research
Large language model (LLM) based multi-turn dialogue systems often struggle to track dependencies across non-adjacent turns, undermining both consistency and scalability. As conversations lengthen, essential information becomes sparse and is buried in irrelevant context, while processing the entire dialogue history incurs severe efficiency bottlenecks. Existing solutions either rely on high latency external memory or lose fine-grained details through iterative summarization. In this paper, we propose Self-Recall Thinking (SRT), a framework designed to address long-range contextual dependency and sparse informative signals in multi-turn dialogue. SRT identifies helpful historical turns and uses them to generate contextually appropriate responses, enabling the model to selectively recall and reason over context during inference. This process yields an endogenous reasoning process that integrates interpretable recall steps without external modules. SRT incorporates: (1) Dependency Construction: Generating and converting it into self-recall chains; (2)Capability Initialization: Training to enable reasoning chains with recall tokens capability; (3)Reasoning Improvement: Refining accuracy via verifiable rewards to optimize recall and reasoning for correct answers. Experiments on multiple datasets demonstrate that SRT improves F1 score by 4.7% and reduces end-to-end latency by 14.7% over prior methods, achieving a balance between reasoning latency and accuracy, and outperforming state-of-the-art baselines.
Renning Pang, Tian Lan, Leyuan Liu +3
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China