Is Length Really A Liability? An Evaluation of Multi-turn LLM Conversations using BoolQ

Karl Neergaard, Le Qiu, Emmanuele Chersoni
1/23/2026
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Single-prompt evaluations dominate current LLM benchmarking, yet they fail to capture the conversational dynamics where real-world harm occurs. In this study, we examined whether conversation length affects response veracity by evaluating LLM performance on the BoolQ dataset under varying length and scaffolding conditions. Our results across three distinct LLMs revealed model-specific vulnerabilities that are invisible under single-turn testing. The length-dependent and scaffold-specific effects we observed demonstrate a fundamental limitation of static evaluations, as deployment-relevant vulnerabilities could only be spotted in a multi-turn conversational setting.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{neergaard2026length,
  title  = {Is Length Really A Liability? An Evaluation of Multi-turn LLM Conversations using BoolQ},
  author = {Karl Neergaard and Le Qiu and Emmanuele Chersoni},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2601.16508},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16508v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2601.16508.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2601.16508)

Discussion