Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to software engineering workflows, yet their effectiveness degrades significantly in multi-turn conversations. Recent studies demonstrate an average 39% performance drop when instructions are delivered across multiple turns, with models making premature assumptions and failing to course correct (Laban et al., 2025). This degradation is particularly problematic in exploratory programming tasks where developers need to investigate alternative approaches without committing to a single path. Current solutions force users into a false dichotomy: continue in a context-polluted conversation where the LLM becomes increasingly confused, or start fresh and lose all accumulated context.
We present ContextBranch, a conversation management system that applies version control semantics to LLM interactions. ContextBranch provides four core primitives--checkpoint, branch, switch, and inject--enabling users to capture conversation state, explore alternatives in isolation, and selectively merge insights. We evaluate ContextBranch through a controlled experiment with 30 software engineering scenarios featuring intentionally polluting explorations. Branched conversations achieved higher response quality compared to linear conversations, with large improvements in focus and context awareness. Benefits were concentrated in complex scenarios involving conceptually distant explorations. Branching reduced context size by 58.1% (31.0 to 13.0 messages), eliminating irrelevant exploratory content. Our work establishes conversation branching as a fundamental primitive for AI-assisted exploratory work, demonstrating that isolation prevents context pollution when exploring alternatives.
Large Language Models have become integral to software development, yet their effectiveness degrades significantly in extended conversations. While benchmarks focus on single-turn tasks, realworld programming assistance involves multi-turn dialogues where developers iteratively refine requirements and explore alternatives. Recent analysis of over 200,000 conversations across 15 production LLMs reveals a 39% average performance drop when instructions are delivered across multiple turns [8]. Models make premature assumptions, over-rely on earlier responses, and fail to coursecorrect-when they take a wrong turn, they become lost and do not recover.
This problem is particularly acute during exploratory programming. Consider a developer optimizing a data pipeline who has established context about their Python implementation, performance constraints, and business requirements over several turns. They now want to explore: “What if we used Rust for the bottleneck sections?” Current interfaces force an unsatisfactory choice of continuing the conversation which pollutes the Python-focused context, starting fresh on the other hand loses all established context, and managing multiple windows creates cognitive overhead with no systematic synthesis path.
Software engineers solved an analogous problem decades ago with version control. Git enables developers to checkpoint state, branch for isolated experimentation, and selectively merge changes. We argue that conversational AI interactions require similar primitives. Just as code exploration benefits from checkpoint-restore semantics, conversation exploration requires the ability to preserve state, branch into isolated contexts, and selectively reintegrate insights.
We present ContextBranch, a conversation management system that applies version control semantics to LLM interactions. Con-textBranch provides four core primitives: checkpoint captures conversation state at decision points, branch creates isolated exploratory contexts, switch navigates between branches without cross-contamination, and inject selectively merges insights from experimental threads. The system maintains deterministic context states through content-addressable message storage and ensures branch isolation through controlled injection. We evaluate Con-textBranch through a controlled experiment comparing branched and linear conversations across 30 software engineering scenarios to simulate realistic but distracting tangents.
(1) We formalize the conversation branching problem as a mismatch between linear interfaces and exploratory work patterns ( §3). (2) We present ContextBranch’s design, including its branching model, checkpoint semantics, and isolation guarantees ( §4). (3) Through a controlled experiment with 30 scenarios featuring intentional context pollution, we demonstrate that conversation branching improves response quality by 2.5% overall with large effects on focus and context awareness, while reducing context size by 58.1%. (4) We release ContextBranch as open source with tools for reproducible conversation experiments.
These limitations manifest acutely in AI-assisted programming. Barke et al. [1] surveyed 113 professional developers using conversational AI tools for software engineering tasks. Their findings reveal that 73% of respondents identified lack of context retention as their primary frustration, describing scenarios where they were forced to “repeatedly provide the same background information in multi-turn interactions.” Developers also reported that LLMs frequently “generate plausible but incorrect solutions” when context becomes incomplete or polluted across conversation turns. The problem is particularly severe during exploratory programming-the iterative process of investigating alternatives, evaluating trade-offs, and refining solutions that characterizes much of software development work.
Consider a concrete scenario drawn from our preliminary observations of developer behavior. A senior engineer is optimizing a data processing pipeline that currently uses Python’s Pandas library to process daily batch files of approximately 10GB. After establishing context about the current architecture, performance bottlenecks (I/O-bound operations taking 45 minutes), and business constraints (must complete within 1-hour maintenance window), the engineer has explored several optimization strategies across 12 conversational turns: improving Pandas operations, using Dask for parallel processing, and optimizing data schemas.
At this point, the engineer wonders whether a fundamentally different approach might be warranted: “What if we rewrote the bottleneck sections in Rust and called them from Python?” This question represents a significant architectural shift-from pure Python optimization to a hybrid polyglot approach. However, current conversational interfaces provide no good option for exploring this alternative:
Option 1: Continue in the same conversation. The LLM’s response wil
This content is AI-processed based on open access ArXiv data.