---
title: "Phase 3.1: AI-Assisted Merge Conflict Resolution"
labels: ["enhancement", "phase-3", "ai-ml", "medium-priority"]
assignees: []
milestone: "Phase 3 - Advanced Features"
---

## Overview

Integrate AI/ML capabilities to provide intelligent merge conflict resolution suggestions, pattern recognition from repository history, and natural language explanations of conflicts.

## Related Roadmap Section

Phase 3.1 - AI-Assisted Merging

## Motivation

While SDG analysis provides structural insights, AI can:
- Learn from historical resolutions in the codebase
- Recognize patterns across projects
- Provide natural language explanations
- Suggest context-aware resolutions
- Assess risk of resolution choices

## Features to Implement

### 1. ML Model for Conflict Resolution

Train a machine learning model to suggest resolutions based on:
- Code structure (AST features)
- Historical resolutions in the repo
- Common patterns in similar codebases
- Developer intent (commit messages, PR descriptions)

**Model Types to Explore**:
- [ ] **Decision Tree / Random Forest**: For rule-based classification
- [ ] **Neural Network**: For complex pattern recognition
- [ ] **Transformer-based**: For code understanding (CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT)
- [ ] **Hybrid**: Combine SDG + ML for best results

**Features for ML Model**:
```python
features = {
    # Structural features
    'conflict_size': int,              # Lines in conflict
    'conflict_type': str,              # add/add, modify/modify, etc.
    'file_type': str,                  # .py, .js, .java
    'num_dependencies': int,           # From SDG
    
    # Historical features
    'similar_resolutions': List[str],  # Past resolutions in repo
    'author_ours': str,                # Who made 'ours' change
    'author_theirs': str,              # Who made 'theirs' change
    
    # Semantic features
    'ast_node_type': str,              # function, class, import, etc.
    'variable_names': List[str],       # Variables involved
    'function_calls': List[str],       # Functions called
    
    # Context features
    'commit_message_ours': str,        # Commit message for 'ours'
    'commit_message_theirs': str,      # Commit message for 'theirs'
    'pr_description': str,             # PR description (if available)
}
```

### 2. Pattern Recognition from Repository History

Analyze past conflict resolutions in the repository:

- [ ] **Mining Git history**:
  - Find merge commits
  - Extract conflicts and their resolutions
  - Build training dataset
  
- [ ] **Pattern extraction**:
  - Common resolution strategies (keep ours, keep theirs, merge both)
  - File-specific patterns (package.json always merges dependencies)
  - Developer-specific patterns (Alice tends to keep UI changes)
  
- [ ] **Pattern matching**:
  - Compare current conflict to historical patterns
  - Find most similar past conflicts
  - Suggest resolutions based on similarity

**Algorithm**:
```python
def find_similar_conflicts(current_conflict, history):
    # 1. Extract features from current conflict
    features = extract_features(current_conflict)
    
    # 2. Compute similarity to historical conflicts
    similarities = []
    for past_conflict in history:
        sim = cosine_similarity(features, past_conflict.features)
        similarities.append((sim, past_conflict))
    
    # 3. Return top-k most similar
    return sorted(similarities, reverse=True)[:5]

def suggest_resolution(current_conflict, similar_conflicts):
    # Majority vote from similar conflicts
    resolutions = [c.resolution for c in similar_conflicts]
    return most_common(resolutions)
```

### 3. Natural Language Explanations

Generate human-readable explanations of conflicts and suggestions:

**Example**:
```
Conflict in file: src/utils.py
Location: function calculate()

Explanation:
- BASE: The function returned x * 2
- OURS: Changed return value to x * 3 (commit abc123 by Alice: "Increase multiplier")
- THEIRS: Changed return value to x + 1 (commit def456 by Bob: "Use addition instead")

Dependencies affected:
- 3 functions call calculate() in this file
- 2 test cases depend on the return value

Suggestion: Keep OURS (confidence: 75%)
Reasoning:
- Alice's change (x * 3) maintains the multiplication pattern used elsewhere
- Bob's change (x + 1) alters the semantic meaning significantly
- Historical resolutions in similar functions favor keeping the multiplication

Risk: MEDIUM
- Test case test_calculate() may need updating
- Consider reviewing with Bob to understand intent
```

**Implementation**:
- [ ] Template-based generation for simple cases
- [ ] GPT/LLM-based generation for complex explanations
- [ ] Integrate commit messages and PR context
- [ ] Explain SDG dependencies in plain language

### 4. Context-Aware Code Completion

During conflict resolution, provide intelligent code completion:

- [ ] **Integrate with LSP** (Language Server Protocol)
- [ ] **Suggest imports** needed for resolution
- [ ] **Validate syntax** in real-time
- [ ] **Auto-complete variables/functions** from context
- [ ] **Suggest type annotations** (TypeScript, Python)

### 5. Risk Assessment for Resolution Choices

Assess the risk of each resolution option:

```
┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Resolution Options                   │
├──────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ✓ Keep OURS         Risk: LOW   ●○○ │
│   - Maintains existing tests         │
│   - Consistent with codebase style   │
│                                      │
│ ○ Keep THEIRS       Risk: HIGH  ●●● │
│   - Breaks 3 test cases              │
│   - Incompatible with feature X      │
│                                      │
│ ○ Merge both        Risk: MED   ●●○ │
│   - Requires manual adjustment       │
│   - May cause runtime error          │
└──────────────────────────────────────┘
```

**Risk Factors**:
- Test coverage affected
- Number of dependencies broken
- Semantic compatibility
- Historical success rate
- Developer confidence

## Technical Design

### ML Pipeline

```python
# Training pipeline
class ConflictResolutionModel:
    def __init__(self):
        self.model = None  # Transformer or other model
        self.feature_extractor = FeatureExtractor()
    
    def train(self, training_data):
        """Train on historical conflicts and resolutions"""
        features = [self.feature_extractor.extract(c) for c in training_data]
        labels = [c.resolution for c in training_data]
        self.model.fit(features, labels)
    
    def predict(self, conflict):
        """Predict resolution for new conflict"""
        features = self.feature_extractor.extract(conflict)
        prediction = self.model.predict(features)
        confidence = self.model.predict_proba(features)
        return prediction, confidence

# Feature extraction
class FeatureExtractor:
    def extract(self, conflict):
        return {
            'structural': self.extract_structural(conflict),
            'historical': self.extract_historical(conflict),
            'semantic': self.extract_semantic(conflict),
            'contextual': self.extract_contextual(conflict),
        }
```

### Integration with WizardMerge

```cpp
// C++ backend integration
class AIAssistant {
public:
  // Get AI suggestion for conflict
  ResolutionSuggestion suggest(const Conflict& conflict);
  
  // Get natural language explanation
  std::string explain(const Conflict& conflict);
  
  // Assess risk of resolution
  RiskAssessment assess_risk(const Conflict& conflict, Resolution resolution);
  
private:
  // Call Python ML service
  std::string call_ml_service(const std::string& endpoint, const Json::Value& data);
};
```

### ML Service Architecture

```
┌─────────────────────┐
│  WizardMerge C++    │
│  Backend            │
└──────────┬──────────┘
           │ HTTP/gRPC
           ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│  ML Service         │
│  (Python/FastAPI)   │
├─────────────────────┤
│ - Feature Extraction│
│ - Model Inference   │
│ - NLP Generation    │
│ - Risk Assessment   │
└──────────┬──────────┘
           │
           ▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│  Model Storage      │
│  - Trained models   │
│  - Feature cache    │
│  - Historical data  │
└─────────────────────┘
```

## Implementation Steps

### Phase 1: Data Collection & Preparation (2 weeks)
- [ ] Mine Git history for conflicts and resolutions
- [ ] Build training dataset
- [ ] Feature engineering
- [ ] Data cleaning and validation

### Phase 2: Model Training (3 weeks)
- [ ] Implement feature extraction
- [ ] Train baseline models (Decision Tree, Random Forest)
- [ ] Evaluate performance
- [ ] Experiment with advanced models (Transformers)
- [ ] Hyperparameter tuning

### Phase 3: ML Service (2 weeks)
- [ ] Create Python FastAPI service
- [ ] Implement prediction endpoints
- [ ] Model serving and caching
- [ ] Performance optimization

### Phase 4: Integration (2 weeks)
- [ ] Integrate ML service with C++ backend
- [ ] Add AI suggestions to merge API
- [ ] Update UI to display suggestions
- [ ] Add confidence scores

### Phase 5: Natural Language Generation (2 weeks)
- [ ] Implement explanation templates
- [ ] Integrate with LLM (OpenAI API or local model)
- [ ] Context extraction (commits, PRs)
- [ ] UI for displaying explanations

### Phase 6: Risk Assessment (1 week)
- [ ] Implement risk scoring
- [ ] Test impact analysis
- [ ] Dependency impact analysis
- [ ] UI for risk display

### Phase 7: Testing & Refinement (2 weeks)
- [ ] User testing
- [ ] Model performance evaluation
- [ ] A/B testing (with and without AI)
- [ ] Collect feedback and iterate

## Technologies

- **ML Framework**: PyTorch or TensorFlow
- **NLP**: Hugging Face Transformers, OpenAI API
- **Feature Extraction**: tree-sitter (AST), Git2 (history)
- **ML Service**: FastAPI (Python)
- **Model Serving**: TorchServe or TensorFlow Serving
- **Vector Database**: Pinecone or FAISS (for similarity search)

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] ML model trained on historical data
- [ ] Achieves >70% accuracy on test set
- [ ] Provides suggestions in <1 second
- [ ] Natural language explanations are clear
- [ ] Risk assessment is accurate (validated by users)
- [ ] Integrates seamlessly with existing UI
- [ ] Falls back gracefully when ML unavailable
- [ ] User satisfaction >85%

## Test Cases

### Model Accuracy
1. Train on 80% of conflicts, test on 20%
2. Evaluate precision, recall, F1 score
3. Compare to baseline (SDG-only)

### User Studies
1. Conflict resolution time (with vs without AI)
2. User satisfaction survey
3. Accuracy of AI suggestions (user feedback)
4. Usefulness of explanations

### Performance
1. Prediction latency <1s
2. Explanation generation <2s
3. Risk assessment <500ms

## Priority

**MEDIUM** - Advanced feature for Phase 3, builds on SDG analysis

## Estimated Effort

14 weeks (3-4 months)

## Dependencies

- SDG analysis (Issue #TBD)
- AST-based merging (Issue #TBD)
- Git history mining

## Related Issues

- #TBD (Phase 3 tracking)
- #TBD (SDG Analysis)
- #TBD (Natural language processing)

## Success Metrics

- 30% reduction in conflict resolution time (beyond SDG)
- 80% accuracy for AI suggestions
- 90% user satisfaction with explanations
- <1s latency for all AI features

## Ethical Considerations

- [ ] Ensure ML model doesn't learn sensitive code patterns
- [ ] Provide transparency in AI decisions
- [ ] Allow users to disable AI features
- [ ] Don't store sensitive repository data
- [ ] Comply with data privacy regulations

## Future Enhancements

- Fine-tune on user's specific codebase
- Federated learning across multiple repos
- Reinforcement learning from user feedback
- Multi-modal learning (code + documentation + issues)
