Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.36341

Executable Archaeology of Programs That Model Programming: Reanimating the Heuristic Compiler (1961) and KBEmacs (1984)

Jeff Shrager·Kent M. Pitman·Mia Golec
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Early AI programs were often also theories of how people think, and programs that wrote programs were, in part, theories of how people program. Here we report on the reanimation of two such programs that offer two seemingly different theories of programming and were developed for quite different purposes. The first, Herbert Simon's Heuristic Compiler (1961), was an experimental model of programming as problem-solving, applying the means-ends analysis methods of the General Problem Solver to investigate the nature of the programming task. The second, KBEmacs (1984), was a working prototype of an intelligent programming assistant developed by MIT's Programmer's Apprentice project, built on the view that expert programmers recognize and combine familiar patterns, or "cliches." It let a programmer build up programs by combining cliches through a stylized English command language. We approach both through the methodology of Executable Archaeology, the study of historical computational systems by running their original code, a process we call "reanimation." Our reanimation of the Heuristic Compiler reproduces the compiled code appearing in Simon's 1963 paper, and our reanimation of KBEmacs reproduces the SQRT sequence of its December 1984 self-test. Examined side by side, the two theories turn out to have much in common: the Heuristic Compiler also works by adapting existing routines, and Simon later argued that search alone requires a large body of programming knowledge. To highlight the reflexivity of this project, we deliberately used a modern AI-assisted programming tool, Anthropic's Claude Code (Opus 5.5), to carry out much of the detailed reanimation work, building on a significant base of existing software. The explicit, executable theories of programming that both systems embodied are largely absent from today's far more capable AI coding assistants.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.HCcs.PL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jeff Shrager, Kent M. Pitman, Mia Golec. 2026-10-26. Executable Archaeology of Programs That Model Programming: Reanimating the Heuristic Compiler (1961) and KBEmacs (1984). https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36341

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Epsilon-Identifiability of Causal Quantities

Identifying the effects of causes and causes of effects is vital in virtually every scientific field. Often, however, the needed probabilities may not be fully identifiable from the available data sources. This paper shows how approximate identifiability is still possible for several probabilities of causation. We term this epsilon-identifiability and demonstrate its usefulness in cases where the behavior of certain subpopulations can be restricted within sufficiently narrow bounds. In particular, we show how unidentifiable causal effects and counterfactual probabilities can be epsilon-identified when such allowances are made. Often, these allowances are easily measured and reasonably assumed. Finally, epsilon-identifiability is applied to the unit selection problem.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

PIVOT: Bridging Planning and Execution in LLM Agents via Trajectory Refinement

Large language model (LLM)-based agents frequently generate seemingly coherent plans that fail upon execution due to infeasible actions, constraint violations, and compounding errors over extended horizons. PIVOT (Plan-Inspect-eVOlve Trajectories) addresses this plan-execution misalignment through a self-supervised framework that treats trajectories as optimizable objects iteratively refined via environment interaction. The framework comprises four stages: PLAN generates candidate trajectories; INSPECT executes them and computes structured losses with textual gradients encoding plan-execution discrepancies; EVOLVE applies these signals to produce improved trajectories; and VERIFY performs a final global check against task constraints. A monotonic acceptance process ensures a non-decreasing solution quality. Empirical evaluations on DeepPlanning and GAIA demonstrate state-of-the-art performance: with human-in-the-loop (HITL) feedback, PIVOT establishes a strong upper bound up to 94% relative improvement in constraint satisfaction, while its fully autonomous variant retains substantial gains, showing that the core trajectory-refinement mechanism remains effective without external supervision. At the same time, PIVOT remains computationally efficient, requiring up to 3x to 5x fewer tokens than competing refinement methods. These findings establish that (self- or human-supervised) feedback-based trajectory optimization is a principled methodology for mitigating plan-execution gaps in autonomous agent systems.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Hedge-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks Pertaining to Financial Reasoning

Modern AI agents are increasingly capable of routine financial-analysis tasks such as retrieving documents and updating spreadsheets. A harder challenge is forecasting an unknown future from incomplete information. Public markets provide a natural testbed: analysts routinely predict discrete events with information from that point in time. We present Hedge-Bench, a benchmark of 92 real-world environments derived from hedge fund analysts' reasoning traces paired with subsequently resolved prediction questions. Agents reason from frozen information snapshots, and their forecasts are evaluated against real-world outcomes. Across 11 frontier models and three trials per environment, joint success rates, which require both a correct forecast and over 60% research coverage, range from 2.54 to 31.52%. Using GRPO with turn-level credit assignment, we train Muse-Glimmer on 165 environments, increasing coverage on 22 held-out environments from 17.17% to 33.36% at low reasoning effort and from 30.19% to 47.02% at extra-high effort. The trained model at low effort also exceeds the base model's extra-high-effort coverage while using 47.9% fewer tokens. We also observe evidence of generalization: held-out forecasting accuracy at high effort improves by 10.06 percentage points, while out-of-distribution evaluation scores improve by 3.94 points on GDPval, 2.29 on GDP.pdf, 7.07 on Harvey LAB, and 4.96 on Frontier Finance under their respective metrics. Code: https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified.

cs.AI↗