Arrow Research search

Author name cluster

Steven Minton

Possible papers associated with this exact author name in Arrow. This page groups case-insensitive exact name matches and is not a full identity disambiguation profile.

17 papers
2 author rows

Possible papers

17

JAAMAS Journal 2026 Journal Article

Hierarchical Wrapper Induction for Semistructured Information Sources

  • Ion Muslea
  • Steven Minton
  • Craig A. Knoblock

Abstract With the tremendous amount of information that becomes available on the Web on a daily basis, the ability to quickly develop information agents has become a crucial problem. A vital component of any Web-based information agent is a set of wrappers that can extract the relevant data from semistructured information sources. Our novel approach to wrapper induction is based on the idea of hierarchical information extraction, which turns the hard problem of extracting data from an arbitrarily complex document into a series of simpler extraction tasks. We introduce an inductive algorithm, STALKER, that generates high accuracy extraction rules based on user-labeled training examples. Labeling the training data represents the major bottleneck in using wrapper induction techniques, and our experimental results show that STALKER requires up to two orders of magnitude fewer examples than other algorithms. Furthermore, STALKER can wrap information sources that could not be wrapped by existing inductive techniques.

Details DOI

ICAPS Conference 2000 Conference Paper

Learning Plan Rewriting Rules

  • José Luis Ambite
  • Craig A. Knoblock
  • Steven Minton

Planning byRewriting (PbR) is a newparadigm forefficient high-quality plavningthat exploits plan rewriting rules and etficiel, t local search techniquesto tran~ form an easy-to-generate, butpossibly suboptimal, initial planintoa high-quality plan. Dcspitc theadvantages of PbRin termsof scalability, planquality, and anytime behavior, PbRrequires the user to define a set of domain-specific plan rewriting rules which can be difficult and time-consuming. This paper presents an approach to automatically learning the plaal rewriting rules basedon comparinginitial aJId oI>timai plans. Wereport results for several pla~nningdomains showingthat the learned rules are competitive with manually-specified ones, amdin several cases the lear. n~g zdgoritkmdiscovered novel rewriting rules.

Details

AAAI Conference 1999 Short Paper

Learning to Handle Inconsistency for Multi-Source Integration

  • Sheila Tejada
  • Craig A. Knoblock
  • Steven Minton
  • University of Southern California

The goal of this research is to be able to create mapping constructs so that an information broker, like Ariadne, can use it to properly integrate data from inconsistent sources in an intelligent and efficient manner.

PDF Details

AAAI Conference 1996 Conference Paper

Is There Any Need for Domain-Dependent Control Information?: A Reply

  • Steven Minton

In this paper, we consider the role that domaindependent control knowledge plays in problem solving systems. Ginsberg and Geddis (Ginsberg & Geddis 1991) have claimed that domaindependent control information has no place in declarative systems; instead, they say, such information should be derived from declarative facts about the domain plus domain-independent principles. We dispute their conclusion, arguing that it is impractical to generate control knowledge solely on the basis of logical derivations. We propose that simplifying abstractions are crucial for deriving control knowledge, and, as a result, empirical utility evaluation of the resulting rules will frequently be necessary to validate the utility of derived control knowledge. We ihustrate our arguments with examples from two implemented systems.

PDF Details

AAAI Conference 1994 Conference Paper

Small is Beautiful: A Brute-Force Approach to Learning First-Order Formulas

  • Steven Minton

We describe a method for learning formulas in firstorder logic using a brute-force, smallest-first search. The method is exceedingly simple. It generates all irreducible well-formed formulas up to a fixed size and tests them against a set of examples. Although the method has some obvious limitations due to its computational complexity, it performs surprisingly well on some tasks. This paper describes experiments with two applications of the method in the MULTI-TACsystem, a program synthesizer for constraint satisfaction problems. In the first application, axioms are learned, and in the second application, search control rules are learned. We describe these experiments, and consider why searching the space of small formulas makes sense in our applications.

PDF Details

IJCAI Conference 1993 Conference Paper

An Analytic Learning System for Specializing Heuristics

  • Steven Minton

This paper describes how meta-level theories are used for analytic learning in M U L T I - T A C. M U L T I - T A C operationalizes generic heuristics for constraint-satisfaction problems, in order to create programs that are tailored to specific problems. For each of its generic heuristics, M U L T I - T A C has a meta-theory specifically designed for operationalising that heuristic. We present examples of the specialisation process and discuss how the theories influence the tractability of the learning process. We also describe an empirical study showing that the specialised programs produced by M U L T I - T A C compare favorably to hand-coded programs.

PDF

AAAI Conference 1993 Conference Paper

Integrating Heuristics for Constraint Satisfaction Problems: A Case Study

  • Steven Minton

This paper describes a set of experiments with a system that synthesizes constraint satisfaction programs. The system, MULTI-TAC, is a CSP “expert” that can specialize a library of generic algorithms and methods for a particular application. MULTI-TAC not only proposes domain-specific versions of its generic heuristics, but also searches for the best combination of these heuristics and integrates them into a complete problem-specific program. We demonstrate MULTI-TAC'S capabilities on a combinatorial problem, “Minimum Maximal Matching”, and show that MULTI-TAC can synthesize programs for this problem that are on par with hand-coded programs. In synthesizing a program, MULTI-TAC bases its choice of heuristics on the instance distribution, and we show that this capability has a significant impact on the results.

PDF Details

IJCAI Conference 1991 Conference Paper

Commitment Strategies in Planning: A Comparative Analysis

  • Steven Minton
  • John Bresina
  • Mark

In this paper we compare the utility of different commitment strategies in planning. Under a "least commitment strategy", plans are represented as partial orders and operators are ordered only when interactions are detected. We investigate claims of the inherent advantages of planning with partial orders, as compared to planning with total orders. By focusing our analysis on the issue of operator ordering commitment, we are able to carry out a rigorous comparative analysis of two planners. We show that partial-order planning can be more efficient than total-order planning, but we also show that this is not necessarily so.

PDF

AAAI Conference 1990 Conference Paper

Solving Large-Scale Constraint-Satisfaction and Scheduling Problems Using a Heuristic Repair Method

  • Steven Minton
  • Andrew B. Philips

This paper describes a simple heuristic method for solving large-scale constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems. Given an initial assignment for the variables in a problem, the method operates by searching though the space of possible repairs. The search is guided by an ordering heuristic, the min-conflicts heuristic, that attempts to minimize the number of constraint violations after each step. We demonstrate empirically that the method performs orders of magnitude better than traditional backtracking techniques on certain standard problems. For example, the one million queens problem can be solved rapidly using our approach. We also describe practical scheduling applications where the method has been suc-. cessfully applied. A theoretical analysis is presented to explain why the method works so well on certain types of problems and to predict when it is likely to be most effective.

PDF Details