Identifying sources of global contention in constraint satisfaction search

Much work has been done on learning from failure in search to boost solving of combinatorial problems, such as clause-learning and clause-weighting in boolean satisfiability (SAT), nogood and explanation-based learning, and constraint weighting in constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Many of the top solvers in SAT use clause learning to good effect. A similar approach (nogood learning) has not had as large an impact in CSPs. Constraint weighting is a less fine-grained approach where the information learnt gives an approximation as to which variables may be the sources of greatest contention. In this work we present two methods for learning from search using restarts, in order to identify these critical variables prior to solving. Both methods are based on the conflict-directed heuristic (weighted-degree heuristic) introduced by Boussemart et al. and are aimed at producing a better-informed version of the heuristic by gathering information through restarting and probing of the search space prior to solving, while minimizing the overhead of these restarts. We further examine the impact of different sampling strategies and different measurements of contention, and assess different restarting strategies for the heuristic. Finally, two applications for constraint weighting are considered in detail: dynamic constraint satisfaction problems and unary resource scheduling problems.

A comprehensive description of the competencies required for the performance of an ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blockade

We addressed four research questions, each relating to the training and assessment of the competencies associated with the performance of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus blockade (USgABPB). These were: (i) What are the most important determinants of learning of USgABPB? (ii) What is USgABPB? What are the errors most likely to occur when trainees learn to perform this procedure? (iii) How should end-user input be applied to the development of a novel USgABPB simulator? (iv) Does structured simulation based training influence novice learning of the procedure positively? We demonstrated that the most important determinants of learning USgABPB are: (a) Access to a formal structured training programme. (b) Frequent exposure to clinical learning opportunity in an appropriate setting (c) A clinical learning opporunity requires an appropriate patient, trainee and teacher being present at the same time, in an appropriate environment. We carried out a comprehensive description of the procedure. We performed a formal task analysis of USgABPB, identifying (i) 256 specific tasks associated with the safe and effective performance of the procedure, and (ii) the 20 most critical errors likely to occur in this setting. We described a methodology for this and collected data based on detailed, sequential evaluation of prototypes by trainees in anaesthesia. We carried out a pilot randomised control trial assessing the effectiveness of a USgABPB simulator during its development. Our data did not enable us to draw a reliable conclusion to this question; the trail did provide important new learning (as a pilot) to inform future investigation of this question. We believe that the ultimate goal of designing effective simulation-based training and assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia is closer to realisation as a result of this work. It remains to be proven if this approach will have a positive impact on procedural performance, and more importantly improve patient outcomes.