Using small MUSes to explain how to solve pen and paper puzzles

Pen and paper puzzles like Sudoku, Futoshiki and Skyscrapers are hugely popular. Solving such puzzles can be a trivial task for modern AI systems. However, most AI systems solve problems using a form of backtracking, while people try to avoid backtracking as much as possible. This means that existing AI systems do not output explanations about their reasoning that are meaningful to people. We present Demystify, a tool which allows puzzles to be expressed in a high-level constraint programming language and uses MUSes to allow us to produce descriptions of steps in the puzzle solving. We give several improvements to the existing techniques for solving puzzles with MUSes, which allow us to solve a range of significantly more complex puzzles and give higher quality explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of Demystify by comparing its results to documented strategies for solving a range of pen and paper puzzles by hand, showing that our technique can find many of the same explanations.Publisher PD

A New Link in a Chain of Genres?

Institutional genres often form dynamic systems or chains. In this paper we report on a possible expansion of the genre system that undergirds the appointment process of assistant professors in the U.S. This expansion consists of a “response letter” to a letter of recommendation. We first analyse a small corpus of these response letters by looking at the openings and closings and the bodies of the letters. The larger aim of this analysis is to explore the possible rationales that might underlie the composition, stylistic character and content of these texts

"I'm not an investigator and I'm not a police officer" : a faculty's view on academic integrity in an undergraduate nursing degree

In nursing, expectations of honesty and integrity are clearly stipulated throughout professional standards and codes of conduct, thus the concept of academic integrity has even more impetus in preparing students for graduate practice. However, a disparity between policy and practice misses the opportunity to instil the principles of academic integrity, and at its core honesty, a pivotal trait in the nursing profession. This study draws upon the experience of the nursing faculty to explore how academic integrity policy of deterrence operate in nursing education. While participants deplored cheating behaviours, they expressed frustration in having to ‘police’ large numbers of students who had little awareness of the academic standards to meet policy requirements. In addition, they were cynical because of a perceived lack of severity in sanctions for students who repeatedly breached integrity. Participants expressed a moral obligation as educators to meet student learning needs and preferred to engage with students in a more meaningful way to uphold academic integrity. The ambivalence to detect and report breaches in integrity undermines the effectiveness of policy. Therefore, faculty must recognise the importance of their role in detecting and escalating cases of dishonesty and execute deterrence in a more consistent way. To do this, greater support at an institutional level, such as smaller class sizes, inclusion in decision making around sanctions and recognition of additional workload, will enable faculty to uphold policy. Although policing was not their preferred approach, the role of faculty in detecting and reporting cases of misconduct is crucial to increase the certainty of students getting caught, which is essential if policy is to be effective in deterring dishonest behaviour

Towards generic explanations for pen and paper puzzles with MUSes

This research was supported by the Royal Society URF\R\180015 .Pen and paper puzzles like Sudoku, Futoshiki and Star Battle are hugely popular. Solving such puzzles can be a trivial task for modern AI systems. However, most AI systems solve problems using a form of backtracking, while people try to avoid backtracking as much as possible. This means that existing AI systems do not output explanations about their reasoning that are meaningful to people. We present Demystify, a tool which allows puzzles to be expressed in a high-level constraint programming language and uses MUSes to allow us to produce descriptions of steps in the puzzle solving. We give several improvements to the existing techniques for solving puzzles with MUSes, which allow us to solve a range of significantly more complex puzzles and give higher quality explanations. We demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of Demystify by comparing its results to documented strategies for solving a range of pen and paper puzzles by hand, showing that our technique can find many of the same explanations.Publisher PD

Using Small MUSes to Explain How to Solve Pen and Paper Puzzles

In this paper, we present Demystify, a general tool for creating human-interpretable step-by-step explanations of how to solve a wide range of pen and paper puzzles from a high-level logical description. Demystify is based on Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets (MUSes), which allow Demystify to solve puzzles as a series of logical deductions by identifying which parts of the puzzle are required to progress. This paper makes three contributions over previous work. First, we provide a generic input language, based on the Essence constraint language, which allows us to easily use MUSes to solve a much wider range of pen and paper puzzles. Second, we demonstrate that the explanations that Demystify produces match those provided by humans by comparing our results with those provided independently by puzzle experts on a range of puzzles. We compare Demystify to published guides for solving a range of different pen and paper puzzles and show that by using MUSes, Demystify produces solving strategies which closely match human-produced guides to solving those same puzzles (on average 89% of the time). Finally, we introduce a new randomised algorithm to find MUSes for more difficult puzzles. This algorithm is focused on optimised search for individual small MUSes

A case study investigation into the use of multi-compartment compliance aids in older people resident in very sheltered housing.

Background: Multi-compartment compliance aids (MCAs) are repackaging systems for solid dosage form medicines, heralded by some as a solution to non-adherence but with little evidence of benefit. Objective: The aim was to use a theoretical approach to describe the behavioural determinants impacting the use of MCAs in older people from the perspectives of the individual and health and social care providers. Design: A case study investigation was conducted. Setting: The study took place in three very sheltered housing sites in North East Scotland. Subjects: Twenty residents (≥65 years) using an MCA for at least 6 months and 34 members of their care team [17 formal carers, eight general practitioners (GPs), eight pharmacists, one family member]. Methods: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with items based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: Several behavioural determinants impacted the use of MCAs from the perspectives of the stakeholders involved. Goals of use related to promoting adherence and safety, with less emphasis on independence. Beliefs of consequences related to these goals and were considered of value, with additional consequences of concern around reduced awareness of medicines and complexities of changing medicines. There was a lack of clearly defined roles of professionals for all processes of MCA use, with evidence of blurring and gaps in roles. There were additional issues relating to capabilities of older people in using MCAs and capacity issues for pharmacy-supplied MCAs. Conclusions: Several behavioural determinants impacted the use of MCAs, and while MCAs were valued, there is a need to more clearly define, develop, implement and evaluate a model of care encompassing resident and medicines assessment, supply and ongoing review of MCAs

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Abstract: Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised. This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process. The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites.“To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well” Douglas G Altma

Identifying associations between diabetes and acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure : an analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a common co-existing disease in the critically ill. Diabetes mellitus may reduce the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but data from previous studies are conflicting. The objective of this study was to evaluate associations between pre-existing diabetes mellitus and ARDS in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Methods: An ancillary analysis of a global, multi-centre prospective observational study (LUNG SAFE) was undertaken. LUNG SAFE evaluated all patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) over a 4-week period, that required mechanical ventilation and met AHRF criteria. Patients who had their AHRF fully explained by cardiac failure were excluded. Important clinical characteristics were included in a stepwise selection approach (forward and backward selection combined with a significance level of 0.05) to identify a set of independent variables associated with having ARDS at any time, developing ARDS (defined as ARDS occurring after day 2 from meeting AHRF criteria) and with hospital mortality. Furthermore, propensity score analysis was undertaken to account for the differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without diabetes mellitus, and the association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest was assessed on matched samples. Results: Of the 4107 patients with AHRF included in this study, 3022 (73.6%) patients fulfilled ARDS criteria at admission or developed ARDS during their ICU stay. Diabetes mellitus was a pre-existing co-morbidity in 913 patients (22.2% of patients with AHRF). In multivariable analysis, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS (OR 0.93 (0.78-1.11); p = 0.39), developing ARDS late (OR 0.79 (0.54-1.15); p = 0.22), or hospital mortality in patients with ARDS (1.15 (0.93-1.42); p = 0.19). In a matched sample of patients, there was no association between diabetes mellitus and outcomes of interest. Conclusions: In a large, global observational study of patients with AHRF, no association was found between diabetes mellitus and having ARDS, developing ARDS, or outcomes from ARDS. Trial registration: NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013