A model-free method to learn multiple skills in parallel on modular robots.

Legged robots are well-suited for deployment in unstructured environments but require a unique control scheme specific for their design. As controllers optimised in simulation do not transfer well to the real world (the infamous sim-to-real gap), methods enabling quick learning in the real world, without any assumptions on the specific robot model and its dynamics, are necessary. In this paper, we present a generic method based on Central Pattern Generators, that enables the acquisition of basic locomotion skills in parallel, through very few trials. The novelty of our approach, underpinned by a mathematical analysis of the controller model, is to search for good initial states, instead of optimising connection weights. Empirical validation in six different robot morphologies demonstrates that our method enables robots to learn primary locomotion skills in less than 15 minutes in the real world. In the end, we showcase our skills in a targeted locomotion experiment.

Comparing Robot Controller Optimization Methods on Evolvable Morphologies.

In this paper we compare Bayesian Optimization, Differential Evolution, and an Evolution Strategy, employed as a gait learning algorithm in modular robots. The motivational scenario is the joint evolution of morphologies and controllers, where 'newborn' robots also undergo a learning process to optimize their inherited controllers (without changing their bodies). This context raises the question: How do gait learning algorithms compare when applied to various morphologies that are not known in advance (thus need to be treated without priors)? To answer this question, we use a test suite of twenty different robot morphologies to evaluate our gait learners and compare their efficiency, efficacy, and sensitivity to morphological differences. The results indicate that Bayesian Optimization and Differential Evolution deliver the same solution quality (walking speed for the robot) with fewer evaluations than the Evolution Strategy. Furthermore, the Evolution Strategy is more sensitive for morphological differences (its efficacy varies more between different morphologies) and is more subject to luck (repeated runs on the same morphology show greater variance in the outcomes).

Predicting responders to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 using machine learning.

BACKGROUND: For mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients, prone positioning has quickly become an important treatment strategy, however, prone positioning is labor intensive and comes with potential adverse effects. Therefore, identifying which critically ill intubated COVID-19 patients will benefit may help allocate labor resources. METHODS: From the multi-center Dutch Data Warehouse of COVID-19 ICU patients from 25 hospitals, we selected all 3619 episodes of prone positioning in 1142 invasively mechanically ventilated patients. We excluded episodes longer than 24 h. Berlin ARDS criteria were not formally documented. We used supervised machine learning algorithms Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, Support Vector Machine and Extreme Gradient Boosting on readily available and clinically relevant features to predict success of prone positioning after 4 h (window of 1 to 7 h) based on various possible outcomes. These outcomes were defined as improvements of at least 10% in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ventilatory ratio, respiratory system compliance, or mechanical power. Separate models were created for each of these outcomes. Re-supination within 4 h after pronation was labeled as failure. We also developed models using a 20 mmHg improvement cut-off for PaO2/FiO2 ratio and using a combined outcome parameter. For all models, we evaluated feature importance expressed as contribution to predictive performance based on their relative ranking. RESULTS: The median duration of prone episodes was 17 h (11-20, median and IQR, N = 2632). Despite extensive modeling using a plethora of machine learning techniques and a large number of potentially clinically relevant features, discrimination between responders and non-responders remained poor with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.62 for PaO2/FiO2 ratio using Logistic Regression, Random Forest and XGBoost. Feature importance was inconsistent between models for different outcomes. Notably, not even being a previous responder to prone positioning, or PEEP-levels before prone positioning, provided any meaningful contribution to predicting a successful next proning episode. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, predicting the success of prone positioning using clinically relevant and readily available parameters from electronic health records is currently not feasible. Given the current evidence base, a liberal approach to proning in all patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS is therefore justified and in particular regardless of previous results of proning.