Many design tasks can be cast as black-box function optimization, enabling use of Bayesian optimization to find an ideal design with minimal number of trials. However, often we do not actually need the optimum but instead a sufficiently good solution is enough, for instance a material that is durable enough for its intended use. In most cases there are multiple satisfactory solutions, forming a superlevel set of the function, raising a key question of which one to prefer. We answer this by explaining why robustness to input perturbations that may occur when the solution is deployed is a good criterion and by introduce a Bayesian optimization method that efficiently finds satisficing solutions that are robust to maximally large perturbations. In contrast to previous works, we assume the inputs can be accurately controlled during optimization, but will be perturbed after the deployment.
Gradient-free post-training has emerged as a compelling alternative to gradient-based optimization for large language models (LLMs), but existing approaches remain costly. We ask whether structured search can identify a strong single expert under a modest evaluation budget. Motivated by evidence that useful weight updates lie in low-dimensional subspaces, we apply Bayesian optimization within a random linear embedding of weight space. Our method requires no backpropagation and uses a Gaussian process surrogate to guide candidate evaluations efficiently. Across several reasoning benchmarks with Qwen2.5-Instruct models from 0.5B to 3B parameters, Bayesian optimization using five times less candidate evaluations matches or exceeds RandOpt. These results show that surrogate-guided search can substantially reduce the evaluation cost of gradient-free post-training while producing stronger deployable single experts.
Nigel Bastian Cendra, Abdelhamid Ezzerg, Fernando Julio Cendra et al.· 0 citations
Bayesian Optimization (BO) generally begins with an initialization phase: a batch of $n_0$ uninformed evaluations. The choice of $n_0$ remains largely heuristic, and we empirically observe that the total cost (random initial points plus BO iterations needed to find the global optimum) is U-shaped in $n_0$, i.e., a practitioner wastes resources by selecting either too low or too high a value of $n_0$. We find this tradeoff persists across MLE, Bayesian MCMC, and exact GP hyperparameters, as well as across acquisition functions. Toward the latter, Thompson Sampling appears an exception, with both total cost and simple regret essentially $n_0$-agnostic, though higher in our experiments. We attribute this U-shape to the known boundary issue of variance-driven BO: BO burns early budget on corners of the hypercube before turning inward. We demonstrate this effect using a 3D BO trajectory where the exact hyperparameters are known. We conclude with practical recommendations: use multi-step lookahead BO where possible; otherwise use Thompson Sampling when $n_0$ cannot be tuned, and a generously large $n_0$ when it can.
Mujin Cheon, J. Odgers, Dong-Yeun Koh et al.· 0 citations
This work introduces agentic Bayesian optimization: a paradigm in which an LLM agent is the central decision maker in the BO loop while a Bayesian backend provides the uncertainty-aware optimization substrate, and demonstrates the practical value of agentic BO in dynamic settings.
Paul Brunzema, Louis C. Tiao, Nhat Le et al.· 0 citations
Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) aims to collect informative data by optimizing an expected utility reflecting the goals of an experiment. However, this optimization is computationally challenging for common utilities and complex models. This is especially so for sequential or adaptive designs, where design and data collection alternate, so that feedback from already observed data must be taken into account. Most existing BOED research employs information gain as the utility, leading to the expected information gain (EIG) criterion. While EIG is widely useful, it may not always adequately reflect experimental goals. EIG can be viewed as rewarding experiments that produce large positive evidence for the truth on average, but it does not directly control the risk of an experiment producing misleading evidence. Here we consider an alternative criterion, which we call bias against (BA), that prioritizes such control. To address computational challenges when applying this criterion for adaptive design, we consider a policy-based deep adaptive design framework, which has previously been used for the EIG criterion. Minimizing a tractable upper bound on the BA objective is equivalent to maximizing a variance-penalized EIG criterion, and we optimize the latter by approximating it by Monte Carlo and learning design policies using stochastic gradient methods. The differences between BA and EIG designs are demonstrated in several examples including the adaptive design of a complex discrete choice experiment.
David Chen, Michael Evans, Xinwei Li et al.· 0 citations
We consider optimization applications with unknown parameters where the decision maker believes that the optimal value of the nominal problem-the optimization problem they would have solved if the true parameters were known-is unlikely to be large. This belief derives from information that humans have that is not captured in datasets, obtained from domain knowledge and interacting with the physical world. We propose an approach to evaluating policies that provides tighter performance guarantees if the decision maker's belief happens to be correct. Our main result shows that if computing a policy's worst-case performance is a convex program, then the value of human expertise-the maximum improvement in performance guarantees that can be obtained from the belief about the nominal problem-is equal to the minimax gap of a max-min problem. We illustrate our developments in assortment optimization and shortest path problems.
Wasserstein distributionally robust optimization (DRO) is a versatile and widely adopted framework for decision-making under uncertainty, yet its standard deterministic reformulations generally contain non-convex inner subproblems that are challenging to solve. To address this issue, we propose a shrinkage path heuristic that reduces the solution of a DRO problem to a one-dimensional search over the line segment connecting the (typically benign) sample average approximation (SAA) and the (more demanding but practically solvable) classical robust optimization solution. We derive a priori suboptimality bounds in stylized settings and, for the general case, a posteriori bounds obtained by applying a similar heuristic to a dual formulation. Numerical experiments on a multi-item newsvendor and an appointment scheduling problem show that the shrinkage path heuristic attains 85-110% (resp. 45-70%) of the out-of-sample performance improvements of Wasserstein DRO over SAA, at a fraction of the computational cost.
Ling-Jun Meng, Ryan Cory-Wright, W. Wiesemann· 0 citations