A Tutorial Review of Bayesian Optimization with Gaussian Processes to Accelerate Stationary Point Searches

In Bayesian optimization, Thompson sampling selects the evaluation point by sampling from the posterior distribution over the objective function maximizer. Because this sampling problem is intractable for Gaussian process (GP) surrogates, the posterior distribution is typically restricted to fixed discretizations (i.e., candidate points) that become exponentially sparse as dimensionality increases. While previous works aim to increase candidate point density through scalable GP approximations, our orthogonal approach increases density by adaptively reducing the search space during sampling. Specifically, we introduce Adaptive Candidate Thompson Sampling (ACTS), which generates candidate points in subspaces guided by the gradient of a surrogate model sample. ACTS is a simple drop-in replacement for existing TS methods -- including those that use trust regions or other local approximations -- producing better samples of maxima and improved optimization across synthetic and real-world benchmarks.

Self-driving laboratories increasingly rely on multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization (MFBO) to balance cheap, approximate evaluations against scarce, expensive ones, with a predictive surrogate at its core. Gaussian processes (GPs) are the default choice, but they scale poorly as data accumulate and assume a smooth landscape that molecular and materials search spaces routinely violate. Transfer learning offers an alternative suited to this regime: it learns a representation from abundant cheap data and adapts it to sparse expensive data. Despite its use in property prediction, transfer learning has not been tested as the engine of a closed-loop optimization. Here we benchmark eleven transfer-learning surrogates against four GP methods under an identical selection rule, fidelity budget, and model size, across nine tasks spanning synthetic functions to real chemistry and materials problems. GPs win on smooth, low-dimensional functions but perform worst on molecular and materials problems, where transfer-learning surrogates reach substantially better solutions using far less computation. Because acquisition policy is held fixed across surrogates, this advantage is attributable to the surrogate itself. Uncertainty-driven exploration is not reliably beneficial, and calibration does not predict optimization performance, so greedy exploitation of the transfer-learned mean is the more robust default. Transfer learning is therefore the surrogate of choice for molecular and materials MFBO.

Bayesian Optimization (BO) is widely adopted for data-efficient optimization in scientific and engineering applications, yet its computational cost is rarely evaluated alongside optimization performance. Here we present a systematic, compute-aware study of BO that evaluates surrogate models along two axes: optimization quality and computational frugality. Across eight benchmark functions and nine real-world datasets spanning materials science, mechanics, robotics, chemistry, and machine learning, we benchmark four surrogate models: Gaussian Processes, Random Forests, NGBoost, and Bayesian Adaptive Spline Surfaces. We show that Gaussian Process-based BO consistently incurs the highest time and memory overhead without delivering superior optimization or sample efficiency. In contrast, scalable alternatives achieve equal or better performance at a fraction of the computational cost. Motivated by these findings, we introduce a surrogate-recommendation framework that predicts the most suitable BO surrogate from inexpensive dataset characteristics. Together, these results establish FruBO as a reproducible, compute-aware baseline for Bayesian Optimization and provide practical guidance for surrogate selection under limited computational and experimental budgets.