How Many Initial Points Does Bayesian Optimization Need?
Authors: Mujin Cheon, James Odgers, Dong-Yeun Koh, Calvin Tsay
Organizations: Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST) · HayanMind Inc. · Technical University of Nuremberg (UTN) · Munich Center for Machine Learning (MCML) · Helmholtz Munich · Imperial College London
Abstract
Bayesian Optimization (BO) generally begins with an initialization phase: a batch of n0 uninformed evaluations. The choice of n0 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 n0, i.e., a practitioner wastes resources by selecting either too low or too high a value of n0. 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 n0-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 n0 cannot be tuned, and a generously large n0 when it can.
This paper studies a one-step lookahead Bayesian optimization (BO) method and its theoretical guarantee. Although the empirical effectiveness of one-step lookahead BO methods, such as entropy search, has been studied extensively, they often rely on computationally intractable approximations, and their regret guarantees remain underdeveloped. Thus, this paper proposes a one-step lookahead BO method called optimal-point variance reduction (OVR), which requires only posterior sampling and Monte Carlo approximations. We obtain a uniform error bound over an input domain for the Monte Carlo estimation in OVR. Furthermore, we show that the regularized OVR, with the slight modification to promote exploration, achieves a vanishing Bayesian expected simple regret upper bound. Finally, we demonstrate the effectiveness of OVR through numerical experiments.
Bayesian optimization is widely used for hyperparameter optimization when model evaluations are expensive; however, noisy acquisition estimates can lead to unstable decisions. We identify acquisition estimation noise as a failure mode that was previously overlooked: even when the surrogate model and acquisition target are correctly specified, finite-sample Monte Carlo error can perturb acquisition values. This can, in turn, flip candidate rankings and lead to suboptimal BO decisions. As a remedy, we aim at variance reduction and propose an orthogonal acquisition estimator that subtracts an optimally weighted score-function control variate, which yields an acquisition residual orthogonal to posterior score directions and which thus reduces Monte Carlo variance. We further introduce OrthoBO: a Bayesian optimization framework that combines our orthogonal acquisition estimator with ensemble surrogates and an outer log transformation. We show theoretically that our estimator preserves the target, leads to variance reduction, and improves pairwise ranking stability. We further verify the theoretical properties of OrthoBO through numerical experiments where our framework reduces acquisition estimation variance, stabilizes candidate rankings, and achieves strong performance. We also demonstrate the downstream utility of OrthoBO in hyperparameter optimization for neural network training and fine-tuning.
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.