Bayesian optimization with kernel ensembles and disagreement-based acquisition for source localization and acoustic inversion
Authors: Heng Zhang, Haotian Xiang, Florian Meyer, Qin Lu
Organizations: School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA · Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
Joint source localization and geoacoustic inversion requires optimizing an objective built from an expensive normal mode propagation model. Bayesian optimization (BO) with a Gaussian process (GP) surrogate can obtain accurate parameter estimates within a limited number of forward model evaluations, but its performance depends on the choice of kernel family. With few observations in a seven-dimensional search space, no single kernel can be expected to perform consistently well across individual inversions. To reduce this dependence, we use a weighted ensemble of GPs with different kernel families, allowing the surrogate to adapt to the observed objective without committing to one kernel in advance. The ensemble is combined with an optimum-conditioned acquisition function that determines where the expensive objective should be evaluated next. Experiments on simulated and measured SWellEx-96 data show that the resulting method achieves the lowest mean final objective among the considered BO strategies and reduces parameter estimation error on most coordinates. Ablation results further show that the ensemble provides robustness to kernel choice, while the acquisition function accounts for most of the optimization gain.
Figures & tables
Strategy
Data
RBF
Matérn- 3/2
Matérn- 5/2
BO-LogEI
Simulated
42%
33%
25%
Measured
49%
20%
31%
Local BO q=1
Simulated
32%
29%
39%
Measured
38%
22%
40%
Local BO q=4
Simulated
42%
18%
40%
Measured
44%
21%
35%
Table 1: Percentage of runs on which each kernel family gives the lowest normalized parameter error. Each run is repeated with all three families from an identical warm-up design, so the three are directly paired; 100 runs per row. No family is best on all the BO approaches.
Figure 1: Lowest observed objective ϕt against trial index for (a) simulated and (b) experimental data over 100 runs. Solid lines are the mean over runs, and dash-dot lines of the same colour the 10th and 90th percentile at that trial. The dots at the right edge show the distribution of the 100 final values. Curves separate only after the Tinit=32 warm-up trials (dashed vertical line), which are shared by all strategies at a given seed.
Symbol
Parameter
Bounds
rsrc [km]
Source range
[0.82,1.32]
zsrc [m]
Source depth
[60,80]
τ [ ∘ ]
Array tilt
[−3,3]
hw [m]
Water depth
[212,222]
hs [m]
Sediment thickness
[15,25]
cs,t [m/s]
Sediment top speed
[1560,1580]
Table 2: Search space Θ⊂RD in ( 3 ), D=7
Strategy
ϕ∗
rsrc [km]
zsrc [m]
τ [ ∘ ]
hw [m]
hs [m]
cs,t [m/s]
cs,b [m/s]
Best value
0 / 0.076
1.07 / 1.072
71.11 / 71.53
2 / 2.068
217 / 219.6
23 / 20.07
1572.3 / 1567
1593 / 1590
Random
0.0933 / 0.1983
0.028 / 0.035
2.04 / 1.96
0.392 / 0.399
2.63 / 3.00
3.15 / 2.53
5.24 / 5.62
6.47 / 5.96
BO-LogEI
0.0053 / 0.0813
0.018 / 0.012
0.81 / 0.27
0.195 / 0.041
1.98 / 1.42
1.81 / 1.73
6.64 / 7.55
7.03 / 6.24
Local BO q=1
0.0123 / 0.0942
0.023 / 0.019
1.03 / 0.62
0.178 / 0.098
2.55 / 1.95
1.85 / 2.39
6.73 / 8.10
7.16 / 8.60
Local BO q=4
0.0097 / 0.0902
0.023 / 0.015
1.05 / 0.62
0.168 / 0.101
2.30 / 1.22
1.53 / 1.39
5.65 / 6.25
5.92 / 5.75
KEDA
0.0017 / 0.0805
0.015 / 0.009
0.62 / 0.27
0.153 / 0.068
1.56 / 0.96
1.35 / 1.04
6.14 / 5.58
7.58 / 4.36
Table 3: Mean final objective and MAE of the seven estimated parameters over 100 runs, simulated / measured data. All baselines are our own reproduction under a common warm-up design. Best value of each column and track in bold.
Figure 2: Distribution of the 100 final KEDA estimates for (a)–(g) simulated and (h)–(n) measured data, 40 bins over the search bounds of each coordinate. The dashed line and marker give the true value.
Figure 3: KEDA with each single kernel of K and with the full ensemble, on (a) simulated and (b) experimental data, over 100 seeds.
Figure 4: The same four surrogates under log expected improvement instead of the disagreement acquisition.
Figure 5: KEDA against each baseline at the kernel minimising that baseline’s own mean final objective; the legend names the kernel used in each panel.
Figure 6: Kernel weights wtr of ( 6 ) against trial t on (a) simulated and (b) measured data, over 100 seeds. Solid lines give the mean over seeds and the shaded bands the interquartile range. The dotted line marks the uniform weight 1/R and the dashed line the floor ϵ/R . Weights exist only after the warm-up, so the curves begin at t=Tinit+1 .
Figure 7: Distribution over the 100 seeds of the final weight wTr of each kernel in K , on (a) simulated and (b) measured data. The dashed line marks the floor ϵ/R ; bars exceeding the vertical range are labelled with their count, and the median of each panel is given at its top right.
Gaussian processes with stationary kernels on bounded domains exhibit inflated posterior variance near the boundary. Despite being a long-recognized artifact in geostatistics and a source of over-exploration in Bayesian optimization, the causes and effects of boundary-induced acquisition bias are underexplored. We trace the root cause to a simple geometric mechanism: the truncation of the kernel correlation neighborhood at the domain boundary creates an observation-independent distortion that worsens with dimensionality. We show how this distortion manifests across three acquisition classes: variance maximization concentrates selections at the corners, whereas negative integrated posterior variance and expected predictive information gain move selections inward to axis-aligned interior shells. These patterns arise without reference to any objective function, meaning that acquisition behavior can be dominated by kernel geometry rather than the desired task-specific uncertainty. To quantify this, we introduce a function-free selection-profile diagnostic for arbitrary acquisitions, kernels, and bounded-domain geometries.
Maria Bånkestad, Sanna Jarl, Jens Sjölund
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Stockholm, Sweden · Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
Building local surrogates to accelerate stationary point searches on potential energy surfaces spans decades of effort. Done correctly, surrogates can reduce the number of expensive electronic structure evaluations by roughly an order of magnitude while preserving the accuracy of the underlying theory, with the gain depending on oracle cost, search distance, and the availability of analytical forces. We present a unified Bayesian optimization view of minimization, single-point saddle searches, and double-ended path searches: all three share one six-step surrogate loop and differ only in the inner optimization target and the acquisition criterion. The framework uses Gaussian process regression with derivative observations, inverse-distance kernels, and active learning, and we develop optional extensions for production use, including farthest-point sampling with the Earth Mover's Distance, MAP regularization, an adaptive trust radius, and random Fourier features for scaling. Accompanying pedagogical Rust code demonstrates that all three applications use the same Bayesian optimization loop, bridging the gap between theoretical formulation and practical execution.
Rohit Goswami
Institute IMX and Lab-COSMO, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne · Institute IMX and Lab-COSMO, École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 12, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
A learning-based physics-constrained neural kernel for sound field estimation is proposed. Sound field estimation aims to estimate the spatial distribution of an acoustic field from a discrete set of microphone measurements, which have a wide range of applications. Among existing sound field estimation methods, kernel-regression-based methods offer a flexible and principled framework for incorporating physical constraints and allow inference through linear operation. It is also possible to adapt the kernel function to the target acoustic environment by representing the directional weighting function as an implicit neural representation (INR) and optimizing hyperparameters using measurements. However, the kernel function is generally optimized for single snapshot measurements of the microphones, which can lead to strong overfitting and poor generalization. We propose a source-position-dependent INR for the directional weighting function, enabling the kernel function to capture common directional patterns and to generalize to unseen source positions in the target acoustic environment. Experimental results indicate that our proposed method outperforms the snapshot-based method by estimating a directional weighting function that matches the directivity of the target sound field.
Mattia Marella, Shoichi Koyama
National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan · University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy