Bayesian optimisation (BO) is a powerful framework for sample-efficient optimisation of expensive black-box functions, but its application to high-dimensional discrete scientific design remains challenging. Local trust-region BO methods such as TuRBO address high dimensionality by restricting search to adaptively sized neighbourhoods. However, a direct discrete analogue based on edit distance can be poorly suited to structured discrete objects: neighbourhoods grow combinatorially, and metric proximity does not capture the dependencies that determine whether a design is plausible or useful. Motivated by the growing availability of pretrained generative models, we introduce GenTuRBO, which replaces the geometric trust region with an adaptively scaled proposal distribution defined by a pretrained generator. The generator provides a learned prior over discrete transformations, encoding coordinated changes without explicitly enumerating edit-distance neighbourhoods. GenTuRBO performs strongly across all three domains and achieves the highest mean final scores on Ehrlich sequence optimisation and Sokoban coordination.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Generator-guided proposals concentrate probability on feasible sequences. Both panels show the same 24,055 sequences within two substitutions of a fixed length-12 Ehrlich reference over a 20-token alphabet. Each dot represents a distinct sequence: the centre is the reference, the inner ring contains one-substitution variants, and the outer annulus contains two-substitution variants. Left: a uniform distribution over the Hamming neighbourhood assigns 39.44% probability mass to infeasible sequences, rising to 59.63% within four substitutions. Right: 100,000 proposals from a generator trained on feasible sequences assign only 2.62% empirical probability mass to infeasible outcomes. For each generator proposal, two positions are selected for corruption and reconstructed. Sequence locations are shared across panels, with infeasible sequences grouped into a red sector for visual comparison. Marker colour and size on the right indicate proposal frequency.
Figure 2: Feasibility collapses with edit radius. Percentage of length- 256 sequences over a 20 -token alphabet within k substitutions of one fixed feasible reference that satisfy the Ehrlich transition rules, shown on a logarithmic vertical axis. Counts are computed exactly (Supplementary Section S2 ). Only 2.8% of candidates remain feasible by twelve edits, and at k=256 — where the neighbourhood covers the entire sequence space — the feasible fraction is 2.28×10−15% .
Dn+∣Bn∣←Dn∪{(x,f(x)):x∈Bn}.
Algorithm 1 GenTuRBO
Figure 3: Ehrlich optimisation. Mean best-so-far reward with one sample standard deviation across 20 seeds. The dotted line marks the shared 64-evaluation initial archive. Holo GA is recorded at completed-generation checkpoints. Hamming + GP/EI uses direct mutation proposals screened by the spaced-pair GP/EI policy. AdaLead uses root-anchored rollouts and predicted-mean selection.
Method
GFP
AAV
GenTuRBO (Kermut)
0.983±0.074
0.806±0.033
GenTuRBO (Tanimoto) †
0.854±0.149
0.832±0.035
Hamming + GP/EI
1.161±0.067∗
0.824±0.041
Holo GA
0.864±0.038
0.656±0.028
AdaLead
0.906±0.047
0.802±0.053
BO-EVO
0.624±0.007
0.607±0.042
Table 1: Protein fitness optimisation. Best normalised CNN score after 2,000 charged evaluations, mean ± sample SD over 20 seeds. Bold marks the highest reported mean; ∗ denotes a positive mean difference and p<0.05 against every other method in that task’s table. There is no explicit feasibility check, so protein results may not correspond to valid designs.
Figure 4: Protein fitness optimisation. Mean best-so-far normalised CNN score with one sample standard deviation across 20 seeds. The 2,000-label budget includes the shared 128-sequence archive. For GFP-Medium, GenTuRBO (Tanimoto) and Hamming + GP/EI fix likelihood noise variance to 0.001 in standardised outcome units; other Tanimoto tasks learn noise. Holo GA points mark completed generations. Hamming + GP/EI uses uniform exact-distance mutation proposals with an adaptive radius, a one-hot Tanimoto GP, and marginal EI on all four tasks.
Figure 5: Sokoban coordination optimisation. (a) Best box-switch score found so far, averaged across 20 seeds. Shading shows one sample standard deviation. Each seed contributes its highest exactly scored B . Curves update at recorded batch checkpoints; the dotted line marks the shared 64-query initial archive. (b,c) Highest-scoring boards across the current 20-seed cohorts at 2,000 queries: independent sampling ( B=13 ) and GenTuRBO ( B=18 ), both independently verified. Amber squares are boxes, purple circles are goals, and blue marks the player. Search implementation details are reported in Supplementary Section S5 .
Setting
Ehrlich
Protein
Sokoban
Design space
256 tokens; alphabet 20
GFP: 237 residues; AAV: 28-residue window
10×10 grid; four boxes and goals
Frozen generator
Residual CTMC CNN
EvoDiff
Masked Transformer
Initial / online labels
64 / 1,936
128 / 1,872
64 / 1,936
Proposal pool
128
GP: 256; Random: 24
128
Acquired batch
8
8
8
Conditional parent
Best observed sequence
Best observed sequence
Best exactly scored solvable board
Table S1 : Configurations for the main GenTuRBO comparisons. Pool and batch sizes describe generator variants; baseline exceptions are documented separately. GFP-Medium Tanimoto uses fixed likelihood noise variance 0.001 in standardised outcome units; other displayed protein configurations use learned noise.
Task
Length
Published count
Executed rows
Unique sequences
Fitness range
Minimum edits
GFP-Medium
237
2,828
2,828
2,828
[0.01,0.62]
6
GFP-Hard
237
2,426
2,426
2,426
[0.00,0.10]
7
AAV-Medium
28
2,139
2,145
2,111
[0.29,0.38]
6
AAV-Hard
28
3,448
3,453
3,347
[0.00,0.33]
7
Table S2: Protein initial-data subsets. Published counts are benchmark reference values; executed rows and unique sequences describe the input CSV subsets used in these experiments. Each search starts from the fixed top-128 archive within its subset. Fitness ranges are those of the benchmark subsets.
Task
tmin
tmax
tinit
γexpand
γshrink
τs
τf
GFP-Medium / Hard
0.0
0.99
0.75
1.5
0.75
1
1
AAV-Medium / Hard
0.0
0.95
0.50
1.5
0.75
1
1
Table S3: Protein adaptive-noising parameters. The controller updates r=1−t ; the stored parameter tr_mean is tinit . The two difficulty levels use the same settings within each protein.
Figure S1 : Requested versus realised absolute edit distance on the Ehrlich mechanism diagnostic. Points show mean parent–proposal Hamming distance at each requested edit budget for all proposals, valid acquisition-eligible proposals, and the eight randomly selected proposals per batch. Error bars span the observed minimum and maximum within each requested-budget group; they are not confidence intervals. The dashed diagonal is exact calibration. Each panel aggregates 20 source seeds and 61,440 raw proposals.
Condition
Population
n
Realised edits
MAE
L=128,Q=4,K=4
All
61,440
28.66
4.69
Eligible
55,498
28.62
4.67
Selected
3,840
28.62
4.66
L=256,Q=4,K=8
All
61,440
27.65
5.00
Eligible
48,799
26.68
4.82
Selected
3,840
27.53
4.90
Table S4: Absolute edit-budget calibration. Values aggregate 20 source seeds. MAE is the mean absolute difference between the requested and realised parent–proposal Hamming distance.
Method
Final best reward
GenTuRBO
0.1619±0.0719∗
Hamming + GP/EI
0.0563±0.0118
Holo GA
0.0586±0.0100
AdaLead
0.0555±0.0156
BO-EVO
0.0336±0.0105
LaMBO-2 (online)
0.0672±0.0114
Table S5 : Ehrlich sequence optimisation. Best reward after 2,000 charged evaluations, mean ± sample SD over 20 seeds. Bold marks the highest reported mean; ∗ denotes a positive mean difference and p<0.05 against every other method in that task’s table. Tests are exploratory and unadjusted (Supplementary Section S6 ). Paired tests are used.
Figure S2 : Selected twenty-seed best-so-far trajectories. Lines show the mean incumbent and bands show one sample standard deviation. The dotted line marks the end of the shared 64-evaluation initial archive for iterative policies; unconditional generation has no shared initial archive. Panels use separate reward ranges. The oracle-pool curve is privileged and incurs additional unbudgeted physical scores. Holo GA is shown at completed-generation checkpoints. Hamming + GP/EI screens direct mutation proposals with the same spaced-pair GP/EI policy; AdaLead uses the shared GP with root-anchored rollouts and predicted-mean selection.
Condition
Kernel
Fit (s)
Warm inference (s)
L=128
Positional one-hot
0.344
0.012
Spaced pair ( W=32 )
3.315
0.395
Spaced pair ( W=48 )
5.049
0.573
Spaced trigram ( W=16 )
12.158
1.358
Pair+trigram additive
14.443
1.931
Task-aware (privileged)
0.595
0.046
Table S8: Ehrlich kernel fitting and inference cost. CPU double-precision measurements on held-out source seed 0: one fit and the median of warm posterior calls two and three, with the first call excluded and garbage collection outside measured intervals.
Figure S3 : Five-seed online Ehrlich kernel confirmation. Curves show mean best reward so far and shaded bands show one sample standard deviation. The dotted line marks the end of the shared 64-evaluation initial archive. Panels use separate, condition-specific reward scales. The comparison is exploratory because it contains only five paired seeds.
Method
Best B
GenTuRBO
12.450±2.438∗
Hamming + GP/EI
5.350±1.137
Direct-grid GA
7.500±1.701
AdaLead
6.950±1.791
Table S10 : Sokoban coordination optimisation. Best minimum box-switch count after 2,000 charged evaluations, mean ± sample SD over 20 seeds. Bold marks the highest reported mean; ∗ denotes a positive mean difference and p<0.05 against every other method in that task’s table. Tests are exploratory and unadjusted (Supplementary Section S6 ). Paired tests are used.
Method
Final best B
Maximum B
Solvable
Unresolved / 40,000
Independent sampling
9.450±1.669
13
88.09%
146
Direct-grid GA
7.500±1.701
11
11.22%
62
AdaLead
6.950±1.791
11
19.79%
4
Hamming + GP/EI
5.350±1.137
9
2.85%
4
GenTuRBO
12.450±2.438
18
88.76%
127
Table S11 : Sokoban outcomes and solver coverage. Final best B is each seed’s best exact score after 2,000 queries, reported as mean ± sample SD over 20 matched seeds. Maximum B is the highest exact score across all seeds; solvability and unresolved counts cover all 40,000 charged queries per method. Bold marks the highest score or solvability; unresolved counts describe solver coverage rather than an optimisation target.
Noising scale
Proposal selection
Final best reward
Random time
Random
0.0844±0.0245
Random time
GP
0.1070±0.0270
Adaptive
Random
0.1266±0.0368
Adaptive
GP (GenTuRBO)
0.1619±0.0719
Table S13 : Ehrlich component comparison. Final best reward under the shared 2,000-evaluation protocol. All GP arms use the spaced-pair kernel.
Method
GFP-Medium
GFP-Hard
AAV-Medium
AAV-Hard
RT + Random
0.623±0.004
0.300±0.050
0.565±0.058
0.445±0.043
RT + GP
0.627±0.019
0.284±0.083
0.759±0.049
0.668±0.061
TR + Random
0.672±0.057
0.644±0.077
0.680±0.040
0.534±0.061
GenTuRBO (Kermut)
0.983±0.074
0.845±0.069
0.806±0.033
0.757±0.090
RT + GP (Tanimoto) †
0.623±0.004
0.368±0.064
0.780±0.048
0.697±0.090
GenTuRBO (Tanimoto) †
0.854±0.149
0.933±0.081
0.832±0.035
0.766±0.109
Table S14: Protein component and surrogate comparison. Best normalised CNN proxy score at 2,000 charged evaluations. GP denotes Kermut unless Tanimoto is named; Random arms do not use a surrogate for selection. † Both GFP-Medium Tanimoto arms fix noise variance to 0.001 in standardised outcome units; other Tanimoto tasks learn noise.
Component
TuRBO
GenTuRBO
Centre
Incumbent
Incumbent or archive parents
Local region
Geometric trust region
Generator-defined proposal distribution
Scale
Region size
Noising depth
Adaptation
Success/failure
Success/failure
Surrogate
GP
GP
Acquisition
Candidates within region
Generated candidate pool
Table S15: From TuRBO to GenTuRBO. Comparison with a single TuRBO region.
Bayesian optimization (BO) over discrete spaces is challenging due to missing gradients and the sparsity of valid solutions. Latent-space BO sidesteps both issues by fitting a surrogate in the latent space of a generative model, which however substantially complicates the direct incorporation of domain knowledge that is naturally expressed in the original discrete space. In this work, we instead combine a pretrained generative model with a surrogate defined directly in data space, where inductive biases such as domain-specific kernels can be readily incorporated. Rather than maximizing the acquisition function over the discrete design space, our method samples candidates from the generative model under a distribution tilted by the acquisition function. To recover useful gradients for sampling, we embed this tilted distribution into a diffusion bridge that yields a smooth, posterior-averaged acquisition function. This leads to acquisition function guided generation (AFGG), which we instantiate with a categorical diffusion model and an autoregressive normalizing flow. Across a broad suite of molecular benchmarks, the diffusion model variant performs on par with leading BO methods, while the flow model variant outperforms state-of-the-art methods in most cases and remains highly competitive otherwise. Our implementation is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/afgg.
Tommaso Ancilli, Thomas Wedenig, Henry Moss +1
Institute of Machine Learning and Neural Computation, TU Graz, Austria · Graz Center for Machine Learning (GraML), Austria · School of Mathematical Sciences, Lancaster University, UK
Trust Region Bayesian Optimization (TuRBO) is an effective strategy for alleviating the curse of dimensionality in high-dimensional black-box optimization. However, inappropriate lengthscale design can cause the local Gaussian process (GP) model within the trust region to degenerate, leading to suboptimal performance in high dimensions. In this work, we show that TuRBO's local GP may remain either excessively complex or overly simple as the dimension D and trust region side length L vary. To address this issue, we propose a straightforward variant, AdaScale-TuRBO, which scales the GP lengthscale with both the problem dimension and trust region size, thereby preserving kernel geometry and maintaining consistent prior complexity. Empirically, we show that AdaScale-TuRBO can robustly outperform standard TuRBO and other popular high-dimensional BO methods on synthetic benchmarks and real-world trajectory planning tasks.
Traffic simulation and digital-twin calibration is a challenging optimization problem with a limited simulation budget. Each trial requires an expensive simulation run, and the relationship between calibration inputs and model error is often nonconvex, and noisy. The problem becomes more difficult as the number of calibration parameters increases. We compare a commonly used automatic calibration method, a genetic algorithm (GA), with Bayesian optimization methods (BOMs): classical Bayesian optimization (BO), Trust-Region BO (TuRBO), Multi-TuRBO, and a proposed Memory-Guided TuRBO (MG-TuRBO) method. We compare performance on 2 real-world traffic simulation calibration problems with 14 and 84 decision variables, representing lower- and higher-dimensional (14D and 84D) settings. For BOMs, we study two acquisition strategies, Thompson sampling and a novel adaptive strategy. We evaluate performance using final calibration quality, convergence behavior, and consistency across runs. The results show that BOMs reach good calibration targets much faster than GA in the lower-D problem. MG-TuRBO performs comparably in our 14D setting, it demonstrates noticeable advantages in the 84D problem, particularly when paired with our adaptive strategy. Our results suggest that MG-TuRBO is especially useful for high-D traffic simulation calibration and potentially for high-D problems in general.