FGSS-BO: Feedback-Guided Hypothesis Management for LLM-Based Bayesian Optimization
Authors: Hao Chen, Ziyang Ling, Ronald X. Xu, Mingzhai Sun
Organizations: School of Biomedical Engineering, University of Science and Technology of China, Suzhou, China · School of Engineering Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Suzhou, China
Large language model (LLM)-guided Bayesian optimization (BO) uses past observations to guide search, but proposed directions and their revision can remain implicit. We propose Feedback-Guided Search State (FGSS), a structured hypothesis-management interface connecting language-based guidance to observed evidence, executable parameter interventions, and comparative support updates. An LLM reflector proposes and revises hypotheses; a deterministic curator validates them and maintains identities and test records. The evolving state guides candidate construction and priorities. Instantiated on LLAMBO, FGSS-BO retains its surrogate and default expected improvement selection, with a bounded testing policy. On two retrospective protocol/media tasks with nearest-neighbor response oracles, it attains higher sample mean final best and search AUC than the matched LLAMBO baseline and evaluated non-LLM baselines. Prose-reflection and EI-only controls show mixed component effects. Six direct-training hyperparameter-optimization tasks show task-dependent transfer, strongest on diabetes SVM; exact-grid and reaction controls examine other settings. FGSS exposes hypotheses, their execution, and cross-round revisions for inspection while supporting search gains in selected settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of FGSS-BO. The extractor, LLM reflector, and deterministic curator maintain evidence-linked hypotheses; a regime gate controls candidate allocation. LLAMBO retains its history-conditioned surrogate and default EI selection, with a bounded exception for eligible matched tests. Solid arrows show current-round flow; dashed arrows show cross-round memory and eligible comparative support updates.
Task
Metric
Random Search
HEBO
GP-EI
LLAMBO
FGSS-BO
iPSC-RPE
Final best
0.780±0.078
0.569±0.169
0.793±0.026
0.691±0.117
0.813±0.023
iPSC-RPE
Search AUC
0.557±0.150
0.465±0.100
0.505±0.145
0.494±0.057
0.640±0.117
C2C12
Final best
0.790±0.340
1.026±0.623
1.516±0.904
1.281±0.220
1.725±0.411
C2C12
Search AUC
0.552±0.289
0.722±0.404
0.868±0.653
1.025±0.264
1.167±0.256
Table 1: Primary offline protocol/media search over six paired runs: mean ± sample standard deviation, higher is better. All methods share ten low-score initial observations and twenty search evaluations under the same task-specific nearest-neighbor response oracle. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Figure 2: Primary-task mean best-so-far objective over six paired runs. The dashed line separates ten shared low-score initialization observations from twenty search evaluations; shading shows one sample standard deviation. LLAMBO and FGSS-BO share the feasible-candidate interface and nearest-neighbor oracle. C2C12 scores refer to the retained configuration–source query task.
Method
Final best
Search AUC
LLAMBO
.691±.117
.494±.057
Reflective Summary
.785±.061
.646±.054
FGSS w/o Tests
.804±.070
.668±.051
FGSS No-Override
.802±.110
.690±.098
Full FGSS
.813±.023
.640±.117
Table 2: iPSC component comparison, six paired runs; mean ± sample standard deviation. All variants share the low-start nearest-neighbor protocol. No-Override retains test candidates and support updates but always selects by EI. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Figure 3: Proposal-level candidate diagnostics from earlier runs, comparing free-form LLM proposals with feasibility-preserving construction. Severe iPSC-RPE duplication motivates a shared feasible-candidate interface.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Scope/provenance
Initialization/search evaluations
Primary/HPO 10/20 ; Summit 8/20
Six paired seeds, batch size one
Candidate pool; templates; generations
10 ; 2 ; 10
Shared main-run configuration
Reflector output/temperature/retry
1500 tokens; 0 ; 1
FGSS extra call; retries logged
Shared refiner output/temperature
1000 tokens; 0
Top five plus recent five observations
Evidence top/bottom/recent
3/3/5
Outcome-ranked top/bottom
Stagnation windows and thresholds
3/5 ; 0.01/0.02
Short/long progress heuristics
Appendix
Table 3: Implementation settings inherited from development defaults and used in the recorded main runs, without a hyperparameter sweep.
Regime
Global
Guided
Local
Recovery
Explore
.55
.25
.10
.10
Mixed
.40
.30
.20
.10
Exploit
.25
.30
.35
.10
Recover
.45
.15
.15
.25
Appendix
Table 4: Nominal candidate-allocation presets, not fixed realized ratios. The gate preserves a global floor of .30 ( .55 before reliable support, .45 under weak support); plateau recovery enforces global/recovery floors .45/.25 and guided cap .20 .
Task
Cutoff
Configuration source
iPSC-RPE
0.12
Recorded CLI override
C2C12
0.05
Task-runner default
SnAr
0.10
Summit task preset
Reizman 1–4
50
Summit task preset
HPLC
1000
Task-runner default
HPO
0
Task-bridge setting
Appendix
Table 5: Absolute regime-gate cutoffs and their configuration sources. iPSC uses the reported override rather than the generic runner default of 0.01 .
Seed
0
1
2
3
4
5
iPSC overrides
2
4
2
4
3
3
iPSC EI tests
6
0
6
2
1
4
C2C12 overrides
0
0
0
0
0
0
C2C12 EI tests
0
0
0
0
0
0
Appendix
Table 6: Actual selection changes and EI-selected matched tests; each run has twenty search evaluations. EI tests receive a recorded support update without changing EI selection.
Task
Variable
Type
Admissible domain
SnAr
Residence time
Continuous
[0.5,2.0] min
Pyrrolidine equivalents
Continuous
[1,5] equivalents
DFNB concentration
Continuous
[0.1,0.5] mol/L
Temperature
Continuous
[30,120] degrees Celsius
Reizman 1–4
Residence time
Continuous
[60,600] s
Temperature
Continuous
[30,110] degrees Celsius
Appendix
Table 7: Domains used by the actual adapters. Summit bounds and catalyst levels follow benchmark definitions ( Felton et al., 2021 ) ; HPLC bounds follow the Olympus dataset configuration ( Häse et al., 2021 ) . iPSC concentration levels follow the original task-code definition; the adapter domains are not assumed exhaustive physical domains. C2C12 coordinates follow its adapter preprocessing.
Task
Seed
Prompt tokens
Completion tokens
Elapsed (s)
iPSC
0
347576
10226
177.5
1
332143
10664
144.0
2
368290
10319
144.7
3
346650
10845
145.7
4
346886
10709
127.8
5
337694
9570
113.4
Appendix
Table 8: Recorded full-FGSS reflector usage per primary-task run, with twenty final call records each. Elapsed is the sum of saved reflector-call latencies, not total optimizer wall-clock time.
Figure 4: Five-method primary-task trajectories, six paired runs with ten shared low-score initialization observations and twenty search evaluations. Lines are means and bands are sample standard deviations. All methods use the same nearest-neighbor response oracle; bands are not confidence intervals. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Task
Reference
Metric
Mean difference
Bootstrap 95% interval
iPSC-RPE
GP-EI
Final best
0.020
[−0.009,0.050]
iPSC-RPE
LLAMBO
Final best
0.123
[0.046,0.205]
iPSC-RPE
GP-EI
Search AUC
0.135
[0.014,0.254]
iPSC-RPE
LLAMBO
Search AUC
0.147
[0.054,0.252]
C2C12
GP-EI
Final best
0.210
[−0.271,0.691]
C2C12
LLAMBO
Final best
0.445
[0.110,0.959]
Appendix
Table 9: Paired primary-task differences, FGSS-BO minus the reference; positive favors FGSS-BO. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Task
Metric
Random Search
HEBO
GP-EI
LLAMBO
FGSS-BO
SnAr
Final best
0.593±0.074
1.051±0.005
1.058±0.001
0.641±0.107
0.680±0.057
SnAr
Search AUC
0.572±0.078
0.967±0.048
0.990±0.049
0.579±0.101
0.573±0.123
Reizman Case 1
Final best
67.505±10.443
86.480±6.887
91.424±0.019
60.071±15.792
69.751±14.764
Reizman Case 1
Search AUC
64.033±9.672
74.673±9.317
83.315±5.291
55.087±13.751
65.738±15.484
Reizman Case 2
Final best
21.602±6.882
37.151±6.817
40.085±0.000
20.910±7.124
22.286±9.016
Reizman Case 2
Search AUC
19.916±6.719
32.166±6.307
32.762±4.777
19.164±6.721
21.262±8.662
Appendix
Table 10: Cross-domain Summit results: five methods over six paired runs, with eight initialization and twenty search evaluations. Values are mean ± sample standard deviation; higher is better. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Contrast
Metric
Mean difference
Bootstrap 95% interval
Full FGSS − Reflective Summary
Final best
0.0285
[0.0050,0.0617]
Search AUC
−0.0061
[−0.0702,0.0605]
Full FGSS − FGSS w/o Tests
Final best
0.0088
[−0.0370,0.0730]
Search AUC
−0.0275
[−0.1264,0.0651]
FGSS w/o Tests − Reflective Summary
Final best
0.0197
[−0.0527,0.0910]
Search AUC
0.0214
[−0.0310,0.0822]
Appendix
Table 11: Paired iPSC component differences over six runs. Positive favors the first method.
Condition
Final best
Search AUC
True
.8132±.0225
.6401±.1175
Permuted
.7857±.0726
.6751±.0654
Appendix
Table 12: iPSC-RPE state-feedback control: mean ± sample standard deviation over six paired runs.
Figure 5: iPSC-RPE with true or permuted state feedback, alongside the LLAMBO reference. Lines show mean best-so-far true objective over six paired runs; shading shows one sample standard deviation. The dashed boundary separates ten initialization observations from twenty search evaluations. Only FGSS-BO state feedback is permuted; the surrogate retains true observation history.
Method
Final best
Search AUC
Selection changes
Direct support updates
LLAMBO
0.6905±0.1168
0.4936±0.0571
0
0
Full FGSS
0.8132±0.0225
0.6401±0.1175
18
37
FGSS No-Override
0.8015±0.1103
0.6896±0.0980
0
22
Appendix
Table 13: iPSC selection-policy control over six paired runs: mean ± sample standard deviation. Counts are totals over 120 search evaluations per method. Selection changes mean departures from the recorded EI choice, not tests naturally selected by EI. Full FGSS and LLAMBO reuse the audited primary references and shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Figure 6: iPSC No-Override ablation, all six paired seeds. Curves and bars show means; shading and bar error bars show sample standard deviations. The right panel reports full FGSS minus No-Override: numbered points are individual seeds, and red intervals are exploratory paired bootstrap 95% intervals. No-Override retains hypothesis-test generation and support updates but always selects by EI. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Figure 7: Immediate opportunity costs of all 18 full-FGSS selection changes under the fixed iPSC oracle. The left panel compares the alternative response scores; the right reports EI minus test response and one-step incumbent gaps, indexed by seed and one-based search round. Positive gaps favor EI. Each comparison uses the same recorded history and candidate pool.
Figure 8: Candidate-interface controls on both primary tasks over all six paired seeds. Lines are means; shading is sample standard deviation. The dashed line separates ten shared low-score initial observations from twenty search evaluations. iPSC Freeform uses recovery fallback in all 120 search rounds, producing six identical evaluation trajectories; C2C12 has no recovery fallback. Both methods omit FGSS state.
Task
Direction
Final best
Search AUC
LLAMBO
FGSS-BO
LLAMBO
FGSS-BO
Breast RF
Accuracy ↑
.93187±.00340
.93187±.00368
.93161±.00365
.93152±.00388
Breast SVM
Accuracy ↑
.94286±.00197
.94432±.00266
.94282±.00202
.94370±.00256
Digits RF
Accuracy ↑
.53550±.25607
.52727±.29339
.46033±.30376
.47376±.31506
Digits SVM
Accuracy ↑
.99246±.00052
.99258±.00036
.99236±.00045
.99235±.00036
Diabetes RF
MSE ↓
.58558±.03102
.57109±.04270
.61024±.04163
.61335±.07394
Appendix
Table 14: Complete six-task HPO transfer comparison: means ± sample standard deviations over six paired runs per task. Accuracy is maximized; both diabetes metrics are minimized. RF denotes RandomForest. Raw accuracy and MSE are not aggregated. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Parameter
Domain
Scale
RandomForest
Max. depth
[1,15]
Linear
Max. feature fraction
[.01,.99]
Logit
Min. impurity decrease
[0,.5]
Linear
Min. leaf sample fraction
[.01,.49]
Logit
Min. split sample fraction
[.01,.99]
Logit
Appendix
Table 15: HPO domains and sampling scales inherited from LLAMBO’s Bayesmark configuration, shared by both methods. Maximum depth is integer; all other parameters are continuous.
Task
Metric
Gain
Bootstrap 95% interval
Breast RF
Final
0.00000
[−.00110,.00110]
AUC
−.00009
[−.00066,.00038]
Breast SVM
Final
.00147
[.00037,.00293]
AUC
.00088
[−.00051,.00242]
Digits RF
Final
−.00824
[−.13083,.09440]
AUC
.01343
[−.06695,.07959]
Appendix
Table 16: Paired HPO mean gains use unrounded per-seed metrics. Final denotes final best; AUC denotes search AUC. Positive favors FGSS-BO: FGSS minus LLAMBO for accuracy, reversed for MSE. Exploratory intervals are task-specific and unadjusted for multiple comparisons. LLAMBO uses the shared feasibility-preserving interface.
Bayesian Optimization (BO) is widely used for optimizing expensive black-box functions, yet it typically reduces each expensive experiment to an input and its objective value, discarding much of the information the experiment produces. Such auxiliary information can include training curves in hyperparameter optimization, expert notes and images in scientific experimentation, or known facts about the specific optimization problem. Leveraging the ability of large language models (LLMs) to process diverse and unstructured information, we introduce two methods: AuxBO-Evolve, which uses auxiliary information to evolve beliefs over the location of the optimum, and AuxBO-Vicinity, which uses it to locally guide the acquisition function. Across synthetic tasks, hyperparameter optimization benchmarks, and a nuclear fusion task with unstructured scientist-written logs, our methods consistently improve optimization performance and outperform standard BO and existing LLM-based approaches. We further find that LLMs provide more effective probabilistic guidance when modeling likely maximizer locations rather than objective values pointwise. Overall, our results demonstrate that exploiting rich information beyond standard (x,y) interactions can substantially improve BO performance.
Efe Mert Karagözlü, Rohit Sonker, Tejus Gupta +2
School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Incorporating rich task-relevant context, such as domain knowledge and external observations, is a key capability yet remains challenging for Bayesian optimisation (BO). Recently, practitioners have started to use large language models (LLMs) to generate and execute BO programs through coding harnesses. In such emerging practices, the posterior belief is shaped not only by Bayesian inference but also by LLM-generated model and data artefacts, offering a flexible route for task context to enter BO as executable code. To study whether and how LLMs can be harnessed to compile diverse contextual signals for BO, we formulate LLM-compiled BO as generalised-context decision making. We propose HarBO, a BO-specialised harness that compiles generalised context into the core artefacts of standard BO through a validated multi-stage workflow. Our theory analyses the regret under imperfect compilation and the effect of adding new context. Across synthetic functions and real-world benchmarks, we find that LLM harnesses can effectively compile context into standard BO, achieving competitive performance with specialised LLM-embedding-based and direct LLM-in-the-loop BO methods. General coding harnesses can be effective in familiar domains such as hyperparameter optimisation, but fall short in unfamiliar, context-rich domains. Together, these results establish LLM harnesses as a promising, but not automatically reliable, route for making rich task context usable in BO.
Zhongwei Yu, Sourabh Roy, Bin Cao +3
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University College London (UCL) · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
The high cost and data scarcity in scientific exploration have motivated the use of large language models (LLMs) as knowledge-driven components in Bayesian optimization (BO). However, existing approaches typically embed LLMs directly into the sampling or surrogate modeling pipeline, without fully leveraging their significantly lower evaluation cost compared to real-world experiments. To address this limitation, we propose LLM-Accelerated Bayesian Optimization (LABO), a framework that combines LLM predictions with experimental observations within a single BO loop. LABO employs a gating criterion to dynamically balance the reliance on LLM predictions versus actual experiments. By leveraging inexpensive LLM evaluations to broadly explore the search space and reserving costly real experiments only for regions with high uncertainty, LABO achieves more sample-efficient optimization. We provide a theoretical analysis with a cumulative regret bound that formalizes this efficiency gain. Empirical results across diverse scientific tasks demonstrate that LABO consistently outperforms existing methods under identical experimental budgets. Our results suggest that LABO offers a practical and theoretically grounded approach for integrating LLMs into scientific discovery workflows.
Zhuo Chen, Xinzhe Yuan, Jianshu Zhang +8
equal contribution · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanghai, China · School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China +7