Vanilla Bayesian Optimization Performs Great in High Dimensions
About
High-dimensional problems have long been considered the Achilles' heel of Bayesian optimization algorithms. Spurred by the curse of dimensionality, a large collection of algorithms aim to make it more performant in this setting, commonly by imposing various simplifying assumptions on the objective. In this paper, we identify the degeneracies that make vanilla Bayesian optimization poorly suited to high-dimensional tasks, and further show how existing algorithms address these degeneracies through the lens of lowering the model complexity. Moreover, we propose an enhancement to the prior assumptions that are typical to vanilla Bayesian optimization algorithms, which reduces the complexity to manageable levels without imposing structural restrictions on the objective. Our modification - a simple scaling of the Gaussian process lengthscale prior with the dimensionality - reveals that standard Bayesian optimization works drastically better than previously thought in high dimensions, clearly outperforming existing state-of-the-art algorithms on multiple commonly considered real-world high-dimensional tasks.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level Set Estimation | AA33 | Average Runtime (min)1.7 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Levy 10-dimensional | Runtime (min)0.1 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Mazda 74-dimensional | Average Runtime (min)9.8 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Levy 100-dimensional | Average Runtime (min)1.9 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Vehicle 124-dimensional | Average Runtime (min)5.5 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Ackley 200-dimensional | Avg Runtime (min)18.6 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Trid 1000-dimensional | Average Runtime (min)8.2 | 4 | |
| Level Set Estimation | Rosenbrock 1000-dimensional | Runtime (min)6.9 | 4 |