We Still Don't Understand High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization
About
Existing high-dimensional Bayesian optimization (BO) methods aim to overcome the curse of dimensionality by carefully encoding structural assumptions, from locality to sparsity to smoothness, into the optimization procedure. Surprisingly, we demonstrate that these approaches are outperformed by arguably the simplest method imaginable: Bayesian linear regression. After applying a geometric transformation to avoid boundary-seeking behavior, Gaussian processes with linear kernels match state-of-the-art performance on tasks with 60- to 6,000-dimensional search spaces. Linear models offer numerous advantages over their non-parametric counterparts: they afford closed-form sampling and their computation scales linearly with data, a fact we exploit on molecular optimization tasks with >20,000 observations. Coupled with empirical analyses, our results suggest the need to depart from past intuitions about BO methods in high-dimensions.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization | Mopta08 d = 124 | Rank8.2 | 22 | |
| High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization | Humanoid d = 6392 | Rank8.2 | 21 | |
| High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization | Rover D = 100 | Objective Value4.096 | 17 | |
| High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization | SVM D = 388 | Objective Value0.112 | 17 | |
| Black-box Optimization | Rover | Objective Value4.096 | 8 | |
| Black-box Optimization | Humanoid | Objective Value637.7 | 8 | |
| Black-box Optimization | Mopta08 | Objective Value246.8 | 8 | |
| Black-box Optimization | Lasso-DNA | Objective Value0.297 | 8 | |
| Black-box Optimization | SVM | Objective Value11.2 | 8 |