Expected Improvement versus Predicted Value in Surrogate-Based Optimization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2001.02957v2
• Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 08:38:39 GMT
• Title: Expected Improvement versus Predicted Value in Surrogate-Based Optimization
• Authors: Frederik Rehbach and Martin Zaefferer and Boris Naujoks and Thomas Bartz-Beielstein
• Abstract summary: Surrogate-based optimization relies on so-called infill criteria to decide which point to evaluate next. We argue that the popularity of expected improvement largely relies on its theoretical properties rather than empirically validated performance.
• Score: 0.1529342790344802
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Surrogate-based optimization relies on so-called infill criteria (acquisition functions) to decide which point to evaluate next. When Kriging is used as the surrogate model of choice (also called Bayesian optimization), one of the most frequently chosen criteria is expected improvement. We argue that the popularity of expected improvement largely relies on its theoretical properties rather than empirically validated performance. Few results from the literature show evidence, that under certain conditions, expected improvement may perform worse than something as simple as the predicted value of the surrogate model. We benchmark both infill criteria in an extensive empirical study on the `BBOB' function set. This investigation includes a detailed study of the impact of problem dimensionality on algorithm performance. The results support the hypothesis that exploration loses importance with increasing problem dimensionality. A statistical analysis reveals that the purely exploitative search with the predicted value criterion performs better on most problems of five or higher dimensions. Possible reasons for these results are discussed. In addition, we give an in-depth guide for choosing the infill criteria based on prior knowledge about the problem at hand, its dimensionality, and the available budget.

Related papers

• CritiQ: Mining Data Quality Criteria from Human Preferences [70.35346554179036]
  We introduce CritiQ, a novel data selection method that automatically mines criteria from human preferences for data quality. CritiQ Flow employs a manager agent to evolve quality criteria and worker agents to make pairwise judgments. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in the code, math, and logic domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T16:33:41Z)
• Revisiting BPR: A Replicability Study of a Common Recommender System Baseline [78.00363373925758]
  We study the features of the BPR model, indicating their impact on its performance, and investigate open-source BPR implementations. Our analysis reveals inconsistencies between these implementations and the original BPR paper, leading to a significant decrease in performance of up to 50% for specific implementations. We show that the BPR model can achieve performance levels close to state-of-the-art methods on the top-n recommendation tasks and even outperform them on specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-21T18:39:53Z)
• Advancing Counterfactual Inference through Nonlinear Quantile Regression [77.28323341329461]
  We propose a framework for efficient and effective counterfactual inference implemented with neural networks. The proposed approach enhances the capacity to generalize estimated counterfactual outcomes to unseen data. Empirical results conducted on multiple datasets offer compelling support for our theoretical assertions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T08:30:51Z)
• Prediction-Oriented Bayesian Active Learning [51.426960808684655]
  Expected predictive information gain (EPIG) is an acquisition function that measures information gain in the space of predictions rather than parameters. EPIG leads to stronger predictive performance compared with BALD across a range of datasets and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-17T10:59:57Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)
• Bayesian Optimization with Conformal Prediction Sets [44.565812181545645]
  Conformal prediction is an uncertainty quantification method with coverage guarantees even for misspecified models. We propose conformal Bayesian optimization, which directs queries towards regions of search space where the model predictions have guaranteed validity. In many cases we find that query coverage can be significantly improved without harming sample-efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T17:01:05Z)
• Generalizing Bayesian Optimization with Decision-theoretic Entropies [102.82152945324381]
  We consider a generalization of Shannon entropy from work in statistical decision theory. We first show that special cases of this entropy lead to popular acquisition functions used in BO procedures. We then show how alternative choices for the loss yield a flexible family of acquisition functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T04:43:58Z)
• Rectified Max-Value Entropy Search for Bayesian Optimization [54.26984662139516]
  We develop a rectified MES acquisition function based on the notion of mutual information. As a result, RMES shows a consistent improvement over MES in several synthetic function benchmarks and real-world optimization problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-28T08:11:02Z)
• Careful! Training Relevance is Real [0.7742297876120561]
  We propose constraints designed to enforce training relevance. We show through a collection of experimental results that adding the suggested constraints significantly improves the quality of solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-12T11:54:31Z)
• The Perils of Learning Before Optimizing [16.97597806975415]
  We show how prediction models can be learned end-to-end by differentiating through the optimization task. We show that the performance gap between a two-stage and end-to-end approach is closely related to the emphprice of correlation concept in optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T20:43:47Z)
• A sampling criterion for constrained Bayesian optimization with uncertainties [0.0]
  We consider the problem of chance constrained optimization where it is sought to optimize a function and satisfy constraints, both of which are affected by uncertainties. To tackle such problems, we propose a new Bayesian optimization method. It applies to the situation where the uncertainty comes from some of the inputs, so that it becomes possible to define an acquisition criterion in the joint controlled-uncontrolled input space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-09T20:35:56Z)
• Finding Optimal Points for Expensive Functions Using Adaptive RBF-Based Surrogate Model Via Uncertainty Quantification [11.486221800371919]
  We propose a novel global optimization framework using adaptive Radial Basis Functions (RBF) based surrogate model via uncertainty quantification. It first employs an RBF-based Bayesian surrogate model to approximate the true function, where the parameters of the RBFs can be adaptively estimated and updated each time a new point is explored. It then utilizes a model-guided selection criterion to identify a new point from a candidate set for function evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-19T16:15:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.