PI is back! Switching Acquisition Functions in Bayesian Optimization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Bayesian Optimization (BO) is a powerful, sample-efficient technique to optimize expensive-to-evaluate functions. Each of the BO components, such as the surrogate model, the acquisition function (AF), or the initial design, is subject to a wide range of design choices. Selecting the right components for a given optimization task is a challenging task, which can have significant impact on the quality of the obtained results. In this work, we initiate the analysis of which AF to favor for which optimization scenarios. To this end, we benchmark SMAC3 using Expected Improvement (EI) and Probability of Improvement (PI) as acquisition functions on the 24 BBOB functions of the COCO environment. We compare their results with those of schedules switching between AFs. One schedule aims to use EI's explorative behavior in the early optimization steps, and then switches to PI for a better exploitation in the final steps. We also compare this to a random schedule and round-robin selection of EI and PI. We observe that dynamic schedules oftentimes outperform any single static one. Our results suggest that a schedule that allocates the first 25 % of the optimization budget to EI and the last 75 % to PI is a reliable default. However, we also observe considerable performance differences for the 24 functions, suggesting that a per-instance allocation, possibly learned on the fly, could offer significant improvement over the state-of-the-art BO designs.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Nov 2022.
Builds on
9 of 19 references.
References · 9
- 2021SMAC3: A Versatile Bayesian Optimization Package for Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 229
- 2016COCO: A Platform for Comparing Continuous Optimizers in a Black-Box Settingcited by 135
- 2019Meta-Learning Acquisition Functions for Transfer Learning in Bayesian Optimizationcited by 70
- 2019Tuning Hyperparameters without Grad Students: Scalable and Robust Bayesian Optimisation with Dragonflycited by 66
- 2017Improving the Expected Improvement Algorithmcited by 54
- 2022Automated Dynamic Algorithm Configurationcited by 37
- 2020Learning Heuristic Selection with Dynamic Algorithm Configurationcited by 21
- 2019Towards Assessing the Impact of Bayesian Optimization's Own Hyperparameterscited by 16
- 2020Initial Design Strategies and their Effects on Sequential Model-Based Optimizationcited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2025Exploring Exploration in Bayesian Optimizationcited by 8
- 2023Self-Adjusting Weighted Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimizationcited by 5
- 2023Mastering the exploration-exploitation trade-off in Bayesian Optimizationcited by 3
- 2025Wasserstein Barycenter Gaussian Process based Bayesian Optimizationcited by 2
- 2024Efficient Deep Learning Board: Training Feedback Is Not All You Needcited by 0
- 2026A Critical Examination of Active Learning Workflows in Materials Sciencecited by 0
- 2026A Critical Examination of Active Learning Workflows in Materials Science9 Jan 2026
- 2025Wasserstein Barycenter Gaussian Process based Bayesian Optimization18 May 2025
- 2025Exploring Exploration in Bayesian Optimization12 Feb 2025
- 2024Efficient Deep Learning Board: Training Feedback Is Not All You Need17 Oct 2024
- 2023Self-Adjusting Weighted Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimization7 Jun 2023
- 2023Mastering the exploration-exploitation trade-off in Bayesian Optimization15 May 2023