Efficient Adaptive Data Acquisition via Pretrained Belief Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Learning effective policies for adaptive data acquisition remains challenging: posterior-based methods rely on surrogate models and posterior approximations that can be misspecified or biased, while direct policy-learning methods map from historical observations and fail to exploit available model representations, making learning harder. We introduce policy learning with belief representations (POLAR), based on the insight that optimal data acquisition depends on the observation history only through a sufficient belief state. Specifically, POLAR decouples representation learning from policy learning by leveraging pretrained predictive foundation models as belief-state encoders, training a policy head on top of their representations. This yields a simple, unified amortised policy learning framework for Bayesian experimental design, Bayesian optimisation, and active learning, differing only in the task-specific utility used to train the policy. Empirically, we find that POLAR outperforms state-of-the-art amortised methods across diverse tasks while requiring far fewer training samples, demonstrating a significant step in the scalability and efficiency of amortised data acquisition.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 48 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2026.
Builds on
48 of 70 references.
References · 48
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2022TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Secondcited by 674
- 2018Conditional Neural Processescited by 426
- 2019Analyzing Learned Molecular Representations for Property Predictioncited by 375
- 2021Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inferencecited by 360
- 2025TabICL: A Tabular Foundation Model for In-Context Learning on Large Datacited by 289
- 2026TabICLv2: A better, faster, scalable, and open tabular foundation modelcited by 144
- 2025TabPFN-2.5: Advancing the State of the Art in Tabular Foundation Modelscited by 132
- 2022Transformer Neural Processes: Uncertainty-Aware Meta Learning Via Sequence Modelingcited by 127
- 2023Modern Bayesian Experimental Designcited by 125
- 2019Variational Bayesian Optimal Experimental Designcited by 116
- 2021Deep Adaptive Design: Amortizing Sequential Bayesian Experimental Designcited by 106
36 more
- 2020HEBO Pushing The Limits of Sample-Efficient Hyperparameter Optimisationcited by 83
- 2022Towards Learning Universal Hyperparameter Optimizers with Transformerscited by 81
- 2021HPO-B: A Large-Scale Reproducible Benchmark for Black-Box HPO based on OpenMLcited by 75
- 2023PFNs4BO: In-Context Learning for Bayesian Optimizationcited by 73
- 2023Prediction-Oriented Bayesian Active Learningcited by 62
- 2021Implicit Deep Adaptive Design: Policy-Based Experimental Design without Likelihoodscited by 61
- 2019A Unified Stochastic Gradient Approach to Designing Bayesian-Optimal Experimentscited by 58
- 2022Optimizing Sequential Experimental Design with Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 46
- 2024Rethinking Aleatoric and Epistemic Uncertaintycited by 42
- 2025A Closer Look at TabPFN v2: Understanding Its Strengths and Extending Its Capabilitiescited by 41
- 2025Real-TabPFN: Improving Tabular Foundation Models via Continued Pre-training With Real-World Datacited by 41
- 2021DOCKSTRING: easy molecular docking yields better benchmarks for ligand designcited by 35
- 2023End-to-End Meta-Bayesian Optimisation with Transformer Neural Processescited by 32
- 2016Sequential Bayesian optimal experimental design via approximate dynamic programmingcited by 28
- 2024Amortized Probabilistic Conditioning for Optimization, Simulation and Inferencecited by 23
- 2024Amortized Bayesian Experimental Design for Decision-Makingcited by 21
- 2025Position: The Future of Bayesian Prediction Is Prior-Fittedcited by 20
- 2022Policy-Based Bayesian Experimental Design for Non-Differentiable Implicit Modelscited by 16
- 2024Reinforced In-Context Black-Box Optimizationcited by 14
- 2025TabPFN: One Model to Rule Them All?cited by 14
- 2025On Finetuning Tabular Foundation Modelscited by 13
- 2024Nesting Particle Filters for Experimental Design in Dynamical Systemscited by 12
- 2025Step-DAD: Semi-Amortized Policy-Based Bayesian Experimental Designcited by 12
- 2025TabTune: A Unified Library for Inference and Fine-Tuning Tabular Foundation Modelscited by 11
- 2025BOFormer: Learning to Solve Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization via Non-Markovian RLcited by 10
- 2023Variational Sequential Optimal Experimental Design using Reinforcement Learningcited by 8
- 2024Approximation-Aware Bayesian Optimizationcited by 8
- 2025PABBO: Preferential Amortized Black-Box Optimizationcited by 8
- 2025ALINE: Joint Amortization for Bayesian Inference and Active Data Acquisitioncited by 8
- 2023Statistically Efficient Bayesian Sequential Experiment Design via Reinforcement Learning with Cross-Entropy Estimatorscited by 6
- 2025In-Context Multi-Objective Optimizationcited by 6
- 2025JADAI: Jointly Amortizing Adaptive Design and Bayesian Inferencecited by 4
- 2025Amortized Safe Active Learning for Real-Time Data Acquisition: Pretrained Neural Policies From Simulated Nonparametric Functionscited by 3
- 2025None To Optima in Few Shots: Bayesian Optimization with MDP Priorscited by 3
- 2026Loss-Driven Bayesian Active Learningcited by 2
- 2026Constrained Bayesian Experimental Design via Online Planningcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
- 2026Bayesian Experimental Design via Score Matchingcited by 1
- 2026IQS-BO: In-Context Query Selection for Bayesian Optimisationcited by 0
- 2026IQS-BO: In-Context Query Selection for Bayesian Optimisation1 Oct 2026
- 2026Bayesian Experimental Design via Score Matching9 Jul 2026