Bayesian Optimization with Fisher Information Geometry: Gradient Bounds and Trust-Region Methods
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We study Bayesian optimization (BO) through the lens of information geometry. Pulling back the Fisher information metric through the surrogate posterior map yields a local sensitivity tensor on the input space, which leads to an upper bound on the gradient of reparameterizable acquisition functions. This view explains vanishing-gradient behavior in high-dimensional BO and provides a common interpretation of heuristics such as RAASP and dimension-scaled lengthscales. Building on this analysis, we propose FITR, a trust-region-based BO method that replaces lengthscale-based scaling by local pullback-Fisher weights. FITR is not restricted to GP kernels with explicit lengthscales. On GP benchmarks with an SE kernel, experiments show competitive performance using FITR. The proposed method also easily generalizes to non-isotropic surrogates, although the gains are more task-dependent in that setting.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.
Builds on
27 of 44 references.
References · 27
- 2016Variational Inference: A Review for Statisticianscited by 1,466
- 2018A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimizationcited by 734
- 2014New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient methodcited by 435
- 2019Scalable Global Optimization via Local Bayesian Optimizationcited by 359
- 2017Latent Space Oddity: on the Curvature of Deep Generative Modelscited by 169
- 2023Unexpected Improvements to Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimizationcited by 144
- 2018Maximizing acquisition functions for Bayesian optimizationcited by 113
- 2021The Bayesian Learning Rulecited by 95
- 2024Vanilla Bayesian Optimization Performs Great in High Dimensionscited by 87
- 2017The reparameterization trick for acquisition functionscited by 61
- 2023Increasing the Scope as You Learn: Adaptive Bayesian Optimization in Nested Subspacescited by 50
- 2023A Study of Bayesian Neural Network Surrogates for Bayesian Optimizationcited by 50
15 more
- 2016Parallel Bayesian Global Optimization of Expensive Functionscited by 43
- 2024Standard Gaussian Process is All You Need for High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimizationcited by 33
- 2023Inducing Point Allocation for Sparse Gaussian Processes in High-Throughput Bayesian Optimisationcited by 32
- 2014Metrics for Probabilistic Geometriescited by 28
- 2023Bounce: Reliable High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization for Combinatorial and Mixed Spacescited by 27
- 2019Bayesian Optimization Meets Riemannian Manifolds in Robot Learningcited by 23
- 2021Learning Riemannian Manifolds for Geodesic Motion Skillscited by 23
- 2021Pulling back information geometrycited by 23
- 2024Position: Why We Must Rethink Empirical Research in Machine Learningcited by 19
- 2025Understanding High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimizationcited by 19
- 2020High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimization via Nested Riemannian Manifoldscited by 17
- 2025We Still Don't Understand High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimizationcited by 9
- 2025Riemann2: Learning Riemannian Submanifolds from Riemannian Datacited by 5
- 2023Single and Multi-Objective Optimization Benchmark Problems Focusing on Human-Powered Aircraft Designcited by 3
- 2024Regional Expected Improvement for Efficient Trust Region Selection in High-Dimensional Bayesian Optimizationcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.