Robust prior-biased acquisition function for human-in-the-loop Bayesian optimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In diverse fields of application, Bayesian Optimization (BO) has been proposed to find the optimum of black-box functions, surpassing human-driven searches. BO’s appeal lies in its data efficiency, making it suitable for optimizing costly-to-evaluate functions without requiring extensive training data. While BO can perform well in closed-loop, domain experts frequently have hypotheses about which parameter combinations are more likely to yield optimal results. Hence, for BO to be truly relevant and adopted by practitioners, such prior knowledge needs to be efficiently and seamlessly integrated into the optimization framework. Some methods were recently developed to address this challenge, but they suffer from robustness issues when provided erroneous insight. Building on the idea of element-wise prior-weighted acquisition function, we propose to use a fixed-weight effective prior that distills expert user knowledge with minimal computational cost. Comprehensive investigation across diverse task conditions and prior quality levels revealed that our method, α - π BO, surpasses Vanilla BO when provided with insights of good quality while maintaining robustness against misleading information. Moreover, unlike other methods, α - π BO typically requires no hyperparameter tuning, largely simplifying its implementation in diverse tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it