How Many Initial Points Does Bayesian Optimization Need?

Bayesian Optimization (BO) generally begins with an initialization phase: a batch of $n_0$ uninformed evaluations. The choice of $n_0$ remains largely heuristic, and we empirically observe that the total cost (random initial points plus BO iterations needed to find the global optimum) is U-shaped in $n_0$, i.e., a practitioner wastes resources by selecting either too low or too high a value of $n_0$. We find this tradeoff persists across MLE, Bayesian MCMC, and exact GP hyperparameters, as well as across acquisition functions. Toward the latter, Thompson Sampling appears an exception, with both total cost and simple regret essentially $n_0$-agnostic, though higher in our experiments. We attribute this U-shape to the known boundary issue of variance-driven BO: BO burns early budget on corners of the hypercube before turning inward. We demonstrate this effect using a 3D BO trajectory where the exact hyperparameters are known. We conclude with practical recommendations: use multi-step lookahead BO where possible; otherwise use Thompson Sampling when $n_0$ cannot be tuned, and a generously large $n_0$ when it can.

Accelerating Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimisation via Predictive-Gradient Catalysts

This paper presents a general acceleration mechanism for multi-objective Bayesian optimisation (MOBO) that leverages Gaussian process predictive gradients as auxiliary signals. Rather than replacing existing Pareto-compliant acquisition functions, the proposed approach augments them with local stationarity information derived from surrogate-derived gradients, enabling faster convergence toward the global Pareto set under limited evaluation budgets. Two catalyst instantiations are investigated: an adaptive Multiple-Gradient Descent Algorithm-Based Catalyst (MGDA) and a predefined-weight variant that enables focused exploration when budgets are tight. Experiments on the DTLZ benchmark suite (using 2 objectives and 10 decision variables) show that predictive gradient catalysis can deliver significant acceleration compared to other acquisition functions (EHVI, AugTch, tMPoI, SAF) when surrogates are accurate, particularly for stationary problems.

Regime-Conditioned Evaluation in Multi-Context Bayesian Optimization

Published transfer-BO comparisons often estimate an average treatment effect of acquisition choice over hidden regime variables, while practitioners need the conditional effect for their specific prior quality, budget ratio, and metric. An audit of 40 transfer-BO papers from NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AISTATS, UAI, TMLR, JMLR, and AutoML-Conf (2022-2025) finds that 98% never vary B/|A| as a controlled axis. On the same GDSC2 benchmark, changing only the budget reverses the ranking: at B=50, Greedy outperforms UCB by 0.050 Hit@1, while at B=100, UCB outperforms Greedy by 0.035. We capture this transition with the Portable Regime Score PRS=(B/|A|)(1-rho), where rho is the prior rank correlation and can be estimated from pilot contexts before the main comparison. Across 79 conditions spanning chemistry, drug-response biology, and HPO, a hierarchical model gives beta=0.50 (p=1.1e-9), and 19% of conditions fall in an equivalence zone where |advantage|<0.01 Hit@1. In five published reversal cases, PRS predicts the winner from pre-comparison observables. A No-Free-Leaderboard proposition explains why unconditional rankings are unstable: when CATE changes sign across regimes, the reported ATE becomes a function of benchmark mixture. RegimePlanner, which estimates rho online and switches acquisition accordingly, wins all 16 HPO-B search spaces at B=100 and exceeds the matched {Greedy,UCB} per-context oracle on GDSC2 by 18%. Pre-registered predictions achieve 27/40=67.5% overall accuracy and above 90% within EMA prior families. The practical protocol is simple: report B/|A|, rho, K, and metric alongside any claimed acquisition advantage.