Bayesian Optimization in Linear Time

arXiv cs.LG / 5/4/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper proposes a new Bayesian optimization method that minimizes expensive objective functions by combining Gaussian-process modeling with a balance of global exploration and local exploitation.
  • It addresses two key weaknesses of standard Bayesian optimization: cubic-time training cost due to growing data size, and the suboptimality of fully global modeling for inherently local minimization tasks.
  • The method uses flexible, recursive binary partitioning of the search space to adapt both the surrogate modeling and the acquisition strategy so they align with the partitioning.
  • Experiments on seven benchmark functions with dimensions from 6 to 124 show consistently better optimization performance than a widely used Bayesian optimization library.
  • The approach is reported to have linear computational complexity, making it more scalable than standard Gaussian-process-based Bayesian optimization as data grows.

Abstract

Bayesian optimization is a sequential method for minimizing objective functions that are expensive to evaluate and about which few assumptions can be made. By using all gathered data to train a Gaussian process model for the function and adaptively employing a mixture of global exploration and local exploitation, this method has been used for optimization in many fields including machine learning, automotive engineering and reinforcement learning. However, the standard method suffers from two problems: 1) with cubic computational complexity in the training-set size it eventually becomes computationally infeasible to train the model, and 2) globally modeling the objective function is not necessarily optimal given the local nature of minimization. Using flexible and recursive binary partitioning of the search space, we adapt both the modeling and acquisitive aspects of standard Bayesian optimization to work harmoniously with the partitioning scheme, thereby ameliorating both standard shortcomings. We compare our method against a commonly used Bayesian optimization library on seven challenging test functions, ranging in dimensionality from 6 to 124, and show that our method achieves superior optimization performance in all tests. In addition our method has linear computational complexity.