Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization with Machine Learning Predictions and Application to Hypothesis Generation

Xin Jennifer Chen, Yunjin Tong

TL;DR

PA-GP-UCB addresses optimization with an expensive ground-truth feedback and a cheap, biased prediction by modeling both sources with a two-output Gaussian process and introducing a control-variates estimator to bias-correct predictions. The algorithm operates in offline and online stages, leveraging offline prediction data to tighten uncertainty and online observations to adaptively select queries, while preserving the $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T\beta_T\gamma_T})$ regret rate up to a prediction-contingent constant. Theoretical guarantees show a strictly better leading constant when predictions are informative and the offline data provides global variance reduction, with a bound that scales as $\sqrt{C_1 \beta_T T [1-(1-R)\rho^2]\gamma_T}$. Empirically, PA-GP-UCB outperforms Vanilla GP-UCB and naïve baselines on synthetic benchmarks and a real-world hypothesis-generation task, including cases with LLM-based predictions and structure-preserving continuous embeddings, highlighting its potential for accelerated, interpretable discovery in data-scarce, costly-evaluation domains.

Abstract

Many real-world optimization problems involve an expensive ground-truth oracle (e.g., human evaluation, physical experiments) and a cheap, low-fidelity prediction oracle (e.g., machine learning models, simulations). Meanwhile, abundant offline data (e.g., past experiments and predictions) are often available and can be used to pretrain powerful predictive models, as well as to provide an informative prior. We propose Prediction-Augmented Gaussian Process Upper Confidence Bound (PA-GP-UCB), a novel Bayesian optimization algorithm that leverages both oracles and offline data to achieve provable gains in sample efficiency for the ground-truth oracle queries. PA-GP-UCB employs a control-variates estimator derived from a joint Gaussian process posterior to correct prediction bias and reduce uncertainty. We prove that PA-GP-UCB preserves the standard regret rate of GP-UCB while achieving a strictly smaller leading constant that is explicitly controlled by prediction quality and offline data coverage. Empirically, PA-GP-UCB converges faster than Vanilla GP-UCB and naive prediction-augmented GP-UCB baselines on synthetic benchmarks and on a real-world hypothesis evaluation task grounded in human behavioral data, where predictions are provided by large language models. These results establish PA-GP-UCB as a general and sample-efficient framework for hypothesis generation under expensive feedback.

Gaussian Process Bandit Optimization with Machine Learning Predictions and Application to Hypothesis Generation

TL;DR

PA-GP-UCB addresses optimization with an expensive ground-truth feedback and a cheap, biased prediction by modeling both sources with a two-output Gaussian process and introducing a control-variates estimator to bias-correct predictions. The algorithm operates in offline and online stages, leveraging offline prediction data to tighten uncertainty and online observations to adaptively select queries, while preserving the regret rate up to a prediction-contingent constant. Theoretical guarantees show a strictly better leading constant when predictions are informative and the offline data provides global variance reduction, with a bound that scales as . Empirically, PA-GP-UCB outperforms Vanilla GP-UCB and naïve baselines on synthetic benchmarks and a real-world hypothesis-generation task, including cases with LLM-based predictions and structure-preserving continuous embeddings, highlighting its potential for accelerated, interpretable discovery in data-scarce, costly-evaluation domains.

Abstract

Many real-world optimization problems involve an expensive ground-truth oracle (e.g., human evaluation, physical experiments) and a cheap, low-fidelity prediction oracle (e.g., machine learning models, simulations). Meanwhile, abundant offline data (e.g., past experiments and predictions) are often available and can be used to pretrain powerful predictive models, as well as to provide an informative prior. We propose Prediction-Augmented Gaussian Process Upper Confidence Bound (PA-GP-UCB), a novel Bayesian optimization algorithm that leverages both oracles and offline data to achieve provable gains in sample efficiency for the ground-truth oracle queries. PA-GP-UCB employs a control-variates estimator derived from a joint Gaussian process posterior to correct prediction bias and reduce uncertainty. We prove that PA-GP-UCB preserves the standard regret rate of GP-UCB while achieving a strictly smaller leading constant that is explicitly controlled by prediction quality and offline data coverage. Empirically, PA-GP-UCB converges faster than Vanilla GP-UCB and naive prediction-augmented GP-UCB baselines on synthetic benchmarks and on a real-world hypothesis evaluation task grounded in human behavioral data, where predictions are provided by large language models. These results establish PA-GP-UCB as a general and sample-efficient framework for hypothesis generation under expensive feedback.
Paper Structure (35 sections, 8 theorems, 79 equations, 5 figures, 1 algorithm)

This paper contains 35 sections, 8 theorems, 79 equations, 5 figures, 1 algorithm.

Key Result

Theorem 4.1

If Assumption assumption:lip holds, and suppose the offline data satisfy the uniform ratio condition for some $R\in(0,1]$. Let $\beta_t = 2\log(2\pi^2t^2/(3\delta))+4d\log(dtbr\sqrt{\log(4da/\delta)})$, $C_1 = 8/\log(1+({(\eta^2 + \rho^2\eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2)}/{(1-\rho^2)})^{-1})$. Then with probability $\geq1-\delta$, PA-GP-UCB satisfies for all $T\geq 1$,

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: (a) Posterior means at $T=200$ for PA-GP-UCB and naı̈ve prediction-augmented GP-UCB compared with the ground-truth function $f$ and the locally anti-correlated prediction $f^{\mathrm{ML}}$. (b) Zoomed-in view around the true optimum, highlighting that PA-GP-UCB concentrates samples near the optimum while naı̈ve prediction-augmented GP-UCB remains biased toward the prediction-preferred region.
  • Figure 2: Cumulative regret of Vanilla GP-UCB, naı̈ve prediction-augmented GP-UCB baselines, and PA-GP-UCB, averaged over $50$ runs with horizon $T=200$. (a) Comparison of Vanilla GP-UCB, GP-UCB with offline predictions only, GP-UCB with both online and offline predictions, and PA-GP-UCB under $\rho = 0.8$, $\eta^2 = \eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2 = 0.01$, and $M = N = 1000$. (b) Effect of correlation $\rho \in \{0.5, 0.7, 0.9\}$ with $\eta^2 = \eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2 = 0.001$ and $M = N = 1000$. (c) Effect of varying the offline prediction data sizes $M$ and $N$ with $\eta^2 = \eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2 = 0.01$.
  • Figure 3: Cumulative regret over horizon $T = 200$, averaged over $50$ independent runs. (a) Finite-arm setting: comparison between Vanilla GP-UCB and PA-GP-UCB for different numbers of offline prediction duplicates $N \in \{1, 10, 100\}$, with $\eta^2 = \eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2 = 0.001$ and $\hat{\rho} = 0.66$. (b) Continuous setting: comparison between Vanilla GP-UCB and PA-GP-UCB using an LLM-based prediction, where the prediction is conditioned on different numbers of ground-truth examples via in-context prompting, with $\eta^2 = \eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2 = 0.001$ and $\hat{\rho}= 0.8$.
  • Figure 4: (a) Posterior means of Vanilla GP-UCB and PA-GP-UCB at $T = 2$ compared with the true function and the predicted function under correlation $\rho = 0.8$. (b) The corresponding posterior means at $T = 200$.
  • Figure 5: Cumulative regret of Vanilla GP-UCB and PA-GP-UCB averaged over $50$ runs with horizon $T=200$. (a) Regret gap $R_T^{\mathrm{Vanilla}}-R_T$ for $\eta^2\in\{0.1,0.01,0.001,0.0001\}$ with $M=N=1000$ and $\eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2=0.01$. (b) Effect of prediction noise, varying $\eta_{\mathrm{ML}}^2 \in \{0.5, 0.1, 0.01\}$, with $M = N = 1000$ and $\eta^2 = 0.01$.

Theorems & Definitions (16)

  • Theorem 4.1: Cumulative Regret Bound
  • proof
  • Corollary 4.2: Strictly Better Performance
  • Lemma 2.1: Error decomposition
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.2
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.3
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.4: Gaussian concentration
  • ...and 6 more