Bayesian optimisation under uncertain inputs
Open accessAbstract
Bayesian optimisation (BO) has been a successful approach to optimise functions which are expensive to evaluate and whose observations are noisy. Classical BO algorithms, however, do not account for errors about the location where observations are taken, which is a common issue in problems with physical components. In these cases, the estimation of the actual query location is also subject to uncertainty. In this context, we propose an upper confidence bound (UCB) algorithm for BO problems where both the outcome of a query and the true query location are uncertain. The algorithm employs a Gaussian process model that takes probability distributions as inputs. Theoretical results are provided for both the proposed algorithm and a conventional UCB approach within the uncertain-inputs setting. Finally, we evaluate each method's performance experimentally, comparing them to other input noise aware BO approaches on simulated scenarios involving synthetic and real data.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Chen et al. found that uncertainty sampling performed superior to baseline sampling and diversity-based techniques in terms of area under the learning curve for clinical named entity recognition.
“Based on number of sentences vs. the learning curves of Fmeasure, uncertainty sampling performed superior to all its counterparts in terms of the area under the learning curve (ALC) score.”
From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [519]
Section 6 (pp. 7–8) compares Bayesian-optimisation methods using regret, not clinical named entity recognition using area under a learning curve. Searches for uncertainty sampling, clinical NER, F-measure and ALC found no passage addressing the attributed result. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMost diversity-based active learning techniques yielded better performance than random sampling in area under the learning curve.
“Most diversity-based techniques yielded better performance than random sampling in ALC.”
From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [519]
The Experiments section (p. 7) compares Bayesian optimisation methods, and the robotic exploration results (p. 8) report regret, not area under a learning curve. Searches for diversity-based active learning, random sampling, and ALC found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn 2015, Chen et al. [519] used Active learning with Uncertainty sampling on 1 dataset.
“Chen et al. [519] | 2015 | JBI | 1 | Active learning | Uncertainty sampling”
From A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [519]
The Related work section (p. 2) discusses Bayesian optimisation under uncertain inputs, not the claimed Chen et al. study. Searches for Chen et al. (2015), JBI, active learning, and uncertainty sampling found no passage addressing the study or its dataset count in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- N. Aronszajn. Theory of Reproducing Kernels. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 68(3):337-404, 1950.
- H. Bauer. Probability theory and elements of measure theory . Probability and mathematical statistics. Academic Press, 1981.
- Justin J. Beland and Prasanth B. Nair. Bayesian Optimization Under Uncertainty. In 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017) Workshop on Bayesian optimization (BayesOpt 2017) , Long Beach, CA, 2017.
- St´ ephane Boucheron, G´ abor Lugosi, and Pascal Massart. Concentration inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence . Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Adam D. Bull. Convergence Rates of Efficient Global Optimization Algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR) , 12:2879-2904, 2011.
- Sayak Ray Chowdhury and Aditya Gopalan. On Kernelized Multi-armed Bandits. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , Sydney, Australia, 2017.
- Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson. Matrix Analysis . Cambridge University Press, 1985.
- Erwin Kreyszig. Introductory functional analysis with applications . John Wiley & Sons, 1978.
- Henry Lam. Advanced tutorial: input uncertainty and robust analysis in stochastic simulation. In Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference , pages 178-192, 2016.
- Chun Kai Ling, Kian Hsiang Low, and Patrick Jaillet. Gaussian Process Planning with Lipschitz Continuous Reward Functions: Towards Unifying Bayesian Optimization, Active Learning, and Beyond. In AAAI , 2016.
- Vidyadhar Mandrekar and Barbara R¨ udiger. Stochastic integration in Banach spaces: Theory and Applications , volume 73. Springer, 2015.
- Roman Marchant and Fabio Ramos. Bayesian Optimisation for Intelligent Environmental Monitoring. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, October 2012.
- Roman Marchant and Fabio Ramos. Bayesian Optimisation for Informative Continuous Path Planning. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 6136-6143, 2014.
- Colin McDiarmid. On the method of bounded differences , page 148188. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, 1989.
- Andrew Mchutchon and Carl E. Rasmussen. Gaussian Process Training with Input Noise. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 1341-1349, 2011.
- Krikamol Muandet, Kenji Fukumizu, Francesco Dinuzzo, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Learning from Distributions via Support Measure Machines. In Proceeding of the 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2012) , 2012.
- Krikamol Muandet, Kenji Fukumizu, Bharath Sriperumbudur, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Kernel Mean Embedding of Distributions: A Review and Beyond. arXiv , 2016.
- Jos´ e Nogueira, Ruben Martinez-Cantin, Alexandre Bernardino, and Lorenzo Jamone. Unscented Bayesian Optimization for Safe Robot Grasping. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 1967-1972, Daejeon, Korea, 2016.
- Rafael Oliveira, Lionel Ott, Vitor Guizlini, and Fabio Ramos. Bayesian Optimisation for Safe Navigation under Localisation Uncertainty. In International Symposium on Robotics Research (ISRR) (to appear) , Puerto Varas, Chile, 2017.
- Michael Pearce and Juergen Branke. Bayesian simulation optimization with input uncertainty. In W. K. V. Chan, A. D'Ambrogio, G. Zacharewicz, N. Mustafee, G. Wainer, and E. Page, editors, Proceedings of the 2017 Winter Simulation Conference , pages 2268-2278. IEEE, 2017.
- Carl E. Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning . The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006.
- Saburou Saitoh and Yoshihiro Sawano. Theory of Reproducing Kernels and Applications . Springer, 2016.
- Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf and Alexander J. Smola. Learning with kernels: support vector machines, regularization, optimization, and beyond . MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2002.
- Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P. Adams. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. In F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25 , pages 2951-2959. Curran Associates, Inc., 2012.
- Niranjan Srinivas, Andreas Krause, Sham M. Kakade, and Matthias Seeger. Gaussian Process Optimization in the Bandit Setting: No Regret and Experimental Design. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2010) , pages 1015-1022, 2010.
- Bharath K. Sriperumbudur, Kenji Fukumizu, and Gert R. G. Lanckriet. Universality, Characteristic Kernels and RKHS Embedding of Measures. Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR) , 12:23892410, 2011.
- Ingo Steinwart and Andreas Christmann. Support Vector Machines , chapter 4, pages 110-163. Springer New York, New York, NY, 2008.
- Sebastian Thrun, Wolfram Burgard, and Dieter Fox. Probabilistic Robotics . The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006.
- Saul Toscano-Palmerin and Peter I. Frazier. Bayesian Optimization with Expensive Integrands. arXiv , 2018.
- Charlie Vanaret, Jean-Baptiste Gotteland, Nicolas Durand, and Jean-Marc Alliot. Certified Global Minima for a Benchmark of Difficult Optimization Problems. Technical report, hal-00996713, 2014. Preprint.
- Eric A. Wan and Rudolph van der Merwe. The Unscented Kalman Filter for Nonlinear Estimation. In Adaptive Systems for Signal Processing, Communications, and Control Symposium (AS-SPCC) , pages 153-158, 2000. ISBN 0780384822.
- Aaron Wilson, Alan Fern, and Prasad Tadepalli. Using Trajectory Data to Improve Bayesian Optimization for Reinforcement Learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 15, 2014.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A review of uncertainty quantification in deep learning: Techniques, applications and challenges
Abdar, M., Pourpanah, F., Hussain, S., Rezazadegan, D., Liu, L., Ghavamzadeh, M., Fieguth, P., Cao, X., Khosravi, A., Acharya, U. R., et al. (2021) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.05.008 · Cited by 2,720 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oliveira, R., Ott, L., & Ramos, F.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2019
- Pages
- 1177-1184
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1902.07908
- OpenAlex
- W2917035519
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Advanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- Bayesian optimization, uncertain inputs, upper confidence bound, Gaussian processes, parameter uncertainty, expensive-to-evaluate functions, noisy measurements
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
