\relax 
\providecommand\hyper@newdestlabel[2]{}
\providecommand\HyField@AuxAddToFields[1]{}
\providecommand\HyField@AuxAddToCoFields[2]{}
\providecommand \babel@aux [2]{\global \let \babel@toc \@gobbletwo }
\@nameuse{bbl@beforestart}
\bibstyle{plainnat}
\citation{eggensperger2021hpobench,karl2023multi,morales2023survey}
\citation{srinivas2009gaussian,bergstra2011algorithms,levesque2016bayesian,foldager2023role}
\citation{williams2006gaussian}
\citation{swersky2014freeze,dai2019bayesian,nguyen2020bayesian,belakaria2023bayesian}
\citation{belakaria2020multi,schmucker2021multi}
\providecommand \oddpage@label [2]{}
\babel@aux{american}{}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {1}Introduction}{1}{section.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-introduction}{{1}{1}{Introduction}{section.1}{}}
\citation{casimiro2020lynceus,mendes2020trimtuner}
\citation{mahadevan2024cost,casimiro2024self}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces (A) and (B): Learning curves of three hyperparameter settings $\bm  {x}_1$, $\bm  {x}_2$, and $\bm  {x}_3 \in \mathbb  {R}^d$; (C): Trajectories of $\bm  {x}_1$, $\bm  {x}_2$, and $\bm  {x}_3$ and trade-offs over their model performances; (D) Trajectory-based improvement and early stopping when a new $\bm  {x}' \in \mathbb  {R}^d$ is sampled. $L(\bm  {x}, t)$ (or $C(\bm  {x}, t)$) denotes the validation loss (or cost) of training with $\bm  {x} \in \mathbb  {R}^d$ for $t$ epochs. The maximum number of epochs is 10.}}{2}{figure.caption.1}\protected@file@percent }
\providecommand*\caption@xref[2]{\@setref\relax\@undefined{#1}}
\newlabel{fig-example}{{1}{2}{(A) and (B): Learning curves of three hyperparameter settings $\bm {x}_1$, $\bm {x}_2$, and $\bm {x}_3 \in \mathbb {R}^d$; (C): Trajectories of $\bm {x}_1$, $\bm {x}_2$, and $\bm {x}_3$ and trade-offs over their model performances; (D) Trajectory-based improvement and early stopping when a new $\bm {x}' \in \mathbb {R}^d$ is sampled. $L(\bm {x}, t)$ (or $C(\bm {x}, t)$) denotes the validation loss (or cost) of training with $\bm {x} \in \mathbb {R}^d$ for $t$ epochs. The maximum number of epochs is 10}{figure.caption.1}{}}
\citation{dai2019bayesian,klein2022learning}
\citation{swersky2014freeze}
\citation{falkner2018bohb}
\citation{li2018hyperband}
\citation{dai2019bayesian}
\citation{nguyen2020bayesian}
\citation{belakaria2023bayesian}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {2}Enhanced Multi-Objective Hyperparameter Optimization}{3}{section.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-EMOHPO}{{2}{3}{Enhanced Multi-Objective Hyperparameter Optimization}{section.2}{}}
\newlabel{eq-EMOHPO}{{1}{3}{Enhanced Multi-Objective Hyperparameter Optimization}{equation.1}{}}
\newlabel{def-dominance}{{1}{3}{}{definition.1}{}}
\newlabel{def-Pareto-optimal}{{2}{3}{}{definition.2}{}}
\newlabel{eq-MOHPO}{{2}{3}{Enhanced Multi-Objective Hyperparameter Optimization}{equation.2}{}}
\citation{knowles2006parego}
\citation{paria2020flexible}
\citation{jones1998efficient}
\citation{thompson1933likelihood}
\citation{emmerich2006single}
\citation{hupkens2015faster}
\citation{daulton2020differentiable}
\citation{daulton2021parallel}
\citation{emmerich2006single}
\citation{hernandez2016predictive,belakaria2019max,suzuki2020multi,yang2022parallel,daulton2022multi}
\citation{kandasamy2016gaussian,kandasamy2017multi,sen2018multi,wu2020practical,fan2024multi}
\citation{klein2017fast}
\citation{kandasamy2017multi}
\citation{belakaria2020multi,schmucker2021multi}
\citation{williams2006gaussian}
\citation{swersky2014freeze}
\citation{belakaria2023bayesian}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {3}Related Work in Bayesian Optimization}{4}{section.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-review}{{3}{4}{Related Work in Bayesian Optimization}{section.3}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {4}Gaussian Process for Trajectory Prediction}{4}{section.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-GP}{{4}{4}{Gaussian Process for Trajectory Prediction}{section.4}{}}
\newlabel{eq-posterior}{{3}{4}{Gaussian Process for Trajectory Prediction}{equation.3}{}}
\citation{zitzler2007hypervolume,daulton2020differentiable}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {5}Trajectory-Based Bayesian Optimization Approach}{5}{section.5}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{loa}{\contentsline {algorithm}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Framework of TMOBO}}{5}{algorithm.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{algo-TMOBO}{{1}{5}{Framework of TMOBO}{algorithm.1}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.1}Trajectory-Based Acquisition Function}{5}{subsection.5.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-TEHVI}{{5.1}{5}{Trajectory-Based Acquisition Function}{subsection.5.1}{}}
\newlabel{def-hv}{{3}{5}{}{definition.3}{}}
\newlabel{def-hvi}{{4}{5}{}{definition.4}{}}
\citation{emmerich2006single,daulton2020differentiable}
\citation{regis2007stochastic,wang2023efficient}
\citation{srinivas2009gaussian}
\newlabel{lemma-equivalent}{{1}{6}{}{lemma.1}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {5.2}Early Stopping and Augmentation}{6}{subsection.5.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-early stopping and data augmentation}{{5.2}{6}{Early Stopping and Augmentation}{subsection.5.2}{}}
\citation{nguyen2020bayesian,belakaria2023bayesian}
\citation{belakaria2023bayesian}
\citation{knowles2006parego}
\citation{daulton2020differentiable}
\citation{daulton2021parallel}
\citation{daulton2020differentiable,daulton2021parallel}
\citation{zitzler2000comparison}
\citation{deb2002scalable}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {6}Numerical Experiments}{7}{section.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-exp}{{6}{7}{Numerical Experiments}{section.6}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.1}Synthetic Simulations}{7}{subsection.6.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-syntheticbenchmark}{{6.1}{7}{Synthetic Simulations}{subsection.6.1}{}}
\citation{zimmer2021auto}
\citation{falkner2018bohb,martinez2018funneled,daxberger2019mixed,perrone2018scalable}
\citation{pfisterer2022yahpo}
\citation{eggensperger2021hpobench}
\citation{sandler2018mobilenet}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Box plots for 20 problems derived from ZDT1, ZDT2, DTLZ1, DTLZ2, and DTLZ7. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The logarithm of Hypervolume difference is computed at the end of each trial and is normalized in $[0, 1]$.}}{8}{figure.caption.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-BoxplotSimulator}{{2}{8}{Box plots for 20 problems derived from ZDT1, ZDT2, DTLZ1, DTLZ2, and DTLZ7. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The logarithm of Hypervolume difference is computed at the end of each trial and is normalized in $[0, 1]$}{figure.caption.2}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against time for each algorithm on five different hyperparameter tuning tasks. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean.}}{8}{figure.caption.3}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByTimeSurrogate}{{3}{8}{Average log Hypervolume difference against time for each algorithm on five different hyperparameter tuning tasks. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean}{figure.caption.3}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {6.2}Hyperparameter Tuning Benchmarks}{8}{subsection.6.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-mlbenchmark}{{6.2}{8}{Hyperparameter Tuning Benchmarks}{subsection.6.2}{}}
\bibdata{TMOBO}
\bibcite{belakaria2019max}{{1}{2019}{{Belakaria et~al.}}{{Belakaria, Deshwal, and Doppa}}}
\bibcite{belakaria2020multi}{{2}{2020}{{Belakaria et~al.}}{{Belakaria, Deshwal, and Doppa}}}
\bibcite{belakaria2023bayesian}{{3}{2023}{{Belakaria et~al.}}{{Belakaria, Doppa, Fusi, and Sheth}}}
\bibcite{bergstra2011algorithms}{{4}{2011}{{Bergstra et~al.}}{{Bergstra, Bardenet, Bengio, and K{\'e}gl}}}
\bibcite{casimiro2020lynceus}{{5}{2020}{{Casimiro et~al.}}{{Casimiro, Didona, Romano, Rodrigues, Zwaenepoel, and Garlan}}}
\bibcite{casimiro2024self}{{6}{2024}{{Casimiro et~al.}}{{Casimiro, Soares, Garlan, Rodrigues, and Romano}}}
\bibcite{dai2019bayesian}{{7}{2019}{{Dai et~al.}}{{Dai, Yu, Low, and Jaillet}}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Average log HV difference against wall-clock time for each algorithm on the hyperparameter tuning task of MobileNetV2 on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean.}}{9}{figure.caption.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-CNN Time}{{4}{9}{Average log HV difference against wall-clock time for each algorithm on the hyperparameter tuning task of MobileNetV2 on the CIFAR-10 dataset. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean}{figure.caption.4}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {7}Conclusions}{9}{section.7}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{sec-conclusions}{{7}{9}{Conclusions}{section.7}{}}
\bibcite{daulton2020differentiable}{{8}{2020}{{Daulton et~al.}}{{Daulton, Balandat, and Bakshy}}}
\bibcite{daulton2021parallel}{{9}{2021}{{Daulton et~al.}}{{Daulton, Balandat, and Bakshy}}}
\bibcite{daulton2022multi}{{10}{2022}{{Daulton et~al.}}{{Daulton, Eriksson, Balandat, and Bakshy}}}
\bibcite{daxberger2019mixed}{{11}{2019}{{Daxberger et~al.}}{{Daxberger, Makarova, Turchetta, and Krause}}}
\bibcite{deb2002scalable}{{12}{2002}{{Deb et~al.}}{{Deb, Thiele, Laumanns, and Zitzler}}}
\bibcite{eggensperger2021hpobench}{{13}{2021}{{Eggensperger et~al.}}{{Eggensperger, M{\"u}ller, Mallik, Feurer, Sass, Klein, Awad, Lindauer, and Hutter}}}
\bibcite{emmerich2006single}{{14}{2006}{{Emmerich et~al.}}{{Emmerich, Giannakoglou, and Naujoks}}}
\bibcite{falkner2018bohb}{{15}{2018}{{Falkner et~al.}}{{Falkner, Klein, and Hutter}}}
\bibcite{fan2024multi}{{16}{2024}{{Fan et~al.}}{{Fan, Yoon, Dougherty, Alexander, Urban, Arroyave, and Qian}}}
\bibcite{foldager2023role}{{17}{2023}{{Foldager et~al.}}{{Foldager, Jordahn, Hansen, and Andersen}}}
\bibcite{gardner2018gpytorch}{{18}{2018}{{Gardner et~al.}}{{Gardner, Pleiss, Weinberger, Bindel, and Wilson}}}
\bibcite{gijsbers2019open}{{19}{2019}{{Gijsbers et~al.}}{{Gijsbers, LeDell, Thomas, Poirier, Bischl, and Vanschoren}}}
\bibcite{hernandez2016predictive}{{20}{2016}{{Hern{\'a}ndez-Lobato et~al.}}{{Hern{\'a}ndez-Lobato, Hernandez-Lobato, Shah, and Adams}}}
\bibcite{hupkens2015faster}{{21}{2015}{{Hupkens et~al.}}{{Hupkens, Deutz, Yang, and Emmerich}}}
\bibcite{jones1998efficient}{{22}{1998}{{Jones et~al.}}{{Jones, Schonlau, and Welch}}}
\bibcite{kandasamy2016gaussian}{{23}{2016}{{Kandasamy et~al.}}{{Kandasamy, Dasarathy, Oliva, Schneider, and P{\'o}czos}}}
\bibcite{kandasamy2017multi}{{24}{2017}{{Kandasamy et~al.}}{{Kandasamy, Dasarathy, Schneider, and P{\'o}czos}}}
\bibcite{karl2023multi}{{25}{2023}{{Karl et~al.}}{{Karl, Pielok, Moosbauer, Pfisterer, Coors, Binder, Schneider, Thomas, Richter, Lang, et~al.}}}
\bibcite{klein2017fast}{{26}{2017}{{Klein et~al.}}{{Klein, Falkner, Bartels, Hennig, and Hutter}}}
\bibcite{klein2022learning}{{27}{2022}{{Klein et~al.}}{{Klein, Falkner, Springenberg, and Hutter}}}
\bibcite{knowles2006parego}{{28}{2006}{{Knowles}}{{}}}
\bibcite{levesque2016bayesian}{{29}{2016}{{L{\'e}vesque et~al.}}{{L{\'e}vesque, Gagn{\'e}, and Sabourin}}}
\bibcite{li2018hyperband}{{30}{2018}{{Li et~al.}}{{Li, Jamieson, DeSalvo, Rostamizadeh, and Talwalkar}}}
\bibcite{mahadevan2024cost}{{31}{2024}{{Mahadevan and Mathioudakis}}{{}}}
\bibcite{martinez2018funneled}{{32}{2018}{{Martinez-Cantin}}{{}}}
\bibcite{mendes2020trimtuner}{{33}{2020}{{Mendes et~al.}}{{Mendes, Casimiro, Romano, and Garlan}}}
\bibcite{morales2023survey}{{34}{2023}{{Morales-Hern{\'a}ndez et~al.}}{{Morales-Hern{\'a}ndez, Van~Nieuwenhuyse, and Rojas~Gonzalez}}}
\bibcite{nguyen2020bayesian}{{35}{2020}{{Nguyen et~al.}}{{Nguyen, Schulze, and Osborne}}}
\bibcite{paria2020flexible}{{36}{2020}{{Paria et~al.}}{{Paria, Kandasamy, and P{\'o}czos}}}
\bibcite{perrone2018scalable}{{37}{2018}{{Perrone et~al.}}{{Perrone, Jenatton, Seeger, and Archambeau}}}
\bibcite{pfisterer2022yahpo}{{38}{2022}{{Pfisterer et~al.}}{{Pfisterer, Schneider, Moosbauer, Binder, and Bischl}}}
\bibcite{williams2006gaussian}{{39}{2005}{{Rasmussen and Williams}}{{}}}
\bibcite{regis2007stochastic}{{40}{2007}{{Regis and Shoemaker}}{{}}}
\bibcite{sandler2018mobilenet}{{41}{2018}{{Sandler et~al.}}{{Sandler, Howard, Zhu, Zhmoginov, and Chen}}}
\bibcite{schmucker2021multi}{{42}{2021}{{Schmucker et~al.}}{{Schmucker, Donini, Zafar, Salinas, and Archambeau}}}
\bibcite{sen2018multi}{{43}{2018}{{Sen et~al.}}{{Sen, Kandasamy, and Shakkottai}}}
\bibcite{srinivas2009gaussian}{{44}{2009}{{Srinivas et~al.}}{{Srinivas, Krause, Kakade, and Seeger}}}
\bibcite{suzuki2020multi}{{45}{2020}{{Suzuki et~al.}}{{Suzuki, Takeno, Tamura, Shitara, and Karasuyama}}}
\bibcite{swersky2014freeze}{{46}{2014}{{Swersky et~al.}}{{Swersky, Snoek, and Adams}}}
\bibcite{thompson1933likelihood}{{47}{1933}{{Thompson}}{{}}}
\bibcite{vanschoren2014openml}{{48}{2014}{{Vanschoren et~al.}}{{Vanschoren, Van~Rijn, Bischl, and Torgo}}}
\bibcite{wang2023reference}{{49}{2023}{{Wang and Shoemaker}}{{}}}
\bibcite{wang2023efficient}{{50}{2023}{{Wang et~al.}}{{Wang, Akhtar, and Shoemaker}}}
\bibcite{wu2020practical}{{51}{2020}{{Wu et~al.}}{{Wu, Toscano-Palmerin, Frazier, and Wilson}}}
\bibcite{yang2022parallel}{{52}{2022}{{Yang et~al.}}{{Yang, Affenzeller, and Dong}}}
\bibcite{zimmer2021auto}{{53}{2021}{{Zimmer et~al.}}{{Zimmer, Lindauer, and Hutter}}}
\bibcite{zitzler2000comparison}{{54}{2000}{{Zitzler et~al.}}{{Zitzler, Deb, and Thiele}}}
\bibcite{zitzler2007hypervolume}{{55}{2007}{{Zitzler et~al.}}{{Zitzler, Brockhoff, and Thiele}}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {A}Proof for Lemma \ref {lemma-equivalent}}{13}{appendix.A}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-lemma}{{A}{13}{Proof for Lemma \ref {lemma-equivalent}}{appendix.A}{}}
\newlabel{lemma-paretosubset}{{2}{13}{}{lemma.2}{}}
\newlabel{eq-Z*}{{4}{13}{Proof for Lemma \ref {lemma-equivalent}}{equation.4}{}}
\newlabel{eq-ZU*}{{5}{13}{Proof for Lemma \ref {lemma-equivalent}}{equation.5}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {B}Algorithm Details}{13}{appendix.B}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-algorithm detail}{{B}{13}{Algorithm Details}{appendix.B}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {B.1}Gaussian Process Prediction in TMOBO}{13}{subsection.B.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-gpexample}{{B.1}{13}{Gaussian Process Prediction in TMOBO}{subsection.B.1}{}}
\citation{regis2007stochastic}
\citation{regis2007stochastic}
\citation{wang2023efficient,wang2023reference}
\citation{gardner2018gpytorch}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {B.1}{\ignorespaces An illustrative example of GP prediction obtained after running TMOBO on the kc1 hyperparameter tuning task for 35 iterations. [Left] GP prediction (green curve) of validation loss for the selected hyperparameter setting over epochs 1 to 50 before any true observations (orange stars) from its learning curve are known. [Right] Updated GP predictions after some observations (red stars) on the learning curve are revealed and incorporated into the GP model.}}{14}{figure.caption.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-tmobo}{{B.1}{14}{An illustrative example of GP prediction obtained after running TMOBO on the kc1 hyperparameter tuning task for 35 iterations. [Left] GP prediction (green curve) of validation loss for the selected hyperparameter setting over epochs 1 to 50 before any true observations (orange stars) from its learning curve are known. [Right] Updated GP predictions after some observations (red stars) on the learning curve are revealed and incorporated into the GP model}{figure.caption.5}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {B.2}Candidate Search Strategy}{14}{subsection.B.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{eq-HVC}{{8}{14}{Candidate Search Strategy}{equation.8}{}}
\citation{regis2007stochastic}
\citation{zitzler2000comparison}
\citation{zitzler2000comparison}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {C}Experiment Setup}{15}{appendix.C}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-exp}{{C}{15}{Experiment Setup}{appendix.C}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {C.1}Algorithm Configurations}{15}{subsection.C.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-algorithm config}{{C.1}{15}{Algorithm Configurations}{subsection.C.1}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {C.2}Problems and Benchmarks}{15}{subsection.C.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-problem detail}{{C.2}{15}{Problems and Benchmarks}{subsection.C.2}{}}
\citation{deb2002scalable}
\citation{deb2002scalable}
\citation{deb2002scalable}
\citation{zimmer2021auto}
\citation{eggensperger2021hpobench}
\citation{pfisterer2022yahpo}
\citation{gijsbers2019open}
\citation{vanschoren2014openml}
\citation{gardner2018gpytorch}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {D}Sensitivity Analysis on Algorithm Configurations}{18}{appendix.D}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-sensitivity}{{D}{18}{Sensitivity Analysis on Algorithm Configurations}{appendix.D}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {D.1}Parameters for Candidate Search}{18}{subsection.D.1}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {D.2}Parameter for Monte Carlo Approximation}{18}{subsection.D.2}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {D.3}Parameter for Data Augmentation Strategy}{18}{subsection.D.3}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {D.2}{\ignorespaces Sensitivity analysis on key parameters and components of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 100 algorithm iterations. Each row varies one factor, namely (1) data augmentation strategy, using GP trained with 5, 10, or 15 observations per trajectory, or using Sparse GP (SGP); (2) number of MC samples $M \in \{32, 64, 128, 256, 512\}$; (3) number of candidates $q \in \{10d, 50d, 100d, 150d, 200d\}$, where $d$ is the problem dimension; and (4) search radius $r \in \{0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4\}$. Each box plot shows the logarithm of HV difference computed over 10 trials and is normalized to [0, 1]. (A lower value indicates better performance.)}}{19}{figure.caption.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-sensitivity}{{D.2}{19}{Sensitivity analysis on key parameters and components of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 100 algorithm iterations. Each row varies one factor, namely (1) data augmentation strategy, using GP trained with 5, 10, or 15 observations per trajectory, or using Sparse GP (SGP); (2) number of MC samples $M \in \{32, 64, 128, 256, 512\}$; (3) number of candidates $q \in \{10d, 50d, 100d, 150d, 200d\}$, where $d$ is the problem dimension; and (4) search radius $r \in \{0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4\}$. Each box plot shows the logarithm of HV difference computed over 10 trials and is normalized to [0, 1]. (A lower value indicates better performance.)}{figure.caption.6}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {D.1}{\ignorespaces Mean (standard deviation) of normalized log HV differences for key parameters and components of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 100 algorithm iterations. For each parameter, performance is evaluated against the default algorithm setting (in bold) using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at a 95\% confidence level. ``$+$'' sign indicates that the parameter option performs significantly better than the baseline, ``$-$'' indicates significantly worse performance, and ``$\approx $'' denotes statistically comparable results.}}{20}{table.caption.7}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{table-sensitivity}{{D.1}{20}{Mean (standard deviation) of normalized log HV differences for key parameters and components of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 100 algorithm iterations. For each parameter, performance is evaluated against the default algorithm setting (in bold) using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at a 95\% confidence level. ``$+$'' sign indicates that the parameter option performs significantly better than the baseline, ``$-$'' indicates significantly worse performance, and ``$\approx $'' denotes statistically comparable results}{table.caption.7}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {D.4}Parameter for Early Stopping}{20}{subsection.D.4}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {D.3}{\ignorespaces Sensitivity analysis on early stopping parameter $\beta \in \{0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0\}$ of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 3000 training epochs. Each box plot shows the logarithm of HV difference computed over 10 trials and is normalized to [0, 1]. (A lower value indicates better performance.)}}{20}{figure.caption.8}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-Boxplot-Beta}{{D.3}{20}{Sensitivity analysis on early stopping parameter $\beta \in \{0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0\}$ of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 3000 training epochs. Each box plot shows the logarithm of HV difference computed over 10 trials and is normalized to [0, 1]. (A lower value indicates better performance.)}{figure.caption.8}{}}
\@writefile{lot}{\contentsline {table}{\numberline {D.2}{\ignorespaces Mean (standard deviation) of normalized log HV differences for early stopping parameter $\beta $ of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 3000 training epochs. For each parameter, performance is evaluated against the default algorithm setting (in bold) using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at a 95\% confidence level. ``$+$'' sign indicates that the parameter option performs significantly better than the baseline, ``$-$'' indicates significantly worse performance, and ``$\approx $'' denotes statistically comparable results.}}{21}{table.caption.9}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{table-Beta}{{D.2}{21}{Mean (standard deviation) of normalized log HV differences for early stopping parameter $\beta $ of TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 after 3000 training epochs. For each parameter, performance is evaluated against the default algorithm setting (in bold) using Wilcoxon rank-sum test at a 95\% confidence level. ``$+$'' sign indicates that the parameter option performs significantly better than the baseline, ``$-$'' indicates significantly worse performance, and ``$\approx $'' denotes statistically comparable results}{table.caption.9}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {section}{\numberline {E}Numerical Experiments and Results}{21}{appendix.E}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-results}{{E}{21}{Numerical Experiments and Results}{appendix.E}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {E.1}Additional Results for Section \ref {sec-syntheticbenchmark}}{21}{subsection.E.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-result-synthetic}{{E.1}{21}{Additional Results for Section \ref {sec-syntheticbenchmark}}{subsection.E.1}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.4}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 and ZDT2. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of mean.}}{21}{figure.caption.10}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByIterSimulator(A)}{{E.4}{21}{Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 and ZDT2. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of mean}{figure.caption.10}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.5}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on synthetic problems generated from DTLZ1, DTLZ2, and DTLZ7. Each algorithm runs for 20 trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of mean.}}{22}{figure.caption.11}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByIterSimulator(B)}{{E.5}{22}{Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on synthetic problems generated from DTLZ1, DTLZ2, and DTLZ7. Each algorithm runs for 20 trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of mean}{figure.caption.11}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.6}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on five different hyperparameter tuning tasks. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean.}}{22}{figure.caption.12}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByIterSurrogate}{{E.6}{22}{Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on five different hyperparameter tuning tasks. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean}{figure.caption.12}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {E.2}Additional Results for Section \ref {sec-mlbenchmark}}{22}{subsection.E.2}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-result-mlbench}{{E.2}{22}{Additional Results for Section \ref {sec-mlbenchmark}}{subsection.E.2}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {E.3}Impact of Early Stopping}{23}{subsection.E.3}\protected@file@percent }
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.7}{\ignorespaces Comparison of the computational efficiency of TMOBO and TMOBO-nES on the hyperparameter tuning task of MobileNetV2 on the CIFAR-10 dataset. [Left] Average log HV difference against algorithm iterations for each algorithm across 10 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean. [Right] Boxplots of wall-clock time for each algorithm, where ``Total'' indicates the overall runtime, ``Train'' the overall CNN training time, and ``Overhead'' the algorithm additional processing time.}}{23}{figure.caption.13}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-CNN}{{E.7}{23}{Comparison of the computational efficiency of TMOBO and TMOBO-nES on the hyperparameter tuning task of MobileNetV2 on the CIFAR-10 dataset. [Left] Average log HV difference against algorithm iterations for each algorithm across 10 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean. [Right] Boxplots of wall-clock time for each algorithm, where ``Total'' indicates the overall runtime, ``Train'' the overall CNN training time, and ``Overhead'' the algorithm additional processing time}{figure.caption.13}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {E.4}Impact of Objective Complexity}{23}{subsection.E.4}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-result-complexity}{{E.4}{23}{Impact of Objective Complexity}{subsection.E.4}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.8}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against the number of epochs for each algorithm on five different hyperparameter tuning tasks (with first objective being validation accuracy and the second objective validation cross entropy). Each algorithm runs for 10 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean.}}{24}{figure.caption.14}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByEpochSurrogate(B)}{{E.8}{24}{Average log Hypervolume difference against the number of epochs for each algorithm on five different hyperparameter tuning tasks (with first objective being validation accuracy and the second objective validation cross entropy). Each algorithm runs for 10 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean}{figure.caption.14}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {E.5}Impact of Noisy Levels}{24}{subsection.E.5}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-result-noise}{{E.5}{24}{Impact of Noisy Levels}{subsection.E.5}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.9}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from DTLZ1 with noise level 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001. For each noise level, TMOBO runs for 10 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean.}}{24}{figure.caption.15}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByIterSimulator(noise)}{{E.9}{24}{Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for TMOBO on synthetic problems generated from DTLZ1 with noise level 0.1, 0.01, and 0.001. For each noise level, TMOBO runs for 10 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean}{figure.caption.15}{}}
\@writefile{toc}{\contentsline {subsection}{\numberline {E.6}Impact of Replication Strategy}{24}{subsection.E.6}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{appx-resampling}{{E.6}{24}{Impact of Replication Strategy}{subsection.E.6}{}}
\@writefile{loa}{\contentsline {algorithm}{\numberline {E.1}{\ignorespaces Framework of TMOBO-$P$}}{25}{algorithm.1}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{algo-TMOBO-P}{{E.1}{25}{Framework of TMOBO-$P$}{algorithm.1}{}}
\@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {E.10}{\ignorespaces Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 with $10\%$ noise level. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean.}}{25}{figure.caption.16}\protected@file@percent }
\newlabel{fig-ByIterSimulatorReplication}{{E.10}{25}{Average log Hypervolume difference against iterations for each algorithm on synthetic problems generated from ZDT1 with $10\%$ noise level. Each algorithm runs for 20 independent trials. The shaded region indicates two standard errors of the mean}{figure.caption.16}{}}
\newlabel{LastPage}{{E.6}{25}{Impact of Replication Strategy}{page.25}{}}
\gdef\lastpage@lastpage{25}
\gdef\lastpage@lastpageHy{25}
\gdef \@abspage@last{25}
