NASA NTRS2026
Bayesian optimization (BO) can accelerate materials discovery by guiding expensive experiments toward the most promising processing conditions. We systematically compare five BO surrogate and framework combinations (Gaussian processes in Ax, Gaussian processes and Monte-Carlo neural networks in BayBE, random forests in Lolopy, and tree-structured Parzen (TPE) estimators in Hyperopt) on three benchmarks that mimic common materials design tasks (a discrete solid-electrolyte composition space, a hybrid discrete/continuous laminate-composite design problem solved with micromechanics modeling, and the continuous Ishigami analytic function which is a standard optimization benchmark). Each BO surrogate is paired with posterior mean, probability of improvement, and expected improvement acquisition functions and run for 100 trials from randomized initial samples with uniform random search providing a control. Across five random seeds per setting, BayBE’s Gaussian-process surrogate with expected improvement consistently reached ≥95 % of the known optimum in the fewest evaluations, while Lolopy’s random forest matched or exceeded GP performance on purely categorical or mixed spaces at a higher computational cost. Posterior mean alone often stagnated at local optima, underscoring the need for exploration, whereas probability and expected improvement balanced exploration and exploitation leading to better optimization in fewer trials. Execution times ranged from milliseconds for TPE to minutes for neural-network and random-forest surrogates. These results establish baseline expectations for BO in automated materials laboratories and highlight expected improvement with Gaussian processes as a reliable first choice, with random forests offering a strong alternative when categorical variables dominate. The benchmark suite and code are released to facilitate future surrogate, acquisition, and constraint-handling research in data-driven materials optimization.