Comparison of optimization algorithms for automated method development of gradient profiles

Optimization algorithms play an important role in method development workflows for gradient elution liquid chromatography. Their effectiveness has not been evaluated for chromatographic method development using standardized comparisons across factors such as sample complexity, chromatographic response functions (CRFs), gradient complexity, and application type. This study compares six optimization algorithms - Bayesian optimization (BO), differential evolution (DE), a genetic algorithm (GA), covariance-matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES), random search, and grid search - for the development of gradient elution LC methods. Utilizing a multi-linear retention modeling framework, these algorithms were assessed across diverse samples, CRFs, and gradient segments, considering two observation modes: dry (in silico, deconvoluted), and wet (search-based, requiring peak detection). The optimization algorithms were evaluated based on their data (i.e. number of iterations) and time efficiency. Of the algorithms compared in this study, DE proved to be a highly competitive method for dry optimization purposes in terms of both data and time efficiency. BO outperformed all other algorithms in terms of data efficiency and was found to be most effective for search-based optimization, which requires a low number of iterations (<200). However, BO was found to be impractical for dry optimization requiring a large iteration budget due to its unfavorable computational scaling. It was observed that both the CRF and the sample have a strong influence on the efficiency of the algorithms, emphasizing the need for better benchmark samples and highlighting the importance of assessing CRF-induced complexity in the optimization landscape.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Chromatography A
Published
2024-12-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2024.465626
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.28
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of optimization algorithms for automated method development of gradient profiles

Tijmen S. Bos, Patrick Forré, Gerben B. van Henten, Jim Boelrijk et al.
6 citations
Journal of Chromatography A
Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
1.28
article

Comparison of optimization algorithms for automated method development of gradient profiles

Tijmen S. Bos, Patrick Forré, Gerben B. van Henten, Jim Boelrijk, Bob W.J. Pirok, Bernd Ensing, Céline Kattenberg
article en
6 citations

Abstract

Optimization algorithms play an important role in method development workflows for gradient elution liquid chromatography. Their effectiveness has not been evaluated for chromatographic method development using standardized comparisons across factors such as sample complexity, chromatographic response functions (CRFs), gradient complexity, and application type. This study compares six optimization algorithms - Bayesian optimization (BO), differential evolution (DE), a genetic algorithm (GA), covariance-matrix adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES), random search, and grid search - for the development of gradient elution LC methods. Utilizing a multi-linear retention modeling framework, these algorithms were assessed across diverse samples, CRFs, and gradient segments, considering two observation modes: dry (in silico, deconvoluted), and wet (search-based, requiring peak detection). The optimization algorithms were evaluated based on their data (i.e. number of iterations) and time efficiency. Of the algorithms compared in this study, DE proved to be a highly competitive method for dry optimization purposes in terms of both data and time efficiency. BO outperformed all other algorithms in terms of data efficiency and was found to be most effective for search-based optimization, which requires a low number of iterations (<200). However, BO was found to be impractical for dry optimization requiring a large iteration budget due to its unfavorable computational scaling. It was observed that both the CRF and the sample have a strong influence on the efficiency of the algorithms, emphasizing the need for better benchmark samples and highlighting the importance of assessing CRF-induced complexity in the optimization landscape.

Journal of Chromatography AVol. 1742
Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (NL), Netherlands eScience Center (NL), Analytical Biosciences (China) (CN)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
1.28
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.