Comparison of optimization algorithms for automated method development of gradient profiles

IF 3.8 2区 化学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Gerben B. van Henten , Jim Boelrijk , Céline Kattenberg , Tijmen S. Bos , Bernd Ensing , Patrick Forré , Bob W.J. Pirok
{"title":"Comparison of optimization algorithms for automated method development of gradient profiles","authors":"Gerben B. van Henten ,&nbsp;Jim Boelrijk ,&nbsp;Céline Kattenberg ,&nbsp;Tijmen S. Bos ,&nbsp;Bernd Ensing ,&nbsp;Patrick Forré ,&nbsp;Bob W.J. Pirok","doi":"10.1016/j.chroma.2024.465626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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 (<em>in silico,</em> 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 (&lt;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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":347,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chromatography A","volume":"1742 ","pages":"Article 465626"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chromatography A","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967324009993","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
梯度剖面自动方法开发的优化算法比较。
优化算法在梯度洗脱液相色谱的方法开发工作流程中起着重要作用。在色谱方法开发方面,它们的有效性尚未通过标准化比较(如样品复杂性、色谱响应函数(CRFs)、梯度复杂性和应用类型)进行评估。本研究比较了贝叶斯优化(BO)、差分进化(DE)、遗传算法(GA)、协方差矩阵自适应进化策略(CMA-ES)、随机搜索和网格搜索等六种优化算法在梯度洗脱LC方法开发中的应用。利用多线性保留建模框架,这些算法在不同的样本、crf和梯度段上进行了评估,考虑了两种观察模式:干模式(在硅中,反卷积)和湿模式(基于搜索,需要峰检测)。根据优化算法的数据(即迭代次数)和时间效率对优化算法进行评估。在本研究中比较的算法中,DE被证明在数据效率和时间效率方面都是一种非常有竞争力的干优化方法。在数据效率方面,BO优于所有其他算法,并且对于需要较少迭代次数的基于搜索的优化最有效(
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Chromatography A
Journal of Chromatography A 化学-分析化学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
14.60%
发文量
742
审稿时长
45 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Chromatography A provides a forum for the publication of original research and critical reviews on all aspects of fundamental and applied separation science. The scope of the journal includes chromatography and related techniques, electromigration techniques (e.g. electrophoresis, electrochromatography), hyphenated and other multi-dimensional techniques, sample preparation, and detection methods such as mass spectrometry. Contributions consist mainly of research papers dealing with the theory of separation methods, instrumental developments and analytical and preparative applications of general interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信