Comparison of Optimization Algorithms for Automated Method Development of Gradient Profiles

•A comparison was made between optimization algorithms for LC method development•The comparison was made over a range of CRFs, samples, and gradient program designs•Algorithms were compared in terms of data and time efficiency•Bayesian optimization was found to be powerful in terms of data efficienc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of Chromatography A 2024-12, Vol.1742, p.465626, Article 465626
Hauptverfasser: van Henten, Gerben B., Boelrijk, Jim, Kattenberg, Céline, Bos, Tijmen S., Ensing, Bernd, Forré, Patrick, Pirok, Bob W.J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•A comparison was made between optimization algorithms for LC method development•The comparison was made over a range of CRFs, samples, and gradient program designs•Algorithms were compared in terms of data and time efficiency•Bayesian optimization was found to be powerful in terms of data efficiency•Differential evolution was found to be powerful in terms of time efficiency 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 (
ISSN:0021-9673
1873-3778
DOI:10.1016/j.chroma.2024.465626