Simplex advantages

A problem with the simplex-guided experiment (right panel) is that it does not take advantage of the natural factor levels, e.g., molar ratios of 1 0.5, 1 1, 1 2, but would prescribe seemingly arbitrary factor combinations, even such ones that would chemically make no sense, but the optimum is rapidly approached. If the system can be modeled, simulation might help. The dashed lines indicate ridges on the complex response surface. The two figures are schematic. 

Purpose To determine, from eight initial experiments performed under certain conditions, whether the three controlled parameters have an effect on the measurement, and which model is to be used. This factorial approach to optimization is an alternative to the use of multidimensional simplex algorithms it has the advantage of remaining transparent to the user. 

The selection to minimize absolute error [Eq. (6)] calls for optimization algorithms different from those of the standard least-squares problem. Both problems have simple and extensively documented solutions. A slight advantage of the LP solution is that it does not need to be solved for the points for which the approximation error is less than the selected error threshold. In contrast, the least squares problem has to be solved with every newly acquired piece of data. The LP problem can effectively be solved with the dual simplex algorithm, which allows the solution to proceed recursively with the gradual introduction of constraints corresponding to the new data points. 

Multivariate chemometric techniques have subsequently broadened the arsenal of tools that can be applied in QSAR. These include, among others. Multivariate ANOVA [9], Simplex optimization (Section 26.2.2), cluster analysis (Chapter 30) and various factor analytic methods such as principal components analysis (Chapter 31), discriminant analysis (Section 33.2.2) and canonical correlation analysis (Section 35.3). An advantage of multivariate methods is that they can be applied in... 

Presenting these various problems does not imply that they cannot be solved. Rather, it indicates that more work will be required before we have an adequate theory of factorization that is based on the symmetry of the simplex. It is a matter of individual judgment whether the advantages to be gained in pursuing this objective warrant the effort, or whether we should adopt another approach. This alternative scheme (Sect. IV), which primarily factors stereoisomerism rather than chirality, avoids ambiguity without recourse to a factorization rule, requires no symmetrization by the equalization of ligands, and is not restricted to the simplex. 

The three methods described in the preceding paragraphs each offer distinct advantages and disadvantages. The first and most obvious difference between the methods is the distinction between the sequential methods (sequential simplex and prisma method) and the simultaneous method (mixture design). With the sequential method some experiments are performed, these are evaluated, and on the basis of this evaluation new design points are selected, these are evaluated etc. With the simultaneous... 

The simplex algorithm (refs.7-8) is a way of organizing the above procedure much more efficiently. Starting with a feasible basic solution the procedure will move into another basic solution which is feasible, and the objective function will not decrease in any step. These advantages are due to the clever choice of the pivots. 

Simplex has been used in analytical method development. Its advantages are that the response should improve with each round of experiments, allowing the experimenter to decide when to discontinue the experiments there are no arbitrary relations involved in the choice of the model equation and the methodology used to select the next point can easily be implemented in a spreadsheet. Disadvantages are that the Simplex method is an open-ended procedure, for which the number of experiments depends on... 

Details on the simplex algorithm are available elsewhere (33,34,47-50). The advantages and disadvantages of the simplex method pertinent to chromatographic applications are summarized in Table II. 

The constrained optimization procedure, originally developed from the simplex method and first described by Box, is ideally suited to model refinement (.8). It is a search method that searches for the minimum of a multidimensional function within given intervals. It possesses all the advantages of search methods, among them that calculation of derivatives is not necessary, a test to assure the independence of variables can be omitted, and diverse variables can be easily included. These are exactly the requirements of model refinement where bond lengths, bond angles, torsion angles, and other parameters are used within experimentally defined limits. 

Movement to optimum by a simplex method is done step by step and by comparing obtained response values, whereby a single response value is determined in each step. These properties of simplex design are considered its important advantage ... 

Because the initial parameters are taken very close to the edges of the parameter space, the Simplex necessarily contracts immediately. It typically approaches the optimum area quickly, but spends much time locating its final optimum around a composition of 50% water, 20% methanol and (hence) 30% acetonitrile. The advantage of this is that most measurements are obtained in the location of the optimum. This could also turn into a disadvantage, because it implies that little information is obtained about the rest of the response surface, so that no idea can be formed about the merits of the located local optimum with respect to other optima. 

An important advantage of the Simplex method is that it does not rely on any chromatographic model and does not require any chromatographic insight. This implies that a Simplex optimization program can be applied to LSC as well as to RPLC without any modifications [506]. This is not true for many other methods as will be discussed in section 5.5.1. 

The Simplex procedure has some important advantages over other methods ... 

Note that the standard errors in the rate constants (kx = 2.996 0.005 x 10-3 s 1 and 2 = 1.501 0.002 x 10 3 s ) are delivered in addition to the standard deviation (<7y = 9.991 x 10 3) in Y. The ability to directly estimate errors in the calculated parameters is a distinct advantage of the NGL/M fitting procedure. Furthermore, even for this relatively simple example, the computation times are already faster than using a simplex by a factor of five. This difference dramatically increases with increasing complexity of the kinetic model. 

---