Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

ChromOps.jl: High-order simulation and discrete forward sensitivity analysis for chromatography models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read ChromOps.jl differentiates the full discrete chromatography solver with dual numbers, giving gradients of user-defined outputs at about 1.4 forward solves per parameter.

desk verdict Solid niche contribution with a real reproducibility gap: the work-precision results are believable, but the headline gradient claim is only checked against itself and the code is not public. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06131 v1 pith:G4QDRWU4 submitted 2026-08-06 math.NA cs.NA

Kristian Meyer , Maksym Ratajczyk , Christopher Rackauckas This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.NA MSC 65M6065M0665L05
keywords chromatographyion-exchangediscreteforwardsensitivityanalysisautomaticdifferentiationdualnumbersdiscontinuousGalerkinspectralelementmethodfinitedifferencesummation-by-partsstericmassactionisotherm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces ChromOps.jl, a chromatography simulator in which the same code path executes both ordinary forward solves and dual-valued solves that carry parameter derivatives. The central claim is that discrete forward sensitivity analysis through that single code path yields gradients of arbitrary user-defined outputs, such as yield or pool purity, at about 1.4 forward-solve equivalents per parameter, for up to $N_p = 24$ parameters propagated together. On a six-component ion-exchange benchmark with steric mass-action kinetics, the authors show that a finite-difference summation-by-parts discretization reaches a given accuracy faster than a discontinuous Galerkin spectral element discretization, in both primal and derivative-carrying runs. If correct, this makes gradient-based parameter estimation and optimization practical for chromatography users who currently have to derive chain-rule code by hand.

What carries the argument

Forward-mode automatic differentiation over the discretized initial-value problem carries the argument: dual numbers with nilpotent perturbations are propagated through the semi-discrete right-hand side, the implicit QNDF integrator's Newton iterations, the coloured sparse Jacobian evaluation, and the KLU sparse linear solves, so primal and dual-valued computations follow literally the same code path. The parameter count enters through the chunk size of the perturbation tuple, and the cost per additional parameter stays near one extra partial because the compiler unrolls the dual arithmetic. A supporting ingredient is the finite-difference summation-by-parts (FD-SBP) operator, whose energy stability and lack of duplicated interface nodes give it a work-precision advantage over the discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method in the reported benchmark.

What would settle it

Run the six-component ion-exchange case with $N_p = 24$ parameters and compare the DFSA gradients against a central finite-difference reference at several elution times, while recording wall-clock time as $N_p$ is swept. If the gradients disagree beyond a user-defined tolerance, or if the measured time departs from roughly $1.4(1+N_p)$ forward-solve equivalents, the paper's central scaling-and-accuracy claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Discrete forward sensitivity analysis is done by seeding each parameter with its own nilpotent direction and propagating multi-dimensional dual numbers $\hat{x} = x + \sum_k x'_k \varepsilon_k$, with $\varepsilon_j \varepsilon_k = 0$, through every operation of the discretized solver, including Newton iterations, coloured sparse Jacobian assembly, and sparse LU factorizations. Because the dual-valued solve shares the same implementation as the primal solve, the derivative of any scalar output with respect to any seeded parameter falls out of the solve itself at machine precision, in the sense of the first-order Taylor truncation, without user-written sensitivity equations. On the 6-component ion-exchange column with steric mass-action kinetics, the paper reports that propagating $N_p$ parameters costs about $1.4(1+N_p)$ forward solves, and that the FD-SBP spatial discretization outperforms DG-SEM at matched accuracy on both primal and 8-parameter dual-valued problems.

Load-bearing premise

The scaling claim rests on dual-number propagation through the implicit integrator's Newton iterations and sparse linear algebra costing about the same per step as the primal solve; if that overhead grows with parameter count or problem size, the $t_{\mathrm{DFSA}} \approx 1.4(1+N_p)t_{\mathrm{fwd}}$ rule fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can differentiate arbitrary objectives (yield, pool purity, outlet optical density) directly, with no hand-derived chain-rule code.
  • Gradient-based parameter estimation loops cost about 1.4 forward solves per additional parameter, so the derivative computation no longer dominates the optimization budget.
  • FD-SBP emerges as a competitive, conceptually simpler spatial discretization for production chromatography simulation on this class of problems.
  • The number of derivative directions per pass can be tuned; one wide pass is usually cheapest, but narrower passes win at 14–16 and 22–24 parameters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: the reported sensitivities are of the discrete solver path, including its fixed step-size choices; differentiating the step-size selection itself would produce continuous sensitivities and different gradient values, a distinction users should keep in mind.
  • Inference: if the $1.4(1+N_p)$ scaling holds at larger state vectors and parameter counts, the same single-code-path design should extend to general-rate-model columns and coupled column networks.
  • Inference: the discretization comparison is benchmark-specific; the FD-SBP advantage on this 6-component SMA problem is a work-precision observation, not a theorem that FD-SBP dominates DG-SEM in all chromatography models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents ChromOps.jl, a Julia framework for simulating lumped-rate chromatography models with two high-order spatial discretizations: finite difference summation-by-parts (FD-SBP) and discontinuous Galerkin spectral element (DG-SEM). The manuscript verifies both discretizations on manufactured problems, benchmarks them on a 6-component ion-exchange problem with steric mass action kinetics, and demonstrates discrete forward sensitivity analysis (DFSA) via ForwardDiff.jl dual numbers, claiming a cost of roughly 1.4 forward solves per parameter for up to 24 parameters and accurate gradients without hand-derived chain-rule code. The central claims are that FD-SBP outperforms DG-SEM at matched accuracy and that the single-code-path DFSA approach provides fast, accurate gradients for user-defined outputs.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the framework would make gradient-based parameter estimation and optimization substantially more accessible for industrial chromatography, and the reported DFSA scaling is attractive. The manuscript has notable strengths: convergence rates are checked against external theory (Hesthaven-Warburton; Mattsson-Nordström), the reference solution for the benchmark is supported by mesh-halving and a method-neutral FD-SBP cross-check, and the paper provides per-operation cost decompositions and a broad comparison of linear solvers and ODE integrators. However, the accuracy of the DFSA gradients is not validated against any independent derivative, which is a load-bearing gap for the paper's main claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.4, Eq. (42)] The only quantitative accuracy check for the DFSA is the RMS-error∂ metric in Eq. (42), whose reference ∂ODref_sum is produced by the same ForwardDiff-based dual-number machinery on a more resolved mesh. This metric can detect spatial non-convergence of the sensitivities, but it cannot detect a systematic error in the dual propagation through, for example, the QNDF Newton iterations, the adaptive step-size controller, or the sparse linear solve; the additional FD-SBP cross-check establishes only method neutrality, not correctness of the AD. The abstract's claim that ChromOps.jl provides accurate gradients is therefore not substantiated. Please add an independent validation: finite differences of the discrete solver on a fixed mesh, a hand-derived chain rule for a small parameter set, or a comparison with an established continuous forward sensitivity method for the same model.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (22)] The paper states that dual-number evaluation is 'exact (to machine precision)' because of the nilpotent condition ε²=0. That exactness holds for a single evaluation of a differentiable arithmetic expression; in a full implicit solve, the dual components are propagated through Newton iterations stopped by tolerances and through an adaptive step-size controller in QNDF, so the computed gradient is the derivative of the discrete algorithm only up to integrator tolerances. The manuscript should state precisely what object is differentiated, for example the discrete solver with the accepted step sequence held fixed, and verify the practical accuracy of that object rather than implying machine-precision gradients for the PDE solution.
  3. [§4.2.4, Figure 9] The headline scaling law t_DFSA ≈ 1.4(1+Np)t_fwd rests on a fitted constant k≈1.4 obtained from a single machine, a single problem, and a single spatial configuration, with no measure of variability. The staircase in Figure 9 and the two reported exceptions (Np = 14–16 and Np = 22–24) show that the per-parameter cost is not uniformly 1.4 across the sweep. Please report repeat variability or reframe the statement as an observed estimate for this benchmark rather than a general scaling law.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 4] The entries '105' for keq,A and keq,B are ambiguous; they should be typeset as 10^5 to avoid confusion with the surrounding values written with explicit exponents.
  2. [Figure 9] The dashed line in Figure 9 is labeled 1.37 · t_fwd · (1 + n_params), while the text reports k ≈ 1.4; align these values.
  3. [Eqs. (41)-(42)] Equations (41) and (42) contain corrupted radical notation ('/radicaltp/radicalvertex/radicalvertex√') in the manuscript text; please repair the LaTeX or rendering.
  4. [Tables 6-7] The 'Other' cost category is large, reaching 23% in the primal sweep and 30–55% in the dual sweep; a sentence identifying the dominant contributions within 'Other' would make the decomposition more informative.
  5. [Software availability] No repository link or code availability statement is provided. Since the paper's contribution is a software framework described as an 'inner-source' project, a public artifact or a clear availability statement is important for reproducibility.
  6. [Table 6 caption] The caption runs two sentences together: 'The FD-SBP interior order is l = 2r Figure 6 shows the total wall-clock time.' Please insert punctuation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No substantive circularity: DFSA reduces to standard forward-mode chain-rule AD, and the only self-referential element is a sensitivity verification metric rather than a load-bearing derivation step.

full rationale

The derivation of DFSA in Section 3.3 is self-contained: Equations (22) and (23) state the dual-number Taylor expansion and the multi-direction perturbation rule, and the claim that propagating dual numbers through the shared primal/dual code path yields sensitivities is a direct consequence of the chain rule for the discrete solver. The manufactured-problem tests in Tables 1 and 2 verify the primal spatial operators against external analytical solutions (sine advection and heat equation), so the convergence results are not fitted to the paper's own outputs. The DFSA scaling tDFSA ≈ 1.4(1+Np)tfwd is an empirical description of the authors' wall-clock measurements in Figure 9, not a parameter fitted to data and then relabeled as a prediction. The only self-referential element is the sensitivity accuracy metric RMS-error∂ in Equation (42), whose reference ∂ODref is itself produced by the same dual-number machinery on a finer mesh; this checks mesh-convergence of the same method and would not detect a systematic error common to both meshes, and it is not supplemented by an independent finite-difference or analytic gradient check. That is a verification gap and a correctness risk, but not a circular derivation, because the method's output is not constructed from the reference solution and the accuracy claim also rests on the independent mathematical correctness of forward-mode AD. Self-citations such as Ma et al. (2021) and Rackauckas and Nie (2017) are background or software references and are not load-bearing for the paper's central numerical results.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard lumped-rate/SMA chromatography model, standard numerical analysis of SBP and DG methods, an assumption that forward-mode AD remains exact and cheap through an implicit solver, and an assumption that one in-house benchmark is representative. One empirical constant, the DFSA scaling factor k approx 1.4, is fitted to the measured timings. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • DFSA scaling constant k = approx 1.4
    Fit to wall-clock times in Figure 9 via the model t_DFSA = k(1+Np)t_fwd. The paper reports no fit uncertainty, and the curve visibly deviates piecewise due to chunk-pass effects.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The lumped-rate model with SMA isotherm (Eqs. 1-5, 10) adequately describes the industrial ion-exchange process.
    All benchmark conclusions are drawn from this model; validity against experimental chromatograms is not tested in the paper.
  • standard math The theoretical convergence properties of FD-SBP and DG-SEM, and the BR1 lifting approach, hold in the implemented form.
    The paper relies on Mattsson-Nordstrom, Svard-Nordstrom, and Hesthaven-Warburton theory for the expected rates used in Section 4.1.
  • domain assumption Forward-mode automatic differentiation via dual numbers through the full implicit time integrator yields the derivative of the discrete solver output.
    Section 3.3 states the dual-number construction, but sensitivity correctness is not checked against independent finite differences or analytic derivatives.
  • domain assumption The single in-house Novo Nordisk parameter set is representative enough to support the FD-SBP versus DG-SEM ranking and the DFSA scaling conclusions.
    Section 4.2 uses one benchmark problem; no parameter sweeps or multiple test cases are provided to test generalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ChromOps.jl: High-order simulation and discrete forward sensitivity analysis for chromatography models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G4QDRWU4

@misc{pith2026260806131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ChromOps.jl: High-order simulation and discrete forward sensitivity analysis for chromatography models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G4QDRWU4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06131}
}
read the original abstract

Mechanistic chromatography models are valuable for process development, but gradient-based parameter estimation and optimization can be hindered by computational cost and the effort of deriving objective-function gradients. To address this concern, a fully differentiable Julia chromatography solver, ChromOps.jl, is presented that combines high-order spatial discretization with discrete forward sensitivity analysis (DFSA). Two high-order spatial discretizations, finite difference summation-by-parts (FD-SBP) and the discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method (DG-SEM), are compared on a 6-component ion-exchange chromatography problem with steric mass action kinetics. Both attain their theoretical convergence rates on manufactured problems, while FD-SBP shows favourable work-precision performance for both forward (primal) and dual-valued simulations and is conceptually simpler to implement. DFSA scales as tDFSA approx 1.4(1+Np)tfwd for up to Np = 24 parameters propagated in a single ForwardDiff.jl chunk, i.e. about 1.4 forward solves per additional parameter. Because the primal and dual-valued solves share the same code path, DFSA provides accurate gradients of user-defined objectives without any hand-derived chain-rule code, enabling accessible gradient-based parameter estimation and optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simulated chromatogram for the 6-component IEX problem. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Wall-clock time comparison for right-hand-side evaluation using primal (Float64) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Wall-clock time comparison for sparse Jacobian evaluation using primal (Float64) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sparsity pattern of the single-component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Wall-clock time comparison for linear solver refactorization using primal (Float64) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Primal work-precision comparison between DG-SEM and FD-SBP implementations. See [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Work-precision benchmark for ODE integrators at fixed spatial discretization (FD-SBP, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scaled parameter sensitivities for the 6-component ion-exchange problem. The corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: DFSA cost vs propagated parameters Np for fixed ForwardDiff.jl chunk widths Nchunk ∈ {1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24}. Dashed line: single chunk estimator k tfwd(1+Np), with tfwd the forward simulation time. These widths are chosen so that they divide 24 evenly. For 256-bit SIMD w…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dual-valued work-precision comparison between DG-SEM and FD-SBP implementations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    LLVM: A compilation framework for lifelong program analysis & transformation, in: International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization (CGO ’04), IEEE. pp. 75–86. URL:https://doi.org/10.1109/CGO.2004.1281665. 23 Leweke, S., von Lieres, E.,

    arXiv 2004

  2. [18]

    A fast and accurate solver for the general rate model of column liquid chromatography. Comput. Chem. Eng. 34, 1180–1191. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compchemeng.2010.03.008. Ma, Y., Dixit, V., Innes, M., Guo, X., Rackauckas, C.,

    work page 2010

  3. [20]

    Summation by parts operators for finite difference approximations of second derivatives. J. Comput. Phys. 199, 503–540. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp. 2004.03.001. Meyer, K., Huusom, J.K., Abildskov, J.,

    doi:10.1016/j.jcp 2004

  4. [21]

    High-order approximation of chromatographic models using a nodal discontinuous Galerkin approach. Comput. Chem. Eng. 109, 68–76. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.10.023. Meyer, K., Ibsen, M.S., Vetter-Joss, L., Hansen, E.B., Abildskov, J.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2017.10.023 2017

  5. [22]

    Industrial ion-exchange chromatography development using discontinuous Galerkin methods coupled with forward sen- sitivity analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 1689, 463741. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma. 2022.463741. Meyer, K., Leweke, S., von Lieres, E., Huusom, J.K., Abildskov, J.,

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [24]

    Revisiting Sparse Matrix Coloring and Bicoloring

    Revisiting sparse matrix coloring and bicoloring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.07308 URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07308. Morbidelli, M., Servida, A., Storti, G., Carra, S.,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [27]

    Utilizing algorithmic differentiation to efficiently compute chromatograms and parameter sensitivities. Chem. Eng. Sci. 139, 152–162. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2015.08.050. Püttmann, A., Schnittert, S., Naumann, U., von Lieres, E.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ces.2015.08.050 2015

  8. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07892 URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07892

    Forward-mode automatic differentiation in Julia. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.07892 URL:https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07892. Rischawy, F., Saleh, D., Hahn, T., Oelmeier, S., Spitz, J., Kluters, S.,

    arXiv

Show all 35 references
  1. [31]

    Good modeling practice for industrial chromatography: Mechanistic modeling of ion exchange chromatography of a bispecific antibody. Comput. Chem. Eng. 130, 106532. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compchemeng.2019.106532. Schenk, O., Gärtner, K.,

    2019

  2. [32]

    Future Gener

    Solving unsymmetric sparse systems of linear equations with pardiso. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 20, 475–487. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2003. 07.011. Schenk, O., Gärtner, K.,

    2003 doi

  3. [33]

    A purely hyperbolic discontinuous Galerkin approach for self-gravitating gas dynamics. J. Comput. Phys. 442, 110467. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2021.110467. Svärd, M., Nordström, J.,

    2021

  4. [35]

    Review of summation-by-parts schemes for initial–boundary-value problems. J. Comput. Phys. 268, 17–38. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2014.02.031. 25

    2014 doi

  5. [77]

    Revels, J., Lubin, M., Papamarkou, T.,

    URL:https://doi.org/10.21105/jcon.00077. Revels, J., Lubin, M., Papamarkou, T.,

    doi

  6. [1953]

    Distribution of residence times

    Continuous flow systems. Distribution of residence times. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2, 1–13. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2509(53)80001-1. Davis, T.A.,

    doi

  7. [1982]

    model analysis and numerical solution

    Simulation of multicomponent adsorption beds. model analysis and numerical solution. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 21, 123–131. URL: https://doi.org/10.1021/i100006a005. Nicoud, R.M.,

    doi

  8. [1990]

    ACM Trans

    A set of level 3 basic linear algebra subprograms. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 16, 1–17. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/77626. 79170. Frandsen, J., Breuer, J.M., Schmölder, J., Huusom, J.K., Gernaey, K.V., Abildskov, J., von Lieres, E.,

    doi

  9. [1992]

    Steric mass-action ion exchange: Displacement profiles and in- duced salt gradients. AIChE J. 38, 1969–1978. URL:https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690381212. 22 Chen, J., Revels, J.,

    1969 doi

  10. [1997]

    A high-order accurate discontinuous finite element method for the numerical solution of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. J. Comput. Phys. 131, 267–279. URL:https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1996.5572. Benner, S.W., Welsh, J.P., Rauscher, M.A., Pollard, J.M.,

    1996

  11. [2004]

    ACM Trans

    Algorithm 832: Umfpack v4.3—an unsymmetric-pattern multifrontal method. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 30, 196–199. URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/992200.992206. Davis, T.A., Natarajan, E.P.,

  12. [2005]

    ACM Trans

    SUNDIALS: Suite of nonlinear and differential/algebraic equation solvers. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 31, 363–396. URL:https://doi.org/10.1145/1089014.1089020. Kobl, K., Nicoud, L., Nicoud, E., Watson, A., Andrews, J., Wilkinson, E.A., Shahid, M., McKay, C., Andrews, B.I., Omer, B...

  13. [2006]

    On the order of accuracy for difference approximations of initial- boundary value problems. J. Comput. Phys. 218, 333–352. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcp.2006.02.014. Svärd, M., Nordström, J.,

    2006 doi

  14. [2008]

    Texts in Applied Mathematics, Springer, New York, NY

    Nodal Discontinuous Galerkin Methods: Algorithms, Analysis, and Applications. Texts in Applied Mathematics, Springer, New York, NY. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72067-8. Hindmarsh, A.C., Brown, P.N., Grant, K.E., Lee, S.L., Serban, R., Shumaker, D.E., Woodward, C.S.,

    doi

  15. [2010]

    ACM Trans

    Algorithm 907: KLU, a direct sparse solver for circuit simulation problems. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 37, 1–17. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/1824801. 1824814. Dongarra, J.J., Du Croz, J., Hammarling, S., Duff, I.S.,

    doi

  16. [2013]

    Fast and accurate parameter sensitivities for the general rate model of column liquid chromatography. Comput. Chem. Eng. 56, 46–57. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2013.04.021. Rackauckas, C., Nie, Q.,

    2013 doi

  17. [2014]

    Adjoint-based estimation and optimization for column liquid chromatography models. Comput. Chem. Eng. 64, 41–54. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2014.01.013. Hesthaven, J.S., Warburton, T.,

    2014 doi

  18. [2015]

    Cambridge Series in Chemical Engineering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Chromatographic Processes: Modeling, Simulation, and Design. Cambridge Series in Chemical Engineering, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. URL:https: //doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139998284. Püttmann, A., Schnittert, S., Leweke, S., von Lieres, E.,

    doi

  19. [2016]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.04295 URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608.04295

    Robust benchmarking in noisy environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.04295 URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608.04295. Danckwerts, P.V.,

    doi arXiv

  20. [2017]

    SIAM Rev

    Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Rev. 59, 65–98. URL:https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671. Breuer, J.M., Leweke, S., Schmölder, J., Gassner, G., von Lieres, E.,

    doi

  21. [2018]

    Chromatography analysis and design toolkit (CADET). Comput. Chem. Eng. 113, 274–294. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2018.02.025. von Lieres, E., Andersson, J.,

    2018 doi

  22. [2019]

    Prediction of lab and manufacturing scale chromatography performance using mini-columns and mechanistic modeling. J. Chromatogr. A 1593, 54–62. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2019.01.063. Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., Shah, V.B.,

    2019 doi

  23. [2020]

    ChromaTech: A discontinuous Galerkin spectral element simulator for preparative liquid chromatography. Comput. Chem. Eng. 141, 107012. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2020.107012. Montoison, A., Dalle, G., Gebremedhin, A.,

    2020

  24. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01892 URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.01892

    A comparison of automatic differentia- tion and continuous sensitivity analysis for derivatives of differential equation solutions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01892 URL:https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1812.01892. Mattsson, K., Nordström, J.,

    doi arXiv

  25. [2023]

    Spatial discontinuous Galerkin spectral element method for a family of chromatography models in CADET. Comput. Chem. Eng. 177, 108340. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2023.108340. Brooks, C.A., Cramer, S.M.,

    2023

  26. [2024]

    Oligonucleotide purification by ion exchange chromatography: A step-by-step guide to process understanding, modeling, and simulation. Org. Process Res. Dev. 28, 2569–2589. URL: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.oprd.4c00013. Kumar, V., Lenhoff, A.M.,

    doi

  27. [2025]

    CADET-Julia: Efficient and versatile, open-source simulator for batch chromatography in julia. Comput. Chem. Eng. 192, 108913. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng. 2024.108913. George, A., Liu, J.W.,

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.