The Secrets to the Success of the Rush–Larsen Method and its Generalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most popular methods for solving the ordinary differential equations (ODEs) that describe the dynamic behavior of myocardial cell models is known as the Rush-Larsen (RL) method. Its popularity stems from its improved stability over integrators such as the forward Euler (FE) method along with its easy implementation. The RL method partitions the ODEs into two sets: one for the gating variables, which are treated by an exponential integrator, and another for the remaining equations, which are treated by the FE method. The success of the RL method can be understood in terms of its relatively good stability when treating the gating variables. However, this feature would not be expected to be of benefit on cell models for which the stiffness is not captured by the gating equations. We demonstrate that this is indeed the case on a number of stiff cell models. We further propose a new partitioned method based on the combination of a first-order generalization of the RL method with the FE method. This new method leads to simulations of stiff cell models that are often one or two orders of magnitude faster than the original RL method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".