Numerical instability of Hill-type muscle models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hill-type muscle models are highly preferred as phenomenological models for musculoskeletal simulation studies despite their introduction almost a century ago. The use of simple Hill-type models in simulations, instead of more recent cross-bridge models, is well justified since computationally 'light-weight'-although less accurate-Hill-type models have great value for large-scale simulations. However, this article aims to invite discussion on numerical instability issues of Hill-type muscle models in simulation studies, which can lead to computational failures and, therefore, cannot be simply dismissed as an inevitable but acceptable consequence of simplification. We will first revisit the basic premises and assumptions on the force-length and force-velocity relationships that Hill-type models are based upon, and their often overlooked but major theoretical limitations. We will then use several simple conceptual simulation studies to discuss how these numerical instability issues can manifest as practical computational problems. Lastly, we will review how such numerical instability issues are dealt with, mostly in an ad hoc fashion, in two main areas of application: musculoskeletal biomechanics and computer animation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".