The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is awash in data, including daily, spatially-resolved COVID case data, virus sequence data, patients `omics data, and mobility data. Journals are now also awash in studies that make use of quantitative modeling approaches to gain insight into the geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its temporal dynamics, as well as studies that predict the impact of control strategies on SARS-CoV-2 circulation. Some, but by no means all, of these studies are informed by the massive amounts of available data. Some, but by no means all, of these studies have been useful — in that their predictions revealed something beyond simple back of the envelope calculations. To summarize some of these findings, in this symposium, we will address questions such as: What do we want from models of disease spread? What can and should be predicted? Which data are the most useful for predictions? When do we need mechanistic models? What have we learned about how to model disease spread from unmet and/or conflicting predictions? The workshop speakers will explore these questions from different perspectives on what data need to be considered and how models can be evaluated. As at other TMLS workshops, each speaker will deliver a 10-minute talk with ample time set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be provocative and bold, while respecting different perspectives.

When was the last time you ran into a giant? Chances are never. Almost 100 years ago, JBS Haldane posed an outwardly simple yet complex question – what is the most optimal size (for a biological system)? The living world around us contains a huge diversity of organisms, each with its own characteristic size. Even the size of subcellular organelles is tightly controlled. In absence of physical rulers, how do cells and organisms truly “know” how large is large enough? What are the mechanisms in place to enforce size control? Many of these questions have motivated generations of scientists to look for physical principles underlying size control in biological systems. In the next edition of Emory's Theory and Modeling of Living Systems (TMLS) workshop series, our panel of speakers will take a close look at these questions, across the entire scale - from the molecular, all the way to the ecosystem.

Many of us came to biology from physics. There we have been trained on such classic examples as muon g-2, where experimental data and theoretical predictions agree to many significant digits. Now, working in biology, we routinely hear that it is messy, most details matter, and that the best hope for theory in biology is to be semi-qualitative, predict general trends, and to forgo the hope of ever making quantitative predictions with the precision that we are used to in physics. Colloquially, we should be satisfied even if data and models differ so much that plotting them on the same plot makes little sense. However, some of us won’t be satisfied by this. So can we take theory in biology seriously and predict experimental outcomes within (small) error bars? Certainly, we won’t be able to predict everything, but this is never required, even in traditional physics. But we should be able to choose some features of data that are nontrivial and interesting, and focus on them. We also should be able to find different classes of models --- maybe even null models --- that match biology better, and thus allow for a better agreement. It is even possible that large-dimensional datasets of modern high-throughput experiments, and the ensuing “more is different” statistical physics style models will make quantitative, precise theory easier. To explore the role of quantitative theory in biology, in this workshop, eight speakers will address some of the following general questions based on their specific work in different corners of biology: Which features of biological data are predictable? Which types of models are best suited to making quantitative predictions in different fields? Should theorists interested in quantitative predictions focus on different questions, not typically asked by biologists? Do large, multidimensional datasets make theories (and which theories?) more or less likely to succeed? This will be an unapologetically theoretical physics workshop — we won’t focus on a specific subfield of biology, but will explore these questions across the fields, hoping that the underlying theoretical frameworks will help us find the missing connections.

The “soft, active, and living matter” community has grown tremendously in recent years, conducting exciting research at the interface between soft matter and biological systems. But are all living systems also soft matter systems? Do the ideas of function (or purpose) in biological systems require us to introduce deep new ideas into the framework of soft matter theories? Does the (often) qualitatively different character of data in biological experiments require us to change the types of experiments we conduct and the goals of our theoretical treatments? Eight speakers will anchor the workshop, exploring these questions across a range of biological system scales. Each speaker will deliver a 10-minute talk with another 10 minutes set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be broad, bold, and provocative, discussing both the nature of the theoretical tools and experimental techniques we have at present and also those we think we will ultimately need to answer deep questions at the interface of soft matter and biology.

There has been a surge of publications on using machine learning (ML) on experimental data from physical systems: social, biological, statistical, and quantum. However, can these methods discover fundamentally new physics? It can be that their biggest impact is in better data preprocessing, while inferring new physics is unrealistic without specifically adapting the learning machine to find what we are looking for — that is, without the “intuition” — and hence without having a good a priori guess about what we will find. Is machine learning a useful tool for physics discovery? Which minimal knowledge should we endow the machines with to make them useful in such tasks? How do we do this? Eight speakers below will anchor the workshop, exploring these questions in contexts of diverse systems (from quantum to biological), and from general theoretical advances to specific applications. Each speaker will deliver a 10 min talk with another 10 minutes set aside for moderated questions/discussion. We expect the talks to be broad, bold, and provocative, discussing where the field is heading, and what is needed to get us there.

We will organize the workshop around one question: “Now that we can track (most) everything, what can we do with the data?” Given the recent dramatic advances in technology, we now have behavioral data sets with orders of magnitude more accuracy, dimensionality, diversity, and size than we had even a few years ago. That being said, there is still little agreement as to what theoretical frameworks can inform our understanding of these data sets and suggest new experiments we can perform. We hope that after this workshop we’ll see a variety of new ideas and perhaps gain some inspiration. We have invited eight speakers, each studying different systems, scales, and topics, to provide 10 minute presentations focused on the above question, with another 10 minutes set aside for questions/discussions (moderated by the two of us). Although we naturally expect speakers to include aspects of their own work, we have encouraged all of them to think broadly and provocatively. We are also hoping to organize some breakout sessions after the talks so that we can have some more expanded discussions about topics arising during the meeting.