Sign in

Linnéa Gyllingberg

@gyllingberg.bsky.social
480 followers 788 following 45 posts

Fulbright scholar and Wallenberg Postdoctoral fellow @uclamath | PhD in applied math from @uppsalauni | Interested in mathematical biology, collective behaviour and complex systems | linneagyllingberg.github.io

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Chaitanya Gokhale @gokhalecs.bsky.social · 01/10/2026
"Beyond Equations" started in Heidelberg today at @klaus-tschira-stiftung.de . Two days on what we value in #theoreticalbiology, how we verify models once AI makes them cheap, and how we teach it. With @wbarfuss.bsky.social @ArneTraulsen and @HeikeSiebert with an amazing group of people!
2213
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Will Ratcliff @wcratcliff.bsky.social · 28/09/2026
New paper out with @kaylastoy.bsky.social: academic.oup.com/evlett/advan...
812358
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Tessa Montague @tessamontague.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
I'm excited to share our new preprint: Generation of a transgenic cephalopod tinyurl.com/pc86jxz8 Cephalopods (cuttlefish, octopus & squid) are crazy critters that dynamically camouflage to their surroundings by changing the color, pattern, & texture of their skin, which they control w their brain.
13333118
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Kunal Jha @kjha02.bsky.social · 11/09/2026
Can self-interested, self-improving, self-replicating agents learn to cooperate? Our new paper, Tapes Together Strong, shows they can: when social behavior, computation, and reproduction share one energy budget, cooperation evolves from scratch. arxiv.org/abs/2609.10817 🧵
48418
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda @alejandrofabregastejeda.com · 08/09/2026
Interesting 📰 @theguardian.com by @samanthsubramanian.bsky.social on non-neural cognition: www.theguardian.com/news/ng-inte... Confronted with this polarizing debate, @philosobio.bsky.social & I wrote a balanced take on basal #cognition from an #evobio lens 👇 link.springer.com/article/10.1... #HPS
theguardian.com
‘This is dangerous’: slime moulds and the bitter debate over the nature of intelligence
The long read: Scientists are battling over whether supposedly simple organisms should be considered ‘intelligent’. The outcome could reshape our understanding of the natural world – and our own place...
45023
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Linnéa Gyllingberg @gyllingberg.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
What is the minimal machinery needed for complex, cognition-like behavior? With @lostintheswarm.bsky.social, we show how self-sustained calcium oscillations, diffusion, and mechanics may be enough to coordinate behavior across a single cell with no nervous system. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... 1/
310834
Linnéa Gyllingberg @gyllingberg.bsky.social · 19/05/2026
What is the minimal machinery needed for complex, cognition-like behavior? With @lostintheswarm.bsky.social, we show how self-sustained calcium oscillations, diffusion, and mechanics may be enough to coordinate behavior across a single cell with no nervous system. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6... 1/
310834
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
M.J. Crockett @mjcrockett.bsky.social · 02/05/2026
Last weekend I received the Troland Research Award from the @nationalacademies.org. I’m so grateful to the communities who made this work possible. It's strange to receive this award at a time when much of the work being recognized is not eligible for federal funding. My remarks 👇 and a 🧵>>
youtube.com
NAS 163rd Annual Meeting - Awards Ceremony
YouTube video by National Academy of Sciences
14476158
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Megan Wachspress @meganwachspress.bsky.social · 17/03/2026
More details and context about what being a woman math major in the early-2000s was like and why it was so damaging here: cooperativeoverlapping.substack.com/p/a-fuller-s...
cooperativeoverlapping.substack.com
A Fuller Statement About My Bluesky Posts
Let me paint a picture of what it was like to be a woman math major at the University of Chicago circa 2004.
401830327
Reposted by Linnéa Gyllingberg
Dr Abeba Birhane @abeba.blacksky.app · 07/06/2025
from a 2022 paper with @gyllingberg.bsky.social & @soccermatics.bsky.social The lost art of mathematical modelling www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...
We argue that currently, the universalist approach dominates and creation of new models, which is inherent to pluralism, is not sufficiently emphasised. This brings us to, in Sections 6 Machine learning cannot replace modelling, 7 Are hybrid models the answer?, a discussion of how mathematical biology has responded with the rise of machine learning. We argue that ML, which emphasises prediction (activity 3), is ill-prepared to deal with complexity without incorporating some form of mechanistic model building. But we also, more controversially for those working in mathematical biology, emphasise how some of the responses to the rise of ML have fallen into the trap of making models of models (or fitting models to data generated by models) rather than innovating by creating new models of biology itself.
We conclude that mathematical biology needs less unification and less analysis of existing models, and more creativity and more creation of new models. We should be creative without fear of them being wrong or producing ideas that are mathematically intractable, with an aim of providing a multitude of tools for better understanding of biological systems.Instead, the radical definition of complex systems comes from, what is known as, critical complexity. Work by Paul Cilliers and Alicia Juarrero warned against aggrandising models (even supposedly complex systems models) [3], [4]. They emphasise the need to embrace the ambiguous, messy, fluid, non-determinable, contextual, and historical nature of complex systems. They describe complex phenomena as unfinalizible and inexhaustible, which means that we can never capture any given biological system entirety with models [5]. Fig. 1, adapted from Di Paolo et al. (2018), captures the interdependence, fluidly and interactivity of agents and environments in a complex system [2]. Complex systems are open-ended, which means there is no uncontested way of telling whether what we have included in a model is crucial or what we have omitted as irrelevant is indeed so. Models can, according to the critical complexity approach, be contradictory: we can accept two incompatible predictions as both describing the same system.This approach views a model as a snapshot of a system and no single snapshot tells the whole story. For modelling the human body, for example, “a portrait of a person, a store mannequin, and a pig can all be models” [6]. None is a perfect representation, but each can be the best model for a human, depending on whether one wants to remember an old friend, to buy clothes, or to study anatomy. The critical complexity view suggests that theoreticians should avoid specialising in any one modelling approach and try to find the right set of models to understand a particular system in a given context.
There can, of course, be more than one definition of complex systems. Indeed, Cilliers and Juarrero’s approach to complexity encourages a plurality of definitions (after all, there is no single view of a system). We would, though, emphasise that it is the radical definition of complexity – in which systems always resist a complete description, are open and unfinalizable – which is least well understood by mathematical biologists today. It is therefore important to investigate how complexity should be approached in the study of biological systems.
15613