Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Behavioral Interpretation of Resilience and Antifragility

1,699 views

Published on

In this presentation I discuss resilience and antifragility as behaviors resulting from the coupling of a system and its environment(s). Depending on the interactions between these two "ends" and on the quality of the individual behaviors that they may exercise, different strategies may be chosen: elasticity (change masking); entelechism (change tolerance); and antifragility (adapting to & learning from change). When the environment is very simple and only capable of so-called "random behavior", often the only effective strategy towards resilience is off-line dimensioning of redundancy as a result of a worst-case assessment of disturbances and/or threats. Much more complex and variegated is the case when both systems and environments are "intelligent" -- or at least able to exercise complex teleological and extrapolatory behaviors. In this case both system and ambient may choose among a variety of strategies in what could be regarded as a complex evolutionary game theory setting.

Published in: Science
  • Hello! Get Your Professional Job-Winning Resume Here - Check our website! https://vk.cc/818RFv
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • @Ali Anani, PhD Dear Ali, so kind of you to say so! Thanks again for your consideration. And once more many thanks for your great comment!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • The system can be opened, Which has outputs and inputs. Outputs are passages of mass, energy and nformation from the system in the neighborhood thereof. Inputs are inputs of mass, energy and formations from the surrounding system to system. The system also has its own internal states, which vary depending on the inputs and outputs. Closed (isolated) system has neither inputs nor outputs, but has its own internal condition, which can be static or dynamic. Closed system can be stable or unstable ...
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • @Vincenzo De Florio Dear Vincenzo Dear Vincenzo, I thank you warmly for you concise response. Yes, I understand better now that you meant the stabilizing feedback as those feebacks stabilizing the human body. SPot-on and again thanks for the clear response
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Dear Ali, thank you very much for your kind and wise words. In fact you are absolutely right -- in my slides I have not explained what I mean by feedback nor what type of feedback I refer to. Your very good question provides me with the opportunity to atone and add this important piece of information. I will answer through the eloquent words of Rosenblueth, Wiener, and Bigelow: 'The expression feed-back is used by engineers in two different senses. In a broad sense it may denote that some of the output energy of an apparatus or machine is returned as input; an example is an electrical amplifier with feed-back. The feed-back is in these cases positive — the fraction of the output which reenters the object has the same sign as the original input signal. Positive feed-back adds to the input signals, it does not correct them. The term feed-back is also employed in a more restricted sense to signify that the behavior of an object is controlled by the margin of error at which the object stands at a given time with reference to a relatively specific goal. The feed-back is then negative, that is, the signals from the goal are used to restrict outputs which would otherwise go beyond the goal. It is this second meaning of the term feed-back that is used here.' All my gratitude, dear Ali, for your insightful comment and for giving me the opportunity to add that missing piece!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

A Behavioral Interpretation of Resilience and Antifragility

  1. 1. A Behavioral Interpretation of Resilience and Antifragility Vincenzo De Florio / & vincenzo.deflorio@gmail.com This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0. Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  2. 2. ANTIFRAGILITY RESILIENCE Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  3. 3. BEHAVIOR RESILIENCE Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  4. 4. INTERPLAY b/w BEHAVIOR (SYSTEM, ENVIRONMENT) RESILIENCE Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 IDENTITY PRESERVING
  5. 5. Behavioristic approach • Rosenblueth, Wiener, & Bigelow, “Behavior, purpose and teleology”, Phi.Sci. 10 (1943!): • “Given any system relatively abstracted from its environment for study, the behavioristic approach consists in the examination of the output of the system and of the relations of this output to the input. - By output is meant any change produced in the environment by the system . - By input, conversely, is meant any event external to the system that modifies this system in any manner.” Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  6. 6. Behavior Distance from the goal steers the behavior Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 System is the source of the output energy EVI SSAP EVI TCA MODNAR LUFESOPRUP CI GOLOELET PREDICTIVE System only receives energy from external source behavior A goal is can not interpreted be identified as directed to a goal Distance from predicted position of goal steers the behavior
  7. 7. Behavior classes • From a systemic point of view: • Passive < active; random < purposeful < teleological < predictive . Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  8. 8. Resilient behaviors • Active behavior intended to retain the system identity • Aristotelian Entelechy! "Being at work while staying the same" Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  9. 9. Resilient behaviors • Active behavior, thus 1. only purposeful 2. only teleological 3. predictive Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  10. 10. Resilient, only-purposeful behavior • ELASTICITY “The ability of a body that has been subjected to an external force to recover its size and shape, following deformation” (McGraw-Hill, 2003) • No “advanced” behavior; system just makes use of its internal characteristics and resources so as to mask the action of external forces → Redundancy-based. Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  11. 11. Resilient, teleological & predictive behaviors • ENTELECHISM • System is able to exert teleological or predictive behaviors; it continuously adjusts its functions to compensate for changes • so as to persist one's “identity” • IDENTITY: a system's peculiar and distinctive functional and non-functional features Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  12. 12. Identity • Ability to "comply to one’s definition" • Related to fidelity: "compliance between corresponding figures of interest in two separate but communicating domains" • More in "Antifragility = Elasticity + Resilience + Machine Learning. Models and Algorithms for Open System Fidelity", http://goo.gl/VvtXRt Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  13. 13. Resilient behaviors (cont.d) • Active behavior, thus 1. only purposeful 2. only teleological 3. predictive 4. Auto-predictive & evolving Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 ELASTICITY ENTELECHISM ANTIFRAGI-LITY
  14. 14. Computational Antifragility • Behavior of a system that –predicts future sys-env fit –learns from the past & evolves • "Being-at-work while improving-the-self" • System does not stay the same: The feedback changes the "self" • Resilience + machine learning (see cited paper) Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  15. 15. INTERPLAY b/w BEHAVIOR (SYSTEM, ENVIRONMENT) RESILIENCE Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 IDENTITY PRESERVING ANTIFRAGILITY
  16. 16. Resilience: Interplay(S, E) SYSTEM RESPONSE: PURPOSEFUL, NON-TELEO-LOGIC BEHA-VIORS ENVIRONMENT INPUT: RANDOM BEHAVIORS Better not to be too clever in the face of a turbulent environment! Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  17. 17. Resilience: Interplay(S, E) RESPONSE: > PURPOSEFUL BEHAVIORS Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 INPUT: PURPOSEFUL NON-TELEOLOGIC BEHAVIORS SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT
  18. 18. Resilience: Interplay(S, E) RESPONSE: > TELEOLOGIC/ PREDICTIVE BEHAVIORS Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 INPUT: TELEOLOGIC / PREDICTIVE BEHAVIORS SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT
  19. 19. "Behavioral" Game Theory ENVIRONMENT Passive Random Purposeful Teleologic Predictive Antifragile Passive ?,? -1,1 -1,1 -1,1 -1,1 -1,1 Random 1,-1 ?,? -1,1 -1,1 -1,1 -1,1 (*) Purposeful 1,-1 1,-1 ?,? -1,1 -1,1 -1,1 Teleologic 1,-1 -1,1 1,-1 ?,? -1,1 -1,1 Predictive 1,-1 -1,1 1,-1 1,-1 ?,? -1,1 Antifragile 1,-1 1,-1 (*) 1,-1 1,-1 1,-1 ?,? (*): if a player can learn that the other one is behaving randomly Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 METSYS
  20. 20. Antifragility • Conjecture: antifragility is (also) the ability to be "auto-resilient": –Monitor/Analyze/Learn the behaviors of the "opponent" –Adjust one's behavior so as to maximize the chances to "win" –Learn from mistakes and successes Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  21. 21. ...Monitor/Analyze "the opponent"... • Requirement: a model of the risk • The dynamic drifting of the risk as an indication of the behaviorial class of E • Conjecture: the stability of the risk drifting reveals aspects of E's behavior Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  22. 22. Conclusions Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014 EVI SSAP EVI TCA MODNAR LUFESOPRUP CI GOLOELET EVI TCI DERP System is the source of the output energy A goal can be identified Distance from predicted position of goal steers the behavior ANTI-FRA-GILE Social behavior Interplay-aware Feedback modifies "self"
  23. 23. Conclusions • Untrodden territory! Much yet to be done • Urgent requirement! Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  24. 24. Conclusions • ANTIFRAGILE 2015: http://goo.gl/4xJW69 • ERACLIOS: "Elasticity, Resilie-nce, Antifragility in CoLlective & Individual Objects and Systems" http://eraclios.blogspot.be/ • LinkedIn group "Computational Antifragility". http://goo.gl/1N0XB1 Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014
  25. 25. Please contact me for questions & further information! vincenzo.deflorio@gmail.com Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14 Nov. 2014

×