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.

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. ANTIFRAGILITY
RESILIENCE
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014

3. BEHAVIOR
RESILIENCE
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014

4. INTERPLAY b/w
BEHAVIOR (SYSTEM, ENVIRONMENT)
RESILIENCE
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014
IDENTITY
PRESERVING

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. 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. Behavior classes
• From a systemic point of view:
• Passive < active;
random < purposeful <
teleological < predictive .
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014

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. Resilient behaviors
• Active behavior, thus
1. only purposeful
2. only teleological
3. predictive
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. INTERPLAY b/w
BEHAVIOR (SYSTEM, ENVIRONMENT)
RESILIENCE
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014
IDENTITY
PRESERVING
ANTIFRAGILITY

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. Resilience: Interplay(S, E)
RESPONSE:
> PURPOSEFUL
BEHAVIORS
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014
INPUT:
PURPOSEFUL
NON-TELEOLOGIC
BEHAVIORS
SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENT

18. Resilience: Interplay(S, E)
RESPONSE:
> TELEOLOGIC/
PREDICTIVE
BEHAVIORS
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014
INPUT:
TELEOLOGIC /
PREDICTIVE
BEHAVIORS
SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENT

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. 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. ...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. 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. Conclusions
• Untrodden territory! Much yet to be
done
• Urgent requirement!
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014

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. Please contact me for
questions & further
information!
vincenzo.deflorio@gmail.com
Vincenzo De Florio, INRIA, 14
Nov. 2014