Aubin, J.-P.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

A Nontechnical Presentation of Viability TheoryAubin, J.-P.IIASA Working PaperWP-82-067July 1982 Aubin, J.-P. (1982) A Nontechnical Presentation of Viability Theory. IIASA Working Paper. WP-82-067 Copyright © 1982 by the author(s). http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/1949/ Working Papers on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other organizations supporting the work. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage. All copies must bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. For other purposes, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, permission must be sought by contacting repository@iiasa.ac.at NOT FOR QUOTATION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR A NONTECHNICAL PRESENTATION OF V I A B I L I T Y  THEORY J e a n - P i e r r e  A u b i n  J u l y  1 9 8 2  WP-82-67 Working Papers are i n t e r i m  reports  on w o r k  of t h e  I n t e r n a t i o n a l  I n s t i t u t e  f o r  A p p l i e d  S y s t e m s  A n a l y s i s  and have received o n l y  l i m i t e d  r e v i e w .  V i e w s  o r  op in ions  expressed h e r e i n  do n o t  n e c e s s a r i l y  repre- s e n t  those of t h e  I n s t i t u t e  o r  of i t s  N a t i o n a l  M e m b e r  O r g a n i z a t i o n s .  INTERNATIONAL I N S T I T U T E  FOR A P P L I E D  SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A - 2 3 6 1  L a x e n b u r g ,  A u s t r i a  A NONTECHNICAL  PRESENTAT ION OF V I A B I L I T Y  THEORY Jean-Pierre Aubin Everything that exists in the Universe is due to chance and necessity. Democritus * We often observe that potential users of mathematical metaphors believe that a deterministic or stochastic framework is a prerequisite for the use of mathematical techniques. This is one of the reasons put forward for the rejection of mathematics in the so-called "soft sciences" such as economics. A very severe misunderstanding lies at the heart of this belief. As in the physical sciences, specialists in the soft sciences wish mathematicians to construct predictive models for them. But only in dynamical systems (i.e., evolutionary systems) which can evolve at will from any starting point can predictions have any real meaning -- and to estimate them requires not only that experimentation should be possible but also that some knowledge of the future en- vironment of such systems should be available. Obviously, this is not the case in many of the "macrosystems" arising in economics and the social sciences. To study such macro- systems we should take into account not only: ( 1 )  our ignorance of the future environment of the system 1)ut also : ( 2 )  the absence of determinism (including the impossibility of a comprehensive description of the dynamics of the system) ( 3 )  our ignorance of the laws relating certain controls to the states of this system (4) the variety of dynamics available to the system. * Mathematical metaphors. Like other means of communication (languages, painting, music, etc.) mathematics provides metaphors that can be used to explain a given phenomenon by associating with it some other phenomenon that is more familiar, or at least is believed to be more familiar. This feelinq of familiarity, individual or collective, inborn or acquired through education, is responsible for the inner conviction that this phenomenon is understood. The first task of Viability Theory is to describe the evolution of dynamical systems such that, at each instant, the velocity depends in a multivalued way (i.e., nondeterministically) upon (1) the present state (or history) of the system (2) various regulatory controls and to study their mathematical properties. This is done by means of differential inclusions (with or without memory),as opposed to differential equations, which assume that the velocity depends in a unique way upon the current state of the system. We assume that the regulatory controls have a high inertia and change only under the most severe conditions. Naturally, we also expect such dynamical systems to possess many possible trajectories due to the lack of determinism and the choice among several regulatory controls. The first questions addressed by Viability Theory deal with the mathematical structure of these sets of trajectories. Once these questions have been answered, the problem of selectinq trajectories arises. Optimal Control Theory furnishes one class of selection procedures in which a cost is associated with each trajectory and this cost is then minimized. Implicit assumptions include: (1) the existence of a decision maker operating the controls of the system (there may be more than one decisionmaker in a game-theoretical setting) (2) the availability of information (deterministic or stochastic) on the future of the system; this is necessary to define the costs associated with the trajectories (3) that decisions (even if they are conditional) are taken once and for all at the starting point. * ( c o n t ' d )  The cons t ruc t ion  o f  mathematical metaphors n a t u r a l l y  r e q u i r e s  autonomous development i n  t h e  f i e l d  r e spons ib l e  f o r  p rovid ing  t h e o r i e s  t o  be a s s o c i a t e d  wi th  unexplained phenomena: t h i s  i s  t h e  domain of  pure  mathematics. The development of t h e  mathematical s c i ences  obeys i t s  own l o g i c ,  a s  i n  o t h e r  f i e l d s  such a s  l i t e r a t u r e ,  music,  p a i n t i n g ,  e t c .  I n  a l l  t h e s e  a r e a s ,  a e s t h e t i c  s a t i s f a c t i o n  is both an aim t o  be achieved and a s i g n a l  by which succes s fu l  work can be recognized.  ( I n  a l l  t h e s e  domains, t o o ,  fash ion  -- o r  s o c i a l  concensus -- i n f luences  t h e  a e s t h e t i c  c r i t e r i a  by which t h e  work i s  judged.) V i a b i l i t y  Theory proposes  ano the r  c l a s s  of s e l e c t i o n  methods i n  which w e  choose on ly  t h e  t r a j e c t o r i e s  t h a t ,  a t  each i n s t a n t ,  obey given r e s t r i c t i o n s  known a s  v i a b i l i t y  c o n s t r a i n t s .  These c o n s t r a i n t s  determine a  r eg ion  of s t a t e  space,  c a l l e d  t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain; v i a b l e  t r a j e c t o r i e s  a r e  t h o s e  l y i n g  e n t i r e l y  w i t h i n  t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain. The v i a b i l i t y  domain can depend upon t ime ,  t h e  p r e s e n t  s t a t e  o r  h i s t o r y  of t h e  system, t h e  r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l s ,  and s o  on. V i a b i l i t y  Theory makes e x p l i c i t  t h e  necessary  and s u f f i c i e n t  cond i t i ons  f o r  t h e  e x i s t e n c e  of a t  l e a s t  one v i a b l e  t r a j e c t o r y  s t a r t i n g  from any v i a b l e  i n i t i a l  state.  X t  a l s o  prov ides  t h e  feedbacks (concealed i n  bo th  t h e  dynamics and t h e  v i a b i l i t y  con- s t r a i n t s )  which r e l a t e  t h e  s t a t e  of  t h e  system t o  t h e  c o n t r o l s .  These feedbacks are n o t  n e c e s s a r i l y  d e t e r m i n i s t i c :  t hey  are set- valued maps a s s o c i a t i n g  a s u b s e t  of  c o n t r o l s  w i th  each s tate of t h e  system. W e  observe  t h a t  t h e  l a r g e r  t h e s e  s u b s e t s  of c o n t r o l s  a r e ,  t h e  more f l e x i b l e  -- and,  +bus, t h e  more r o b u s t  -- t h e  regu- l a t i o n  of t h e  system w i l l  be. V i a b i l i t y  Theory shows t h a t  a s  long a s  t h e  state of t h e  system l ies  wi th in  t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain ( b u t  n o t  on t h e  boundary) ,  any r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l  w i l l  work and, t h e r e f o r e ,  t h a t  t h e  system can main ta in  t h e  c o n t r o l  i n h e r i t e d  from t h e  p a s t .  (The r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l  remains c o n s t a n t ,  o r  changes very  s lowly ,  even though t h e  s t a t e  may evolve q u i t e  r a p i d l y . )  What happens when t h e  s t a t e  reaches  t h e  boundary of t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain? I f  t h e  chosen v e l o c i t y  is  "inward" i n  t h e  s ense  t h a t  it pushes t h e  t r a j e c t o r y  back i n t o  t h e  i n t e r i o r  o f  t h e  domain, then  w e  can s t i l l  keep t h e  same r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l .  * (cont 'd) We have already described a mathematical metaphor as a means of relating mathematical theory with certain phenomena. This association can be developed in two ways. The first possibility is to look for a mathematical theory which can be linked as closely as possible with the phenomenon under consideration. This is usually regarded as the domain of applied mathematics. pure mathematics motivated mathematics -I other fields I I However, i f  t h e  chosen v e l o c i t y  is  "outward",  w e  a r e  i n  a  p e r i o d  of  cris is  and must e i t h e r :  ( 1 )  f i n d  ano the r  r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l  such t h a t  t h e  new a s s o c i a t e d  v e l o c i t y  pushes  t h e  t r a j e c t o r y  back i n t o  t h e  i n t e r i o r  o f  t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain o r :  ( 2 )  o p e r a t e  on t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain, e n l a r g i n g  it i n  such a way t h a t  t h e  s t a t e  of t h e  system l i e s  i n  t h e  i n t e r i o r  o f  t h e  new v i a b i l i t y  domain. When t h e s e  two s t r a t e g i e s  f o r  " s t r u c t u r a l  change" f a i l ,  t h e  t r a j e c t o r y  " d i e s "  i . e . ,  it i s  no longe r  v i a b l e  (see Figu re  1 ) .  V i a b i l i t y  Theory a l s o  r e v e a l s  a  d i v i s i o n  o f  t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain i n t o  " c e l l s t ' ;  e ach  ce l l  is  t h e  s u b s e t  o f  v i a b l e  s t a t e s  which can be r e g u l a t e d  by a g iven  c o n t r o l .  To p a s s  from one c e l l  t o  ano the r  r e q u i r e s  t h e  c o n t r o l  t o  be changed. The boundar ies  of t h e s e  ce l l s  s i g n a l  t h e  need f o r  s t r u c t u r a l  change (see Figure  2 )  V i a b i l i t y  Theory cannot  be s a i d  t o  p rov ide  d e t e r m i n i s t i c  mathemat ica l  metaphors,  s i n c e  t h e r e  may be  many f e a s i b l e  s o l u t i o n s ,  b u t ,  on t h e  o t h e r  hand, it does  have t h e  v i r t u e  o f  showing t h a t  c e r t a i n  t r a j e c t o r i e s  are n o t  v i a b l e .  * (conttd) However, it is also possible to approach the problem from the opposite direction. Other fields provide mathematicians with metaphors, by suggesting new concepts and lines of argument, by giving some inkling of possible solutions, or by developing new modes of intuition: and this is the domain of what can be called "motivated mathematics". For the time being, Viability Theory lies within the domain of motivated mathematics: and it still may not provide an ideal description of the evolution of macrosystems. It is possible that potential users (economists, biologists) are disappointed or discouraged by the results obtained so far -- it is still too early for Viability Theory to be "applied" in the engineering sense. Nevertheless, the motivation provided by the study of macrosystems is of benefit to mathematicians in that it renews and enriches the theory of dynamical systems and differential equations. v i a b i l i t y  domain (assumed c o n s t a n t ,  bu t  which can evolve)  (a )  A c o n t r o l  s e t  I Figure  1. (a )  Evolu t ion  of t h e  s i a t e  ( i n  t h e  s t a t e  s p a c e ) ;  (b) e v o l u t i o n  of t h e  c o n t r o l .  ....... ....... The d o t t e d  l i n e s  r e p r e s e n t  t h e  p a r t s  of t h e  t r a j e c t o r i e s  c l o s e  t o  t h e  boundary of t h e  v i a b i l i t y  domain which d i s -  appear  a f t e r  a  c e r t a i n  pe r iod  of time. time ...... ..... I 1 b t 1 t2 t2 t 3  dea th  of t h e  system e v o l u t i o n  wi th  --.--.. t h e  second 1 evo lu t ion  wi th  crisis r e g u l a t o r y  t h e  f i r s t  ( s ea rch  f o r  a  c o n t r o l  r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l  new c o n t r o l )  c r i s i s  ( s ea rch  f o r  a  new c o n t r o l )  e v o l u t i o n  wi th  t h e  t h i r d  r e g u l a t o r y  c o n t r o l  We should also mention another aspect of Viability Theory -- that concerned with complexity and robustness. It may be observed that the state of the system becomes increasingly robust the further it is from the boundary of the viability domain. Therefore, after some time has elapsed, only the parts of the trajectories furthest away from the viability boundary will remain. This fact may ex- plain the apparent discontinuities ("missing links") and hierarch- * ical organization arising from evolution in certain systems. In summary, the main purpose of Viability Theory is to explain the evolution of a system, given feasible dynamics and constraints, and to reveal the concealed feedbacks which allow it to be regulated. This involves the use of a policy, opportunism, which enables the system to conserve viable trajectories that its lack of determinism -- the availability of several feasible velo- cities -- makes possible. This provides a mathematical metaphor of the deeply intuitive statement of Democritus "Everything that exists in the Universe is due to chance and necessity". Viability Theory can be adopted in many problems. Here we shall illustrate how it can account for the evolution of prices as a mechanism for the decentralization of a simple economic system. Consumers must, at each instant, share a consumption bundle constrained to evolve in a set of available (scarce) commodities. This series of allocations determines a viable trajectory. * For the  f i r s t  t ime,  excavat ions a t  Kenya's Lake Turkana have provided c l e a r  f o s s i l  evidence of evolu t ion  from one spec ies  t o  another .  The rock s t r a t a  t h e r e  conta in  a s e r i e s  of f o s s i l s  t h a t  show every small s t e p  of an evolu t ionary  journey t h a t  seems t o  have proceeded i n  f i t s  and s t a r t s .  Pe te r  Williamson of Harvard Univers i ty  examined 3,300 f o s s i l s  showing how t h i r t e e n  spec ie s  of molluscs changed over s e v e r a l  mi l l i on  years .  What t h e  record ind ica t ed  was t h a t  t h e  animals s tayed much t h e  same f o r  immensely long s t r e t c h e s  of time. But twice ,  about 2 mi l l i on  yea r s  ago and then again 700,000 years  ago, t h e  pool of l i f e  seemed t o  explode -- s e t  o f f ,  apparent ly ,  by a drop i n  t h e  l a k e ' s  water l e v e l .  I n  an i n s t a n t  of  geologic t ime,  a s  t h e  changing l ake  environment allowed new types  of molluscs t o  win the  r ace  f o r  s u r v i v a l ,  a l l  o f  t h e  spec ie s  evolved i n t o  v a r i e t i e s  sharp ly  d i f f e r e n t  from t h e i r  ances tors .  That intermediate  forms appeared so  quickly ,  with new spec ie s  suddenly evolving i n  5,000 t o  50,000 yea r s  a f t e r  mi l l i ons  of years  of  constancy, cha l lenges  t h e  t r a d i t i o n a l  t h e o r i e s  of Darwin's d i s c i p l e s  s ince  t h e  f o s s i l s  of Lake Turkana d o n ' t  record any gradual  change; r a t h e r ,  they  seem t o  r e f l e c t  eons of s t a s i s  i n t e r rup ted  by b r i e f  evolu t ionary  "revolu- t i o n s " .  (See Palaeonto logica l  documentation of spec ia t ion  i n  Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, by P.G. Williamson, Nature, Vol. 293, (19811, p. 437.) Figure  2 .  Graph of t h e  Feedback map and d i v i s i o n  of t h e  s t a t e  space i n t o  c e l l s .  There are several regulatory mechanisms which would yield viable trajectories. For instance, regulation could be achieved by queuing when shortages occur, i.e., when the total consumption leaves the set of available resources. A second mechanism in- volves the introduction of one or more fictitious goods for which the scarcity constraint can be transgressed. These are essenti- ally fiduciary goods which, unlike physical goods, are limited only by measures dictated by the trust (or rather, the tolerance) of the set of consumers. The disequilibrium which cannot exist in physical goods can then be transferred to the fiduciary goods. A third mechanism uses prices as a means of control. We may observe that these three mechanisms can be combined in various ways; we can even state that the first two are correcting mech- anisms for the third when it is wrongly implemented. Let us consider only the third mechanism, as an example. A consumer is assumed to be an automaton represented by a change function which associates with every act of consumption and every price the velocity with which he changes his consumption. (This dynamical representation of a consumer is not the usual mathe- matical representation in which the consumer is assumed to maximize his utility function.) These automata associate trajectories (some of which are not necessarily viable) with every evolution of prices. We must then consider the question of whether there exists a price evolution such that the associated trajectories are viable. The answer is yes when the consumers -- the change functions -- are forbidden to "spend more than they earn." Curiously enough, the same assumptions also imply the existence of an equilibrium, a level of prices and consumption for each consumer which is viable and does not change. Viability Theory tells us that prices evolve through a set- valued feedback map associating a subset of prices which regulates the market with every allocation of an available commodity. In the free-market framework, Adam Smith's invisible hand chooses a price via this map, while in the planned economy the planning bureau has to "compute" a single-valued feedback map, which is selected from the set-valued feedback map. References There are only a few technical papers dealing with this young theory. Most of the mathematical results are presented in the book "Differential Inclusions" by J.-P. Aubin and A. Cellina, published by Springer-Verlag, and due to appear in 1983. The main results are summarized in the IIASA Working Paper WP-82-51 "Differential Inclusions and Viability Theory" by the same authors. 

A Nontechnical Presentation of Viability Theory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)