Antifragility, a concept pioneered by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, has undergone significant development over the past decades. In his work, Taleb describes antifragility as the opposite of fragility—a system that not only withstands stress and volatility but actually thrives and improves as a result. However, many existing systems, including those in Information Technology (IT) and complex economic models, tend to fail under stress. This paper aims to explore the potential implementation of antifragility principles into software architecture. By embracing the concept of an- tifragility, software systems could be designed to not only withstand stressors but also harness them to enhance their robustness and performance. The authors recognize that traditional approaches to software architecture often focus on minimizing failure points and ensuring stability. While these approaches are valuable, they often neglect the dynamic nature of real-world systems and fail to adapt to unforeseen challenges. The paper proposes an alternative perspective that considers stress as an opportunity for improvement. By introducing antifragile elements into software architec- ture, such as decentralized decision-making, self-healing mechanisms, and adaptive resource allocation, the authors argue that software systems can become more resilient, responsive, and capable of capitalizing on stress-induced dis- ruptions. To validate their ideas, the authors present case studies and practical examples of how antifragile software architectures could operate in various domains. They also discuss potential challenges and trade-offs associated with implementing antifragility, such as increased complexity and resource requirements. By shedding light on the possi- bility of embracing antifragility in software architecture, this paper seeks to inspire further research and innovation in creating more adaptive and robust software systems that thrive in the face of stress and uncertainty.

A therapy’s outcome is determined by a tumor’s response to treatment which, in turn, depends on multiple factors such as the severity of the disease and the strength of patient’s immune response. Gold standard cancer therapies are in most cases fragile when sought to break the ties to either tumor kill ratio or patient toxicity. Lately, research has shown that cancer therapy can be at most robust when handling adaptive drug resistance and immune escape patterns developed by evolving tumors. This is due to the stochastic and volatile nature of the interactions, at the tumor environment level, tissue vasculature, and immune landscape, induced by drugs. Herein, we explore the path towards antifragile therapy control, that generates treatment schemes that are not fragile but go beyond robustness. More precisely, we describe a first instantiation of a control-theoretic method to make therapy schemes cope with the systemic variability in the tumor–immune–drug interactions and gain more tumor kill with less patient toxicity. Considering the anti-symmetric interactions within a model of the tumor–immune–drug network, we introduce the antifragile control framework that demonstrates promising results in simulation. We evaluate our control strategy against state-of-the-art therapy schemes on various experiments and discuss the insights we gained on the potential that antifragile control could have in treatment design in clinical settings.