1: \documentstyle[aps,prl,multicol,psfig]{revtex}
2: \textheight245mm
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\con}{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{(want)}}}}
6: \newcommand{\pro}{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{(prod.)}}}}
7: \newcommand{\tra}{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{(trad.)}}}}
8: \newcommand{\los}{_{\mbox{\scriptsize{(loser)}}}}
9: \newcommand{\lef}{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{(left)}}}}
10: \newcommand{\rig}{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{(right)}}}}
11: \begin{document}
12: \title{\bf Self-Organized Criticality in a Transient System.}
13:
14: \author{Simon F. N\o rrelykke and Per Bak\thanks{Present address:
15: Department of Mathematics, Imperial College,
16: London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom}}
17: \address{The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen,
18: Denmark.}
19:
20: \date{\today}
21:
22: \maketitle
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: A simple model economy with locally interacting producers
26: and consumers is introduced.
27: When driven by extremal dynamics,
28: the model self-organizes {\em not\/} to an attractor state,
29: but to an asymptote, on which the economy
30: has a constant rate of deflation, is critical, and
31: exhibits avalanches of activity
32: with power-law distributed sizes.
33: This example demonstrates that self-organized critical behavior
34: occurs in a larger class of systems than so far considered:
35: systems not driven to an attractive fixed point,
36: but, e.g., an asymptote, may also display self-organized criticality.
37: \end{abstract}
38:
39:
40:
41: \begin{multicols}{2}
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: \paragraph*{Introduction.}
45: It has been amply demonstrated by now
46: that some driven extended dissipative systems
47: will self-organize into a complex critical state
48: in which events of all sizes occur.
49: This phenomenon, called Self-Organized Criticality
50: (SOC)~\cite{BTW},
51: has been invoked to explain phenomena such as the
52: experimentally observed behavior of flux-lines
53: in high-$T_c$ super conductors~\cite{Field},
54: solar flares, and earthquakes~\cite{How}.
55: Several theoretical models that exhibit SOC have been
56: constructed \cite{BTW,FSB,FF,IP},
57: for a recent review see \cite{Turcotte}.
58: In all these models the SOC state is a (statistically)
59: stationary state.
60:
61: Here we demonstrate by example that one may observe
62: SOC behavior also in systems which have no stationary
63: attractor state.
64: The example is a simple one-dimensional
65: model economy driven by extremal dynamics.
66: In this model, agents interact locally with each other
67: through a fixed set of rules.
68: As in standard economic
69: theory~\cite{Richter}, agents have
70: utility functions which they try to maximize.
71: But contrary to classical economic equilibrium theory,
72: we have no `central agent,' `market maker,' or `auctioneer.'
73: Maximization of utility functions is left to individual agents.
74: The agents have information only about agents
75: with whom they interact directly, i.e., their nearest neighbors.
76:
77: Agents are rational and never change their strategies,
78: only their prices and the quantities they buy and produce.
79: By their transactions, agents make a profit,
80: positive or negative.
81: The agent who makes the most negative profit
82: then changes his price slightly,
83: in a manner that increases his profit.
84: In the next time step the agents do another round of
85: optimized transactions, and the agent now having
86: the most negative profit changes his price.
87: This process in repeated ad infinitum.
88:
89: After a transient period,
90: the system arrives in a state with long-range spatial
91: correlations (power-laws) and deflation
92: with constant rate.
93: The distribution of profits
94: displays a distinct threshold.
95: Avalanches of causally connected price-changes
96: by agents with profits below this threshold are observed.
97: The size distribution for avalanches
98: follows a power law.
99:
100: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
101: \paragraph*{The Model.}
102: Consider $N$ agents numbered $n = 1,2,\ldots ,N$.
103: Agent number $n$ sells his product to agent number $n-1$
104: and buys the product produced by agent number $n+1$.
105: We assume that individual agents do not consume their own production,
106: so in order to consume they must trade,
107: and in order to trade they must produce.
108: Agent number $n$ produces a quantity $q_{n}$, of a good
109: which is sold at a price $p_n$, per unit,
110: to his neighbor numbered $n-1$.
111: He subsequently buys and consumes the quantity $q_{n+1}$ of the good
112: produced by his neighbor numbered $n+1$,
113: who subsequently buys the good produced by {\em his\/} neighbor
114: numbered $n+2$,
115: etc., until all agents have made two transactions.
116: This process is repeated, say once per day.
117:
118: The goal of each agent is to maximize his utility
119: function
120: \be
121: u_n = -c(q_n) + d(q_{n+1})
122: \label{eq:util}
123: \ee
124: while satisfying the constraint
125: \begin{equation}
126: p_n q_n=p_{n+1} q_{n+1} \enspace.
127: \label{eq:constraint}
128: \end{equation}
129: The first term, $-c$, in the utility function in Eq.~(\ref{eq:util})
130: represents the agent's cost, or discomfort,
131: connected with the production of $q_{n}$ units of the good he produces.
132: This discomfort is an increasing function of $q$,
133: and $c$ is convex because, say, the agent grows tired.
134: The second term, $d$, is the utility of the good
135: he buys from his neighbor.
136: Its marginal utility is a decreasing function of quantity $q$,
137: so $d$ is an increasing, but concave, function.
138: This choice of $c$ and $d$ is common in economics;
139: see, e.g., \cite{Trejos}.
140:
141: The constraint is also typical in economics.
142: It is the simplest possible.
143: It expresses that the agents do not trust money;
144: they accept money as currency,
145: but do not want to possess any at the end of the day.
146: There is no utility associated with its possession.
147: Also, of course, the agents want not to run out of money
148: which would prevent them from getting any utility.
149:
150:
151: An explicit utility function
152: is chosen for illustration and analysis,
153: \begin{equation}
154: u_n = -\frac{1}{2}(q_n)^2 + 2\sqrt{q_{n+1}} \enspace.
155: \label{eq:utility}
156: \end{equation}
157: An agent knows the prices of his two
158: neighbors at all times.
159: The amount of goods produced by the two neighbors
160: is not known since, as we shall see,
161: this amount depends on the next nearest
162: neighbors' prices, which again depends on {\em his}
163: neighbors' prices, etc.
164: For the same reason,
165: the demand for goods at a given time is not known either.
166: A similar model was invoked \cite{shubik}
167: in order to explain the dynamic origin of the value of money.
168:
169:
170: Using his utility function and the prices he knows,
171: each agent plans how much to produce and how much to purchase,
172: assuming that everything he produces will be sold,
173: and that all he wants to purchase will be available.
174: The task is a simple optimization problem with solution
175: \be
176: q_n\pro = \left(\frac{p_n}{p_{n+1}}\right)^{1/3}
177: \label{eq:qn}
178: \ee
179: and
180: \be
181: q_{n+1}\con = \left(\frac{p_n}{p_{n+1}}\right)^{4/3}\enspace.
182: \label{eq:qn+1}
183: \ee
184:
185: We note in Eq.~(\ref{eq:qn}) and (\ref{eq:qn+1})
186: that the levels of production and intended consumption
187: are independent of absolute prices, as they depend only on ratios.
188: All prices may be multiplied by a common factor,
189: and leave quantities produced and consumed unchanged.
190:
191: Next, agent number $n$ implements his plan by producing the
192: quantity $q_n$, and setting it for sale at the price $p_n$.
193: However, his costumer, agent number $n-1$, has planned to buy the
194: quantity $q_n\con$, and will do so, if $q_n\con \le q_n\pro$.
195: If $q_n\con > q_n\pro$, agent $n-1$ buys the quantity available,
196: $q_n\pro$.
197: Thus, the traded amount is $q_n\tra = \min({q_n\pro,q_n\con})$.
198:
199: At the end of the day agent $n$ has, unwillingly, made the profit
200: \be
201: s_n = p_n q_n\tra - p_{n+1} q_{n+1}\tra \enspace.
202: \label{eq:profit}
203: \ee
204: An agent may have negative profit if he does not sell
205: as much as he planned, i.e., if
206: $q_n\tra < q_n\pro$.
207: An agent who in this way loses money,
208: is not fulfilling the constraint Eq.~(\ref{eq:constraint}).
209: Neither is an agent who makes money.
210: The agent who loses most money reacts by changing his price,
211: which is the only variable controlled by agents in this model.
212: For a given price, an agent's strategy is fixed,
213: and the amount produced by the agent is determined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:qn}).
214: As can be seen from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qn}--\ref{eq:profit}),
215: an agent with negative profit increases his profit
216: by lowering his price~\cite{inflation}.
217:
218: When agent $n$ lowers his price, his estimate
219: of how much he should optimally produce and consume also drops.
220: Conversely, his costumer agent $n-1$,
221: raises his estimate of how much he should optimally buy.
222: Agent $n$'s supplier does not change {\em his} estimates
223: of how much he should produce and consume,
224: hence he risks producing more than he can sell.
225: In this way an agent with negative profit
226: increases his profit by lowering his price,
227: while potentially ``passing on'' the problem
228: of negative profit to his supplier.
229:
230:
231:
232:
233:
234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
235: \paragraph*{Computer Simulation.}
236:
237: In a simulation of the model, $N$ agents are initially given
238: random prices drawn from a uniform distribution on
239: the interval [1,2] \cite{interval},
240: relative price changes, $\eta$,
241: are drawn from a uniform distribution on the interval
242: [0, $\eta_{\text{max}}$].
243:
244: The update scheme is:
245: (i) the levels of production and intended consumption
246: are found from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:qn}) and (\ref{eq:qn+1});
247: (ii) the profit of each agent is determined from
248: Eq.~(\ref{eq:profit});
249: (iii) the agent with the lowest (most negative) profit is found,
250: and given a new, lower price;
251: (iv) go to (i).
252:
253: We studied systems of various sizes, ranging from
254: 200 to 20,000 agents, on time-scales from
255: some hundreds to $10^8$ updates, and with $\eta_{\text{max}}$ ranging
256: from $0.1\%$ to $10\%$.
257: Results turned out to be insensitive to the particular value
258: used for $\eta_{\text{max}}$.
259: After an initial transient period, the system organized
260: itself into a state where the spatial distribution of
261: profits exhibit a clear threshold $f_c$, see Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
262: Few or no agents are found to have profits below this threshold,
263: and those found tend to be spatially located near the ``loser.''
264:
265: %%%%%%%%%%
266: \begin{figure*}
267: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig1.ps,width=7cm,angle=270}}
268: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
269: \caption[]{\label{fig1}Distribution of profits after $2\cdot10^7$ time steps,
270: rescaled by
271: $\exp(2.5092 t)$; notice the delta function at zero profit.
272: The dashed line marks the threshold value $f_0 = -0.0057 < f_c$.}
273: \end{minipage}
274: \end{figure*}
275:
276:
277: Figure~\ref{fig2} shows how the loser's role
278: moves through the system.
279: It clearly drifts in one direction,
280: because of the left-right asymmetry of the utility function.
281: But it also does a good deal of jumping about.
282:
283: %%%%%%%%%%
284: \begin{figure*}
285: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=7cm,angle=270}}
286: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
287: \caption{\label{fig2}Spatio-temporal distribution of the losing agents
288: in an economy with $N=200$ agents.
289: Abscissa: loser's coordinate. Ordinate: time.}
290: \end{minipage}
291: \end{figure*}
292:
293: The spatial correlations of the loser positions were examined
294: by measuring the distribution of distances between successive losers.
295: If the spatial jump $x$, between two successive losers was more than half
296: the system-size to the right, it was counted as a jump to the left.
297: The distribution of distances between successive losers
298: follow a power law distribution asymptotically at large values
299: of the distances,
300: i.e., the system is critical.
301: We fitted the distribution of distances between successive losers
302: to the expression
303: \be
304: P(x) = \mbox{A}x^{-\pi\rig} + \mbox{B}(N-x)^{-\pi\lef} + \mbox{C}
305: \label{eq:fit}
306: \enspace,
307: \ee
308: and found the exponent values
309: $\pi\rig = 1.844 \pm 0.002$ and
310: $\pi\lef = 2.021 \pm 0.002$.
311: C is a constant which takes into account the approximately
312: flat distribution of ``avalanche starters''~\cite{ava-starters}.
313: While the backing of the fit is $70\%$,
314: the possibility that $\pi\lef = 2$
315: cannot be ruled out~\cite{comment}.
316:
317: %%%%%%%%%%
318: \begin{figure*}
319:
320: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3a.ps,width=7cm,angle=270}}
321: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig3b.ps,width=7cm,angle=270}}
322: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
323: \caption[]{\label{fig3}Distribution of the spatial separation
324: between successive losers.
325: Economy with 2000 agents, $\eta_{\text{max}} = 0.1\%$,
326: $10^8$ time steps sampled after the initial transient phase.
327: (a) Jumps to the right.
328: (Jumps to the left have a similar looking distribution).
329: (b) Same data as in (a), but binned.
330: Plot shows mean and RMSD of data in each bin,
331: as well as a $\chi^2$-fit of Eq.~(\ref{eq:fit})
332: to the data shown in (a) and similar data for
333: jumps to the left.
334: Exponents $\pi\rig=1.844\pm 0.002$ and $\pi\lef=2.021\pm 0.002$.
335: The backing of the fit is $P_{n'}(>\chi ^2) = 70\%$.
336: }
337:
338: \end{minipage}
339: \end{figure*}
340:
341:
342: Since agents keep lowering their prices, the
343: threshold in profit distributions decreases to zero exponentially in time,
344: $f_c(t) \propto \exp(-kt )$,
345: where
346: $ k = \langle \eta \rangle/[N (1 - \langle \eta \rangle)]$
347: to leading order in $\langle\eta\rangle$ \cite{simeq},
348: and $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes an ensemble or time average.
349:
350: When all profits are rescaled by $\exp(kt)$, we
351: obtain stationarity of the threshold $f_c$.
352: We next consider the activity below a threshold
353: $f_0<f_c$, and define an avalanche as the duration
354: of causally connected activity below this threshold.
355: We refer to this duration as the avalanche size $S$.
356:
357: Since it is always the agent with the lowest profit
358: who changes his price and causes activity,
359: it is sufficient to monitor his profit,
360: and follow whether it is above or below $f_0$.
361: When $s_{\mbox{\scriptsize{loser}}}>f_0$,
362: all agents are above the threshold,
363: and there is no active avalanche by our definition of avalanches.
364: However, as the system evolves according to the update rules,
365: soon an agent is below threshold, and a new avalanche has been initiated.
366:
367: Figure~\ref{fig4} shows a log-log plot of the
368: avalanche size distribution for a system of 2000 agents.
369: Measurements were made during $10^7$ time steps,
370: after discarding the first $10^6$ time steps.
371: We clearly see a power law $P(S) \propto S^{-1.48\pm 0.03}$.
372: The value of the exponent, $\tau=1.48$, is indistinguishable
373: from $3/2$,
374: the latter being the exponent of
375: the distribution of first-return-times
376: for an unbiased random walker.
377: However, when studying the avalanche size distribution for
378: varying positions of the threshold $f_0$,
379: a distribution function of a form
380: well known
381: from percolation theory \cite{Stauffer} suggests itself\be
382: P(S) = S^{-\tau} g(S(f_c - f_0)^{1/\sigma})\enspace,
383: \ee where the Fisher
384: exponent $\tau$, now plays the role of the avalanche
385: size distribution coefficient.
386: $g(x)$ is a scaling function,
387: with the properties $g(x)\rightarrow 0$
388: for $x \rightarrow \infty$,
389: $g(x) \rightarrow g(0)$ for $x\rightarrow 0$,
390: and $\sigma$ is the
391: avalanche cutoff exponent \cite{Pac-Mas-Bak}.
392: Hence, the system cannot be adequately
393: described in terms of a simple unbiased random walker.
394:
395: The exponent value $3/2$ is also characteristic of mean field theory,
396: and was, e.g.,
397: obtained in the mean field treatment of the Bak-Sneppen model \cite{FSB},
398: which has some similarity with the model treated here.
399: However, as shown in \cite{BL} for the simplest possible SOC system \cite{HF},
400: the exponent $3/2$ can occur also in a system with fluctuations.
401: So one cannot from the value of our exponent conclude
402: that mean field theory is exact for our model in one dimension .
403:
404: %%%%%%%%%%
405: \begin{figure*}
406: \centerline{\psfig{figure=fig4.ps,width=7cm,angle=270}}
407: \begin{minipage}{8cm}
408: \caption[]{\label{fig4}Distribution of avalanche sizes in the critical state.
409: The size of an avalanche is the number of subsequent system
410: updates with (rescaled) profits less than $f_0 = -0.0057$.}
411: \end{minipage}
412: \end{figure*}
413:
414:
415:
416: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
417: \paragraph*{Discussion and Conclusion.}
418:
419: Comparing to the Bak-Sneppen model \cite{FSB},
420: we use not one variable,
421: but two variables, the profit and the price.
422: The profits are used to find the overall
423: loser in the system, but we do not adjust the profit directly.
424: Rather, the system is driven by the losing agent's
425: adjustment of his price, though he is defined by his
426: (lack of) profit.
427: Also, since $\eta_{\text{max}}$ is chosen small,
428: we do not randomize much.
429: Finally, in the Bak-Sneppen model neighbors
430: to a least-fit species have their fitness randomized,
431: but in the present model nothing was done to the
432: neighbors of a loser---only
433: the loser had something changed, his price.
434: The effect on his neighbors of this change
435: was predetermined and deterministic,
436: and yet the system is SOC.
437: Thus it seems that it does not matter how a system is driven.
438: As long as an extremal property is chosen and adjusted in some way,
439: the system will eventually build up long-range spatial correlations
440: and a threshold in the variable used to rank its agents.
441:
442: We have shown that our model economy evolves to a critical state
443: when driven by extremal dynamics.
444: This occurs without fine-tuning of parameters, i.e.,
445: the system is self-organized.
446: We measured the distribution of spatial separations of consecutive
447: activity in the system,
448: and found two power laws (left and right) with exponents
449: $\pi\rig=1.844\pm 0.002$ and $\pi\lef=2.021\pm 0.002$, with
450: a 70$\%$ backing of the fit.
451: The system's dynamics does not have an attractive fixed point,
452: but only an attractive asymptote.
453: Hence we rescaled it to a (statistically) stationary
454: state where the definition of avalanches is possible.
455: After this rescaling,
456: we found a power law for the distribution of avalanche sizes
457: with exponent $\tau = 1.48 \pm 0.03$.
458:
459:
460:
461: The system studied here is brutally minimalistic.
462: There is room for several amendments towards improved realism,
463: with little loss in simplicity.
464: For example, on a two-dimensional square lattice each agent
465: can have two suppliers and two costumers,
466: allowing for competition, hence a market-like scenario.
467: In this sense, networks with higher coordination numbers
468: are even more realistic.
469: We expect criticality also in these cases,
470: but with different exponents.
471:
472: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
473: \paragraph*{Acknowledgments.}
474: SFN thanks H. Flyvbjerg and I.~M.~Toli\'{c}
475: for helpful discussions.
476: SFN acknowledges financial support from the L\o rup Foundation.
477:
478: \bibliographystyle{abbrv}
479: \bibliography{references}
480:
481:
482:
483: \begin{references}
484:
485:
486: \bibitem{BTW} P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld,
487: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 59}, 381 (1987).
488:
489: \bibitem{Field} S. Field, J. Witt, and F. Nori,
490: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74}, 1206 (1995).
491:
492: \bibitem{How} P. Bak, {\em How Nature Works}
493: (Oxford University Press, 1997)
494:
495: \bibitem{FSB} P. Bak and K. Sneppen,
496: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 4083 (1993).
497: H. Flyvbjerg, K.\ Sneppen, and P.\ Bak,
498: {\em ibid.} {\bf 71}, 4087 (1993).
499:
500: \bibitem{FF} P. Bak, K. Chen, and C. Tang,
501: Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 147}, 297 (1990).
502:
503: \bibitem{IP} D. Wilkinson and J. F. Willemsen,
504: J. Phys.\ A {\bf 16}, 3365, (1983).
505:
506:
507: \bibitem{Turcotte} D. L. Turcotte,
508: Rep.\ Progr.\ Phys.\ {\bf 62}, 1377 (1999).
509:
510:
511: \bibitem{Richter} R.\ Richter, {\em Money}, chapter 1
512: (Springer, 1989).
513:
514: \bibitem{Trejos} A.\ Trejos and R.\ Wright, J.\ Political Economy
515: {\bf 103}, 118 (1995).
516:
517: \bibitem{shubik} P. Bak, S. F. N\o rrelykke, and M. Shubik,
518: Phys.\ Rev.\ E. {\bf 60}, 2528 (1999).
519:
520: \bibitem{inflation} This result does not depend on the specific
521: choice in Eq.~(\ref{eq:utility}).
522: Studying a more general version of the utility function
523: $u_n = -\mbox{a}q_n^{\alpha} + \mbox{b}q_{n+1}^{\beta}$,
524: we find with the specified set of rules that inflation
525: will occur as long as $\alpha > \beta > 0$.
526:
527: \bibitem{interval} The interval [1,2] is an arbitrary choice,
528: the only demand on the initial prices is that they are positive.
529:
530: \bibitem{ava-starters} An avalanche starter is an agent with profit
531: above the threshold, who is chosen as loser by our algorithm.
532: This happens only when there are no agents
533: with profits below the threshold,
534: i.e., when an avalanche is over, per definition.
535: Potentially, a new avalanche is triggered
536: by this agent.
537: But it is not connected to the previous avalanche:
538: Agents with profits above threshold are approximately uniformly
539: distributed in space, hence so is the starting point of the new
540: avalanche.
541:
542: \bibitem{comment} The error we give for the fitted value of a parameter
543: is just the square root of the
544: variance found for that fitting parameter.
545: This is the error to be expected
546: {\em when all other parameters are kept fixed}.
547: When they are not, larger errors are to be expected,
548: as expressed by the variance-covariance matrix of the fit.
549: If we set the value of $\pi\lef$ to 2, i.e., fix it more than
550: 9 standard deviations below the fitted level, the backing drops, but
551: only to $P_{1936}(>2023)=8.4\%$, i.e, not enough to
552: falsify the hypothesis that $\pi\lef = 2$.
553:
554: \bibitem{simeq}
555: This relation is only a first approximation
556: since the loser often has to change his price more than once in
557: order to increase his profit enough.
558: A better approximation including this effect is used in the actual
559: rescaling.
560:
561: \bibitem{Stauffer} D. Stauffer and A. Aharony,
562: {\em Introduction to Percolation Theory}
563: (Taylor \& Francis, revised second edition, 1994).
564:
565: \bibitem{Pac-Mas-Bak} M. Paczuski, S. Maslov, and P. Bak,
566: Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 53}, 414 (1996).
567:
568:
569:
570: \bibitem{BL} R. Bundschuh and M. L\"assig,
571: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77}, 4273 (1996).
572:
573: \bibitem{HF} H. Flyvbjerg, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76}, 940 (1996);
574: H. Flyvbjerg, {\em ibid.} {\bf 77}, 4274 (1996).
575:
576: \end{references}
577:
578: \end{multicols}
579:
580: \end{document}
581: