1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,aps]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
4: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
5: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{How To Attain Maximum Profit In Minority Game?}
10:
11: \author{H. F. Chau and F. K. Chow}
12: \affiliation{
13: Department of Physics, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
14: }
15: \date{\today}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: What is the physical origin of player cooperation in minority game? And
19: how to obtain maximum global wealth in minority game? We answer the above
20: questions by studying a variant of minority game from which players choose
21: among $N_c$ alternatives according to strategies picked from a restricted set
22: of strategy space. Our numerical experiment concludes that player cooperation
23: is the result of a suitable size of sampling in the available strategy
24: space. Hence, the overall performance of the game can be improved by suitably
25: adjusting the strategy space size.
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \pacs{05.65.+b, 02.50.Le, 05.45.-a, 87.23.Ge}
29:
30: \maketitle
31:
32: Econophysics --- the study of economic and economic inspired problems by
33: physical means --- is the result of interflow between theoretical economists
34: and physicists. Using statistical mechanical and nonlinear physical methods,
35: econophysicists study global behaviors of simple-minded models of economic
36: systems making up of adaptive agents with inductive reasoning.
37: In particular, minority game (MG) \cite{Min1,Min2} is an important and
38: perhaps the most extensively studied econophysics model of global collective
39: behavior in a free market economy. This game was proposed by Challet and
40: Zhang under the inspiration of the El Farol bar problem introduced by the
41: theoretical economist Arthur \cite{Min3}.
42:
43: MG is a toy model of $N$ inductive reasoning players who have to choose one
44: out of two alternatives independently according to their best working
45: strategies in each turn. Those who end up in the minority side (that is, the
46: choice with the least number of players) win. Although its rules are
47: remarkably simple, MG shows a surprisingly rich self-organized collective
48: behavior. For example, there is a second phase transition between a symmetric
49: and an asymmetric phase \cite{Min4,Min5,Min6}.
50: Since the dynamics of MG minimizes a global function related to market
51: predictability, we may regard MG as a disordered spin glass system
52: \cite{Min7,Min8}.
53: Recently, Hart \emph{et al.} introduced the so-called crowd-anticrowd theory
54: to explain the dynamics of MG \cite{Min9,Min10}. Their theory stated that
55: fluctuations arised in the MG is controlled by the interplay between crowds
56: of like-minded agents and their perfectly anti-correlated partners.
57: The crowd-anticrowd theory not only can explain global behavior of MG, it
58: also provides a simple working hypothesis to understand the mechanism of
59: a number of models extended from the MG.
60:
61: Numerical simulation as well as the crowd-antiwcrowd theory tell us that the
62: global behavior of MG depends on two factors. The first one is the product
63: of the number of players $N$ at play and the number of strategies $S$ each
64: player has. The second factor is the complexity of each strategy measured
65: by $2^{M+1}$, where $M$ is the number of the most recent historical outcomes
66: that a strategy depends on. Global cooperation, as indicated by the fact that
67: average number of players winning the game each time is larger than the case
68: when all players make their choice randomly, is observed whenever $2^{M+1}
69: \approx N S$ \cite{Min4,Min5,Min6}. In fact, cooperative phenomenon is also
70: seen in our recent generalization of the MG in which each player can choose
71: one out of $N_c$ alternatives. More precisely, $N_c^M \approx N S$ is a
72: necessary condition for global cooperation between players in our
73: generalization \cite{Min11}.
74:
75: Perhaps the two most important questions to address are why and when the
76: players cooperate in MG. In fact, these are the questions that the
77: crowd-anticrowd theory was trying to answer.
78: On the way of finding out the answers, Cavagna believed that the only
79: non-trivial relevant parameter to the dynamics of MG is $M$ \cite{Min12}.
80: But later on, Challet and Marsili revealed that historical outcomes also
81: determine the dynamics of MG in general. They also found that information
82: contained in the historical outcomes is irrelevant in the symmetric phase
83: \cite{Min13}.
84:
85: Is it true that global behavior of MG is determined once $N$, $S$ and $M$
86: are fixed? More specifically, we ask if it is possible to lock the system
87: in a global cooperative phase for any fixed values of $N$, $S$ and $M$. In
88: this way, players, on average, gain most out of the game.
89: In what follows, we report a simple and elegant way to alter the complexity
90: of each strategy in MG with fixed $N$, $S$ and $M$. By doing so, it is
91: possible to keep (almost) optimal cooperation amongst the players in almost
92: the entire parameter space.
93:
94: We begin our analysis by first constructing a model of MG with $N_c$
95: alternatives whose strategy space size equals $N_c^2$ for a fixed
96: prime power $N_c$. We label, for simplicity, the $N_c$ alternatives as the
97: $N_c$ distinct elements in the finite field $GF(N_c)$; and we denote this
98: variation of MG by MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$).
99: In MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$), each of the $N$ players is assigned once and for all
100: $S$ randomly chosen strategies. Each player then chooses one out of the
101: $N_c$ alternatives independently according to his/her best working strategy
102: in each turn. The choice chosen by the least \emph{non-zero} number of
103: players is the minority choice of that turn. (In case of a tie, the minority
104: choice is chosen randomly amongst the choices with least non-zero number of
105: players.)
106: The minority choice of each turn is announced. The wealth of those players
107: who end up in the minority side is added one point while the wealth of all
108: other players is subtracted by one.
109:
110: To evaluate the performance of each strategy, a player uses the virtual
111: score which is the hypothetical profit for using that strategy in playing
112: the game. The strategy with the highest virtual score is considered as the
113: best performing one. (In case of a tie, one chooses randomly amongst those
114: strategies with highest virtual score.)
115: The only public information available to the players is the output of the
116: last $M$ steps.
117: A strategy $s$ can be represented by a vector $\vec{s} \equiv
118: (s_1, s_2, s_3, \ldots , s_L)$ where $L\equiv N_c^M$ and $s_i$ are the
119: choices of the strategy $s$ corresponding to different combination of the
120: output of the last $M$ steps.
121: In MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$), strategies are picked from the strategy space
122: ${\mathbb S} = \{ \lambda_a \vec{v}_a + \lambda_u \vec{v}_u : \lambda_a,
123: \lambda_u \in GF(N_c) \}$ of size $N_c^2$ where $GF(N_c)$ denotes the finite
124: field of $N_c$ elements and all arithmetical operations are performed in the
125: field $GF(N_c)$. The two spanning strategy vectors $\vec{v}_a \equiv
126: ( v_{a1}, v_{a2}, \ldots , v_{aL} )$ and $\vec{v}_u \equiv ( v_{u1}, v_{u2},
127: \ldots , v_{uL} )$ of the linear space ${\mathbb S}$ satisfy the following
128: two technical conditions:
129: \begin{equation}
130: v_{ai} \neq 0 \mbox{~for~all~} i, \label{E:Cond_anti}
131: \end{equation}
132: and by regarding $i$ as a uniform random variable between $1$ and $L$,
133: \begin{equation}
134: \mbox{Pr} (v_{ui} = k | v_{ai} = j) = 1/N_c \mbox{~for~all~} j,k \in GF(N_c)
135: \label{E:Cond_uncorr}
136: \end{equation}
137: whenever $\mbox{Pr} (v_{ai} = j) \neq 0$. (We remark that these two technical
138: conditions are satisfied by various choices of $\vec{v}_a$ and $\vec{v}_u$
139: such as $v_{ai} = 1$ and $v_{ui} = f(i \bmod {N_c})$ where $f$ is a bijection
140: from ${\mathbb Z}_{N_c}$ to $GF(N_c)$.)
141:
142: The span of the strategy vector $\vec{v}_a$ over $GF(N_c)$ forms a mutually
143: anti-correlated strategy ensemble ${\mathbb S}_a$ since
144: Eq.~(\ref{E:Cond_anti}) implies that any two distinct strategies drawn from
145: ${\mathbb S}_a$ always choose different alternatives for any given historical
146: outcomes. Hence, the Hamming distance between any distinct strategies
147: $\vec{u}_1 \neq \vec{u}_2$ in ${\mathbb S}_a$ equals
148: \begin{equation}
149: d ( \vec{u}_1, \vec{u}_2 ) = L. \label{E:Hamming_anti}
150: \end{equation}
151:
152: In contrast, the span of the strategy vector $\vec{v}_u$ over $GF(N_c)$ forms
153: a mutually uncorrelated strategy ensemble ${\mathbb S}_u$ since
154: Eq.~(\ref{E:Cond_uncorr}) and the fact that $\lambda\,GF(N_c) = GF(N_c)$ for
155: all $\lambda \in GF(N_c) \backslash \{ 0 \}$ imply that any two distinct
156: strategies drawn from ${\mathbb S}_u$ always choose their alternatives
157: independently for any given historical outcomes. In other words, the
158: probability that any two distinct strategies drawn from ${\mathbb S}_u$
159: choose the same alternative is equal to $1/N_c$. Consequently,
160: \begin{equation}
161: d ( \vec{u}_3, \vec{u}_4 ) = L (1 - 1/N_c) \label{E:Hamming_uncorr}
162: \end{equation}
163: for any $\vec{u}_3 \neq \vec{u}_4 \in {\mathbb S}_u$; and
164: \begin{equation}
165: d ( \vec{u}_1, \vec{u}_3 ) = L (1 - 1/N_c) \label{E:Hamming_uncorr2}
166: \end{equation}
167: for any $\vec{u}_1 \in {\mathbb S}_a$ and $\vec{u}_3 \in {\mathbb S}_u
168: \backslash \{ (0,0,\ldots ,0) \}$.
169:
170: More generally, using Eqs.~(\ref{E:Hamming_anti})--(\ref{E:Hamming_uncorr2})
171: as well as the fact that $d(a,b) = d(a+c,b+c)$, we have
172: \begin{eqnarray}
173: & & d( \lambda_{a1} \vec{v}_a + \lambda_{u1} \vec{v}_u, \lambda_{a2}
174: \vec{v}_a + \lambda_{u2} \vec{v}_u ) \nonumber \\
175: & = & d( [\lambda_{a1} - \lambda_{a2} ] \,\vec{v}_a, [\lambda_{u2} -
176: \lambda_{u1} ] \,\vec{v}_u ) \nonumber \\
177: & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
178: L (1-1/N_c) & \mbox{if~} \lambda_{u1} \neq \lambda_{u2}, \\
179: L & \mbox{if~} \lambda_{u1} = \lambda_{u2} \mbox{~and~} \lambda_{a1} \neq
180: \lambda_{a2}, \\
181: 0 & \mbox{if~} \lambda_{u1} = \lambda_{u2} \mbox{~and~} \lambda_{a1} =
182: \lambda_{a2}.
183: \end{array} \right. \label{E:HamDis}
184: \end{eqnarray}
185: That is to say, the strategy space ${\mathbb S}$ is composed of $N_c$
186: distinct mutually anti-correlated strategy ensemble (namely, those with same
187: $\lambda_{u}$); whereas the strategies of each of these ensemble are
188: uncorrelated with each other. (We remark that in the language of coding
189: theory, ${\mathbb S}$ is a linear code of $N_c^2$ elements over $GF(N_c)$
190: with minimum distance $L(1 - 1/N_c)$.)
191:
192: We expect that the collective behavior of MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) should follow the
193: predictions of the crowd-anticrowd theory as the structure of ${\mathbb S}$
194: matches the assumptions of the theory. In order to evaluate the
195: performance of players in MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$), we study the mean variance of
196: attendance over all alternatives (or simply the mean variance)
197: \begin{equation}
198: \Sigma^{2} = \frac{1}{N_c}\sum_{i=0}^{N_c} [ \langle (A_i(t))^2 \rangle -
199: \langle A_i(t) \rangle^2] \label{E:var},
200: \end{equation}
201: where the attendance of an alternative $A_i(t)$ is just the number of players
202: chosen that alternative. (We remark that the variance of
203: the attendance of a single alternative was studied for the MG \cite{Min1}.)
204: In fact, the variance of the attendance of an
205: alternative represents the loss of all players in the game. The variance
206: $\Sigma^2$, to first order approximation, is a function of the control
207: parameter $\alpha$, which is the ratio of the strategy space size $|{\mathbb S}|$
208: to the number of strategies at play $NS$, alone \cite{Min5}.
209:
210: To compare the MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) with the crowd-anticrowd theory, we first
211: have to extend the calculation of the variance by the crowd-anticrowd theory
212: to the case of $N_c$ alternatives. According to the crowd-anticrowd theory,
213: the variance of the attendance originates from the independent random walk of
214: each mutually anti-correlated strategy ensemble. In each of these
215: strategy ensemble, the action of a strategy is counter-balanced by its
216: anti-correlated strategies. Therefore, the step size of the random walk
217: of a mutually anti-correlated strategy ensemble is equal to the difference
218: between the number of players using a single strategy from the mean number
219: of players using the strategies in this ensemble \cite{Min9,Min10}.
220: This random walk idea can be readily extended to the case of multiple
221: alternatives. In fact, for the mutually anti-correlated strategy ensemble
222: ${\mathbb S}_\lambda = \{ \lambda \vec{v}_u + \mu \vec{v}_a : \mu \in
223: GF(N_c) \}$,
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: & & \mbox{step size for~} A_{\chi(\lambda,\mu)}(t)
226: \mbox{~by~} {\mathbb S}_\lambda
227: \nonumber \\
228: &=& \left| N_{\lambda,\mu} - \frac{ \sum_{\nu \in GF(N_c)} N_{\lambda,\nu}}{N_c}
229: \right| \nonumber \\
230: &=& \frac{1}{N_c} \left| \sum_{\nu \neq \mu} (N_{\lambda,\mu} - N_{\lambda,\nu}
231: ) \right| ,
232: \label{E:CAC_stepsize}
233: \end{eqnarray}
234: where $N_{\lambda,\mu}$ is the number of players making decision according to
235: the strategy $\lambda \vec{v}_u + \mu \vec{v}_a$ and $\chi(\lambda,\mu)$ is
236: the alternative that are chosen by the strategy $\lambda \vec{v}_u + \mu
237: \vec{v}_a$. Thus, the mean variance predicted by the crowd-anticrowd theory is
238: given by
239: \begin{equation}
240: \Sigma^2 = \left\langle \frac{1}{N_c} \sum_{{\mathbb S}_\lambda}
241: \sum_{\mu \in GF(N_c)} \left\{ \frac{1}{{N_c}^2} \left[ \sum_{\nu \neq \mu}
242: (N_{\lambda,\mu} - N_{\lambda,\nu}) \right]^2 \right\} \right\rangle,
243: \label{E:CAC_var}
244: \end{equation}
245: where $\sum_{{\mathbb S}_\lambda}$ denotes the sum of the variance over all
246: mutually anti-correlated strategies ensemble, and $\langle \,\rangle$ denotes
247: the average over time. We note that when averaged over both time and initial
248: choice of strategies, variance of attendance for
249: different alternatives must equal as there is
250: no preference for any alternative in the game.
251:
252: \begin{figure}[!h]
253: \includegraphics[scale = 0.28, bb=520 50 300 600]{mg2.1.1.eps}
254: % Here is how to import EPS art
255: \caption{\label{fig:f1} The mean variance $\Sigma^2$ versus the control
256: parameter $\alpha \equiv |{\mathbb S}|/NS = N_c^2/NS$ in MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$)
257: with different number of strategies $S$ where $N_c = 37$ and $M = 2$. The
258: solid lines are the predictions of the crowd-anticrowd theory whereas the
259: dashed line indicates the coin-tossed value.}
260: \end{figure}
261:
262: Fig.~\ref{fig:f1} shows the mean variance of attendance as a function of the
263: control parameter $\alpha$ in the MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) for a typical $N_c$.
264: For the MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$), the mean variance of attendance, $\Sigma^2$,
265: exhibits similar behavior as a function of the control parameter $\alpha$ to
266: that in the MG no matter how many strategies $S$ players have. In particular,
267: whenever $N_c^2 / N S \approx 1$, the mean variance $\Sigma^2$
268: is smaller than the so-called coin-tossed value. (Coin-tossed value is
269: the mean variance resulting from players making random choices.)
270: Thus, global cooperation
271: amongst the players is observed in this parameter range. Moreover,
272: Fig.~\ref{fig:f1} shows that the mean variance predicted by the
273: crowd-anticrowd theory agrees with our numerical finding.
274:
275: Further results along this line, including the mean variance of attendance
276: as a function of the control parameter in MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) with different
277: strategy space ${\mathbb S}$, will be reported elsewhere. These results all
278: agree with the crowd-anticrowd theory \cite{Min14}. Therefore, we conclude
279: that we have successfully build up the MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) model whenever $N_c$
280: is a prime power.
281:
282: Indeed, the MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) model can be readily extended to
283: MG($N_c$,$N_c^k$) with $N_c$ is equal to a prime power for $3 \le k \le M+1$.
284: We found that the mean variance also agrees with the MG and the crowd-anticrowd
285: theory in the MG($N_c$,$N_c^k$) \cite{Min14}. Thus we can always alter the
286: complexity of each strategy in MG with fixed $N$, $S$ and $M$ while the
287: cooperative behavior still persist.
288: \emph{As a result, we can always keep (almost) optimal cooperation amongst
289: the players in almost the entire parameter space.}
290:
291: However, is it possible to construct a MG with $N_c$ alternatives whose
292: strategy space size is smaller than $N_c^2$ that exhibits global cooperation?
293: We give the answer by constructing the MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) model where $\eta$
294: is an integer less than $N_c$.
295:
296: The basic setting of MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) is the same as that of
297: MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) except that the strategies are drawn from a different
298: strategy space.
299: More precisely, strategies of MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) are picked from the set
300: ${\mathbb S}_K = \{ \lambda_a \vec{v}_a + \lambda_u \vec{v}_u : \lambda_a
301: \in GF(N_c), \lambda_u \in K \subset GF(N_c) \}$ where $K$ contains $\eta$
302: elements. Moreover, $\vec{v}_a$ and $\vec{v}_u$ satisfy the two technical
303: conditions in Eqs.~(\ref{E:Cond_anti}) and~(\ref{E:Cond_uncorr}). Clearly,
304: the strategy space size of ${\mathbb S}_K$ equals $\eta N_c$.
305:
306: \begin{figure*}
307: \includegraphics[scale = 0.56, bb=580 40 300 580]{mg2.1.2.eps}
308: % Here is how to import EPS art
309: \caption{\label{fig:f2} The mean variance $\Sigma^2$ (square)
310: versus the control parameter $\alpha \equiv |{\mathbb S}_K|/NS = \eta N_c/NS$
311: in MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) with different $\eta$ where $S = 2$ and $M = 2$.
312: The variance of the attendance of a choice (cross) is also shown in the figure.
313: The solid line indicates the mean variance predicted by the
314: crowd-anticrowd theory whereas the dashed line indicates the coin-tossed value.}
315: \end{figure*}
316:
317: As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:f2}, the mean variance of attendance $\Sigma^2$ in
318: MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) shows similar behavior as a function of the control
319: parameter $\alpha$ to that in the MG only for small $\alpha$. When $\alpha$
320: increases, the mean variance $\Sigma^2$ in MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) becomes smaller
321: than that in MG. Nevertheless, the numerical mean variance in
322: MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) does not agree with the prediction of the crowd-anticrowd
323: theory except for small $\alpha$. The inconsistency is more pronounced when
324: $\alpha$ increases.
325:
326: To account for this discrepancy, we notice that as $\eta \rightarrow 1^+$
327: while keeping all other parameters fixed, fewer and fewer (or even none) of
328: the strategies in the strategy space of
329: MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) makes the same choice for the same combination of the
330: output of the last $M$ steps. Therefore, some of the choices can never be
331: chosen for MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) with small $\eta$ when the number of
332: strageties picked by the players are much smaller than the strategy space
333: size $\eta N_c$. In this circumstances, the attendances of most alternatives
334: are either one or zero. Consequently, the mean variance $\Sigma^2$ in
335: MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) with small $\eta$ is much less than $N$. In fact, the
336: variance of a choice may even vanished for large $\alpha$.
337: Such phenomenon will be more pronounced in MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) with small
338: $\eta$. Thus, the mean variance in the MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) for $\eta \ll N_c$
339: exhibits a radically different behavior from the MG.
340: From the above observation, we know that there is no effective crowd-anticrowd
341: interaction whenever $\eta \ll N_c$. And in this case, the dynamics in the
342: MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$) is no longer dominated by the interactions of the
343: anti-correlated strategies. Consequently, the crowd-anticrowd theory does not
344: correctly predict the mean variance in MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$).
345: Nonetheless, we still find that in MG($N_c$,$\eta N_c$), $\Sigma^2$ attains
346: a minimum
347: (and hence the average number of winning players is maximized) whenever the
348: control parameter $\alpha \equiv |{\mathbb S}_K|/NS = \eta N_c/NS \approx 1$
349: for every prime power $N_c$ and $1 < \eta < N_c$.
350:
351: Now, we are ready to answer the two questions posted in the abstract. First,
352: in order to obtain the best overall global wealth, players should switch to
353: the MG($N_c$,$\zeta N_c$) game provided that $N_c < NS \le N_c^{M+1}$.
354: More specifically, for fixed $N_c$, $N$, $S$ and $M$, players simply have to
355: agree on an integer $\zeta \approx NS/N_c$ and the corresponding strategy space
356: in order to ensure the best performance of the MG. Second, whenever
357: $\zeta \ge N_c$, the mean variance of attendance $\Sigma^2$ agrees well with
358: our extension of the crowd-anticrowd theory. Thus, we conclude that in
359: MG($N_c$,$\zeta N_c$) with $N_c \le \zeta \le N_c^M$, the origin of global
360: cooperation is the self-organization of player's tendency to choose
361: anti-correlated strategies in making their decision. The ``cancellation'' of
362: the actions in these mutually anti-correlated strategy ensemble leads to a
363: small $\Sigma^2$.
364:
365: Finally, we remark that results on the order parameter of MG($N_c$,$\zeta N_c$)
366: will be reported elsewhere \cite{Min14}. Readers should note that in case $N_c$
367: is not a prime power, the presence of zero divisors in the ring
368: ${\mathbb Z}_{N_c}$ invalidates the conclusion in Eq.~(\ref{E:HamDis}). So, it
369: is instructive to find a reasonable extension of MG($N_c$,$N_c^2$) in this case.
370:
371: %\begin{acknowledgments}
372: Useful discussions with K.~H. Ho, P.~M. Hui and Kuen Lee is gratefully
373: acknowledged. This work is support by the RGC grant of the Hong Kong SAR
374: government under the contract number HKU~7098/00P. H.F.C. is also supported
375: in part by the University of Hong Kong Outstanding Young Researcher Award.
376: %\end{acknowledgments}
377:
378: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
379: \bibitem{Min1} D. Challet and Y. C. Zhang, Physica A {\bf 246}, 407 (1997).
380: \bibitem{Min2} Y. C. Zhang, Europhys. News {\bf 29}, 51 (1998).
381: \bibitem{Min3} W. B. Arthur, Amer. Econ. Assoc. Papers and Proc. {\bf 84},
382: 406 (1994).
383: \bibitem{Min4} D. Challet and Y. C. Zhang, Physica A {\bf 256}, 514 (1998).
384: \bibitem{Min5} R. Savit, R. Manuca and R. Riolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82},
385: 2203 (1999).
386: \bibitem{Min6} N. F. Johnson, S. Jarvis, R. Jonson, P. Cheung, Y. R. Kwong
387: and P. M. Hui, Physica A {\bf 258}, 230 (1998).
388: \bibitem{Min7} D. Challet and M. Marsili, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60}, R6271 (1999).
389: \bibitem{Min8} D. Challet, M. Marsili and R. Zecchina, Phys. Rev. Lett.
390: {\bf 84}, 1824 (2000).
391: \bibitem{Min9} M. Hart, P. Jefferies, N. F. Johnson and P. M. Hui, Physica A
392: {\bf 298}, 537 (2001).
393: \bibitem{Min10} M. Hart, P. Jefferies, N. F. Johnson and P. M. Hui, Eur. Phys.
394: J. B {\bf 20}, 547 (2001).
395: \bibitem{Min11} F. K. Chow and H. F. Chau, cond-mat/0109166.
396: %\bibitem{MinOthers} L. Ein-Dor, R. Metzler, I. Kanter and W. Kinzel,
397: %Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 066103 (2001).
398: \bibitem{Min12} A. Cavagna, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 59}, R3783 (1999).
399: \bibitem{Min13} D. Challet and M. Marsili, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62}, R1862 (2000).
400: \bibitem{Min14} H. F. Chau and F. K. Chow, in preparation.
401: \end{thebibliography}
402:
403: \end{document}
404: