1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

3: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

4: %\usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

5: \usepackage[dvipdf]{graphicx}% Include figure files

6: \DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.jpg,.pdf,.mps,.png,.pdf,.ps,.pdf}

7:       \newcommand{\dd}{\textrm{d}}

8: \newcommand{\req}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

11: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

12: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

13: \newcommand{\ii}{\text{i}}

14: \newcommand{\pr}[1]{\left(#1\right)}

15: \newcommand{\cro}[1]{\left[#1\right]}

16: \newcommand{\acc}[1]{\left\{#1\right\}}

17: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}

18: \newcommand{\bsy}[1]{\boldsymbol{#1}}

19: \newcommand{\up}{\uparrow} \newcommand{\down}{\downarrow}

20: \newcommand{\sign}{\textrm{sign}\ }

21: \newcommand{\beas}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

22: \newcommand{\eeas}{\end{eqnarray*}}

23: \def\sign{\hbox{sign}\,}

24: \def\erf{\hbox{erf}\,}

25: \newcommand{\BE}{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\EE}{\end{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\BEn}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

28: \newcommand{\EEn}{\end{eqnarray*}}

29: \newcommand{\barr}{\begin{array}}

30: \newcommand{\earr}{\end{array}}

31: \newcommand{\qe}{\`{e }}

32: \newcommand{\eq}{\'{e }}

33: \newcommand{\qa}{\`{a }}

34: \newcommand{\qo}{\`{o }}

35: \newcommand{\qi}{\`{\i }}

36: \newcommand{\bit}{\begin{itemize}}

37: \newcommand{\eit}{\end{itemize}}

38: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

39: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

40: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{enumerate}}

41: \newcommand{\een}{\end{enumerate}}

42: \newcommand{\nid}{\noindent}

43: \newcommand{\cl}{\centerline}

44: \newcommand{\nl}{\newline}

45: \newcommand{\ul}{\underline}

46: \newcommand{\ovl}{\overline}

47: \newcommand{\vect}{\overrightarrow}

48: \newcommand{\Tr}{\text{Tr}}

49: \newcommand{\Avg}{\avg}

50: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}

51: \newcommand{\de}{\partial}

52: \newcommand{\impl}{\Longrightarrow}

53: \newcommand{\To}{\longrightarrow}

54: \newcommand{\LRARR}{\Longleftrightarrow}

55: \newcommand{\Tb}{{\bf T}}

56: \newcommand{\Gb}{{\bf G}}

57: \newcommand{\Fb}{{\bf F}}

58: \newcommand{\xb}{{\bf x}}

59: \newcommand{\yb}{{\bf y}}

60: \newcommand{\eb}{{\bf e}}

61: \newcommand{\wb}{{\bf w}}

62: \newcommand{\ub}{{\bf u}}

63: \newcommand{\om}{\omega}

64: \newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}

65: \newcommand{\e}{\mbox{e}}

66: \renewcommand\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}

67: \renewcommand{\l}{\left}

68: \renewcommand{\r}{\right}

69: \begin{document}

70: \newcommand{\hT}{ {\cal T} }

71: \newcommand{\hB}[2]{ {\cal B} \left[ {#1} \cdot {#2} \right]}

72: \title{Multi-asset minority games} \author{G. Bianconi$^{1}$, A. De

73:   Martino$^2$, F. F. Ferreira$^3$ and M. Marsili$^1$}

74:    \affiliation{$^1$The Abdus Salam ICTP, Strada

75:   Costiera 14, 34014 Trieste, Italy} \affiliation{$^2$CNR-ISC,

76:   INFM-SMC and Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma ``La

77:   Sapienza'', p.le A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy} \affiliation{$^3$ EACH, Universidade De S\~ao Paulo, Av. Arlindo Bétio 1000,03828-080 S\~ao Paulo,Brazil}

78: \begin{abstract}

79:   We study analytically and numerically Minority Games in which agents

80:   may invest in different assets (or markets), considering both the

81:   canonical and the grand-canonical versions. We find that the

82:   likelihood of agents trading in a given asset depends on the

83:   relative amount of information available in that market. More

84:   specifically, in the canonical game players play preferentially in the stock

85:   with less information. The same holds in the grand canonical game when

86:   agents have positive incentives to trade, whereas when agents payoff are solely

87:   related to their speculative ability they

88:   display a larger propensity to invest in the information-rich

89:   asset. Furthermore, in this model one finds a globally predictable

90:   phase with broken ergodicity.

91: \end{abstract}

92: \pacs{: } \maketitle

93: \section{Introduction}

94: The study of systems of heterogeneous adaptive agents through

95: Minority Games (MGs) \cite{ElFarol,CZ} has attracted much interest

96: from statistical physicists. Despite the simplicity of the

97: interactions between agents, these models generate rich static and

98: dynamical structures which can often be well understood at the

99: mathematical level through the use of spin-glass techniques

100: \cite{book,cool}.  While the MG has found applications in

101: different types of problems (see for example \cite{traffic}), it

102: was originally designed to address the issue of how the

103: microscopic behavior of traders -- speculators in particular  --

104: may give rise to the anomalous global fluctuation phenomena

105: observed empirically in financial markets. In this respect the

106: most successful version of the MG has perhaps been the

107: grand-canonical MG \cite{Johnson,GCMG}, in which traders may

108: abstain from investing, so that the traded volume fluctuates in

109: time.

110: 

111: The core of MGs is the assumption that traders react to the

112: receipt of an information pattern (be it exogenous or endogenous)

113: by taking a simple trading decision such as buying or selling. The

114: key control parameter is the ratio between the number of traders

115: and the `complexity' of the information space, measured by the

116: number of possible patterns. In general, when this ratio exceeds a

117: certain threshold MGs undergo a phase transition to a

118: macroscopically efficient state where it is not possible to

119: predict statistically whether a certain decision will be fruitful

120: or not based on the received information alone.

121: 

122: Real markets are typically formed by different assets and are

123: characterized by non trivial correlations \cite{Mantegna,Potters,Kertesz}.

124: These correlations arise from the underlying behavior of the

125: economics (the fundamentals) but they are also ``dressed'' by the

126: effect of financial trading. In this paper, we will use the

127: Minority Game in order to investigate how speculative trading

128: affects the different assets in a market. Versions of MG where

129: agents are engaged in different contexts have already been

130: introduced and studied \cite{Rodgers,Chau}. More precisely, we shall

131: investigate how speculative trading contributes to financial

132: correlations, and how speculators distribute their trading volume

133: depending on the information content of the different asset

134: markets. 

135: 

136: Our first result is that speculative trading does not contribute

137: in a sensible manner to financial correlations, and if it does, it

138: likely contributes a negative correlation. The reason is that,

139: within the schematic picture of the MG, speculators are uniquely

140: driven by profit considerations and totally disregard risk. The

141: same cannot be said for strategies on lower frequencies (buy and

142: hold) where risk minimization of the portfolio becomes important.

143: 

144: Our second main conclusion is that, when there are positive

145: incentives to trade, speculators invest preferentially on the

146: asset with the smallest information content. This apparently

147: paradoxical conclusion is reverted when speculators have no

148: incentive to trade, other than making a profit. This is due to the

149: fact that speculators, when they are forced to trade also

150: contribute to information asymmetries. 

151: 

152: Finally, with respect to the usual classification in phases of the MG,

153: we find a considerably richer phase diagram where different components of the

154: market may be in different phases. These conclusions are derived for the case of a market

155: composed of two assets, which allows for a simpler treatment and

156: provides a more transparent picture. Their validity can be

157: extended in straightforward ways to the case of markets with a

158: generic number of assets.

159: 

160: The paper is articulated in three parts. Section \ref{sect:MG} is

161: dedicated to the study of a canonical MG where agents can choose

162: on which of two assets to invest. In Section \ref{sect:GCMG} we

163: discuss the grand-canonical version of this model, where agents

164: are also allowed to refrain from investing. Finally, we formulate

165: our conclusions in Sec. \ref{sect:concl}. The mathematical

166: analysis of the models we consider is a generalization of

167: calculations abundantly discussed in the literature (see

168: \cite{book,cool} for recent reviews). We therefore won't go into

169: the details, limiting ourselves to stressing the main differences

170: with the standard cases.

171: 

172: \section{Canonical Minority Game with two assets}

173: \label{sect:MG}

174: 

175: We consider the case of a market with two assets

176: $\gamma\in\{-1,1\}$ and $N$ agents. At each time step $t$,

177: agents receive two information patterns

178: $\mu_\gamma\in\{1,\ldots,P_\gamma\}$, chosen at random and

179: independently with uniform probability. It is assumed that

180: $P_\gamma$ scales linearly with $N$, and their ratio is denoted by

181: $\alpha_\gamma=P_\gamma/N$. Every agent $i$ disposes of two

182: ``strategies'' $\bsy{a}_{i\gamma}=\{a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}\}$

183: (one for each asset), that prescribe a binary action

184: $a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}\in\{-1,1\}$ (buy/sell) for each possible

185: information pattern. Each component $a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}$ is

186: assumed to be selected randomly and independently with uniform

187: probability and is kept fixed throughout the game. Traders keep

188: tracks of their performance in the different markets through a

189: score function $U_{i\gamma}(t)$ which is updated with the

190: following rule:

191: 

192: \be\label{learn1}

193: U_{i\gamma}(t+1)=U_{i\gamma}(t)-a^{\mu_\gamma(t)}_{i\gamma}

194: A_\gamma(t)

195: \ee

196: 

197: \noindent

198: where

199: 

200: \be

201: A_\gamma(t)=\sum_{j=1}^N

202: a^{\mu_\gamma(t)}_{j\gamma}\delta_{s_j(t),\gamma}

203: \label{Agamma}

204: \ee

205: 

206: \noindent represents the `excess demand' or the total bid on

207: market $\gamma$ (the factor $1/\sqrt{N}$ appears here for

208: mathematical convenience) and is usually taken as a proxy of (log)

209: returns, i.e.

210: $\log p_\gamma(t+1)=\log p_\gamma(t)+\lambda A_\gamma(t)$.

211: The Ising variable

212: 

213: \be

214: s_i(t)=\sign\left[U_{i,+1}(t)-U_{i,-1}(t)\right] \label{si}

215: \ee

216: 

217: \noindent

218: indicates the asset in which player $i$ invests at time $t$,

219: which is simply the one with the largest cumulated score.

220: It is the minus sign on the right-hand side of (\ref{learn1})

221: that enforces the minority-wins rule in both markets:

222: Agents will invest in that market where their strategy provides a

223: larger payoff $-a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma(t)}A_\gamma(t)$

224: (or a smaller loss).

225: 

226: It is possible to characterize the asymptotic behaviour of the

227: multi-agent system (\ref{learn1}) with a few macroscopic

228: observables, such as the predictability $H$ and the volatility $\sigma^2$,

229: defined respectively as \cite{H}

230: \begin{gather}

231:   H=\sum_{\gamma\in\{-1,1\}}\frac{1}{NP_\gamma}\sum_{\mu_\gamma=1}^{P_\gamma}

232:   \avg{A_\gamma|\mu_\gamma}^2=H_++H_-\label{acca}\\

233:   \sigma^2=\frac{1}{N}\sum_\gamma\avg{A_\gamma^2}=

234:   \sigma^2_++\sigma^2_-\label{s2}

235: \end{gather}

236: with $\avg{\cdot}$ and $\avg{\cdot|\mu_\gamma}$ denoting time

237: averages in the steady state, the latter conditioned on the

238: occurrence of the information pattern $\mu_\gamma$. Besides these, in the

239: present case, it is also important

240: to study the relative propensity of traders to invest in a given

241: market, namely

242: 

243: \be

244: m=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\avg{s_i}

245: \label{parapa}

246: \ee

247: 

248: \noindent

249: A positive (resp. negative) $m$ indicates that

250: agents invest preferentially in asset $+1$ (resp. $-1$).

251: 

252: It is clear, already at this stage, that if no {\em a priori}

253: correlation is postulated between the news arrival processes on the

254: two assets $\mu_{\pm}(t)$ or between the strategies adopted by agents

255: in the two markets, no correlation is created by agents.

256: Indeed

257: \begin{equation}\label{Acor}

258:   \avg{A_+ A_-}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i,j}\left\langle

259:   a_{i,+}^{\mu_+}a_{i,-}^{\mu_-}\frac{1+s_i}{2}\frac{1-s_j}{2}

260:   \right\rangle

261: \end{equation}

262: and we know \cite{MC01} that dynamical variables $U_{i\gamma}(t)$ evolve

263: on timescales much longer (of order $P_\gamma$) than that over which

264: $\mu_\gamma$ changes. Hence we can safely assume that the distribution of

265: $s_i$ in Eq. (\ref{Acor}) is independent of $\mu_{\pm}$, which allows to

266: factor the average $\langle a_{i,+}^{\mu_+}a_{i,-}^{\mu_-}\rangle

267: =\langle a_{i,+}^{\mu_+}\rangle\langle a_{i,-}^{\mu_-}\rangle$ over

268: the independent information arrival processes $\mu_{\pm}(t)$. Given that

269: $\langle a_{i,\pm}^{\mu_{\pm}}\approx 0$ we conclude that

270: $\avg{A_+ A_-}\approx 0$ also. The reason for this is that traders behavior is

271: aimed at detecting excess returns in the market with no consideration about

272: the correlation among assets.

273: The quantities defined above can be obtained both numerically and

274: analytically (in the limit $N\to\infty$) as functions of $\alpha_+$ and

275: $\alpha_-$.  The phase structure of

276: the model is displayed in Fig. \ref{Phase_diagram.fig}.

277: \begin{figure}

278: \includegraphics*[width = 8cm]{phased_can.eps}

279: \caption{Analytical phase diagram of the canonical two-asset Minority

280: Game in the $(\alpha_+,\alpha_-)$ plane.}

281: \label{Phase_diagram.fig}

282: \end{figure}

283: The $(\alpha_+,\alpha_-)$ plane is divided in two regions separated by

284: a critical line. In the ergodic regime, the system produces

285: exploitable information, i.e. $H>0$, and the dynamics is ergodic, that

286: is the steady state turns out to be independent of the initialization

287: $U_{i\gamma}(0)$ of (\ref{learn1}). Below the critical line, instead,

288: different initial conditions lead to steady states with different

289: macroscopic properties (e.g. different volatility). In this region traders manage

290: to wash out the information and the system is unpredictable

291: ($H=0$). This scenario essentially reproduces the standard MG phase

292: transition picture.  The model can be solved analytically in two

293: complementary ways and in both cases calculations are a

294: straightforward generalization of those valid for the single-asset

295: case. The static approach relies on the fact that the stationary

296: state is described by the minima of the random function

297: 

298: \be

299: H=\sum_{\gamma\in\{-1,1\}}\frac{1}{NP_\gamma}\sum_{\mu_\gamma=1}^{P_\gamma}\l[

300: \sum_{j=1}^N a_{j\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}\frac{1+\gamma m_j}{2}\r]^2

301: \ee

302: over the variables $-1\leq m_i=\avg{s_i}\leq 1$.

303: $H$ coincides with the

304: predictability in the steady state, which implies

305: that speculators make the market as unpredictable as possible.

306: The statistical mechanics approach proceeds by studying the properties of a

307: system of soft spins $m_i$ with Hamiltonian $H$ at a fictitious inverse

308: temperature $\beta$ in the limit

309: $N\to\infty$.

310: %Specifically, introducing the partition sum $Z=\Tr_{\bsy{m}} e^{-\beta H}$, one has

311: %\be

312: %\lim_{N\to\infty}\min_{\{m_i\}} H= \lim_{\beta\to\infty}\lim_{r\to

313: %0}\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{1}{r}\log\ovl{Z^r}

314: %\ee

315: %where $r$ is the number of replicas and the over-bar denotes an average over the quenched disorder.

316: The relevant order parameter

317: is the overlap $Q_{ab}=(1/N)\sum_i m_{ia}m_{ib}$

318: between different minima $a$ and $b$, which takes

319: the replica-symmetric form $Q_{ab}=q+(Q-q)\delta_{ab}$. Phases where

320: the minimum is unique, corresponding to $H>0$, are described by taking

321: $Q\to q$ (evidently) and $\chi=\beta(Q-q)$ finite in the limit $\beta\to\infty$.

322: The condition $\chi\to\infty$ signals the phase transition to the unpredictable

323: phase with $H=0$.

324: 

325: The dynamical approach employs path-integrals to transform the $N$

326: coupled single-agent processes for the variable

327: $y_i(t)=U_{i,+1}(t)-U_{i,-1}(t)$ into a single

328: stochastic process equivalent to the original $N$-agent system in

329: the limit $N\to\infty$ \cite{cool}. The calculation is greatly

330: simplified if one studies the `batch' version

331: \cite{CoolHeim}, which roughly corresponds to a time re-scaling

332: $t\to \tau=t/N$ and, apart from the value of $\sigma^2$, has the same

333: collective behavior.

334: In this case, the effective process has the form

335: \begin{equation}

336: y(\tau+1)=y(\tau)-\sum_{\gamma,\tau'}\l[\boldsymbol{1}+

337: \frac{\boldsymbol{G}}{2\alpha_\gamma}\r]^{-1}(\tau,\tau')

338: \frac{\gamma+s(\tau')}{2}+z(\tau)

339: \end{equation}

340: where $z(\tau)$ is a zero-average Gaussian

341: noise $z(\tau)$ with correlation matrix $\avg{z(\tau)z(\tau')}=\Lambda(\tau,

342: \tau')$

343: with

344: \be

345: \bsy{\Lambda}=\sum_\gamma\l[\l(\boldsymbol{1}+

346: \frac{\boldsymbol{G}}{2\alpha_\gamma}\r)^{-1}\l(n_\gamma\boldsymbol{D}_\gamma\r)

347: \l(\boldsymbol{1}+ \frac{\boldsymbol{G}^T}{2\alpha_\gamma}\r)^{-1}\r]

348: \label{nv}

349: \ee

350: where

351: \begin{gather}

352: D_\gamma(\tau,\tau')=\frac{1}{4}\l[1+\gamma m(\tau)+\gamma m(\tau')+

353: C(\tau,\tau')\r]\\

354: m(\tau)=\avg{s(\tau)}~~~~~~~C(\tau,\tau')=\avg{s(\tau)s(\tau')}

355: \end{gather}

356: while $G(\tau,\tau')=\avg{\frac{\partial s(\tau)}{\partial h(\tau')}}$ denotes the

357: response to an infinitesimal probing field $h(\tau)$.  Both $H$ and

358: $\sigma^2$ can be obtained from the asymptotic study of

359: $\Lambda(\tau,\tau)$. Ergodic steady states, where $C(\tau,\tau')=c(\tau-\tau')$

360: and $G(\tau,\tau')=g(\tau-\tau')$, can be described in terms of three variables

361: only, namely the ``magnetization''

362: $m=\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{\tau'}m(\tau')$, the persistent

363: autocorrelation $q=\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{\tau'}c(\tau')$

364: and the susceptibility $\chi=\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\sum_{\tau'}G(\tau')$,

365: for which one derives closed equations that can be solved numerically.

366: The results for $m,~q$ and $\chi$ coincide with those obtained in the

367: static approach, thus providing a dynamic interpretation for these quantities.

368: It turns out that $\chi$ diverges as the line in Fig. \ref{Phase_diagram.fig} is

369: approached from above, signalling ergodicity breaking and the onset of a phase

370: in which the steady state depends on the initial conditions of

371: the dynamics. We find

372: \be

373: H=\sum_{\gamma} \frac{\alpha_{\gamma}^2 (1+2\gamma

374: m+q)^2}{[2\alpha_{\gamma}+\chi]^2}

375: \ee

376: which implies $H=0$ in the non-ergodic phase.

377: 

378: For the volatility (of the original on-line case), one

379: obtains instead the approximate expression

380: \be

381: \sigma^2=H+\frac{1-q}{2}

382: \ee

383: which is very accurate in the ergodic phase.

384: The behaviour of these quantities

385: along a cut $\alpha_++\alpha_-=$ constant in the ergodic phase is

386: reported in Fig. \ref{P_tot0.5} together with that of the order

387: parameter $m$.

388: \begin{figure}

389: \includegraphics*[width = 8cm]{FIGURA_MA.eps}

390: \caption{Behavior of $m$ (top), $H$ (middle) and $\sigma^2$ (bottom)

391: versus $\alpha_+-\alpha_-$ for $\alpha_++\alpha_-=0.5$. Markers

392: correspond to simulations with $N=256$ agents, averaged over 200

393: disorder samples per point. Lines are analytical results (see

394: Appendices A and B for details). In the middle panel, the dashed line

395: corresponds to $H_+$ and the dot-dashed line corresponds to $H_-$.}

396: \label{P_tot0.5}

397: \end{figure}

398: 

399: A na\"\i ve argument would suggest that agents are attracted by information

400: rich markets. Instead one sees that, in a range of parameters, agents play

401: preferentially in the market with smaller information complexity

402: $\alpha_\gamma$ and with the smallest information

403: content $H_\gamma$.

404: For all those traders with $|m_i|<1$, the conditions for the minimum of $H$

405: give

406: \begin{equation}\label{eqmi}

407:   m_i=-\avg{a_{i+}^{\mu_+}A_+^{(-i)}}+\avg{a_{i-}^{\mu_-}A_-^{(-i)}}

408: \end{equation}

409: where $A_\gamma^{(-i)}$ stands for the contribution to $A_\gamma$ of all traders

410: except $i$. Hence $m_i$ equals the difference in the payoffs of agent $i$ against

411: all other traders and this relation means that if $m_i>0$ then agent $i$

412: invests preferentially in asset $+$ because that is more

413: convenient. Therefore, Fig. \ref{P_tot0.5} implies that the

414: relation between payoffs and information is less obvious than the na\"\i ve

415: argument above suggests.

416: 

417: This somewhat paradoxical result is due to the fact that

418: agents are constrained to trade in one of the two markets.

419: Rather than

420: seeking the most profitable asset, agents escape the asset where

421: their loss is largest.

422: 

423: \section{Grand Canonical Minority Game with two assets}

424: \label{sect:GCMG}

425: 

426: In the grand-canonical framework players have the option not to

427: play if their expected payoff doesn't beat a pre-determined

428: benchmark (which represents for instance a fixed interest rate or an

429: incentive to enter the market) \cite{GCMG}. As in the

430: previous case, we consider two assets or markets, tagged by

431: $\gamma\in\{-1,1\}$ as before. Each trader disposes of one

432: quenched random strategy

433: $\bsy{a}_{i\gamma}=\{a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}\}$ per asset, which

434: prescribes an action $a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}\in\{-1,1\}$ for

435: each possible information pattern $\mu_\gamma\in\{1,\ldots,P_\gamma\}$.

436: Again $\mu_\gamma(t)$ are

437: chosen at random independently for all $t$ and $\gamma=\pm 1$.

438: As in the one-asset grand-canonical MG,

439: it is necessary to introduce a certain number

440: of traders -- so-called producers -- who invest at every

441: time step no matter what. These can be regarded as traders with

442: a fixed strategy $b_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}=\pm 1$.

443: The number of producers in market

444: $\gamma$ shall be denoted by $N_{p,\gamma}$ and their

445: aggregate contribution to $A_\gamma(t)$ by

446: $B_\gamma^{\mu_\gamma(t)}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_p} b_{i,\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma(t)}$.

447: Therefore Eq. (\ref{Agamma}) becomes

448: 

449: \be

450: A_\gamma(t)=\sum_{j=1}^N

451: a^{\mu_\gamma(t)}_{j\gamma}\delta_{s_j(t),\gamma}+B_\gamma^{\mu_\gamma(t)}

452: \label{ABgamma}

453: \ee

454: The rest of the traders, the speculators, have an adaptive behavior which is

455: again governed by the dynamics (\ref{learn1}) but now agents can also decide

456: not to trade. This choice is equivalent to trading

457: in a fictitious $\gamma=0$ ``asset'' whose cumulated score is

458: $U_{i,0}(t)=\epsilon t$. More precisely

459: \begin{equation}\label{sigc}

460:   s_i(t)={\rm arg}\max_{\gamma\in \{0,\pm 1\}} U_{i,\gamma}(t)

461: \end{equation}

462: The $\gamma=0$ choice represents a fixed benchmark with

463: a constant payoff.

464: By Eq. (\ref{sigc}) traders invest in $\gamma\not =0$ assets only if their

465: score exceeds that of the benchmark, i.e. if the corresponding score

466: $U_{i\gamma}$ grows at least as $\epsilon t$.

467: Notice that agents are allowed to invest

468: in at most one asset. If agents were allowed to invest in both $\gamma=\pm 1$

469: assets if $U_{i,\pm}(t)>U_{i,0}(t)$ then it is easy to see that the model

470: becomes equivalent to two un-coupled GCMGs.

471: 

472: The arguments of the previous section show that also in this case

473: no significant correlation between assets is introduced by the behavior of

474: speculators.

475: Again the collective properties of the stationary state can be characterized

476: by the predictability $H$, Eq. (\ref{acca}), the

477: volatility $\sigma^2$, Eq. (\ref{s2}) and the ``magnetization" $m$ of

478: Eq. (\ref{parapa}). These

479: parameters can be studied as before upon varying the parameters

480: $\alpha^\gamma=P_\gamma/N$ and $\epsilon$. We also introduce the relative number

481: of producers $n_p=N_{p,\gamma}/P_\gamma$, which for simplicity is

482: assumed to be the same for both assets. Notice that for $n_p=0$ and

483: $\epsilon\to -\infty$ we recover the model of the previous section where

484: there are no producers and speculators are forced to trade.

485: 

486: We focus first on $m$ (see Fig. \ref{mgrcn}).

487: \begin{figure}

488:   \includegraphics*[width = 8cm]{m_grcn.eps}

489: \caption{Behavior of $m$ versus $\alpha_s^+-\alpha_s^-$ for

490:   $\alpha_s^++\alpha_s^-=1$ and flat initial conditions. Markers

491:   correspond to simulations with $N_s=200$ speculators, averaged over

492:   200 disorder samples per point.  Lines are analytical results

493:   (interrupted when the non-ergodic phase is met, see phase

494:   diagram). Other parameters are as follows: $\epsilon=0.1$, $n_p=1$

495:   ($\diamond$); $\epsilon=0.1$, $n_p=0.1$ ($\bigtriangleup$);

496:   $\epsilon=-0.1$, $n_p=1$ ($\bigcirc$); $\epsilon=-0.1$, $n_p=0.1$

497:   ($\square$).}

498: \label{mgrcn}

499: \end{figure}

500: One sees that when traders have positive incentives to trade ($\epsilon<0$)

501: the market behaves as in the previous section, with speculators investing

502: preferentially in the asset with less

503: information. This tendency becomes less pronounced the larger is

504: $n_p$, which is reasonable in view of our discussion above,

505: because then the game becomes more and more

506: profitable for speculators.

507: 

508: This scenario is qualitatively reproduced at all

509: $\epsilon<0$ and it changes drastically as soon as $\epsilon>0$.

510: In this case, traders concentrate most of their investments into

511: the information-rich asset even if $n_p$ is very low. The

512: fact that traders can refrain from investing implies that trading

513: is dominated by gain seeking rather than escaping losses.

514: 

515: The theory for this case is slightly more involved than for the

516: canonical model.  On the static side, the Hamiltonian is now

517: \be

518: H_\epsilon=\sum_{\gamma =\pm 1}\frac{1}{N P_\gamma}

519: \sum_{\mu_{\gamma}=1}^{P_{\gamma}} \l[ \sum_{j=1}^{N}

520: a_{j\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}

521: \pi_j^\gamma+B_\gamma^{\mu_\gamma}\r]^2+\frac{2\epsilon}{N}

522: \sum_{j=1}^{N}\pi_j^0\label{H.eq}

523: \ee

524: where $\pi_i^\gamma=\avg{\delta_{s_i,\gamma}}$ denotes the frequency with which

525: agent $i$ invests in asset $\gamma=0,\pm 1$ in the steady state. Notice that

526: $H_0=H$ is the predictability. As before, it is necessary to introduce a

527: fictitious temperature $\beta>0$ and turn to the replica trick to

528: analyze the minima of $H_\epsilon$ over $\{\pi_i^\gamma\}$ considering the

529: limit $\beta\to\infty$. The main difference with the canonical model

530: lies in the fact that one must now consider an overlap order parameter

531: per asset, namely

532: $Q_{ab}^\gamma=(1/N)\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_{ia}^\gamma \pi_{ib}^\gamma$

533: ($a,b=1,\ldots,r$, $\gamma=\pm 1$) and, in the replica-symmetric Ansatz, one

534: `susceptibility' per asset, that is

535: $\chi^\gamma=\beta(Q^\gamma-q^\gamma)$.

536: 

537: Again these quantities can be given a dynamic interpretation with the

538: generating function approach \cite{cool}. This approach leads, in the

539: batch approximation, to two effective processes (one per asset),

540: namely

541: \begin{multline}

542: U_\gamma(\tau+1)=U_\gamma(\tau)-\epsilon +

543: z_\gamma(\tau)\sqrt{1+\alpha_\gamma n_p}\\-(1+\alpha_\gamma n_p)

544: \sum_{\tau'}\l[\bsy{1}+\lambda_\gamma\bsy{G}_\gamma\r]^{-1}(\tau,\tau')

545: \phi_\gamma(\tau')

546: \end{multline}

547: where $\lambda_\gamma=\frac{1+\alpha_\gamma n_p}{\alpha_\gamma}$

548: and the noise correlations are described by the matrices

549: $\Lambda_\gamma(\tau,\tau')=\avg{z_\gamma(\tau)z_\gamma(\tau')}$ with

550: \begin{gather}

551: \bsy{\Lambda}_\gamma=\l[\l(\bsy{1}+\lambda_\gamma\bsy{G}_\gamma\r)^{-1}

552: \l(\lambda_\gamma\bsy{C}_\gamma\r)\l(\bsy{1}+\lambda_\gamma

553: \bsy{G}_\gamma^T\r)^{-1}\r]\\

554: C_\gamma(\tau,\tau')=\avg{\phi_\gamma(\tau)\phi_\gamma(\tau')}~~~~~

555: G_\gamma(\tau,\tau')=\avg{\frac{\partial\phi_\gamma(\tau)}{\partial

556: h_\gamma(\tau')}}

557: \end{gather}

558: In order to characterize time-translation invariant and ergodic steady

559: states four quantities are now required, namely two persistent

560: autocorrelations

561: $q_\gamma=\lim_{\tau,\tau_0\to\infty}\frac{1}{\tau}\sum_{\tau'=1}^\tau

562: C_\gamma(\tau_0,\tau_0+\tau')$ and two

563: susceptibilities $\chi_\gamma=\lim_{\tau,\tau_0\to\infty}

564: \sum_{\tau'=1}^\tau G_\gamma(\tau_0,\tau_0+\tau')$,

565: $\gamma\in\{-1,1\}$. For these, one obtains equations that can be

566: solved numerically and the quantity $m$ can be written in terms of the

567: $q_\gamma$'s and the $\chi_\gamma$'s. Now ergodicity breaking is

568: connected to the divergence of at least one of the susceptibilities.

569: 

570: The behavior of the model is considerably richer than in the previous case:

571: For $\epsilon\not =0$ we find that $H_\epsilon$ has a unique non-degenerate

572: minimum and both $\chi^\gamma$'s are finite. The case $\epsilon=0$ is peculiar

573: as it marks the boundary between two different behaviors $\epsilon<0$

574: and $\epsilon>0$. For $\epsilon=0$ and $\alpha_{\pm}$ large enough,

575: both markets are predictable ($H_0>0$) and the susceptibility is finite.

576: However, one of the susceptibilities diverges while

577: the other stays finite for lower values of $\alpha_\pm$.

578: This signals the onset of a phase where

579: one of the markets is unpredictable while still $H_0>0$, a situation

580: with particularly striking dynamical consequences.

581: As a result, the phase structure of this model is rather complex (see

582: Fig. \ref{pdgc}).

583: \begin{figure}

584:   \includegraphics*[width = 8cm]{gcpd.eps}

585: \caption{Phase diagram of the $\epsilon=0$, $n_p=1$ grand-canonical

586: two-asset Minority Game in the $(\alpha_s^+,\alpha_s^-)$ plane. The

587: continuous line is analytical, the other phase boundaries are obtained

588: from numerical simulations (averages over 100 disorder samples per

589: point).}

590: \label{pdgc}

591: \end{figure}

592: We have been unable to obtain analytical lines for the complete phase

593: structure at $\epsilon=0$. The phase boundary separating the region

594: with $H=0$ from that with $H>0$ has been calculated assuming that both

595: susceptibilities diverge keeping a finite ratio $\chi_+/\chi_-$. The

596: phase boundary of the non-ergodic region (which would correspond to

597: the divergence of just one of the susceptibilities) has been instead

598: estimated from numerical simulations and the corresponding lines must

599: be considered a crude approximation.

600: 

601: Fig. \ref{initcon} shows the magnetization as

602: a function of $\alpha_+-\alpha_-$ along the cut

603: $\alpha_++\alpha_-=0.4$ in the phase diagram. This line is entirely contained

604: in the non-ergodic phase. While the market remains

605: globally predictable ($H>0$) the fact that one of the markets becomes

606: unpredictable (e.g. $H_+=0$) implies that the steady state depends on

607: initial conditions.

608: \begin{figure}

609:   \includegraphics*[width = 8cm]{initcon.eps}

610: \caption{Behavior of $m$ versus $\alpha_s^+-\alpha_s^-$ for

611:   $\alpha_s^++\alpha_s^-=0.4$, $\epsilon=0$, $n_p=1$ and biased

612:   initial conditions ($\Delta U=U_{i+}(0)-U_{i-}(0)$). Markers

613:   correspond to simulations with $N=200$ speculators, averaged over

614:   200 disorder samples per point.}

615: \label{initcon}

616: \end{figure}

617: It is finally worth mentioning that the non-ergodic regimes with one

618: unpredictable market extend to large values of $\alpha_\gamma$.

619: 

620: \section{Conclusions}

621: \label{sect:concl}

622: 

623: We have studied a multi-asset version of the Minority Game in order to

624: address the problem of how adaptive heterogeneous agents would

625: diversify their investments when the different assets bear different

626: levels of information. While the phase structure of the models is

627: substantially a generalization of that of single-asset games, we have

628: found, in the grand-canonical model, a remarkable dependence of the

629: probability to invest in a certain asset on the agent's incentives

630: to trade ($\epsilon$).

631: Specifically, agents who have no incentives to trade other than the gains

632: derived from it, invest preferentially in

633: information-rich assets. On the contrary, when there are positive incentives to

634: trade ($\epsilon<0$) agents invest more likely in the information-poor asset.

635: This same behaviour is found in the canonical model, where agents must

636: choose one asset at each time step and cannot refrain from entering

637: the market.

638: 

639: The generalization of our results to a larger number of assets or to a wider

640: strategy pool for the agents is straightforward. The results discussed here are

641: indicative of the generic qualitative behavior we expect.

642: 

643: \begin{acknowledgements}

644: This work was supported by the European Community's Human Potential Programs

645: under contract COMPLEXMARKETS. 

646: \end{acknowledgements}

647: 

648: \begin{thebibliography}{}

649: \bibitem{ElFarol} W. B. Arthur, {\it Amer. Econ. Assoc. Papers and

650: Proc.} {\bf 84} 406 (1994).

651: \bibitem{CZ} D. Challet and Y.-C. Zhang, {\it Physica A} {\bf 246}

652: 407 (1997).

653: \bibitem{book} D. Challet, M. Marsili and Y.-C. Zhang, {\it Minority

654: Games} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005).

655: \bibitem{cool} A.C.C. Coolen, {\it The mathematical theory of Minority

656: Games} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005).

657: \bibitem{traffic} A. De Martino, M.  Marsili and R. Mulet, {\it

658: Europhys. Lett.} {\bf 65} 283 (2004).

659: \bibitem{Johnson}

660: N. F. Johnson, P. M. Hui, D. F. Zheng and M. Hart, {\it J. of  Phys. A} {\bf 32}L427 (1999).

661: \bibitem{GCMG} 

662: D. Challet and M. Marsili, {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 68}, 036132 (2003).

663: \bibitem{Mantegna} 

664: R. N. Mantegna, {\it Eur. Phys. Jour. B} {\bf 11}, 193 (1999).

665: \bibitem{Potters}

666: M. Potters, J. P. Bouchaud and L. Laloux,

667: cond-mat/0507111 (2005).

668: \bibitem{Kertesz}

669:  J. P. Onnela, A. Chakraborti, K. Kaski, J. Kertesz,

670: A. Kanto, {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 68} (5) 056110 (2003).

671: \bibitem{Rodgers}

672: R. D'Hulst and G. J. Rodgers, adap-org/9904003 (1999).

673: \bibitem{Chau}

674:  F. K. Chow and H. F. Chau,

675: {\it Physica A} {\bf 319},601 (2003).

676: \bibitem{H} D. Challet, M. Marsili and R. Zecchina, {\it Phys. Rev.

677:     Lett.} {\bf 84} 1824 (2000)

678: \bibitem{MC01}

679: M. Marsili and D. Challet,

680: {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 64},  056138  (2001).  

681: \bibitem{CoolHeim}J.A.F. Heimel and A.C.C. Coolen, {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 63} 056121 (2001)  

682: \end{thebibliography}

683: \end{document}

684: 

685: \bibitem{Savit}

686: R. Savit, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82}, 2203 (1999).

687: \bibitem{Cavagna}

688: A. Cavagna, {\it Phys. Rev. E} {\bf  59}, R3783 (1999).

689: \bibitem{Guido}

690: D. Gargaschelli, S. Battiston, M. Castri, V. Servedio G. Caldarelli, cond-mat/0310503.\bibitem{Modeling}

691: D. Challet, M. Marsili and Y.-C. Zhang,{\it Physica A}{\bf 276}, 284 (2000).

692: \bibitem{Multi_evo}

693: Hong-Jun Quan, P. M. Hui, C. Xu, K. F Yip cond-mat/0403300 (2004).

694: \section{Comments}

695: 

696: Very nice!

697: 

698: 0- the notation $t$ for time is a bit strange. Can't we go back to

699: t (I would feel more confortable and I volunteer to do the change,

700: I can put n instead of t in the batch dynamics if that's ok).

701: 

702: 1- it is a bit misleading to speak about risk aversion here.

703: Indeed agents care only about return. There is no real

704: consideration about risk, and indeed there is no correlation which

705: is created. This is one of the main messages of the paper.

706: 

707: 2- maybe we should dump the description of how we do the

708: calculation in some appendix? Or maybe not...

709: 

710: 3- I don't understand the simple argument which agents in the MG

711: go to the most crowded market. If there are less info state, then

712: why the strategy should be better. In principle it can even be

713: much worse than the other...

714: 

715: 4- the argument why m gets steeper as np decreases and eps<0 is

716: obscure to me. Why does the opposite happens when eps>0?

717: 

718: 5- how is the behavior for eps>0 small related to the phase

719: diagram in fig. 4? If things remain more or less this way, then I

720: would say that we still have a non-trivial result: Why should

721: agent make one of the markets nearly info-efficient and leave the

722: other one predictable?

723: 

724: Ops... non so perche' ho scritto in inglese... beh mi sa che si e'

725: fatto tardi...

726: 

727: Fatemi sapere i vs comments, poi vediamo come giocarcela. Any idea

728: di emprical analysis?

729: 

730: Come al solito ci sono troppe refs ai ns papers!

731: 

732: Ciao, Matteo

733: 

734: 

735: 

736: 

737: 

738: 

739: \end{document}

740: 

741: 

742: 

743: 

744: 

745: 

746: 

747: 

748: 

749: 

750: 

751: 

752: 

753: 

754: 

755: 

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: 

760: 

761: 

762: 

763: 

764: 

765: 

766: 

767: 

768: 

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: 

773: 

774: 

775: 

776: 

777: 

778: 

779: 

780: 

781: 

782: 

783: 

784: 

785: 

786: 

787: 

788: 

789: 

790: 

791: 

792: 

793: 

794: 

795: 

796: 

797: 

798: 

799: 

800: 

801: 

802: 

803: 

804: 

805: 

806: \section{Grand-canonical MG with two assets -- statics}

807: 

808: This dynamics minimizes the function \be

809: H=\sum_{\gamma=1}^{K}\sum_{\mu_{\gamma}=1}^{P_{\gamma}} \langle

810: A_{\gamma}^{\mu_{\gamma}}|\mu_{\gamma}\rangle^2+2\epsilon\sum_{j}\pi_{j,0}\label{H.eq}

811: \ee

812: 

813: where the brackets $\left\langle \dots \right\rangle $ indicates the

814: mean over time at given $\mu_{\gamma} $.

815: 

816: 

817: We introduce $n$ replicas of the system, i.e, $n$ realization of the

818: same disorder. The dynamical variables $\pi_{i,c}$ are labeled by

819: replica indices $c=1,\ldots,n$. Now we can write the replicated

820: partition function: \be \avg{Z^n(\beta)}=\mbox{Tr}_{\pi_{\gamma}}

821: \prod_{\gamma}\prod_{\mu_{\gamma}=1}^{P_{\gamma}}

822: \prod_c\Avg{e^{-\frac{\beta}{P_{\gamma}}(A_{\gamma,c}^{\mu_{\gamma}})^2-2\beta\epsilon\sum_i\pi^{c}_{i,0}}}_{a,b}

823: \label{Znb}

824: \ee

825: where the average is over the disorder variables and the trace is evaluated on the variables

826: $\pi^{\gamma}_{i,c}$ for all $i$ and $c$.

827: Using the identity

828: \beas

829: 1 &=&\int dG_{c,d}^{\gamma}\delta\left( Q_{c,d}^{\gamma}-\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \pi^{\gamma}_{i,c}\pi^{\gamma}_{i,d}\right) \nonumber\\

830:   &\propto&\int dr_{c,d}^{\gamma} dG_{c,d}^{\gamma} e^{-\frac{-\alpha\beta^{2}}{2}r_{c,d}^{\gamma}\left(NQ_{c,d}^{\gamma}-\sum_{i} \pi^{\gamma}_{i,c}\pi^{\gamma}_{i,d}\right) }

831: \eeas

832: the partition function can be written as

833: \beas

834: \Avg{Z^n(\beta)}= \int d {G_{c,d}^{\gamma}}\  d {r_{c,d}^{\gamma}}\

835: e^{-Nn\beta F(\{G^{\gamma}\} ,\{r^{\gamma}\} )}

836: \eeas

837: with the free energy defined as

838: \bea

839: F(  \{G^{\gamma}\},  \{r^{\gamma}\})= \sum_{\gamma} \frac{\alpha_{\gamma}}{n\beta}\Tr_{  \pi}\log   T_{\gamma}+\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}\beta}{2n}\sum_{c,d,\gamma}r^{\gamma}_{c,d}G^{\gamma}_{c,d}-2\epsilon \nonumber\\

840: - \frac{1}{n\beta}\log\Tr_{  \pi_{\gamma}} e^{\frac{\beta^2}{2}\sum_{\gamma} \alpha_{\gamma}\sum_{c,d} r^{\gamma}_{c,d}\pi_{\gamma}^{c}\pi_{\gamma}^{d}+2\epsilon\beta\sum_{c} \pi_{\gamma}^{c}} \nonumber

841: \eea

842: where $\alpha_{\gamma}=P_{\gamma}/N $.

843: The matrices $  T_{\gamma}$ are given by

844: \[

845: \left(T_{\gamma}\right)_{c,d}=  I +\frac{2\beta}{\alpha_{\gamma}}(\rho^{\gamma}+   G^{\gamma}).

846: \]

847: Making  the replica symmetry ansatz

848: \bea

849:   G_{c,d}^{\gamma}=g^{\gamma}+(G^{\gamma}-g^{\gamma})\delta_{c,d}\nonumber\\

850:   r_{c,d}^{\gamma}=r^{\gamma}+(R^{\gamma}-r^\gamma)\delta_{c,d}

851: \eea

852: we find that the matrices $  T_{\gamma}$ have $n-1$ eigenvalues $\lambda_{0}$ and one eigenvalue $\lambda_{1}$

853: \bea

854: \lambda_0 &=& 1+\frac{2\beta}{\alpha_{\gamma}}(G^{\gamma}-g^{\gamma}) \nonumber\\

855: \lambda_1 &=& 1+n\frac{2\beta}{\alpha_{\gamma}}(1+\rho^{\gamma}+g^{\gamma})+\frac{2\beta}{\alpha_{\gamma}}(G^{\gamma}-g^{\gamma}) .

856: \eea

857: Finally the free energy $F^{(RS)}(g^{\gamma},G^{\gamma},r^{\gamma},R^{\gamma} )$ reads

858: 

859: \bea

860: F^{(RS)}(g^{\gamma},G^{\gamma},r^{\gamma},R^{\gamma} )=\sum_{\gamma}\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}(\rho^{\gamma}+g^{\gamma})}{\alpha_{\gamma}+2\beta(G^{\gamma}-g^{\gamma})}\nonumber\\

861: +\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}}{2\beta}\log\left[1+\frac{2\beta}{\alpha_{\gamma}}(G^{\gamma}-g^{\gamma} )\right]+

862: \frac{\alpha_{\gamma}\beta}{2}(R^{\gamma}G^{\gamma}-r^{\gamma}g^{\gamma})  \nonumber\\

863: -\frac{1}{\beta} \Avg{\log\int d\pi_{\gamma} e^{\beta V_z(\pi_\gamma)}}_{z} +2\epsilon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

864: \label{FRS}

865: \eea

866: 

867: 

868: where we found it convenient to define the ``potential'' \be

869: V_z(\pi_{\gamma},z^{\gamma})=

870: \frac{\alpha_{\gamma}\beta}{2}(R^{\gamma}-r^{\gamma})\pi^{2}_{\gamma}+\sqrt{\alpha_{\gamma}r^{\gamma}}z^{\gamma}\pi_{\gamma}

871: +2\epsilon\pi_{\gamma} \ee now we proceed the evaluation of the free

872: energy $F^{RS}$ using the fact that only the saddle point will

873: contribute to the integral, which are given by: \bea \frac{\partial

874: F^{(RS)}}{\partial g^{\gamma}}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow & ~~~~

875: r^{\gamma}=\frac{4(\rho^{\gamma}+g^{\gamma})}{\alpha^{2}_{\gamma}(1+\chi^\gamma)^{2}}

876: \\ \frac{\partial F^{(RS)}}{\partial G^{\gamma}}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow &

877: ~~~~

878: \beta(R^{\gamma}-r^{\gamma})=-\frac{2\alpha_{\gamma}}{1+\chi^{\gamma}}

879: \\ \frac{\partial F^{(RS)}}{\partial R^{\gamma}}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow &

880: ~~~~ G^{\gamma}=\avg{\avg{\pi^{2}_{\gamma}}}_{z,V(z)} \\

881: \frac{\partial F^{(RS)}}{\partial r^{\gamma}}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow &

882: ~~~~

883: \beta(G^\gamma-g^\gamma)=\frac{\avg{\avg{z^{\gamma}\pi_{\gamma}}}_{z,V(z)}}{\sqrt{\alpha_{\gamma}

884: r^{\gamma}} } \nonumber\\ \eea where $\avg{\avg{\cdot}}$ stands for a

885: thermal average and \bea

886: \chi^{\gamma}&=&2\beta(G^{\gamma}-g^{\gamma})/\alpha_{\gamma}\nonumber

887: \eea

888: 

889: We then look for a solution of the saddle point equations in the limit

890: $\beta\rightarrow \infty$ when $R\rightarrow r$, $Q\rightarrow q$

891: keeping $\chi$ and $\zeta$ finite.  The averages $\avg{\avg{

892: \pi_\gamma}}_z,~,~\avg{\avg{ \pi_\gamma}}_ z$ and $\avg{\avg

893: {\pi^{2}_{\gamma}}}_z$ depends only on $\zeta_{\gamma},\chi_{\gamma}$

894: and can be directly evaluated since the averages are dominated by the

895: minimum of the potential $V_z(\pi_\gamma)$.

896: 

897: The saddle point equations in terms of the variables $\chi^\gamma, \zeta^\gamma, \kappa^\gamma$ reads

898: \bea

899: \chi^{\gamma}&=&[\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_\gamma(\rho^{\gamma}+\avg{\pi^{2}_{\gamma}})}{\avg{z^\gamma \pi_\gamma}}}-1]^{-1}\\

900: \zeta^{\gamma}&=&\sqrt{\frac{\alpha_\gamma}{\rho^{\gamma}+\avg{z^{\gamma}\pi_{\gamma}}}}  \\

901: \kappa^{\gamma}&=&\epsilon(1+\chi^{\gamma})

902: \label{SP_czp}

903: \eea

904: In the limit $\beta\rightarrow \infty $ the predictability is equal to

905: \be

906: H=\lim_{\beta\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow 0}\frac{\log(Z^n(\beta))}{nN

907: \beta}

908: \ee and consequently, evaluating $F_{RS}$ at the saddle point we get

909: \be

910: H=\sum_{\gamma=1}^{K} \frac{\rho^{\gamma}+G^{\gamma}}{\left( 1+\chi^{\gamma}\right)^{2}} -2\epsilon\left\langle\left\langle  \pi_{\gamma}\right\rangle\right\rangle

911: \ee

912: The volatility $\sigma^2$ defined as

913: \be

914: \sigma^2=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\gamma} \left\langle A^2_{\gamma}\right\rangle

915: \ee

916: is linked with the predictability through

917: \be

918: \sigma^{2}=H +\sum_{\gamma=1}^{K}\left\langle\left\langle  \pi_{\gamma} \right\rangle \right\rangle - G^{\gamma}

919: \ee

920: 

921: 

922: \end{document}

923: 

924: 

925: 

926: 

927: 

928: 

929: 

930: 

931: 

932: 

933: 

934: 

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: 

939: 

940: 

941: 

942: 

943: 

944: 

945: 

946: 

947: 

948: 

949: 

950: 

951: 

952: 

953: 

954: 

955: 

956: 

957: 

958: 

959: 

960: 

961: 

962: 

963: \appendix

964: 

965: \section{Canonical MG with two assets -- statics}

966: 

967: In order to identify a Lyapunov function of the dynamics

968: (\ref{learn1}) one can regularize it by assuming that each time

969: $t$ the players choose the asset $\gamma$ with probability given

970: by \be \mbox{Prob}\{s_i(t)=\gamma\}\propto e^{\Gamma

971: U_{i\gamma}(t)}. \ee In the limit of vanishing learning rate

972: $\Gamma$, then, (\ref{learn1}) minimizes exactly the

973: predictability $H$, \be H=\sum_{\gamma\in\{-1,1\}}

974: \frac{1}{P_{\gamma}}\sum_{\mu_{\gamma}=1}^{P_{\gamma}}

975: \avg{A_\gamma|\mu_\gamma}^2 \ee Its minima can be studied via the

976: replica method and provide an excellent description of the steady

977: state of the original model (which corresponds to

978: $\Gamma\to\infty$).

979: 

980: We introduce $n$ replicas of the system, each with dynamical variables

981: $s_{i,c}$, labeled by replica indices $c=1,\ldots,n$. Then we write

982: the replicated partition function as \be \ovl{Z^n}=\mbox{Tr}_{\bsy{s}}

983: \prod_{\gamma\in\{-1,1\}}

984: \prod_{\mu_\gamma=1}^{P_{\gamma}}\prod_{c=1}^n\ovl{e^{-\frac{\beta}{P_{\gamma}}A_{\gamma,c}^2}}

985: \label{Znb}

986: \ee where the over-bar is an average over the quanched disorder (the

987: strategies $\bsy{a}_{i\gamma}$), and $\beta>0$ is a fictitious inverse

988: temperature that will be ultimately sent to $\infty$. The disorder

989: average generates the order parameters $Q_{cd}=(1/N)\sum_i

990: s_{ic}s_{id}$ and $m_c=(1/N)\sum_i s_{ic}$, which can be introduced in

991: $\ovl{Z^n}$ through such identities as \beas 1&=&\int dQ_{c,d} \delta

992: \left( Q_{c,d}-\frac{1}{N} \sum_i s_{i,d}s_{i,d}\right)\\ &\propto &

993: \int dR_{c,d}dQ_{c,d}~e^{-\frac{\beta^2}{2} R_{c,d}\left( N

994: Q_{c,d}-\sum_i s_{i,c}s_{i,d}\right)} \eeas and \beas 1&=&\int dm_{c}

995: \delta \left( m_{c}-\frac{1}{N} \sum_i s_{i,c}\right)\\ &\propto &

996: \int d\omega_{c}dm_{c}~e^{-\beta \omega_{c}\left( N m_{c}-\sum_i

997: s_{i,c}\right)} \eeas After some rearrangement, the partition function

998: takes the form \beas \ovl{Z^n}= \int d\bsy{Q}d\bsy{R}

999: d\bsy{m}d\bsy{\omega}~ e^{-Nn\beta

1000: F(\bsy{Q},\bsy{R},\bsy{m},\bsy{\omega})} \eeas with the `free energy'

1001: \bea F(\bsy{Q},\bsy{R},\bsy{m},\bsy{\omega})&=& \sum_{\gamma}

1002: \frac{\alpha_{\gamma}}{2n\beta}\Tr\log \bsy{T}_{\gamma}\nonumber \\

1003: &+&\frac{\beta}{2n}\sum_{c\le d}R_{c,d}Q_{c,d}+\beta\sum_c m_c

1004: \om_c\nonumber\\ & - & \frac{1}{n\beta}\log\left[\Tr\!\!_s~

1005: e^{\frac{\beta^2}{2}\sum_{c\le d}R_{c,d}s_c s_d+{\beta}\sum_c \om_c

1006: s_c}\right]\nonumber \eea where $\alpha_{\gamma}=P_{\gamma}/N$ while

1007: the matrices $\bsy{T}_{\gamma}$ have elements

1008: \[

1009: \left(T_{\gamma}\right)_{a,b}=\delta_{a,b}+

1010: \frac{\beta}{2 \alpha_{\gamma}}\left[1+\gamma(m_a+m_b)+Q_{ab}\right]

1011: \]

1012: In the replica symmetric Ansatz \begin{gather}

1013: Q_{c,d}=q+(Q-q)\delta_{c,d}\nonumber\\

1014: R_{c,d}=2r+(R-2r)\delta_{c,d}\nonumber \\ m_c=m\nonumber\\ \om_c=\om

1015: \nonumber\end{gather}

1016: %we find that the matrices $\hat T_{\gamma}$ have

1017: %the eigenvalues \bea \lambda_0=1+\frac{\beta}{2\alpha_{\gamma}}(Q-q)&

1018: %\mbox{deg. n-1}\nonumber\\

1019: %\lambda_1=1+n\frac{\beta}{2\alpha_{\gamma}}(1+2\gamma

1020: %M+q)+\frac{\beta}{2 \alpha_{\gamma}}(Q-q)&\mbox{deg. 1}.  \eea Finally

1021: the free energy reads \bea

1022: F^{(RS)}(Q,R,q,r,m,\om)&=&\sum_{\gamma}\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}}{2\beta}

1023: \log\left[1+\frac{\beta}{2\alpha_{\gamma}}(Q-q)\right]\nonumber\\&+&

1024: \frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}[1+2\gamma

1025: m+q]}{2\alpha_{\gamma}+{\beta}(Q-q)}+

1026: \frac{\beta}{2}(RQ-rq)\nonumber\\ &+&m\om-\frac{1}{\beta}

1027: \avg{\log\int_{-1}^1 ds e^{-\beta V_z(s)}}

1028: \label{FRS}

1029: \eea where $\avg{\cdot}_z$ stands for an average over the unit

1030: Gaussian random variable $z$ and we found it convenient to define the

1031: ``potential'' \be V_z(s)=-\frac{\beta(R-r)}{2} s^2-(\sqrt{

1032: r}\,z+\om)\,s \ee so that the last term of $F^{(RS)}$ looks like the

1033: free energy of a particle in the interval $[-1,1]$ with potential

1034: $V_z(s)$, where $z$ plays the role of disorder.  For $N\to\infty$ the

1035: values of the order parameters $Q$, $R$, $q$, $r$, $m$ and $\omega$

1036: must be determined self-consistently from the saddle-point conditions:

1037: \bea \frac{\partial F^{(RS)}}{\partial q}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow & ~~~~

1038: r=\sum_{\gamma}\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}[1+2\gamma

1039: m+q]}{[2\alpha_{\gamma}+\beta(Q-q)]^2}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial

1040: F^{(RS)}}{\partial Q}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow & ~~~~

1041: \beta(R-r)=-\sum_{\gamma}\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}}{2\alpha_{\gamma}+

1042: \beta(Q-q)}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial F^{(RS)}}{\partial R}=0 ~~~

1043: &\Rightarrow & ~~~~ Q=\avg{\avg{s^2}}\nonumber\\ \frac{\partial

1044: F^{(RS)}}{\partial r}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow & ~~~~

1045: \beta(Q-q)=\frac{\avg{\avg{sz}}}{\sqrt{ r}}\nonumber \\ \frac{\partial

1046: F^{(RS)}}{\partial m}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow & ~~~~ \om=-\sum_{\gamma}

1047: \frac{\gamma\ \alpha_{\gamma}}{2\alpha_{\gamma}+ \beta(Q-q)}\nonumber

1048: \\ \frac{\partial F^{(RS)}}{\partial \om}=0 ~~~ &\Rightarrow & ~~~~

1049: m=\avg{\avg s} \eea where $\avg{\avg{\cdot}}$ stands for a thermal

1050: average over the above mentioned one particle system.  In the

1051: following, it is convenient to define \bea \chi&=&\beta(Q-q)\nonumber

1052: \\ \zeta&=&-\frac{\beta(R-r)}{\sqrt{r}}\nonumber \\

1053: \psi&=&\frac{\om}{\sqrt{r}}.  \eea Furthermore, we must consider the

1054: limit $\beta\to\infty$, which selects the minima of $H$. In this

1055: limit, we can look for solutions with $R\rightarrow r$ and

1056: $Q\rightarrow q$ and with $\chi$ and $\zeta$ finite. (This is so

1057: because we expect $H$ to have only one minimum.) Now the averages

1058: $\avg{\avg s},\avg{\avg sz}$ and $\avg{\avg s^2}$ depend only on

1059: $\zeta$ and $\psi$ and can be directly evaluated since they are

1060: dominated by the minimum of the potential $V_z(s)=\sqrt{r}(\zeta

1061: s^2/2-(z+\psi)s)$ in $s\in[-1,1]$. This is located at $s=-1$ for

1062: $z<-\zeta-\psi$, $s=1$ for $z>\zeta-\psi$ and $s=\frac{z+\psi}{\zeta}$

1063: for $z\in(\zeta-\psi,\zeta-\psi)$.  In the end, everything can be

1064: expressed in terms of just three variables, namely $\chi$, $\zeta$ and

1065: $\psi$, which satisfy the conditions \bea \chi&=&\frac{\avg{\avg

1066: {sz}}}{\sqrt{\sum_{\gamma}\alpha_{\gamma}\frac{(1+2\gamma\avg{\avg

1067: s}+\avg{\avg {s^2}} )}{[2\alpha_{\gamma}+\chi]^2}}}\nonumber \\

1068: \zeta&=&\sum_{\gamma}\frac{\alpha_{\gamma}}{2\alpha_{\gamma}+

1069: \chi}\frac{\chi}{\avg{\avg {sz}}}\nonumber \\

1070: \psi&=&-\sum_{\gamma}\frac{\gamma \ \alpha_{\gamma}}{2

1071: \alpha_{\gamma}+ \chi}\frac{\chi}{\avg{\avg {sz}}}.

1072: \label{SP_czp}

1073: \eea This system can be solved numerically. A phase transition occurs

1074: when $\chi=\infty$, at which point the replica symmetric solution is

1075: marginally valid. Thus to get the critical line in the plane

1076: $(\alpha_{+1},\alpha_{-1})$ and $(\psi,\zeta)$ it is sufficient that

1077: the solution of Eqs. \ref{SP_czp} satisfy the condition $\chi=\infty$,

1078: i.e.  \be \sqrt{\sum_{\gamma}\alpha_{\gamma}(1+2\gamma\avg{\avg

1079: s}+\avg{\avg {s^2}})}=\avg{\avg{sz}}.  \ee In the limit

1080: $\beta\rightarrow \infty $ the predictability is given by \be

1081: H=\lim_{\beta\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{N\to\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow

1082: 0}\frac{\log\ovl{Z^n}}{n\beta} \ee which, at the relevant saddle

1083: point, yields \be H=\sum_{\gamma} \frac{\alpha_{\gamma}^2\avg{\avg

1084: {(s+\gamma)^2}}}{[2\alpha_{\gamma}+\chi]^2}.  \ee It is also possible

1085: to derive an approximate expression for the volatility\be

1086: \sigma^2=\sum_{\gamma}\overline{<A^2_{\gamma}|\mu>} \ee which turns

1087: out to be \be \frac{\sigma^2}{N}=\frac{H}{N}+\frac{1}{2}(1-Q).  \ee

1088: 

1089: 

1090: \section{Canonical MG with two assets -- dynamics}

1091: 

1092: We consider here the batch version of (\ref{learn1}), which is

1093: obtained by performing an average over $\mu_\gamma$

1094: \cite{CoolHeim}. Because the relevant dynamical variable is the

1095: Ising spin $s_i(t)=\sign[y_i(t)]$ It is convenient to focus on the

1096: dynamics of $y_i$, which after the above mentioned average and a

1097: time re-scaling takes the form

1098: \begin{equation}\label{batchcan}

1099: y_i(t+1)-y_i(t)=-\sum_{\gamma\in\{-1,1\}}

1100: n_\gamma \sum_{j=1}^N J_{ij}^\gamma \phi_{j\gamma}(t)

1101: \end{equation}

1102: where $n_\gamma=1/\alpha_\gamma$ and

1103: $J_{ij}^\gamma=(1/N)\sum_{\mu_\gamma} a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}

1104: a_{j\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}$ are quenched random couplings of Hebbian

1105: type. We also introduced the variable

1106: \begin{equation}

1107: \phi_{i\gamma}(t)=\gamma\delta_{s_i(t),\gamma}=

1108: \frac{1}{2}\l[\gamma+s_i(t)\r]

1109: \end{equation}

1110: In order to obtain close equations for the behavior of correlation and

1111: response functions, one may employ the generating functional method,

1112: which amounts to calculating the dynamical partition function

1113: \begin{equation}\label{zed}

1114: \ovl{Z[\boldsymbol{\psi}]}=\int p[\boldsymbol{y}(0)]~ e^{\ii\sum_t

1115: \boldsymbol{\psi}(t)\cdot \boldsymbol{s}(t)}\ovl{\prod_t

1116: W[\boldsymbol{y}(t)\to\boldsymbol{y}(t+1)]} d\boldsymbol{y}(t)

1117: \end{equation}

1118: with $\{\psi_i(t)\}$ auxiliary sources (needed to generate correlation

1119: functions) and transition matrix fixed by (\ref{batchcan}):

1120: \begin{multline}

1121: W[\boldsymbol{y}(t)\to\boldsymbol{y}(t+1)]=\\\prod_i\delta\l[y_i(t+1)-y_i(t)-h_i(t)+

1122: \sum_{\gamma\in\{-1,1\}} n_\gamma \sum_{j=1}^N J_{ij}^\gamma

1123: \phi_{j\gamma}(t)\r]\nonumber

1124: \end{multline}

1125: The fields $h_i(t)$ will be used to generate response functions. At

1126: this point the following steps need to be taken:

1127: 

1128: (a) Introduce the order parameters

1129: \begin{gather}

1130: C(\tau,\tau')=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N s_i(t) s_i(t')~~~~~

1131: L(\tau,\tau')=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \widehat{y}_i(t) \widehat{y}_i(t')\nonumber\\

1132: K(\tau,\tau')=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N s_i(t)\widehat{y}_i(t')\\

1133: a(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N s_i(t)~~~~~

1134: k(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \widehat{y}_i(t)\nonumber

1135: \end{gather}

1136: in (\ref{zed}) via such identities as

1137: \begin{equation}

1138: 1=\int dC(\tau,\tau')\delta\l(C(\tau,\tau')-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N s_i(t)

1139: s_i(t')\r);

1140: \end{equation}

1141: 

1142: (b) Use the integral representation for the $\delta$-distributions;

1143: 

1144: (c) Average over the quenched disorder after isolating the relevant

1145: terms with the help of the definitions

1146: \begin{gather}

1147: x_\gamma^{\mu_\gamma}(t)=

1148: \frac{1}{\sqrt{P_\gamma}}\sum_i \phi_{i\gamma}(t)

1149: a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}\\

1150: w_\gamma^{\mu_\gamma}(t)=

1151: \frac{1}{\sqrt{P_\gamma}}\sum_i

1152: \widehat{y}_i(t)a_{i\gamma}^{\mu_\gamma}

1153: \end{gather}

1154: 

1155: After a factorization over $i$ and $\mu_\gamma$, this procedure leads

1156: to the expression

1157: \begin{equation}\label{zeta}

1158: \ovl{Z[\boldsymbol{\psi}]}=\int

1159: D\boldsymbol{\Theta}D\boldsymbol{\widehat{\Theta}}

1160: ~e^{N\l[\Psi(\boldsymbol{\Theta},\boldsymbol{\widehat{\Theta}})+

1161: \Phi(\bsy{\Theta})+\Omega(\bsy{\widehat{\Theta}})\r]}

1162: \end{equation}

1163: where $\Theta(\tau,\tau')=\{C(\tau,\tau'),L(\tau,\tau'),K(\tau,\tau'),a(t),k(t)\}$ is the

1164: vector of order parameters,

1165: $\widehat{\Theta}(\tau,\tau')=\{\widehat{C}(\tau,\tau'),\widehat{L}(\tau,\tau'),\widehat{K}(\tau,\tau'),

1166: \widehat{a}(t),\widehat{k}(t)\}$ is the conjugate vector of Lagrange

1167: multipliers, while the functions $\Psi$, $\Phi$ and $\Omega$ are given

1168: by

1169: \begin{gather*}

1170: \Psi=\ii \sum_t\l[a(t)\widehat{a}(t)+\ell(t)\widehat{\ell}(t)+\r]\\

1171: +\ii \sum_{\tau,\tau'}\l[Q(\tau,\tau')\widehat{Q}(\tau,\tau')+

1172: L(\tau,\tau')\widehat{L}(\tau,\tau')+K(\tau,\tau')\widehat{K}(\tau,\tau')\r]\\

1173: \Omega=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i\log\int\prod_t d\widehat{y}(t)dy(t)

1174: p[y(0)]~e^{-\ii\sum_t\l[\widehat{a}(t)s(t)+\widehat{\ell}(t)

1175: \widehat{y}(t)\r]}\\

1176: e^{\ii\sum_i\psi_i(t)s(t)+\ii\sum_t\widehat{y}(t)\l[

1177: y(t+1)-y(t)-h_i(t)\r]}\\

1178: \times~e^{-\ii\sum_{\tau,\tau'}\l[\widehat{C}(\tau,\tau')s(t)s(t')

1179: +\widehat{L}(\tau,\tau')\widehat{y}(t)\widehat{y}(t')+

1180: \widehat{K}(\tau,\tau')s(t)\widehat{y}(t')\r]}\\

1181: \Phi=\sum_\gamma\Big\{-\frac{\alpha_\gamma}{2}\log\|n_\gamma

1182: \boldsymbol{D}\|+ \alpha_\gamma\log\int d\boldsymbol{\widehat{w}}\\

1183: e^{-\frac{n_\gamma}{2}\sum_{\tau,\tau'}L(\tau,\tau')\widehat{w}_\gamma(t)

1184: \widehat{w}_\gamma(t')-\frac{1}{2}

1185: \sum_{\tau,\tau'}\l[\boldsymbol{A}_\gamma^T

1186: (n_\gamma\boldsymbol{D}_\gamma)^{-1}\boldsymbol{A}_\gamma\r](\tau,\tau')

1187: \widehat{w}_\gamma(t)\widehat{w}_\gamma(t')}\Big\}

1188: \end{gather*}

1189: where

1190: \begin{gather}

1191: D_\gamma(\tau,\tau')=\frac{1}{4}\l[1+\gamma a(t)+\gamma a(t')+C(\tau,\tau')\r]\\

1192: A_\gamma(\tau,\tau')=\delta_{tt'}-\frac{\ii n_\gamma}{2} \l[\gamma

1193: k(t')+K(\tau,\tau')\r]

1194: \end{gather}

1195: In the limit $N\to\infty$ the integral (\ref{zeta}) is dominated by

1196: the saddle-point where the order parameters take the values

1197: \begin{gather}

1198: C(\tau,\tau')=\avg{s(t)s(t')}_\star~~~~~

1199: L(\tau,\tau')=\avg{\widehat{y}(t)\widehat{y}(t')}_\star\nonumber\\

1200: K(\tau,\tau')=\avg{s(t)\widehat{y}(t')}_\star~~~~~

1201: a(t)=\avg{s(t)}_\star\nonumber\\

1202: k(t)=\avg{\widehat{y}(t)}_\star~~~~~

1203: \widehat{C}(\tau,\tau')=\ii\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial C(\tau,\tau')}\nonumber\\

1204: \widehat{L}(\tau,\tau')=\ii\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial L(\tau,\tau')}~~~~~

1205: \widehat{K}(\tau,\tau')=\ii\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial K(\tau,\tau')}\nonumber\\

1206: \widehat{a}(t)=\ii\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial a(t)}~~~~~~~

1207: \widehat{k}(t)=\ii\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial k(t)}\nonumber

1208: \end{gather}

1209: where

1210: \begin{equation}

1211: \avg{\cdots}_\star=\frac{1}{N}\sum_i\frac{\int\cdots

1212: M(\{y(t)\},\{\widehat{y}(t)\})\prod_t dy(t)d\widehat{y}(t)}{\int

1213: M(\{y(t)\},\{\widehat{y}(t)\})\prod_t dy(t)d\widehat{y}(t)}

1214: \end{equation}

1215: denotes an average performed with the measure

1216: \begin{multline}

1217: M=p[y(0)]~e^{\ii\sum_t\widehat{y}(t)\l[

1218: y(t+1)-y(t)-h_i(t)\r]-\ii\sum_t\l[\widehat{a}(t)s(t)+\widehat{\ell}(t)

1219: \widehat{y}(t)\r]}\nonumber\\\times

1220: e^{-\ii\sum_{\tau,\tau'}\l[\widehat{C}(\tau,\tau')s(t)s(t')

1221: +\widehat{L}(\tau,\tau')\widehat{y}(t)\widehat{y}(t')+

1222: \widehat{K}(\tau,\tau')s(t)\widehat{y}(t')\r]}

1223: \end{multline}

1224: Now $C(\tau,\tau')$ may be identified with the correlation function

1225: $\lim_{N\to\infty}(1/N)\sum_i\ovl{\avg{s_i(t)s_i(t')}}$, $K(\tau,\tau')$ may

1226: be related to the response function

1227: $G(\tau,\tau')=\lim_{N\to\infty}(1/N)\sum_i

1228: \frac{\partial\ovl{\avg{s_i(t)}}}{\partial h_i(t')}$ through

1229: $K(\tau,\tau')=\ii G(\tau,\tau')$ whereas $a(t)$ turns out to coincide with the

1230: parameter $m(t)=\lim_{N\to\infty}(1/N)\sum_i\ovl{\avg{s_i(t)}}$

1231: (i.e. with (\ref{parapa})). Working out the remaining equations, and

1232: in particular the expression of $\Phi$, one gets in addition that

1233: \begin{gather*}

1234: \bsy{L}=\bsy{k}=\boldsymbol{\widehat{C}}=\boldsymbol{\widehat{a}}=\boldsymbol{0}\\

1235: \boldsymbol{\widehat{K}}^T=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_\gamma

1236: \boldsymbol{A}_\gamma^{-1}~~~~~\boldsymbol{\widehat{k}}=

1237: -\frac{1}{2}\sum_\gamma\gamma\boldsymbol{A}_\gamma^{-1}\\

1238: \boldsymbol{\widehat{L}}=-\frac{\ii}{2}\sum_\gamma\l[

1239: \boldsymbol{A}_\gamma^{-1}(n_\gamma\boldsymbol{D}_\gamma)

1240: \boldsymbol{A}_\gamma^{-1}\r]

1241: \end{gather*}

1242: Therefore $M$ can be seen as describing the single-agent process with

1243: noise $z(t)$ given by

1244: \begin{gather}

1245: y(t+1)-y(t)=-\sum_{\gamma,t'}\l[\boldsymbol{1}+

1246: \frac{n_\gamma}{2}\boldsymbol{G}\r]^{-1}(\tau,\tau')\phi_\gamma(t')+z(t)\\

1247: \avg{z(t)z(t')}=\sum_\gamma\l[\l(\boldsymbol{1}+

1248: \frac{n_\gamma}{2}\boldsymbol{G}\r)^{-1}\l(n_\gamma\boldsymbol{D}_\gamma\r)

1249: \l(\boldsymbol{1}+ \frac{n_\gamma}{2}\boldsymbol{G}\r)^{-1}\r](\tau,\tau')

1250: \label{nv}

1251: \end{gather}

1252: which is completely equivalent to the original multi-agent system in

1253: the limit $N\to\infty$.

1254: 

1255: Ergodic steady states can de described by assuming that

1256: $C(\tau,\tau')=C(t-t')$ and $G(\tau,\tau')=G(t-t')$. In this regime, the

1257: quantities

1258: \begin{equation*}

1259: \widetilde{y}=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{y(t)}{t}~~~~

1260: s=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{t'}s(t')~~~~

1261: z=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{t'}z(t')

1262: \end{equation*}

1263: are easily seen to be related by

1264: \begin{equation}

1265: \widetilde{y}=-\sum_\gamma\kappa_\gamma\frac{s+\gamma}{2}+z

1266: \end{equation}

1267: where

1268: \begin{equation}

1269: \kappa_\gamma=\frac{2}{2+n_\gamma\chi}~~~~~~~

1270: \end{equation}

1271: where $\chi=\lim_{t\to\infty}\sum_{t'}G(t')$ while $z$ is now a static

1272: noise with variance

1273: \begin{equation*}

1274: \avg{z^2}=\sum_\gamma \frac{\alpha_\gamma\l(1+2\gamma

1275: m+c\r)}{(2\alpha_\gamma+\chi)^2}

1276: \end{equation*}

1277: with $m=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{t'}m(t')$ and

1278: $c=\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\sum_{t'}C(t')$. The steady state is

1279: thus completely determined by $c$, $m$ and $\chi$.  We have the

1280: following scenarios:

1281: \begin{center}

1282: \begin{tabular}{l c c c}

1283: $\boldsymbol{1.}$ & $\widetilde{y}>0$ & $s=1$ & $z>\kappa_+$\\

1284: $\boldsymbol{2.}$ & $\widetilde{y}<0$ & $s=-1$ & $z<-\kappa_-$\\

1285: $\boldsymbol{3.}$ & $\widetilde{y}=0$ & $s=s^\star\equiv

1286: \frac{2z-\sum_\gamma\gamma\kappa_\gamma}{\sum_\gamma\kappa_\gamma}$ &

1287: $-\kappa_-<z<\kappa_+$

1288: \end{tabular}

1289: \end{center}

1290: and hence the following equations:

1291: \begin{gather}

1292: m=\avg{\theta(z-\kappa_+)}_z+\avg{s^\star\theta(z+\kappa_-)

1293: \theta(\kappa_+-z)}_z\nonumber\\-\avg{\theta(-\kappa_--z)}_z\\

1294: c=\avg{\theta(z-\kappa_+)}_z+\avg{(s^\star)^2\theta(z+\kappa_-)

1295: \theta(\kappa_+-z)}_z\nonumber\\+\avg{\theta(-\kappa_--z)}_z\\ \sum_\gamma

1296: \frac{\alpha_\gamma \chi}{2\alpha_\gamma+\chi}=\avg{\theta(z+\kappa_-)

1297: \theta(\kappa_+-z)}_z

1298: \end{gather}

1299: where $\avg{\cdot}_z$ is an average over the static Gaussian noise

1300: $z$. These equations can be solved numerically for $c$, $m$ and

1301: $\chi$. Notice that $n_+>n_-$ (or $\alpha_+<\alpha_-$) implies

1302: $\kappa_+<\kappa_-$ so that the probability that an agents `freezes'

1303: on asset $\gamma$ is larger for $\gamma=+1$, i.e. for the asset with

1304: less information. This conclusion is immediately clear from the above

1305: equations. A little more work is required to see that $H$ is given

1306: (apart from factors $\alpha_\gamma$) by the persistent part of the

1307: noise variance (\ref{nv}):

1308: \begin{equation}

1309: H=\sum_\gamma\frac{\alpha_\gamma^2\l(1+2\gamma

1310: m+c\r)}{(2\alpha_\gamma+\chi)^2}

1311: \end{equation}

1312: in complete agreement with the static result.

1313: