1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[twocolumn,amsmath,showpacs,amssymb]{revtex4} %
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8: \usepackage{times}
9: %\usepackage{CJK}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12: %\begin{CJK*}{GBK}{song}
13:
14:
15: \title{Memory-Based Boolean game and self-organized phenomena on networks}
16:
17: \author{HUANG Zi-Gang, WU Zhi-Xi, GUAN Jian-Yue, and WANG Ying-Hai}
18:
19: \email{yhwang@lzu.edu.cn}
20:
21: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou University,
22: Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China}
23:
24: \date{\today}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We study a memory-based Boolean game (MBBG) taking place on the
28: regular ring, wherein each agent acts according to its local
29: optimal states of the last $M$ time steps recorded in memory, and
30: the agents in the minority are rewarded. One free parameter $p$
31: among $0$ and $1$ is introduced to denote the strength of the
32: agents' willing to make a decision according to its memory. We
33: find that, given proper willing strength $p$, the MBBG system can
34: spontaneously evolve to a state of better performance than the
35: random game; while for larger $p$, the herd behavior emerges which
36: reduces the system profit. By analyzing the dependence of the
37: system's dynamics on the memory capacity $M$, we find that a
38: higher memory capacity favors the emergence of the better
39: performance state, and effectively restrains the herd behavior,
40: therefore increases the system profit. Considering the high cost
41: of long-time memory, the enhancement of memory capacity for
42: restraining the herd behavior is also discussed, and the $M=5$ is
43: suggested to be one good choice.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: \pacs{89.75.Hc, 87.23.Kg, 02.50.Le, 87.23.Ge}
47:
48: \maketitle
49:
50: Dynamical systems with many elements under mutual regulation or
51: influence, such as the systems naturally arise in biology
52: \cite{Kauffman} and in the social sciences \cite{Arthur_1},
53: underlie much of the phenomena associated with complexity. The
54: perspective of complex adaptive systems (CAS) composed of agents
55: under mutual influence have been proposed for understanding the
56: rich and complex dynamics of these real-life systems
57: \cite{Kauffman,Levin,Anderson,Yangcx}.
58:
59: One of the simplest examples of a complex dynamical system is the
60: minority game \cite{ChalletPA} (MG) introduced by Challet and
61: Zhang as a simplification of Arthur's El Farol Bar attendance
62: problem \cite{Arthur_2}. Agents in the MG are designed to make
63: choice ($1$ or $0$, i.e. to attend a bar or refrain) based on the
64: aggregate signal (the global information in memory), i.e., which
65: value was in the majority for the last several time steps. The
66: agents in the minority are rewarded, and those in the majority
67: punished since resources are limited. The MG model can serve as a
68: general paradigm for resource allocation and load balancing in
69: multiagent systems and was study extensively
70: \cite{Quan,Yang,Challet,see}. In contrast to this mean-field
71: description of the MG, the Boolean game (BG) on the network of
72: interconnections between the agents was introduced in Ref.
73: \cite{Paczuski} considering that the agent can also respond to the
74: detailed information it receives from other specified agents. It
75: was established that coordination still arises out of local
76: interactions in the BG, and the system as a whole achieves
77: ``better than random'' performance in terms of the utilization of
78: resources \cite{Galstyan,Chen,ZhouBoolean,Ma}. This contributes to
79: the solution of one basic question in studies of complexity, that
80: is, how large systems with only local information available to the
81: agents may become complex through a self-organized dynamical
82: process \cite{Paczuski}.
83:
84: Many real-life systems often seem a black box to us: the outcome
85: may be observed, but the underlying mechanism is not visible. Herd
86: behavior, which describes the condition that many agents display
87: the same action, is one of the outcomes always present in
88: ecosystems while the corresponding mechanisms are unaware. The
89: herd behavior has been extensively studied in Behavioral Finance
90: and is found to be one factor of the origins of complexity that
91: may enhance the fluctuation and reduce the system profit
92: \cite{Eguluz,Xie,Lee,Wang,ZhouPL}. Also, the underlying mechanism
93: of the herd behavior is an interesting issue which has attracted
94: economists' and physicists' interests. Considering that herd
95: behavior still occur although the agents prefer to be in the
96: minority in some real-life cases, one should seek the mechanism of
97: the herd behavior from some other aspects rather than the agents'
98: willing to be in majority \cite{ZhouBoolean}.
99:
100: In the previous studies of the BG, each agent acts according to
101: the Boolean function, i.e., gets its input from some other agents,
102: and maps the input to a state it will adopt in the subsequent
103: round \cite{Galstyan,Chen}. Inspired by the MG, we argue that the
104: agents should make decisions based on the knowledge of the past
105: records, and the historical memory of individuals plays a key role
106: in the evolutionary games. In the present work, we study a
107: memory-based Boolean game (MBBG) in which each agent modifies its
108: state based on its past experiences gained from the local
109: interaction with neighbors, and the agents in the minority of the
110: whole system are rewarded.
111:
112: The global information is not available, and the agents also do
113: not know who are winners in the previous rounds. They can only
114: make use of the local information and gain experiences from local
115: interaction. It is worthwhile to emphasize that the agent's
116: ignorance of who are global winners is one of the main differences
117: from the previous studies on MG. Due to the lack of the global
118: information, each agent in our model attempts to be in the
119: minority in its own small region which consists of its immediate
120: neighbors and itself, considering that there should exist positive
121: correlation between being the minority in the whole system and in
122: its own local region. We call this ``local optimal assumption''
123: (LOA) of the agent system. Then, our model can be depicted as: in
124: the lack of the global information and in the belief of the LOA,
125: the agent pins its hope for winning in the whole system on the
126: effort to act as minority in its own region based on the local
127: experiences stored in memory.
128:
129: Let us introduce the rules of the evolutionary MBBG. To simplify,
130: each agent is confined to a site of a regular network which is a
131: one-dimensional lattice with periodic boundary conditions and
132: coordination number $z=3$ \cite{Newman}. A local region for each
133: agent thus contain $7$ agents. When a round of game is over, each
134: agent will have the state information ($+1$ or $-1$) of its
135: neighbors. Then the agents are designed to know its \textbf{local
136: optimal state} (LOS) in the past round by means of
137: self-questioning, i.e., each agent adopts its anti-state to play a
138: virtual game with all its neighbors, and calculates the virtual
139: result. Comparing the virtual result with the actual one, each
140: agent gets its LOS which may turn it into minority of its own
141: local region. In condition that the counterbalance of the groups
142: with $+1$ and $-1$ appears in one agent's neighbors, its optimal
143: state is randomly set either as $+1$ or $-1$, because whichever
144: state the agent chooses, it will break the counterbalance and
145: compel its own side into majority. Then, the agent records the LOS
146: into memory. Taking into account the bounded capacity of the
147: agents, we assume that the agents are quite limited in their power
148: and can only retain the last $M$ LOS in memory. We would like to
149: reiterate that the so called ``local optimal state'' does not mean
150: the agent will be rewarded if has adopted it. Only the agents in
151: the global minority are rewarded by $1$, and therefore the system
152: profit equals to the number of agents in the global minority. This
153: is a main difference of our model from the Local Minority Game
154: \cite{Moelbert}.
155:
156: There might be variability of the agents' belief of the LOA and
157: the willing to make decision based on records in memory. We define
158: the willing strength $p$ to add this effect into our model. That
159: in detail is, at each time step, each agent acts based on its
160: memory at probability $p$, or acts all by himself at probability
161: $1-p$. In the former case, the probability of making a decision
162: (choosing $+1$ or $-1$) for each agent depends on the ratio of the
163: numbers of $+1$ and $-1$ stored in its memory, i.e., the agent
164: chooses $+1$ with the probability
165: $P(+)=n_{+}/(n_{+}+n_{-})=n_{+}/{M}$ and $-1$ with the probability
166: $P(-)=1-P(+)$, where $n_{+}$ and $n_{-}$ are the numbers of $+1$
167: and $-1$, respectively. In the latter case, the agent simply
168: inherits its action in the last time step or chooses the opposite
169: action at a small probability $m$, named the mutation probability.
170: Following the previous work \cite{ZhouBoolean}, we set it to be
171: $0.01$. The introduction of $m$ adds several impulsive and
172: unstable ingredients to our model in view of the presence of the
173: irrational effect .
174:
175: \begin{figure}
176: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{1}
177: \caption{The variance of the number of agents choosing $+1$ as a
178: function of willing strength $p$ with several different memory
179: capacities on the regular ring of size $2001$. The solid line
180: represents the system profit of the random choice game which
181: corresponds to the $M=0$ case. The system performs better than the
182: random game when $p$ is less than the intersection point
183: $p_{inter}^{M}$.}\label{fig:l}
184: \end{figure}
185:
186: Simulations are carried out for a population of $N=2001$ agents
187: located on network sites. The time length $T=10^{4}$ are fixed. In
188: the initial state, $+1$ and $-1$ are uniformly distributed among
189: all the agents, and the memory information of each agent is
190: randomly assigned. We have checked that this assignment has no
191: contributions to the evolutionary behavior of the system. All the
192: simulation results presented in this paper are average of $50$
193: randomly assigned initial states.
194:
195:
196: The variance of systems
197: $\sigma^{2}=(1/T)\sum^{T}_{t=1}(A_{t}-N/2)^{2}$
198: \cite{ZhouBoolean,Ma} which is the cumulative standard deviation
199: from the optimal resource utilization over time length $T$, can be
200: considered as a global measure of the system's optimality. The
201: smaller $\sigma^{2}$ corresponds to better optimality of the
202: system and the more system profit. Here, $A_{t}$ denotes the
203: number of agents choosing $+1$ at time $t$. The simulation results
204: $\sigma^{2}$ as a function of $p$ with different memory capacity
205: $M$ are presented in Fig. \ref{fig:l}. The result of the random
206: game which is same as the MBBG with $M=0$ is also plotted for
207: comparison. In the random choice game, $A_{t}$ does not depend on
208: the previous states of the system, and its expectation is always
209: $\langle{A_{t}}\rangle=N/2$. The distribution of $A_{t}$ has a
210: Gaussian profile with the variance to the expectation $N/2$ as
211: $\sigma^{2}=0.25N$ in the limit of large $N$. For the MBBG with
212: $M\neq{0}$, it is noticeable that these systems can perform better
213: than that with random choice game when $p$ is in a certain
214: interval (see Fig. \ref{fig:l} the interval where
215: $\sigma^{2}<0.25N$). This is an evidence of the existence of a
216: self-organized process in the systems. At larger $p$, the herd
217: behaviors occur and the subsequent oscillations cause the greater
218: variances $\sigma^{2}$ than that of the random choice game. The
219: intersection points of the curves of the MBBG and that of the
220: random game (at $p=p_{inter}^{M}$, $M=1,2,...,20$) denote the same
221: system performance of them.
222:
223: Let us firstly consider the extreme case $p=0$ which means that
224: the agents act all by themselves without considering the
225: historical memory. In this case, each agent merely changes its
226: action with the mutation probability $m$, and there is no
227: preferential choice for $+1$ and $-1$ so that no herd behaviors
228: occur. Following Ref. \cite{ZhouBoolean}, the expectation of
229: $A_{t+1}$ is,
230: \begin{equation}
231: \langle{A_{t+1}}\rangle=A_{t}(1-m)+m(N-A_{t})=A_{t}+m(N-2A_{t}).
232: \end{equation}
233: Assuming $A_{t}>N/2$, for $0<m<1/2$, we have $A_{t}>A_{t+1}>N/2$.
234: Thus, if large event has taken place initially in the system
235: (e.g., $A_{t=0}\gg{N/2}$, or $A_{t=0}\ll{N/2}$), the effort of $m$
236: will make $A_{t}$ slowly revert to the equilibrium position $N/2$.
237: It is easy to prove that even when the mutation probability $m$ is
238: very small, the system profit will be equal to random choice game
239: on condition that the evolutionary time $T$ is sufficiently long.
240: The simulation results for $p=0$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:l}) are in
241: well agreement with the our analysis.
242:
243: The other extreme case is $p=1$ where the herd behavior prevails.
244: Comparing this case to the $p=0$ case, we can say that the
245: occurrence of the herd behavior is intimately related to the
246: mechanism of the memory-based actions. In this case, if the agents
247: choosing $+1$ and $-1$ are equally mixed up in the networks, then
248: the number of agents who record $+1$ as the LOS by
249: self-questioning (denoted by $S^{opt}_{+1,t}$) has the expectation
250: \begin{equation}
251: \langle{S^{opt}_{+1,t}}\rangle\doteq{N-A_{t}}.
252: \end{equation}
253: Thus, all over the system the collection of the agents' newly
254: recorded LOS is close to the anti-state of the present system. For
255: the system with small memory capacity $M$, e.g. $M=1$, the agents'
256: new states for the subsequent round $t+1$ gained from the records
257: in memory are actually their optimal states of the latest round,
258: and thus the expectation of $A_{t+1}$ is
259: \begin{equation}
260: \langle{A_{t+1}}\rangle=\langle{S^{opt}_{+1,t}}\rangle\doteq{N-A_{t}},
261: \end{equation}
262: with departure $|\langle{A_{t+1}}\rangle- N/2|\doteq|A_{t}-N/2|$.
263: One can see that the departure from $N/2$ does not reduce in
264: average, while the state of the winning side reverses. Therefore,
265: the prevalence of the herd behavior which is denoted by the large
266: durative oscillation will occur when $p=1$ and $M=1$. On the other
267: hand, for the system with larger values of the memory capacity
268: $M$, the agents have also stored more previous information in
269: memory besides the latest LOS. Based on more information their
270: state updates will not be so intense and irrational as that with
271: $M=1$. As a result, the behavior of the systems are mended by the
272: rationality of their agents. It is clear in Fig. \ref{fig:l} that
273: the oscillation of the system with larger $M$ is less acute than
274: that with smaller $M$ in the $p=1$ case. Furthermore, in the cases
275: of $p\in(p_{inter}^{M},1)$, it can also be found that the high
276: memory capacity of the agent can effectively restrain the herd
277: behavior and thus increase the system profit.
278:
279: The existence of the self-organization demonstrated in Fig.
280: \ref{fig:l} can be understood by the dynamics of the system in the
281: mentioned two extreme cases: The action of the agent based on
282: memory with probability $p$ will induce oscillation, while the
283: independent mechanism with probability $1-p$ will lead to a long
284: reversion process to the equilibrium position $N/2$. Thus at a
285: proper value of $p$, the system can quickly arrive at the
286: equilibrium position after the occurrence of a large event, which
287: leads to more system profit than the random game. Also, we can see
288: that the underlying mechanism of the herd behavior is related to
289: the strength of the agents' willing of making decision based on
290: the historical memory.
291:
292:
293: \begin{figure}
294: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{2}
295: \caption{The intersection point $p_{inter}^{M}$ of the random game
296: and the MBBG with different memory capacity $M$, for regular ring
297: with $N=2001$. The inset is the log-log plot of the increments of
298: $p_{inter}^{M}$ as a function of memory capacity
299: $M$.}\label{fig:2}
300: \end{figure}
301:
302: In the following, we discuss the effect of the memory capacity $M$
303: to the behavior of the system in detail from two points, the
304: intersection $p_{inter}^{M}$ and the corresponding transition
305: rate, which will be defined in the following.
306:
307: We have known that, the MBBG system can perform either better or
308: worse than the random game when the value of $p$ is smaller or
309: larger than $p_{inter}^{M}$. The case of the better performance is
310: due to the emergence of the agents' self-organization, and the
311: case of the worse performance is due to the prevalence of the herd
312: behavior. The relation between $p_{inter}^{M}$ and the memory
313: capacity $M$ are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:2}. It is revealed that,
314: the region $(0,p_{inter}^{M})$ where system performs better than
315: random game broadens with the memory capacity $M$. That is to say,
316: the system with larger memory capacity has more probability of
317: self-organizing to the better-performance case. In addition, the
318: inset in Fig. \ref{fig:2} presents the increments of the
319: intersection point $\Delta{p}_{inter}^{M}$ when $M$ increases by
320: one (\emph{i.e.}
321: $\Delta{p}_{inter}^{M}=p_{inter}^{M+1}-p_{inter}^{M}$) as a
322: function of $M$. This measure corresponds to the ``marginal
323: return'' in economics. We can see that, when the memory capacity
324: is large, the increment is small. The scaling behavior at large
325: $M$ implies that $p_{inter}^{M}$ is arriving at a level number
326: close to $1$. It is remarkable that the behavior of the
327: $\Delta{p}_{inter}^{M}$ with $M$ is not monotonic. There exists
328: the special point at $M=4$ which implies that the $p_{inter}^{M}$
329: with $M=5$ is larger comparing to the value estimated from the
330: trend exhibited from all the other values of $M$.
331:
332:
333:
334: Inspired by the fact that in many situations the agents have to
335: operate in dynamic (and in general, stochastic) environments, we
336: can imagine that, due to some external impacts the willing
337: strength $p$ of the agents in our model may be not fixed, but vary
338: with time. In the case that $p$ fluctuates around $p_{inter}^{M}$,
339: there exists the transition from the case of the better
340: performance to the case where the herd behavior seriously impacts
341: the system profit. Let us now focus on the rate of the transition
342: between the two cases when $p$ is fluctuating. For convenience,
343: we call this rate the ``transition rate'' which is different from
344: its traditional meaning in the study of the phase transition. It
345: is noticeable in Fig \ref{fig:l} that, at the intersection point
346: $p_{inter}^{M}$, different memory lengthes $M$ correspond to
347: different values of slope. We study the relation between the slope
348: at $p_{inter}^{M}$ (i.e. the transition rate) and the memory
349: capacity $M$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:3}). It can easily be found that,
350: the shorter the memory is, the rapider the transition from the two
351: cases would be. One can also consider the transition rate as a
352: measure of the system's risk of suffering from the herd behavior.
353: The results in Fig. \ref{fig:3} thus is the dependence between the
354: system's risk and the memory capacity $M$. It is clear that, those
355: systems with higher memory capacity can constrain the occurrence
356: of the herd behavior more efficiently.
357:
358: \begin{figure}
359: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{3}
360: \caption{The memory capacity $M$ and the slope of the variance at
361: the intersection point $p_{inter}^{M}$. The inset is the
362: corresponding log-log plot, where the crossover at $M=5$ is
363: obvious.}\label{fig:3}
364: \end{figure}
365:
366: On the other hand, if the question facing us is to bring down the
367: system's risk or to design a system with low risk of suffering
368: from the herd behavior, enhancing the agents' memory capacity is
369: indeed an effective way. However, the enhancement of the memory
370: capacity in real-life cases would cost much. In this context, it
371: is necessary to discuss how large memory capacity would be proper.
372: Interestingly, we find that the dependence of the slope on $M$
373: approximately obeys scaling laws with two exponents (the inset in
374: Fig. \ref{fig:3}). That is, for small $M$ ($M\leq5$) the scaling
375: exponent is about $-1.813$, after which, at larger $M$, there is a
376: crossover to $-0.893$. This behavior implies that, when the memory
377: length $M$ is already $5$ or larger, if increase $M$, the risk
378: reduces slower than the small $M$ cases. Also it is obvious that
379: the value of the transition rate at $M=5$ is already small. When
380: $M>5$ the effort to increase memory capacity which costs much can
381: not gain good mark in reducing system crisis. Further simulation
382: results show that the two-exponent scaling behavior divided by
383: $M=5$ holds for different system size $N$, coordination number $z$
384: and mutation probability $m$. Moreover, in the previous
385: intersection analysis we have proved that the $p_{inter}^{M}$ at
386: $M=5$ is comparatively large. Thus we argue that, $M=5$ may be a
387: good choice to improve the performance of the system.
388:
389: In summary, inspired by the minority game, we studied a
390: memory-based Boolean Game on regular ring. The simulation results
391: with various memory capacity $M$ are discussed. We found that,
392: those systems with nonzero $M$ can perform better than that of the
393: random choice game when willing strength $p$ is in a certain
394: interval. This is reasonable evidence of the existence of a
395: self-organized process taking place within the agent system,
396: although only local information is available to the agents. The
397: memory capacity $M$ are found to have remarkable effect on the
398: agent system. That is, the larger the $M$ is, the more probably
399: the self-organized process would emerge since the value of
400: $p_{inter}^{M}$ increases. Moreover, larger memory capacity
401: corresponds to smaller degree of the herd behavior at large $p$,
402: and less risk of the system suffering from the herd behavior when
403: $p$ fluctuates around $p_{inter}^{M}$. In addition, we propose the
404: question of designing the system which is robust to the impact of
405: the herd behavior, and the choice of $M$ is also discussed
406: considering the high cost of enhancing $M$ in real-life cases.
407:
408: We thank Dr. Xin-Jian Xu for helpful discussions and valuable
409: suggestions. This work was supported by the Fundamental Research
410: Fund for Physics and Mathematics of Lanzhou University under Grant
411: No. Lzu05008.
412:
413: \begin{references}
414:
415: \bibitem{Kauffman}
416: Kauffman S A 1993 \emph{The Origins of Order} (New York: Oxford
417: University Press)
418:
419: \bibitem{Arthur_1}
420: Arthur W B 1999 \emph{Science} \textbf{284} 107
421:
422: \bibitem{Levin}
423: Levin S A 1998 \emph{Ecosystems} \textbf{1} 431
424:
425: \bibitem{Anderson}
426: Anderson P W, Arrow K and Pines D 1988 \emph{The Economy as an
427: Evolving Complex System} (Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley)
428:
429: \bibitem{Yangcx}
430: Yang C X, Zhou T, Zhou P L, Liu J and Tang Z N 2005 \emph{Chin.
431: Phys. Lett.} \textbf{22} 1014
432:
433: \bibitem{ChalletPA}
434: Challet D and Zhang Y C 1997 \emph{Physica} A \textbf{246} 407
435:
436: \bibitem{Arthur_2}
437: Arthur W B 1994 \emph{Am. Econ. Assoc. Papers Proc.} \textbf{84}
438: 406
439:
440: \bibitem{Quan}
441: Quan H J, Wang B H, Hui P M and Luo X S 2001 \emph{Chin. Phys.
442: Lett.} \textbf{18} 1156
443:
444: \bibitem{Yang}
445: Yang W S, Wang B H, Quan H J and Hu C K 2003 \emph{Chin. Phys.
446: Lett.} \textbf{20} 1659
447:
448: \bibitem{Challet}
449: Challet D and Marsili M 1999 \emph{Phys. Rev.} E \textbf{60} R6271
450:
451: \bibitem{see}
452: See http://www. unifr. ch/econophysics/minority/ for an extensive
453: collection of papers and references
454:
455: \bibitem{Paczuski}
456: Paczuski M, Bassler K E and Corral \'{A} 2000 \emph{Phys. Rev.
457: Lett.} \textbf{84} 3185
458:
459: \bibitem{Galstyan}
460: Galstyan A and Lerman K 2002 \emph{Phys. Rev.} E \textbf{66}
461: 015103(R)
462:
463: \bibitem{Chen}
464: Yuan B S, Wang B H and Chen K \emph{cond-mat}/0411664
465:
466: \bibitem{ZhouBoolean}
467: Zhou T, Wang B H, Zhou P L, Yang C X and Liu J 2005 \emph{Phys.
468: Rev.} E \textbf{72} 046139
469:
470: \bibitem{Ma}
471: Ma J, Zhou P L, Zhou T, Bai W J, Cai S M \emph{physics}/0604066
472:
473: \bibitem{azquez}
474: V\'{a}zquez A 2000 \emph{Phys. Rev.} E \textbf{62} 4497
475:
476: \bibitem{Eguluz}
477: Eguluz V M and Zimmermann M G 2000 \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
478: \textbf{85} 5659
479:
480: \bibitem{Xie}
481: Xie Y B, Wang B H, Hu B and Zhou T 2005 \emph{Phys. Rev.} E
482: \textbf{71} 046135
483:
484: \bibitem{Lee}
485: Lee S and Kim Y 2004 \emph{J. Korean Phys. Soc.} \textbf{44} 672
486:
487: \bibitem{Wang}
488: Wang J, Yang C X, Zhou P L, Jin Y D, Zhou T and Wang B H 2005
489: \emph{Physica} A \textbf{354} 505
490:
491: \bibitem{ZhouPL}
492: Zhou P L, Yang C X, Zhou T, Xu M, Liu J and Wang B H 2005
493: \emph{New Mathematics and Natural Computation} \textbf{1} 275
494:
495: \bibitem{Newman}
496: Newman M E J and Watts D J 1999 \emph{Phys. Rev.} E \textbf{60}
497: 7332
498:
499: \bibitem{Moelbert}
500: Moelbert S and Rios P De L 2002 \emph{Physica} A \textbf{303} 217
501:
502: \end{references}
503:
504: %\end{CJK*}
505: \end{document}
506: