Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Complexity and synchronization

Malgorzata Turalska1, Mirko Lukovic2,3, Bruce J. West4, and Paolo Grigolini1,2,3,5

  • 1Center for Nonlinear Science, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 311427, Denton, Texas 76203-1427, USA
  • 2Dipartimento di Fisica “E. Fermi,” Università di Pisa, Largo Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
  • 3INFM, Largo Pontecorvo 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy
  • 4Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, US Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA
  • 5Istituto per i Processi Chimico-Fisici, Area della Ricerca del CNR, Via G. Moruzzi, 1-56124 Pisa, Italy

Phys. Rev. E 80, 021110 – Published 14 August, 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021110

Abstract

We study a fully connected network (cluster) of interacting two-state units as a model of cooperative decision making. Each unit in isolation generates a Poisson process with rate g. We show that when the number of nodes is finite, the decision-making process becomes intermittent. The decision-time distribution density is characterized by inverse power-law behavior with index μ=1.5 and is exponentially truncated. We find that the condition of perfect consensus is recovered by means of a fat tail that becomes more and more extended with increasing number of nodes N. The intermittent dynamics of the global variable are described by the motion of a particle in a double well potential. The particle spends a portion of the total time τS at the top of the potential barrier. Using theoretical and numerical arguments it is proved that τS(1/g)ln(const×N). The second portion of its time, τK, is spent by the particle at the bottom of the potential well and it is given by τK=(1/g)exp(const×N). We show that the time τK is responsible for the Kramers fat tail. This generates a stronger ergodicity breakdown than that generated by the inverse power law without truncation. We establish that the condition of partial consensus can be transmitted from one cluster to another provided that both networks are in a cooperative condition. No significant information transmission is possible if one of the two networks is not yet self-organized. We find that partitioning a large network into a set of smaller interacting clusters has the effect of converting the fat Kramers tail into an inverse power law with μ=1.5.

Article Text

References (37)

  1. L. Conradt and C. List, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 364, 719 (2009).
  2. J. R. G. Dyer, A. Johansson, D. Helbing, I. D. Couzin, and J. Krause, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 364, 781 (2009).
  3. D. J. T. Sumpter and S. C. Pratt, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 364, 743 (2009).
  4. J.-P. Eckmann, O. Feinerman, L. Gruendlinger, E. Moses, J. Soriano, and T. Tlusty, Phys. Rep. 449, 54 (2007).
  5. O. Feinerman and E. Moses, J. Neurosci. 26, 4526 (2006).
  6. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, Nature (London) 393, 440 (1998).
  7. A. L. Barabási and R. Albert, Science 286, 509 (1999).
  8. P. Holme and B. J. Kim, Phys. Rev. E 65, 026107 (2002).
  9. J. Wang and L. Rong, in Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, ICCSIT '08, Singapore, 2008 (IEEE, New York, 2008), pp. 143–146.
  10. N. Päivinen, Pattern Recogn. Lett. 26, 921 (2005).
  11. V. Latora and M. Marchiori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 198701 (2001).
  12. A. Grönlund, P. Holme, and P. Minnhagen, EPL 81, 28003 (2008).
  13. A. Arenas, A. Díaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y. Moreno, and C. Zhou, Phys. Rep. 469, 93 (2008).
  14. K. Wood, C. Van den Broeck, R. Kawai, and K. Lindenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 145701 (2006).
  15. T. Prager, B. Naundorf, and L. Schimansky-Geier, Physica A 325, 176 (2003)
  16. S. Bianco, E. Geneston, P. Grigolini, and M. Ignaccolo, Physica A 387, 1387 (2008).
  17. S. Bianco, P. Grigolini, and P. Paradisi, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 174704 (2005).
  18. M. I. Dykman, Applications of Nonlinear Dynamics, Understanding Complex Systems(Springer, Berlin, 2009), p. 367.
  19. L. Billings, M. I. Dykman, and I. B. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. E 78, 051122 (2008).
  20. H. A. Kramers, Physica (Amsterdam) 7, 284 (1940).
  21. B. J. West, E. L. Geneston, and P. Grigolini, Phys. Rep. 468, 1 (2008).
  22. R. Failla, M. Ignaccolo, P. Grigolini, and A. Schwettmann, Phys. Rev. E 70, 010101(R) (2004).
  23. M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. A 67, 339 (1978).
  24. P. Allegrini, F. Barbi, P. Grigolini, and P. Paradisi, Phys. Rev. E 73, 046136 (2006).
  25. A. Rebenshtok and E. Barkai, J. Stat. Phys. 133, 565 (2008).
  26. G. Margolin and E. Barkai, Phys. Rev. E 72, 025101(R) (2005).
  27. X. Brokmann, J.-P. Hermier, G. Messin, P. Desbiolles, J.-P. Bouchaud, and M. Dahan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 120601 (2003).
  28. G. Margolin, V. Protasenko, M. Kuno, and M. Barkai, Adv. Chem. Phys. 133, 327 (2006), special edition.
  29. G. Margolin, V. Protasenko, M. Kuno, and M. Barkai, J. Phys. Chem. B 110, 19053 (2006).
  30. I. Chung and M. G. Bawendi, Phys. Rev. B 70, 165304 (2004); Y. Nishiyama, Phys. Rev. E 75, 011106 (2007).
  31. I. Chung, J. B. Witkoskie, J. P. Zimmer, J. Cao, and M. G. Bawendi, Phys. Rev. B 75, 045311 (2007).
  32. R. Kubo, Can. J. Phys. 34, 1274 (1956).
  33. F. Barbi, M. Bologna, and P. Grigolini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 220601 (2005).
  34. P. Allegrini, M. Bologna, P. Grigolini, and B. J. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 010603 (2007).
  35. G. Aquino, P. Grigolini, and B. J. West, EPL 80, 10002 (2007).
  36. M. Luković, M. Ignaccolo, L. Fronzoni, and P. Grigolini, Phys. Lett. A 372, 2608 (2008).
  37. G. Aquino, M. Bologna, P. Grigolini, and B. J. West (unpublished).

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation