The Red Queen Principle and the Emergence of Efficient Financial Markets: An Agent Based Approach

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 550)


In competitive coevolution, the Red Queen principle entails constraints on performance enhancement of all individuals if each is to maintain status quo in relative fitness measured by an index relating to aggregate performance. This is encapsulated in Lewis Caroll's Red Queen who says ”in this place it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place”. The substantive focus of this paper is to experimentally generate stock market ecologies reflecting the Red Queen principle for an explanation of the observed highly inegalitarian power law distribution in investor income (measured here as stock holdings) and the emergence of arbitrage free conditions called market efficiency. With speculative investors modelled as using genetic programs (GPs) to evolve successful investment strategies, the analytical statement of our hypothesis on the Red Queen principle can be implemented by constraint enhanced GPs which was seminally developed in [19], [7] and [10].


Genetic Program Complex Adaptive System Cumulative Density Function Arbitrage Opportunity Investment Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arthur WB, Holland J, LeBaron B, Palmer R, Tayler P (1997) Asset Pricing Under Endogenous Expectations in an Artificial Stock Market. In: Arthur WB, Durlauf S, Lane D (eds) The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II. Addison Wesley, Reading MA. pp. 15–44Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen SH, Yeh CH (2001) Evolving Traders and the Business School with Genetic Programming: A New Architecture of the Agent-Based Artificial Stock Market. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 25: 363–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein JM, Axtell R (1996) Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science From Bottom Up. MIT Press Cambridge MassachussettsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gencay R, Selcuk F, Ulugulyager A (2002) EVIM: A Software Package For Extreme Value Analysis in MATLAB. Forthcoming in: Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and EconometricsGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hillis WD (1992) Co-Evolving Parasites Improve Simulated Evolution as an Optimization Procedure. In: Langton C, Taylor C, Farmer JD, Rasmussen S (eds) Artificial Life II (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol 10). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy M, Solomon S (1996) Dynamical Explanation For the emergence of Power Law in a Stock Market Model. International Journal of Modern Physics C 7: 65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li J, Tsang EPK (2000) Reducing Failures in Investment Recommendations Using Genetic Programming. Proceedings of the 6th. International Conference On Computing in Economics and Finance, Society for Computational Economics, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Markose S (2004) Computability and Evolutionary Complexity: Markets as Complex Adaptive Systems. University of Essex, Economics Department Discussion Paper 574Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markose S (2002) The New Evolutionary Computational Paradigm of Complex Adaptive Systems: Challenges and Prospects for Economics and Finance. In: Chen SH (eds) Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming in Computational Finance, Kluwer. Also in Essex University Economics DP no. 552Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markose S, Tsang EPK, Er H (2001) Evolutionary Arbitrage For FTSE-100 Index Options and Futures. Proceedings 2001 CEC/IEEE Congress of Evolutionary ComputationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milakovic M (2001) A Statistical Equilibrium Model of Wealth Distribution, mimeo, Center for Economic Policy Analysis, New School UniversityGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Palmer RG, Arthur WB, Holland JH, Le Baron B, Taylor P (1994) Artificial Economic Life: A Simple Model of A Stock Market. Physica D 75: 264–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ray TS (1992) An Approach to the Synthesis of Life. In: Langton C, Taylor C, Farmer JD, Rasmussen S (eds) Artificial Life II (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Vol 10). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robson A (2002) The Evolution of Rationality and the Red Queen. Journal of Economic Theory 111: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sandroni A (1999) Do Markets Favour Agents Able To Make Accurate Predictions. Econometrica 68: 1303–1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sims K (1994) Evolving 3-D Morphology and Behaviour by Competition. In: Brooks R, Maes P (eds) Proceedings of Fourth Workshop on Artificial Life. MIT Press, Boston MA. pp. 28–39.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solomon S (1998) Generalized Lotka-Volterra (GLV) Models. In: Imre Kondor, Janos Kertes (eds) Econophysiscs 97, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Solomon S (2000) Generalized Lotka-Volterra (GLV) Models and Generic Emergence of Scaling Laws in Stock Markets. In: Ballot G, Weisbuch G (eds) Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Simulations and the Social Sciences. Hermes Science Publications.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsang EPK, Li J, Butler JM (1998) EDDIE beats the bookies. International Journal of Software, Practice & Experience, Wiley, Vol.28(10): 1033–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economics Department and Centre For Computational Finance and Economic Agents (CCFEA)University of EssexEssexUK
  2. 2.Computer Science Department and Centre For Computational Finance and Economic Agents (CCFEA)University of EssexEssexUK
  3. 3.Centre For Computational Finance and Economic Agents (CCFEA)University of EssexEssexUK

Personalised recommendations