Skip to main content

Part of the book series: New Economic Windows ((NEW))

Abstract

In recent years, economics and finance see the shift of paradigm from representative agent models to heterogeneous agent models [1, 2]. More and more economists and physicists made efforts in research on heterogeneous agent models for financial markets. Minority game (MG) proposed by D. Challet, and Y. C. Zhang [3] is an example among such efforts. Challet and Zhang’s MG model, together with the original bar model of Arthur, attracts a lot of following studies [46]. Given MG’s richness and yet underlying simplicity, MG has also received much attention as a financial market model [4]. MG comprises an odd number of agents choosing repeatedly between the options of buying (1) and selling (0) a quantity of a risky asset. The agents continually try to make the minority decision, i.e. buy assets when the majority of other agents are selling, and sell when the majority of other agents are buying. Neil F. Johnson [4, 5] and coworkers extended MG by allowing a variable number of active traders at each timestep— they called their modified game as the Grand Canonical Minority Game (GCMG). GCMG, and to a lesser extent the basic MG itself, can reproduce the stylized facts of financial markets, such as volatility clustering and fat-tail distributions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Levy M, Levy H, Solomon S (1994) Economics Letters 45: 103–111

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Levy M, Levy H, Solomon S (2000) Microscopic Simulation of Financial Markets. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Challet D, Zhang Y C (1997) Phyisca A 246: 407

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson N F, Jefferies P, Hui P M (2003), Financial Market Complexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Jefferies P, Johnson N F (2001) Oxford Center for Computational Finance working paper: OCCF/010702

    Google Scholar 

  6. Coolen A C C (2005) The Mathematical Theory of Minority Games. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen J V, Sornette D (2003) Eur. Phys. J. B 31: 141–145

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lux T (1995) Economic Journal 105(431): 881–896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lux T, Marchesi M (1999) Nature 397(6719): 498–500

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Challet D (2005) arXiv: physics/0502140 v1

    Google Scholar 

  11. Slanina F, Zhang Y-C (2001) Physica A 289: 290

    Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Yoon S M, Kim K (2005) arXiv: physics/0503016 v1

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giardina I, Bouchaud J P (2003) Eur. Phys. J. B 31: 421

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Marsili M (2001) Physica A 299: 93

    Article  MATH  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Martino A D, Giardina I, Mosetti G (2003) J. Phys. A 36: 8935

    Article  MATH  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Tedeschi A, Martino A D, Giardina I(2005) arXiv: cond-mat/0503762

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martino A D, Giardina1 I, Marsili M, Tedeschi A (2004) arXiv: cond-mat/0403649

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zhong L X, Zheng D F, Zheng B, Hui P M (2004) arXiv: cond-mat/0412524

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shleifer A (2000) Inefficient Markets: an Introduction to Behavioral Financial. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  20. Savit R, Koelle K, Treynor W, Gonzalez R (2004) In: Tumer K, Wolpert D (eds) Collectives and the Desing of Complex System. Springer-Verlag, New York, P199–212

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bouchaud J P, Cont R (1998) Eur. Phys. J. B 6: 543

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. Farmer J D (2002) Industrial and Corporate Change 11: 895–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kephart J O, Hogg T, Huberman B A (1989) Physical Review A 40(1): 404–421

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Yang C (2004) Thesis of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hart M L, Johnson N F(2002) Physica A 311: 275–290

    Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chalet D (2004) arXiv: cond-mat/0407595.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gou C (2005) arXiv: physics/0504001 v3, accepted by Chinese Physics

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gou C (2005) www.cfrn.com.cn: paperID=1548, submitted to JASSS

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this paper

Cite this paper

Gou, C. (2006). Agents Play Mix-game. In: Chatterjee, A., Chakrabarti, B.K. (eds) Econophysics of Stock and other Markets. New Economic Windows. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-0502-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics