text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

String theory has led to the discovery of many novel interacting conformal theories. Amongst these are the “defect” conformal theories which describe intersecting branes at low energies. Such theories were studied originally in  and more recently in the context of AdS/CFT duality in .

One of the more exotic examples of this type of theory is the one which arises for intersecting M5-branes. Because of the difficulty of constructing a non-abelian generalization of a chiral two-form, a Lagrangian description is lacking even for parallel M5-branes. The dynamics of intersecting M5-branes is even richer and less understood, due to the presence of tensionless strings localized at the intersection . Until very recently, the only concrete formulation of the theory was in terms of a discrete light cone quantization using the matrix model discussed in .

In this note, we shall describe an alternate formulation, in which the theory of the M5-M5 intersection is obtained from a limit of a defect conformal field theory with two-dimensional $`(4,0)`$ supersymmetry . This formulation is a natural extension of the “(de)construction” of the six-dimensional theory of parallel M5-branes discussed in . The $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT describes the low energy limit of intersecting D3-branes at a $`^2/_k`$ orbifold. In a suitable $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit on the Higgs branch, the two extra dimensions of the M5-M5 intersection are generated.

We shall begin by discussing the $`(4,4)`$ defect CFT which describes D3-branes intersecting in flat space. This theory is the low energy limit of the M5-M5 intersection on a torus. We shall present the exact superpotential of the $`(4,4)`$ defect CFT in $`(2,2)`$ superspace. The resolution of the intersection to the holomorphic curve $`xy=c`$ can be seen explicitly from solutions of the F-flatness conditions. Upon orbifolding to a $`(4,0)`$ theory and taking the appropriate limit, all the degrees of freedom with momentum on the torus are generated.

In $`(2,0)`$ superspace, the analogue of a superpotential for the $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT is readily obtained from the superpotential for the $`(4,4)`$ defect CFT. At the appropriate point on the Higgs branch, this superpotential can be interpreted as lattice kinetic term in a compact direction, generating a Kaluza-Klein spectrum in the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit. Via the S-duality of the model, a Kaluza-Klein spectrum on a two-torus is generated. In the continuum limit, the two-dimensional fields localized at the intersection correspond to tensionless strings propagating in the four common dimensions of the M5-M5 intersection.

The $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT has a $`SU(2)_L`$ R-symmetry. In the continuum limit, we shall argue that this becomes the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry of the M5-M5 intersection, which preserves four-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. The $`SU(2)_L`$ R-symmetry exhibits a ’t Hooft anomaly. In the continuum limit, this may indicate an anomaly in the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry due to tensionless strings. While local $`SU(2)`$ anomalies do not arise in local four-dimensional quantum field theories, the possibility is not excluded for a four-dimensional theory of tensionless strings.

## 2 The D3-D3 intersection in flat space

Consider a stack of $`N`$ parallel D3-branes in the directions $`0123`$ intersecting an orthogonal stack of $`N^{}`$ D3-branes in the directions $`0145`$. The action has the form $`S=S_{\mathrm{D3}}+S_{\mathrm{D3}^{}}+S_{\mathrm{D3}\mathrm{D3}^{}}`$. The components $`S_{\mathrm{D3}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{D3}}`$ each correspond to a four-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ theory. The term $`S_{\mathrm{D3}\mathrm{D3}^{}}`$ contains couplings to a two-dimensional $`(4,4)`$ hypermultiplet, leaving only $`(4,4)`$ supersymmetry unbroken. The action was explicitly constructed in $`(2,2)`$ superspace in , to which we refer the reader for a more detailed discussion.

It is convenient to define the coordinates $`z^\pm =X^0\pm X^1,x=X^2+iX^3`$ and $`y=X^4+iX^5`$. The two-dimensional $`(2,2)`$ superspace is spanned by $`(z^+,z^{},\theta ^+,\theta ^{},\overline{\theta }^+,\overline{\theta }^{})`$. The four-dimensional fields corresponding to D3-D3 strings are described by $`(2,2)`$ superfields with extra continuous labels $`x,\overline{x}`$, while fields associated to the D$`3^{}`$-D$`3^{}`$ strings have the extra labels $`y,\overline{y}`$. Although the four-dimensional parts of the action will look unusual in $`(2,2)`$ superspace, this notation makes sense since only a two-dimensional supersymmetry is preserved.111The procedure of writing supersymmetric $`d`$-dimensional theories in terms of a lower dimensional superspace has been discussed in various places .  The fields associated with D3-D$`3^{}`$ strings are trapped at the intersection and have no extra continuous label.

Let us first consider $`S_{\mathrm{D3}}`$, which involves $`(2,2)`$ superfields of the form $`F(z^+,z^{},\theta ,\overline{\theta }|x,\overline{x})`$. The $`(2,2)`$ fields appearing in this action are a vector superfield $`V`$, together with three adjoint chiral superfields $`Q_1,Q_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The gauge connections $`A_{0,1}`$ of the $`(2,2)`$ vector multiplet and the complex scalar $`\varphi `$ of the $`(2,2)`$ chiral field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ combine to give the four components of the four-dimensional gauge connection. The scalar components of $`V,Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ combine to give the six adjoint scalars of the four-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ theory. The field content of the second D3-brane (D$`3^{})`$ is identical to that of the first D3-brane with the replacements $`xy,V𝒱,Q_iS_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. The fields corresponding to D3-D$`3^{}`$ strings are the chiral multiplets $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ in the $`(N,\overline{N}^{})`$ and $`(\overline{N},N^{})`$ representations of the $`SU(N)\times SU(N^{})`$ gauge group. Together $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ form a $`(4,4)`$ hypermultiplet.

For simplicity, we just present the superpotential, $`W=W_{D3}+W_{D3^{}}+W_{D3D3^{}}`$, where

$`W_{\mathrm{D3}}={\displaystyle d^2xϵ_{ij}\mathrm{tr}Q_i[_{\overline{x}}+g\mathrm{\Phi },Q_j]},W_{\mathrm{D3}^{}}={\displaystyle d^2yϵ_{ij}\mathrm{tr}S_i[_{\overline{y}}+g\mathrm{{\rm Y}},S_j]},`$
$`W_{\mathrm{D3}\mathrm{D3}^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{ig}{2}}\mathrm{tr}\left(B\stackrel{~}{B}Q_1\stackrel{~}{B}BS_1\right).`$ (2.1)
The Lorentz invariance of the four-dimensional parts of the action $`S_{D3}`$ or $`S_{D3}`$ is not manifest in $`(2,2)`$ superspace, but can seen upon integrating out auxiliary fields. Consider the Lorentz invariant kinetic term for the scalar component $`q_1`$ of the chiral superfield $`Q_1`$, $`\mathrm{tr}_\mu \overline{q}_1^\mu q_1`$ with $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$. This term arises from a combination of a $`(2,2)`$ K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler term $`\mathrm{tr}\overline{Q}_1Q_1`$ and the superpotential term $`\mathrm{tr}Q^1_zQ^2`$.

On the classical Higgs branch the scalar components $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ of the chiral fields $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ have non-zero expectation values. The scalar components $`s_2`$ and $`q_2`$ of the chiral superfields $`S_2`$ and $`Q_2`$ also have expectation values given by the vanishing of the F-terms for $`S^1`$ and $`Q^1`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{q_1}}=_{\overline{x}}q_2g\delta ^2(x)b\stackrel{~}{b}`$ $`=0,{\displaystyle \frac{W}{s_1}}=_{\overline{y}}s_2g\delta ^2(y)\stackrel{~}{b}b=0.`$ (2.2)
With the geometric identifications $`q_2y/\alpha ^{}`$ and $`s_2x/\alpha ^{}`$, the solutions of these equations give rise to holomorphic curves of the form $`xy=c\alpha ^{}`$, when $`2\pi ic=gb\stackrel{~}{b}=g\stackrel{~}{b}b`$.

## 3 Intersecting D3-branes at a $`^2/_k`$ orbifold

The $`(4,4)`$ defect CFT which describes intersecting D3-branes in flat space has an $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ R-symmetry. Geometrically, this corresponds to a rotation of the four coordinates transverse to all the D3-branes. These four directions can be described by two complex coordinates $`u`$ and $`w`$. We shall now consider the intersecting D3-branes in the orbifold geometry defined by $`(u,w^{})\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/k)(u,w^{})`$.

The action in this background can be obtained from that of the $`(4,4)`$ defect CFT with $`U(Nk)\times U(N^{}k)`$ gauge group by projecting out degrees of freedom which are not invariant under the $`_k`$ orbifold action. The $`_k`$ orbifold is embedded in a combination of the gauge symmetry and the $`SU(2)_R`$ R-symmetry. The result of the projection is a $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT, with $`U(N)^k\times U(N^{})^k`$ gauge group and an $`SU(2)_L`$ R-symmetry. The field content and gauge transformation properties are summarized by the quiver diagram in figure 1. The inner and outer rings of the quiver diagram separately correspond to the $`𝒩=2,d=4`$ superconformal Yang Mills theory which was used in  to (de)construct the six-dimensional $`(2,0)`$ theory describing parallel M5-branes. The “spokes” stretching between the inner and outer rings correspond to the degrees of freedom localized at the two dimensional intersection. These degrees of freedom descend from the $`(2,2)`$ chiral superfields $`B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of the parent $`(4,4)`$ theory, and consist of $`(2,0)`$ chiral multiplets $`B_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_j`$ as well as $`(2,0)`$ Fermi multiplets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j,j+1}^B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j,j+1}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$. The indices $`j`$ label nodes of the quiver diagram and run from $`1`$ to $`k`$. In an appropriate limit, the “spoke” fields will be seen to correspond to the tensionless strings of the M5-M5 intersection.

## 4 Generating two extra dimensions

In the $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT, two extra dimensions are generated at a point on the Higgs branch where the bifundamental scalars of the inner and outer rings of the quiver diagram have equal non-zero expecation values. This can be seen directly from the analogue of a $`(2,0)`$ superpotential for the $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT. We shall focus on the part of the superpotential involving the degrees of freedom at the intersection, which is given by

$`W_{\mathrm{D3}\mathrm{D3}^{}}=g\mathrm{tr}_{N\times N}`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j,j+1}^B(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j+1}Q_{j,j+1}^1S_{j+1,j}^1\stackrel{~}{B}_j)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^{Q^1}B_j\stackrel{~}{B}_j\right)`$
$`+g\mathrm{tr}_{N^{}\times N^{}}`$ $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j,j+1}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}(Q_{j+1,j}^1B_jB_{j+1}S_{j+1,j}^1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_j^{S^1}\stackrel{~}{B}_jB_j\right)|_{\overline{\theta }^+=0}.`$ (4.3)
In this expression the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fields are $`(2,0)`$ Fermi multiplets, while the other fields are $`(2,0)`$ chiral multiplets. At the point in moduli space for which extra dimensions are generated, $`q_{j,j+1}^1=vI`$ and $`s_{j,j+1}^1=vI`$. Expanding about this point in the moduli space, the quadratic part of the superpotential is

$`W_{\mathrm{D3}\mathrm{D3}^{}}=gv{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta ^+\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j,j+1}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}(B_jB_{j+1})+(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j+1}\stackrel{~}{B}_j)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j,j+1}^B\right]}|_{\overline{\theta }^+=0}.`$ (4.4)
This superpotential can be viewed as a kinetic term in a compact lattice direction, corresponding to the circular quiver diagram, with $`k`$ sites and radius $`R\frac{k}{gv}`$. Strictly speaking, there are additional contributions to the kinetic term arising from terms related to the superpotential by $`(4,0)`$ supersymmetry. These only change the radius by a numerical factor. By a discrete ($`_k`$) Fourier transform of modes localized at the intersection, one obtains Kaluza-Klein modes on the extra discrete circle. There is yet another discrete circle due to the S-duality of the D3-D3-orbifold system. Under S-duality $`gk/g`$, such that the radius of the other circle is $`R_D=g/v`$. The continuum limit which keeps both radii fixed is $`k\mathrm{}`$ with $`g\sqrt{k}`$ and $`v\sqrt{k}`$.

To determine whether the spoke degrees of freedom correspond to strings or particles in four dimensions, it is helpful to deform the theory by going to a point in the moduli space where they become massive. This is accomplished by setting $`Y_{j,j+1}=(v+\mathrm{\Delta },v+\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`Y_{j,j+1}^{}=(v\mathrm{\Delta },v\mathrm{\Delta })`$, where $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ are the $`SU(2)_L`$ doublets of bifundamental scalars on the inner and outer rings of the quiver. Note that $`q_{j,j+1}^1`$ belongs to the doublet $`Y_{j,j+1}`$ while $`s_{j,j+1}^1`$ belongs to $`Y_{j,j+1}^{}`$. The real parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ must be scaled as $`1/\sqrt{k}`$ to consistently generate two extra dimensions, but still has an effect as $`k\mathrm{}`$. The effective superpotential at this point in moduli space is

$`W`$ $`=gv{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta ^+\mathrm{tr}\left[B_j(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}{}_{j,j+1}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}{}_{j1,j}{}^{})+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{B}{}_{j,j+1}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j+1}\stackrel{~}{B}_j)\right]}|_{\overline{\theta }^+}`$
$`+g\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle 𝑑\theta ^+\mathrm{tr}\left[B_j(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}{}_{j,j+1}{}^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{\stackrel{~}{B}}{}_{j1,j}{}^{})+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^{B}{}_{j,j+1}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{B}_{j+1}+\stackrel{~}{B}_j)\right]}|_{\overline{\theta }^+}.`$ (4.5)
For large $`k`$ and fixed lattice momentum $`n`$, diagonalizing the mass matrix for the fundamental spoke degrees of freedom gives

$`M^2=(g\mathrm{\Delta })^2+(n/R)^2,`$ (4.6)
where $`n`$ is the lattice momentum. For simplicity let us set $`n=0`$, so that $`m=g\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The S-dual modes then have $`m_D=\frac{k}{g}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`m/m_D=R_D/R`$, the fundamental spoke degrees of freedom should be interpreted as strings wrapping the cycle of radius $`R_D`$, while their S-duals wrap the cycle of radius $`R`$. The string tension is $`T=\frac{m}{2\pi R_D}=\frac{m_D}{2\pi R}=v\mathrm{\Delta }`$. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$, we obtain a theory of tensionless strings.

## 5 Matching R-symmetries and a ’t Hooft Anomaly

The M5-M5 intersection has $`𝒩=2,d=4`$ supersymmetry with $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ R-symmetry. We shall now argue that the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry should be identified with the $`SU(2)_L`$ R-symmetry of the $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT. This is not a trivial identification, since the $`SU(2)_L`$ R-symmetry is apparently spontaneously broken at the point in moduli space required to generate two extra dimensions, whereas the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry of the M5-M5 intersections is only spontaneously broken when the M5-branes are transversely separated, corresponding to a non-zero string tension $`T=|\stackrel{}{X}\stackrel{}{X}^{}|`$. The quantity $`\stackrel{}{X}\stackrel{}{X}^{}`$ is a triplet under the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry. Note that the string tension in the $`(4,0)`$ description of M5-M5 intersection can be written in an $`SU(2)_L`$ invariant way as $`T=|Y^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }YY^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }Y^{}|`$. This suggests the identification of $`Y^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }YY^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }Y^{}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{X}\stackrel{}{X}^{}`$, which in turn requires the identification of $`SU(2)_L`$ with the $`SU(2)`$ R-symmetry of the M5-M5 system. This suggests that, for vanishing string tension, $`SU(2)_L`$ is unbroken as far as the non-trivial dynamics is concerned.

The only two-dimensional degrees of freedom of the $`(4,0)`$ defect CFT which are charged under $`SU(2)_L`$ are doublets of negative chirality. Consequently there is a ’t Hooft anomaly in $`SU(2)_L`$. Note that such anomalies are protected quantities which are readily computable in the strong coupling limit. It is remarkable that the theory which (de)constructs the M5-M5 intersection is chiral, and it would be surprising if this chirality did not have consequences in the continuum limit. Assuming that the ’t Hooft anomaly we have just discovered survives in this limit, it should be interpreted as an $`SU(2)`$ anomaly due to tensionless strings. While there are no local $`SU(2)`$ anomalies in four-dimensional quantum field theories, we know of nothing which excludes the possibility for four-dimensional theories of tensionless strings. Unfortunately, we can not yet state conclusively that the $`SU(2)_L`$ anomaly has a non-zero continuum limit.

Assuming that this anomaly exists in the continuum limit, it is somewhat similar in spirit to the known $`Spin(5)`$ ’t Hooft anomaly of the $`(2,0)`$ theory of parallel M5-branes . The $`Spin(5)`$ R-symmetry corresponds to the Lorentz symmetry of the five directions transverse the M5-branes. This symmetry is gauged by the coupling to gravity. It turns out there there is an anomaly in diffeomorphisms of the normal bundle due to the long wavelength Chern-Simons terms of eleven dimensional supergravity in the presence of magnetic (M5-brane) sources. Consistency requires that this anomaly is cancelled by a contribution due to the degrees of freedom propagating on the M5-brane. This gives an indirect derivation of the t’ Hooft anomaly for the six-dimensional $`(2,0)`$ theory. At present there is no direct derivation in the non-abelian case. In principle, it should be possible to reproduce this anomaly from the (de)constructed description of the six-dimensional $`(2,0)`$ theory . Unfortunately this is complicated by the fact that the $`Spin(5)`$ R-symmetry is not manifest in this description, and is realized only in the continuum limit.

If there is an R-symmetry anomaly of the M5-M5 intersection due to tensionless strings, it should also be computable via the assumption of anomaly cancellation in M-theory. The question of the existence of this anomaly is worth pursuing further, particularly in light of its relation to black hole entropy .

Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank G. Cardoso, A. Hanany, R. Helling, B. Ovrut, S. Ramgoolam, W. Skiba, D. Tong and J. Troost for helpful discussions. The research of J.E., Z.G. and I.K. is funded by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) within the Emmy Noether programme, grant ER301/1-2. N.R.C. is supported by the DOE under grant DF-FC02-94ER40818, the NSF under grant PHY-0096515 and NSERC of Canada.


format: text

text:
# Applications of Small-World Networks to some Socio-economic Systems

## 1 Introduction

The diffusion of a new concept (a technology, an opinion, an information, a disease, …) through social and economic systems is a complex process that typically forms waves or avalanches. Also, it usually displays rich dynamics that is attracting the interest of many mathematicians and theoretical physicists .

A social network has two main properties: clustering and small-world effect. Clustering means every one has a group of collaborators, some of them will often be a collaborator by another person. Small-world effect means the average shortest person to person (vertex to vertex) distance is very short compared with the whole size of the system (number of vertices).

Regular lattices display the clustering property only. On the other hand, random lattices display the small-world effect without clustering . The concept of SWN introduced in  has shown to combine both features. A SWN is a connected ring with some shortcuts joining between some randomly chosen vertices are added with small probability $`\varphi `$. Also, this structure combines between both local and nonlocal interactions. This combination is observed in many real systems. Then it is a useful concept in modeling the real systems. We used this concept in modeling different systems \[4-8\]. Here our interest is restricted to apply the concept of SWN to a model for the evolution in economic systems  and to a sociophysics model .

## 2 A model for the evolution of economic systems in SWN

A real economic system is a population of agents each of them has a technological level ($`a_i`$). Every agent is assumed to interact with a group of collaborators (neighbours) obtaining payoffs (profits). The base payoff is assumed to be higher for the higher technological levels, and the payoffs have to be bounded. Also, if an agent is too advance or too backwards relative to his/her neighbours, he/she always has incompatibility costs.

Every agent has to update his/her technological level to obtain the best payoff. Then the population reaches a state at which each agent is satisfied with his/her payoff. Then the technological level of a randomly chosen agent is raised by a quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }(0,1)`$. Usually the new technology has a cost. The neighbours of this agent updates their technological levels according to the new conditions. They have the possibility to accept or refuse the new technology. The new technology may diffuse through the whole population making a uniform front for cheap updating cost. On the other hand, if the cost is very high, only few agents can modify their levels. For intermediate cost values, the updating process continues through the population making an avalanche until another stable state is reached, and so on. The avalanche’s size, $`s`$ is the number of agents that updated their levels in a step. It has been shown that  the avalanches size and several aspects of social and economic systems can be described in terms of power law distribution as,

$$P(s)s^\gamma ,\gamma 1.$$
(1)
There are two updating optimalities: Nash and Pareto defined as follows:
Definition 1. (Nash optimality): An agent selects the technological level that maximize his own payoff without regards to his/her collaborators.
Definition 2. (Pareto optimality): An agent selects the technological level that maximize the average payoff of his/her group (he/she and the collaborators).

Towards a theoretical approach to this phenomena, Arenas et al.  introduced the following payoff function:

$$\pi (a_i,a_j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_ik_1(1\mathrm{exp}(a_ia_j))\hfill & \mathrm{if}a_ia_j,\hfill \\ a_ik_2(1\mathrm{exp}(a_ja_i))\hfill & \mathrm{if}a_i<a_j,\hfill \end{array}j=i\pm 1,$$
(2)
where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ represent the incompatibility costs resulting from being too advance or too backwards, respectively. The payoff of the agent $`i,\pi _i`$ is $`\pi _i=\pi (a_i,a_{i1})+\pi (a_i,a_{i+1})`$. Depending on this payoff function, Arenas et al.  construct a 1-dimensional (1-d) model using Nash optimality. But Pareto optimality usually implies less erratic behaviour than Nash optimality . Also, it has been proven that the payoff from Pareto updating rule is generally higher or equal to that from Nash updating rule .

Then we have reconstructed the 1-d model of Arenas et al. using Pareto optimality . It is shown that , the dynamics this model depends only on the quantity $`k=k_1k_2`$, which behaves as the updating cost. For $`k2`$, the avalanches are of the size of the whole population corresponding to the case of uniform front. In the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, the agents behave independently, so avalanches become of size one. For intermediate values of the parameter $`k`$, the system is shown to be critical, see Fig. (1), where $`k=4`$. The three regimes are clearly observed in real systems.

The total payoff of each agent is calculated and compared in two cases, Pareto optimality and Nash optimality. Applying the same conditions in the two cases, it is found that the total payoff from the Pareto optimality is significantly higher than that from the Nash optimality for all agents. This important result means that if every one in a population tries to maximize the payoff (profit, fitness, …) of his/her group, the personal payoff of each of them may be more maximized than that of the case when every one tries to increase his/her own payoff individually.

Then the model is generalized to SWN with $`\varphi =0.05`$. The shortcuts are fixed beforehand. The updating rule is Pareto. The vertices that do not have shortcuts behave similar to the 1-d model. If a vertex $`i`$ has a shortcutting neighbour $`\mathrm{sc}(i)`$, then its payoff is calculated as follows:

$$\pi _i=\pi (a_i,a_{i1})+\pi (a_i,a_{i+1})+\pi (a_i,a_{\mathrm{sc}(i)}).$$
(3)
In this case the average payoff of its group becomes:

$$\pi _{\mathrm{av}}=(\pi _{i1}+\pi _i+\pi _{i+1}+\pi _{\mathrm{sc}(i)})/4.$$
(4)
The application of the model to SWN does not destroy the criticality of the model for intermediate values of the parameter $`k`$. In the limits $`k2`$ and $`k\mathrm{}`$ the model on SWN behaves as the same as the 1-d model.

The total payoff of each agent was calculated. The 10 % of agents who have shortcuts are found to have significantly higher payoff than the others. This is because of the presence of the third term in Eq. (3) for calculating the payoff of those agents. This behavior increases the deviation in payoffs which exists in the real economic systems. This contradicts the both cases of the 1-d model (with both Nash and Pareto updating rules), where the payoffs of all agents are close to each other. Also, it implies that the increase of collaborators may increase the payoff, if agents use the Pareto optimality.

## 3 Application of the Sznajd sociophysics model to SWN

The simple Ising model is one of the fundamental concepts of Statistical Mechanics. Recently, it has been modified to model the problem of two-state opinion formation \[12-14\]. Depending on an old principle that says ”united we stand, divided we fall”, the Sznajd model  is constructed. Consider a chain of spins $`S_i,i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},L`$, that are either up ($`+1`$) or down ($`1`$). Assume that each pair of adjacent spins can affect the state of their nearest neighbors using the following updating rule:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{if}S_iS_{i+1}=+1,\mathrm{then}S_{i1}=S_{i+2}=S_i,\\ \mathrm{if}S_iS_{i+1}=1,\mathrm{then}S_{i1}=S_{i+1},S_{i+2}=S_i.\end{array}$$
(5)
Simulating this system for long time, where at each time step the site $`i`$ is selected randomly, one obtains finally one of the following three fixed points: $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ with probability $`0.25`$, $`0.25`$, $`0.5`$, respectively. Then the model has two possible final states: dictatorship or stalemate, so no common decision in a democratic way can be done. Only after introducing a small finite noise, a democratic decision can be done.

This model is generalized to 2-d  obtaining similar fixed points, except in some variants. Also, it is used to explain the distribution of votes among candidates in the Brazilian local elections .

We generalized the Sznajd model to SWN . The updating rule is generalized to include the shortcutting neighbors, if exist, as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{if}S_iS_{i+1}=+1,\mathrm{then}S_{i1}=S_{i+2}=S_{sc(i)}(\mathrm{if}\mathrm{exists})\\ =S_{sc(i+1)}(\mathrm{if}\mathrm{exists})=S_i,\\ \mathrm{if}S_iS_{i+1}=1,\mathrm{then}S_{i1}=S_{sc(i)}(\mathrm{if}\mathrm{exists})=S_{i+1},\\ S_{i+2}=S_{sc(i+1)}(\mathrm{if}\mathrm{exists})=S_i\end{array}$$
(6)
where $`sc(i)`$ is the shortcutting neighbor of the $`i`$-th vertex, if exists.

Beginning with a totally random initial state, the system always reaches one of two fixed points all up or all down with equal probabilities. Also, the effects of the initial concentration of the up and down spins is studied . Although the stalemate fixed point disappeared in this model, the model always evolves to limiting dictatorship fixed points. So no democratic decision can be taken in this system. This point is improved by introducing the concept of a leader.

A leader is usually a strong person who completely trusts in his/her opinion. Also, he/she is always capable in influencing somebody to follow his/her thought without changing. As a simple definition for a leader, we define a leader as a person who does not change his/her opinion and has the capability of influencing one of his/her nearest neighbors to accept the same opinion as the leader.

We randomly choose two persons to be leaders, one for the up direction and the other to the down direction. The updating rule is the same as Eq. (6). The same numerical investigation is reapplied to this modified model. No fixed point is observed in this system. The time evolution of the magnetization, ($`M=\frac{1}{L}_{i=1}^LS_i`$) is drawn . Sometimes the majority of the population follow the up direction, and another times the majority follow the down direction. There is no dependence on the initial concentrations for the up and down followers. There is no periodicity observed. Also, this behavior is independent of the lattice size.

Because of the disappearing of the dictatorship fixed points, a decision can be done in a democratic way. This behavior is clearly observed in many local elections in many democratic countries. For example, sometimes the majority is for the Democratic party and others the majority is for the Republic party, without reaching a state at which $`100\%`$ of the population follow a certain opinion. Also, this behavior is not periodic. Similar behavior is observed from both 1-d and 2-d versions of Sznajd model after including some noises.

An interesting question is what will happen if one of the two leaders is killed or forced to slough his leadership by any way? In this case the system evolves into a single dictatorship fixed point following the opinion of the leader that is still alive, independent of the concentrations of each opinion at the killing process. This explains why dictators usually kill the active objectors members, and gives a warning to leaders, they have to prepare some leaders for the future. The model is investigated using time series analysis .

## 4 Conclusions

In conclusion, SWN is a good description for real social networks. It allows some simple mathematical models to display some interesting socio-economic aspects.
Acknowledgements
I thank E. Ahmed, J. A. Holyst, H. Kantz and D. Stauffer for helpful discussions and comments.