Abstract
In financial markets, participants locally optimize their profit which can result in a globally unstable state leading to a catastrophic change. The largest crash in the past decades is the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers which was followed by a trustbased crisis between banks due to highrisk trading in complex products. We introduce information dissipation length (IDL) as a leading indicator of global instability of dynamical systems based on the transmission of Shannon information and apply it to the time series of USD and EUR interest rate swaps (IRS). We find in both markets that the IDL steadily increases toward the bankruptcy, then peaks at the time of bankruptcy and decreases afterwards. Previously introduced indicators such as ‘critical slowing down’ do not provide a clear leading indicator. Our results suggest that the IDL may be used as an earlywarning signal for critical transitions even in the absence of a predictive model.
Introduction
A system consisting of coupled units can selforganize into a critical transition if a majority of the units suddenly and synchronously change state^{1,2,3}. For example, in sociology, the actions of a few can induce a collective tipping point of behavior of the larger society^{4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11}. Epileptic seizures are characterized by the onset of synchronous activity of a large neuronal network^{12,13,14,15,16,17,18}. In financial markets the participants slowly build up an ever densifying web of mutual dependencies through investments and transactions to hedge risks, which can create unstable ‘bubbles’^{19,20,21,22,23}. Detecting the onset of critical transitions in these complex dynamical systems is difficult because we lack the mechanistic insight to create models with predictive power^{24,25,26,27}.
A characteristic of selforganized critical transitions is that the network of interactions among the units leads to longrange correlations in the system, or in other words, every unit ‘feels’ the state of every other unit to some extent.
Here we measure this selforganized correlation in terms of the transmission of information among units. Shannon's information theory quantifies the number of bits that is needed to determine the state of a unit (i.e. Shannon entropy), as well as the fraction of these bits that is contributed by the state of any other unit (mutual information)^{28}. We introduce the information dissipation length (IDL) as a measure of the characteristic distance of the decay of mutual information in the system. As such it can be used to detect the onset of longrange correlations in the system that precede critical transitions.
We apply the IDL indicator to unique time series of interbank risk trading in the USD and EUR currency and find evidence that it indeed detects the onset of instability of the markets several months before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. In contrast, we find that the critical slowing down indicator and other early warning signals used in the literature do not provide a clear warning. Our results suggest that the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was a selforganized critical transition and that the IDL could have served as a leading indicator.
As a system's unit influences the state of another unit it transfers information^{28} about its own state to the other unit^{29,30,31,32,33,34}. For instance, each particle in an isolated gas ‘knows’ something about the momenta of neighboring particles due to the transfer of momentum during collisions. That is, the momentum of a particle is the result of its recent collisions with other particles. This information is in turn transferred to other particles in subsequent collisions and so on. At each interaction the information is only partially transferred due to stochasticity and ambiguity^{29,31,35,36}, so information about the state of one particle can only reach a certain distance (IDL) before it is lost.
The IDL measures to what extent the state of one unit influences the states of other units. As the state of one unit depends on another unit, a fraction of the bits of information that determine its state becomes a reflection of the other unit's state. This creates a certain amount of mutual information among them. A unit can then influence other units in turn, propagating these ‘transmitted’ bits further into the network. This generates a decaying amount of mutual information between distant units that eventually settles at a constant. The higher the IDL of a system, the larger the distance over which a unit can influence other units and the better the units are capable of a collective transition to a different state. Because of this we can measure the IDL of systems of coupled units and detect their propensity to a catastrophic change, even in the absence of a predictive model. See Sections S1 and S2 in the SI for a more detailed explanation and how it differs from existing indicators.
We measure the IDL of risktrading among banks by calculating the IDL of the returns of interestrate swaps (IRS) across maturities. The rationale is that the dependencies between banks are expected to be reflected in the dependencies of swap rates across maturities, as we explain next. Each financial institute is typically exposed to a significant amount of risk of changes in shortterm and longterm interest rates and buys corresponding IRSs to cancel out or ‘hedge’ these risks. If an institute has difficulties in financing its shortterm interest rate hedges and consequently has a higher chance of default, then each longterm IRS that it holds becomes less valuable (and vice versa). The corresponding buyers of these longterm (shortterm) IRSs must buy additional longterm (shortterm) IRSs on the market to compensate, increasing the demand. An increased dependence between institutes can therefore lead to an increased dependence of the prices of IRSs of different maturities. A significant increase of this approximated IDL may indicate the onset of a critical event. We consider it to be a warning if a threshold of two times the 3year standard deviation above the mean is exceeded. This generates clusters of warnings about once in three years, which is a tradeoff between medium (twin) crises and the most severe (triple) crises; see Section S7 for the derivation.
The IDL of the IRS market at time t is estimated as follows. The swap prices form a onedimensional system because, for instance, a 3year IRS logically consists of a 2year IRS and a prediction of the value of a 1year IRS that starts two years in prospect. That is, that the price of the i^{th} maturity depends on the price of a maturity i − 1 and a (stochastic) prediction component. We therefore assume that the stochastic interaction between the IRS prices of maturities i and i + 1 is equal for all i^{37}, which leads to an exponential decay of information across the maturities (see Section S1 in the SI). The IDL at time t is thus calculated as the halftime of the mutual information between maturity 1 and i for increasing i. We estimate the mutual information between two maturities at time t using the 300 most recent return values, using the equiprobable binning procedure; see Methods for details.
The market of interest rate swaps (IRS) is the largest financial derivatives market today^{38} with more than 504 thousand billion USD notional amounts outstanding, or almost 80% of the total market. The buyer of an IRS pays a fixed premium to the seller, while the seller pays the variable LIBOR or EURIBOR interest rate to the buyer. In effect, the seller insures the buyer against unexpected fluctuations in LIBOR or EURIBOR in return for the expected net value of the IRS. Swap prices can significantly influence the funding rates of financial institutions and therefore play a key role in the profitandloss and risk of financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies and pension funds.
Our data is provided by the ING Bank and consists of the daily prices of IRSs in the USD and EUR currency for the maturities of 1 (USD only), 2, …, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25 and 30 years. The data spans more than twelve years: the EUR data from 12/01/1998 to 12/08/2011 and the USD data from 04/29/1999 to 06/06/2011. The prices of IRSs are based on LIBOR and EURIBOR, respectively, which are the average interbank interest rates at which banks lend money to each other. Our data correspond to IRSs with yearly fixed payments in exchange of quarterly variable payments because these swaps are the most liquidly traded across a wide range of maturities. The data is made available in the SI online.
Results
Evidence of IDL as an indicator of instability
In Figure 1 we show the original time series of IRS rates with the corresponding values of IDL. In both markets, the day of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy is preceded by a significant increase of IDL and a decrease afterwards. This is consistent with our hypothesis that a selforganized transition requires that information about the state of a unit can travel a large distance through the system. The decrease of IDL following the bankruptcy is consistent with interpreting a critical phenomenon as the release of builtup stress^{1}, similar to the way that an earth quake releases the builtup tension between tectonic plates. These two observations together suggest that the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy was a selforganized critical transition and that the IDL indicator is capable of detecting it. We verify experimentally that the IDL indicator indeed detects serial correlations between maturities and is not prone to false alarms by computing the IDL for randomly generated time series with a known period of serially correlated time series; see Section S6 in the SI for details.
Although in both markets the IDL indicator peaks near the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, the two curves differ significantly in shape. Finding the underlying causes is highly speculative, nevertheless it is important to evaluate the plausibility that the IDL detected an increased instability of the financial market. Next we discuss the behavior of the IDL curves and their potential relations with significant economic phenomena.
In the USD market, a longterm buildup of stress starts in the beginning of 2004 and continues for more than four years, eventually peaking shortly before the bankruptcy. This is consistent with the common belief that markets create ‘bubbles’^{20}, which grow slowly over time and may ‘burst’, leading to sudden regime shifts triggered by a catalyzing event. In the U.S. financial market, the performance of subprime mortgage loans is considered a major cause of the current global financial crisis^{39,40}. The subprime share of the mortgage market increased from about 8% in 2001 to 20% in 2006. Demyanyk and van Hemert^{40} show in this context that the quality of loans deteriorated for six consecutive years before the crisis and suggest that the market followed a classic lending ‘boombust’ scenario which was masked by a prevailing high house price appreciation. This latter phenomenon, termed the ‘house price bubble’^{41}, went handinhand with the surge of subprime mortgage loans. The U.S. seasonadjusted houseprice index had been growing at an increasing rate from 1991 to 2006^{42}, which stimulated the sale of lowrate mortgages based on the premise that the house prices would keep growing. Around the yearend of 2005, however, the growth rate stopped increasing and in March 2006 the growth rate had its largestever drop to below zero, after which the prices continued to decrease. As a result, home owners were less capable of financing the loan and the underlying security decreased in value, which further deteriorated the quality of the loans and destabilized the lending banks.
The EUR market, on the other hand, appears to have played a more submissive role. The IDL indicator rises distinctly for about half a year before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and diminishes in about the same amount of time. One plausible explanation is that the evergrowing instability in the USD market at some point ‘infected’ the EUR market, i.e., the EUR market may have become increasingly unstable as a consequence of the high instability of the USD market. This explanation is consistent with the observation that the financial crisis initiated in the U.S., whereas Europe responded to the U.S. crisis rather than initiating its own. The ‘infection’ occurs due to the intimate relation between the EUR and USD markets.
Evidence of IDL as an early warning signal
We find that the IDL indicator could have served as an earlywarning signal for the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. We define the earliest time at which a warning could be given as the point where the IDL increases beyond a predefined warning threshold (see the inset of Figure 1). In the USD market data we find that the earliest clear warning precedes the bankruptcy by 118 trade days and lasts for 8 days, followed immediately by a warning that lasts for 7 days. In the EUR market the warning is much more pronounced, but also more concentrated near the bankruptcy. A clear warning starts 67 trade days in advance and lasts for 117 trade days.
Comparison to critical slowing down and other indicators
The most wellknown leading indicator of critical transitions is the increase of the autocorrelation of fluctuations of the system state^{2,43,44,45,46}. The intuition is that if an unstable system is perturbed it returns more slowly to its natural state compared to a stable system. The more stable the system, the stronger the tendency to return to its natural state, so the more quickly it responds to transient perturbations.
We compute the firstorder autoregression coefficient of the fluctuations of each maturity IRS time series for all possible window sizes and show a representative set of results in Figure 2; see the Methods section for details. We find indeed signs of critical slowing down around the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy for certain window sizes. However, it is difficult to find parameter values that provide a sustained advance warning, that is, where the indicator crosses the warning threshold for more than a few days before the bankruptcy. Only in the EUR data for the 1year maturity and a sliding window size of around 1000 trade days we find a significant early warning, which disappears for a sliding window larger than 1250 trade days (see Section S5.1 in the SI).
Another type of generic leading indicators used in the literature are the spatial correlation and spatial variance of the signals of the units of a system^{3,47,48,49,50,51,52}. See Figure 3. In our data, the dimension of maturities can be taken as the ‘spatial’ dimension. The traditional correlation function used is the linear Pearson correlation, shown in the top panels of Figure 3. We also compute the correlations using the mutual information function, shown in the middle panels, since this function can capture nonlinear relationships as well. In finance, correlations are often calculated using the relative differences (returns) of time series instead of the absolute values (19), so we repeat the calculations on the returns shown in the right half of Figure 3.
We find that in our time series these indicators do not show a distinctive change of behavior around the time of the bankruptcy in both markets. One possible explanation is that all IRS prices correlate strongly with external financial indices (such as the homeprice index), which may dominate the observed correlations in the IRS prices across the maturities. In this scenario the IDL is still capable to be a leading indicator because it ignores the correlation that is shared among all IRS prices. That is, the information in the IRS prices of different maturities decays as a + b·(f^{t})^{1−i} where a is the information (or correlation) shared among all IRS prices and the estimated rate of decay f^{t} is independent of a.
More traditional indicators used for financial time series are the magnitude or spread of interest rates^{53}. However, Figure 1 as well as the variances in the level data in Figure 3 show that neither measure provide a clear warning: a high (USD) and lowspread period (EUR) occurred more than a year before the bankruptcy and was returning to normal at the time of the bankruptcy.
Lastly, the same swap with a different variable payment frequency (e.g., monthly, quarterly, semiannually) were quoted at the same price in the market before 2007. During the recent crisis, a significant price difference across frequencies emerged^{54}. Although this has a major impact on the valuation and risk management of derivatives, this socalled ‘basis’ does not provide a clear early warning (see Section S5.2 in the SI).
Discussion
From an optimistic viewpoint, the IDL indicator may improve the stability of the financial derivatives market. Our observation that previously introduced leading indicators did not provide an early warning for the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the crisis that followed, is consistent with the hypothesis that leading indicators lose their predictive power in financial markets^{55}. A plausible explanation is that an increase of a known leading indicator could be directly followed by preemptive policy by central banks^{56}, a change of behavior of the market participants, or both, until the indicator returns to its normal level. This would imply that the financial system is capable of avoiding the type of critical transitions for which it has leading indicators: it changes behavior as it approaches such a transition, while it remains vulnerable to other critical transitions for which it has no indicators. The fact that the IDL indicator provides an early warning signal suggests that it is capable of detecting a type of transition for which the financial system had no indicators at the time. Therefore, from this viewpoint the IDL indicator potentially makes the financial system more resilient because it improves its capability of avoiding catastrophic changes.
From a pessimistic viewpoint, on the other hand, the IDL indicator may actually decrease the stability of the financial system. Upon an increase of IDL, participants may respond in a manner that increases the IDL further, reinforcing the participants' response and so on, propelling the financial system towards a crisis. This is a general dichotomy for all early warning indicators in finance^{57}. In the absence of a mechanistic model of the financial derivatives market it is difficult to predict the effect of a warning indicator.
Our results are a marked step forward in the analysis of complex dynamical systems. The IDL is a generic indicator that may apply to any selforganizing system of coupled units. For many such systems we lack the mechanistic insight necessary to build models with sufficient predictive power. Remarkably, we find evidence that the percolation of information can provide a telltale of selforganized critical phenomena even in the absence of a descriptive model. Although we study the financial derivatives market here, it seems reasonable to expect that it is true for a wide range of systems such as the forming of opinions in social networks^{5,6,7,8,9,10,11}, the extinction of species in ecosystems^{3,44,45,49,58,59,60,61}, phase transitions and spontaneous magnetization in physics^{47,62,63,64}, robustness in biological systems^{65,66} and selforganization of populations of cells^{67} and even software components^{68}.
Methods
Calculating the IDL in the IRS time series
Because the IRS price levels are not stationary within the sliding window sizes we use relative differences (returns) instead. Let denote the return of an IRS with maturity i = 1,…,15 at time t, where denotes the corresponding price level. We fit the exponential decay to the measured Shannon information as function of i, where a is the mutual information that all IRS rates have in common, b is the normalizing factor and f^{(t)} is the rate of decay of the mutual information between the IRS rates across maturities. We define the IDL as the corresponding halftime. The mutual information is estimated by constructing an adaptive^{69} contingency table of the two vectors and , which are the most recently observed returns in the market at time t. To construct this table we divide the range of values of each vector into h bins of variable size such that each bin contains about the same number of samples. Two observed pairs of returns are considered equal if they fall into the same bin. Our results are robust against choosing the parameters and h; see Section S4 in the SI for more details. The results in Figure 1 were produced with a window of trade days and binning the return values into h = 10 bins.
Calculating the firstorder autoregression coefficient of fluctuations
Calculating this coefficient of a given time series requires two parameters: the standard deviation of the Gaussian smoothing kernel g, which detrends the signal and the number of most recent IRS prices which are used to compute the autoregression. The procedure is identical for each maturity. First we use the smoothing kernel to compute a running weighted average of the time series, where each IRS price level becomes the weighted average of its neighbors. Then we subtract it from the original time series to obtain the detrended signal, i.e., the shortterm fluctuations. Of these fluctuations we calculate the firstorder autoregression coefficient at time t using the preceding prices. The autoregressive model used is the YuleWalker model^{70}. The results in Figure 2 were produced with a kernel of size g = 5 and a sliding window of price levels. This procedure can be calculated for the price levels regardless of nonstationarity since it contains a detrending step. See Sections S5.1 and S5.4 in the SI for more details as well as results for different values of g and .
Calculating the spatial correlation and variance
At each time point we calculate the spatial correlation coefficient at time t as , using the preceding IRS rates of maturity 1 and maturities i, i = 1,2,…,15. Here, F_{corr} is either the standard Pearson correlation for the upper plots in Figure 3, or the mutual information function for the middle plots; denotes the arithmetic average of the correlation values for the different maturities and denotes the price of an IRS of maturity i at time t. The results in Figure 3 were produced using sliding windows of sizes . The spatial variance is computed at each time point t as . We repeat the calculations after replacing each original level by its relative difference (returns) .
References
Bak, P. How nature works: the science of selforganized criticality. (Copernicus Press, 1996).
Scheffer, M. et al. Earlywarning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009).
Dakos, V., van Nes, E., Donangelo, R., Fort, H. & Scheffer, M. Spatial correlation as leading indicator of catastrophic shifts. Theoretical Ecology 3, 163–174 (2010).
Grodzins, M. The metropolitan area as a racial problem. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1958).
Granovetter, M. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. American Journal of Sociology 83, 1420–1443 (1978).
Klemm, K., Eguiluz, V. M., Toral, R. & Miguel, M. S. Nonequilibrium transitions in complex networks: a model of social interaction. Phys. Rev. E 67, 026120 (2003).
Holme, P. & Newman, M. E. J. Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions. Phys. Rev. E 74, 056108 (2006).
Castellano, C., Fortunato, S. & Loreto, V. Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009).
Barthélemy, M., Nadal, J.P. & Berestycki, H. Disentangling collective trends from local dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 7629–7634 (2010).
Xie, J. et al. Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities. Phys. Rev. E 84, 011130 (2011).
Durrett, R. et al. Graph fission in an evolving voter model. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. (2012). 10.1073/pnas.1200709109
Mormann, F., Andrzejak, R. G., Elger, C. E. & Lehnertz, K. Seizure prediction: the long and winding road. Brain 130, 314–333 (2007).
Jefferys, J. G. R., Curtis, M. de & Avoli, M. Neuronal network synchronization and limbic seizures. Epilepsia 51, 19 (2010).
CymerblitSabba, A. & Schiller, Y. Network Dynamics during Development of Pharmacologically Induced Epileptic Seizures in Rats In Vivo. J. Neurosci 30, 1619–1630 (2010).
Koehling, R. & Staley, K. Network mechanisms for fast ripple activity in epileptic tissue. Epilepsy Res. 97, 318–323 (2011).
Meisel, C. & Kuehn, C. Scaling Effects and SpatioTemporal Multilevel Dynamics in Epileptic Seizures. PLoS ONE 7, e30371 (2012).
CymerblitSabba, A. & Schiller, Y. Development of hypersynchrony in the cortical network during chemoconvulsantinduced epileptic seizures in vivo. J. Neurophysiol 107, 1718–1730 (2012).
Litt, B. & Echauz, J. Prediction of epileptic seizures. Lancet Neurol. 1, 22–30 (2002).
Johnson, N. F., Jefferies, P. & Hui, P. M. Financial Market Complexity. (Oxford University Press, 2003).
Sornette, D. Why Stock Markets Crash: Critical Events in Complex Financial Systems. (Princeton University Press, 2004).
Kirou, A., Ruszczycki, B., Walser, M. & Johnson, N. Computational Modeling of Collective Human Behavior: The Example of Financial Markets. in Computational Science (Bubak, M., van Albada, G.,Dongarra, J.& Sloot, P.) 5101, 33–41 (Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008).
May, R. M. & Arinaminpathy, N. Systemic risk: the dynamics of model banking systems. J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 823–838 (2010).
Haldane, A. G. & May, R. M. Systemic risk in banking ecosystems. Nature 469, 351–355 (2011).
Sornette, D. Predictability of catastrophic events: Material rupture, earthquakes, turbulence, financial crashes and human birth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 2522–2529 (2002).
Turcotte, D. L. & Rundle, J. B. Selforganized complexity in the physical, biological and social sciences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 2463–2465 (2002).
Hallerberg, S. Predictability of extreme events in time series. (2008).
Su, R.Q., Ni, X., Wang, W.X. & Lai, Y.C. Forecasting synchronizability of complex networks from data. Phys. Rev. E 85, 056220 (2012).
Cover, T. M. & Thomas, J. A. Elements of information theory. 6, (WileyInterscience, 1991).
Crutchfield, J. P. & Feldman, D. P. Statistical complexity of simple onedimensional spin systems. Phys. Rev. E 55, R1239–R1242 (1997).
Wheeler, J. A. in (Hey, A. J. G.) 309–336 (Perseus Books, 1999).
Crutchfield, J. P., Ellison, C. J. & Mahoney, J. R. Time's Barbed Arrow: Irreversibility, Crypticity and Stored Information. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 094101 (2009).
Feldman, D. P., McTague, C. S. & Crutchfield, J. P. The organization of intrinsic computation: Complexityentropy diagrams and the diversity of natural information processing. Chaos 18, 043106 (2008).
Lloyd, S. Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos. (Knopf, 2006).
Wiesner, K. Nature computes: Information processing in quantum dynamical systems. Chaos 20, 037114 (2010).
Ellison, C., Mahoney, J. & Crutchfield, J. Prediction, Retrodiction and the Amount of Information Stored in the Present. Journal of Statistical Physics 136, 1005–1034 (2009).
James, R. G., Ellison, C. J. & Crutchfield, J. P. Anatomy of a Bit: Information in a Time Series Observation. Chaos 21, 15 (2011).
Riccardo Rebonato. Volatility and Correlation: The Perfect Hedger and the Fox. (Wiley, 2004).
Semiannual OTC derivatives statistics at endDecember 2011. (Bank for International Settlements, 2012). at <http://www.bis.org/statistics/derstats.htm> accessed April 29, 2013.
Hellwig, M. F. Systemic Risk in the Financial Sector: An Analysis of the SubprimeMortgage Financial Crisis. De Economist 157, 129–207 (2009).
Demyanyk, Y. & Van Hemert, O. Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. Review of Financial Studies 24, 1848–1880 (2011).
Clark, S. P. & Coggin, T. D. Was there a U.S. house price bubble? An econometric analysis using national and regional panel data. Q Rev Econ Finance 51, 189–200 (2011).
Monthly House Price Indexes for Census Divisions and U. S. January 1991 to Latest. (Federal Housing Finance Agency, 2012). at <http://www.fhfa.gov>, accessed April 29, 2013.
Wissel, C. A universal law of the characteristic return time near thresholds. Oecologia 65, 101–107 (1984).
Dakos, V. et al. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 14308–14312 (2008).
Carpenter, S. R. et al. Early Warnings of Regime Shifts: A WholeEcosystem Experiment. Science 332, 1079–1082 (2011).
Lenton, T. M., Livina, V. N., Dakos, V., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Early warning of climate tipping points from critical slowing down: comparing methods to improve robustness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 370, 1185 –1204 (2012).
Bloch, I., Hansch, T. W. & Esslinger, T. Measurement of the spatial coherence of a trapped Bose gas at the phase transition. Nature 403, 166–170 (2000).
Guttal, V. & Jayaprakash, C. Spatial variance and spatial skewness: leading indicators of regime shifts in spatial ecological systems. Theoretical Ecology 2, 3–12 (2009).
Drake, J. M. & Griffen, B. D. Early warning signals of extinction in deteriorating environments. Nature 467, 456–459 (2010).
Donangelo, R., Fort, H., Dakos, V., Scheffer, M. & van Nes, E. H. Early warnings for catastrophic shifts in ecosystems: comparison between spatial and temporal indicators. Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos 20, 315–321 (2010).
Bailey, R. M. Spatial and temporal signatures of fragility and threshold proximity in modelled semiarid vegetation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278, 1064 –1071 (2011).
Dakos, V., Kéfi, S., Rietkerk, M., Nes, E. H. van & Scheffer, M. Slowing Down in Spatially Patterned Ecosystems at the Brink of Collapse. The American Naturalist 177, E153–E166 (2011).
Estrella, A. & Mishkin, F. S. Predicting U.S. Recessions: Financial Variables as Leading Indicators. Rev. Econ. Stat. 80, 45–61 (1998).
Whittall, C. The price is wrong. Risk (2010). at <http://www.risk.net/riskmagazine/feature/1594823/thepricewrong>, accessed April 29, 2013.
MacKenzie, D. An Engine, Not a Camera. (MIT Press, 2008).
Davis, E. P. & Karim, D. Comparing early warning systems for banking crises. Journal of Financial Stability 4, 89–120 (2008).
Morris, Carmen & Graciela Assessing Financial Vulnerability: An Early Warning System for Emerging Markets. (Institute for International Economics, 2000).
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R. & Brock, W. A. Turning back from the brink: Detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 826–831 (2009).
Chen, L., Liu, R., Liu, Z.P., Li, M. & Aihara, K. Detecting earlywarning signals for sudden deterioration of complex diseases by dynamical network biomarkers. Sci. Rep. 2 (2012).
Dai, L., Vorselen, D., Korolev, K. S. & Gore, J. Generic Indicators for Loss of Resilience Before a Tipping Point Leading to Population Collapse. Science 336, 1175–1177 (2012).
Barnosky, A. D. et al. Approaching a state shift in Earth's biosphere. Nature 486, 52–58 (2012).
Sadler, L. E., Higbie, J. M., Leslie, S. R., Vengalattore, M. & StamperKurn, D. M. Spontaneous symmetry breaking in a quenched ferromagnetic spinor BoseEinstein condensate. Nature 443, 312–315 (2006).
Xu, S.Y. et al. Topological Phase Transition and Texture Inversion in a Tunable Topological Insulator. Science 332, 560–564 (2011).
Gong, M., Tewari, S. & Zhang, C. BCSBEC Crossover and Topological Phase Transition in 3D SpinOrbit Coupled Degenerate Fermi Gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 195303 (2011).
Kitano, H. Biological robustness. Nat Rev Genet 5, 826–837 (2004).
MacNeil, L. T. & Walhout, A. J. M. Gene regulatory networks and the role of robustness and stochasticity in the control of gene expression. Genome Research 21, 645–657 (2011).
Gregor, T., Fujimoto, K., Masaki, N. & Sawai, S. The Onset of Collective Behavior in Social Amoebae. Science 328, 1021–1025 (2010).
Sloot, P. M. A., Overeinder, B. J. & Schoneveld, A. Selforganized criticality in simulated correlated systems. Computer Physics Communications 142, 76–81 (2001).
Cellucci, C. J., Albano, A. M. & Rapp, P. E. Statistical validation of mutual information calculations: Comparison of alternative numerical algorithms. Phys. Rev. E 71, 066208 (2005).
Monson, H. Statistical digital signal processing and modeling. (John Wiley & Sons, 1996).
Acknowledgements
We thank Prof. Cars H. Hommes for his insightful comments. We acknowledge the financial support of the Future and Emerging Technologies (FET) programme within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) for Research of the European Commission, under the FETProactive grant agreement TOPDRIM, number FP7ICT318121, as well as under the FETOpen grant agreement DynaNets, number FP7ICT233847. Peter Sloot acknowledges the NTU Complexity Program in Singapore as well as the Leading Scientist Program' of the Government of the Russian Federation, under contract 11.G34.31.0019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.Q. and P.M.A.S. conceived the project; D.K. gathered the data, R.Q. analyzed the data; R.Q., D.K. and P.M.A.S. wrote the paper. The opinions expressed in this work are solely those of the authors and do not represent in any way those of their current and past employers.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Supplementary Information
Supporting INformation on Information dissipation as an earlywarning signal for the Lehman Brothers collapse in financial time series
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercialNoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/byncnd/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Quax, R., Kandhai, D. & Sloot, P. Information dissipation as an earlywarning signal for the Lehman Brothers collapse in financial time series. Sci Rep 3, 1898 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01898
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01898
This article is cited by

Measure crosssectoral structural similarities from financial networks
Scientific Reports (2023)

Changing Box–Cox transformation parameter as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change
Climate Dynamics (2023)

Evaluating the performance of multivariate indicators of resilience loss
Scientific Reports (2021)

Using critical slowing down indicators to understand economic growth rate variability and secular stagnation
Scientific Reports (2020)

Selecting transfer entropy thresholds for influence network prediction
Social Network Analysis and Mining (2017)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.