"... In PAGE 10: ... We will call variability of the SSGA to this value. For each test problem, we have ranked the algorithms attending on their sup- plied diversity ( Table4 ) and variability (Table 3) . We have only considered representative algorithms providing the best results (RW, RTS2, WAMS6 9, DC, ER, and CD/RW).... In PAGE 11: ... However, this feature introduces strong selective pressure in the search process [18], limiting rapidly the diversity in the population. In fact, we may observe in Table4 that RW shows the lowest diversity values. This circumstance forces the apparition of premature convergence, which explains the poor results obtained by this strategy.... ..."

"... In PAGE 10: ... We will call variability of the SSGA to this value. For each test problem, we have ranked the algorithms attending on their sup- plied diversity ( Table4 ) and variability (Table 3) . We have only considered representative algorithms providing the best results (RW, RTS2, WAMS6 9, DC, ER, and CD/RW).... In PAGE 11: ... However, this feature introduces strong selective pressure in the search process [18], limiting rapidly the diversity in the population. In fact, we may observe in Table4 that RW shows the lowest diversity values. This circumstance forces the apparition of premature convergence, which explains the poor results obtained by this strategy.... ..."

"... In PAGE 22: ... Therefore, to generate the individuals in the Initial Population we rst include all zero-cost links, and we choose uniformly at random the allele values for the rest of the links. Table6 shows the tested Initial Population methods, the average population tness, its standard deviation, and two diversity metrics. Both metrics compute the diversity as the average \di erence quot; between individuals in the population.... ..."

"... In PAGE 19: ... The populations are effectively equivalent in terms of phenotypic diversity for the first 100 generations, but then begin to diverge, with cultural learning increasing its phenotypic diver- sity level and maintaining a higher level throughout the rest of the experiment. Table4 shows the average, maximum and mini- mum diversity values for both populations taken over the entire experiment. It is clear from these figures that cultural learning produces a higher level of pheno- typic diversity and is capable of higher maximum and minimum diversity values.... ..."

"... In PAGE 16: ... While the difference is not large, it is significant and shows that cultural learning is con- tributing to population diversity, something which may help explain its higher level of overall fitness. Table1 shows the average, maximum and minimum diversity values for both populations, taken as an aver- age over the whole experiment set. Again, it shows that cultural learning is generating a higher level of average genotypic diversity.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ... Within haplogroup E, AJ populations had higher frequen- cies of the E-M35* paragroup, whereas NJ populations had a higher frequency of the derived E-M78 haplogroup. Population-level SNP and STR diversity AJ and NJ population diversity statistics are presented for SNP haplogroups in Table 3 and for STR haplotypes in Table4 . In general, there was higher haplogroup diversity in AJ populations than in NJ populations (Table 3).... In PAGE 5: ... For six of the seven comparisons between an Ashkenazi community and its matching non-Jewish popu- lation, haplogroup diversity was statistically significantly higher in the Ashkenazi sample (Table 3). Similar patterns of diversity were observed in the STR data ( Table4 ). The average variance in allele size for the Ashkenazi popula- tion system was 0.... In PAGE 8: ...417, respectively). Figure 4 provides a visual repre- sentation of the relative levels of AJ and NJ within-hap- logroup diversity for haplogroups that are present at gt;2% in the AJ population (see Table4 for their frequencies in NJ populations). The average variance in allele size was lower for six of the seven haplogroups shown in Fig.... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ... Following this, the cultural learning population exhibits a significantly higher phenotypic diversity than does the population employing popula- tion learning alone. Table5 shows the average, maximum and mini- mum phenotypic diversity values obtained for the entire experiment run. The similar maximum diversity val- ues for the two populations are indicative of the fact that both begin at a similar level of phenotypic diver- sity.... ..."

"... In PAGE 21: ...Adaptive Behavior 14(4) tion employing only population learning shows significantly lower levels. Table6 shows the average, maximum and mini- mum phenotypic diversity levels obtained over the experiment run. It is evident from these results that cultural learning is capable of producing populations with significantly higher levels of phenotypic diver- sity than population learning alone.... ..."

"... In PAGE 17: ... Cultural learning is capable of maintaining a high level of diversity for the majority of the experiment run, only converging in the last 100 generations, which may explain its superior performance compared with population learning alone. Table2 shows the average, maximum and minimum genotypic diversity values Figure 13 Tic-tac-toe genotypic diversity. Table 2 Tic-tac-toe average genotypic diversity.... ..."