{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03436988543371522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008183306055646482, 'mean_word_length': 5.309278350515464, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Immune, swarm, and evolutionary algorithms. Part II: philosophical comparisons

For Part I see ibid. vol. 3 (2002). In the first part of this paper, the standard evolutionary, immune, and swarm algorithms were reviewed. This second part starts by presenting a philosophical discussion about some similarities and differences among the various approaches in terms of their basic components, structure, knowledge storage, adaptation paradigm, interactions, and metaphor. Then, the identification of the main features of each technique is performed in order to shed some light into how to create hybrid algorithms.