Table 1. A comparison between the average timesteps taken for saturation of percolation when the intervention is PC based, BC based or hop distance based. the network used was a scale-free network with .

(rows) (columns)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	15	20
2	5.8	6.0	6.2	7.8	10.2	10.4	11.8	15.4	15.2	17.8	22.2	24.6	27.8	30.0
	4.6	5.6	5.8	7.0	8.2	9.0	10.2	11.2	13.4	13.6	18.2	21.4	26.4	28.6
	6.4	6.8	7.2	10.2	14.4	18.8	22.4	25.2	28.6	28.4	30.0	30.0	30.0	30.0
3	4.6	5.8	7.0	8.8	9.6	10.6	11.0	13.4	14.2	18.8	22.6	24.2	28.4	29.2
	4.8	5.2	6.0	7.2	7.8	8.4	8.6	10.2	11.4	16.4	18.2	22.4	26.6	26.4
	6.2	6.4	9.2	10.8	13.0	15.6	17.6	18.8	24.4	27.6	29.2	30.0	30.0	30.0
4	4.2	6.0	6.6	7.8	9.0	10.8	11.2	13.4	15.0	16.8	19.6	24.0	27.2	29.2
	4.4	5.6	5.4	6.8	7.8	8.6	8.4	10.2	11.8	12.8	17.6	21.4	26.0	26.8
	4.0	5.6	6.2	8.0	8.4	11.0	10.4	14.2	14.4	18.8	22.4	27.8	30.0	30.0
5	4.8	5.0	5.8	7.0	8.6	9.4	10.0	11.2	13.2	14.8	18.6	20.2	28.6	28.8
	4.2	5.2	5.6	6.4	6.6	7.4	7.6	9.2	12.4	13.0	17.4	18.0	27.4	25.4
	3.8	4.2	5.4	7.2	7.8	10.2	10.4	11.0	12.2	15.2	15.8	22.6	25.4	29.6
6	3.8	4.8	6.2	7.4	8.6	9.2	10.2	11.8	14.4	16.0	19.2	25.6	27.4	28.2
	4.0	4.4	5.8	5.8	7.0	6.6	8.8	10.2	10.6	12.4	15.4	17.0	26.2	27.4
	3.6	4.2	6.0	6.6	7.8	9.4	10.6	11.2	14.8	15.2	17.2	20.2	28.2	28.4
7	4.0	5.8	6.4	5.2	8.8	9.4	10.2	12.6	15.0	14.8	17.6	22.2	26.8	27.4
	4.4	5.2	5.6	5.4	6.2	7.8	8.2	9.6	9.4	13.2	13.4	19.2	25.6	27.0
	3.4	3.6	5.4	5.2	7.6	8.8	10.0	13.2	14.2	15.0	16.6	18.6	23.2	27.8
8	3.6	4.4	5.4	6.4	7.8	9.2	10.6	11.8	12.0	16.6	18.4	23.8	28.0	28.2
	4.0	4.8	5.2	5.6	7.0	7.2	8.6	10.4	10.4	14.2	14.4	20.2	27.2	25.4
	3.2	4.0	5.2	6.0	7.2	8.6	9.4	10.4	11.6	13.2	14.4	18.2	20.2	28.4
9	3.4	4.8	5.2	7.8	10.4	9.4	11.6	13.4	14.0	15.6	18.8	20.6	27.4	27.2
	4.2	4.6	5.6	6.6	6.4	7.8	8.2	9.2	9.6	13.0	15.2	19.0	26.2	25.8
	2.4	2.8	5.0	4.4	4.2	8.4	9.2	8.8	13.0	11.0	13.4	16.8	21.8	27.4
10	3.2	3.8	4.2	5.6	7.2	7.8	7.8	9.0	10.2	13.2	16.6	16.4	26.2	26.4
	4.2	4.4	4.6	5.4	6.4	5.6	7.4	8.0	9.8	12.0	13.2	15.0	26.0	26.2
	2.2	2.8	3.2	4.0	4.8	5.0	4.8	7.2	8.4	10.2	11.0	12.2	13.2	18.4
11	3.0	4.0	5.0	6.4	8.8	8.4	10.2	11.8	12.0	15.6	14.8	18.2	26.4	26.6
	4.0	4.8	5.4	6.0	6.8	7.8	8.2	10.2	10.4	13.2	13.0	12.0	26.2	26.0
	1.8	2.0	1.8	3.4	5.6	6.4	5.8	9.8	8.4	9.8	11.8	10.4	13.4	15.2
12	2.8	3.0	4.0	4.4	5.6	5.4	7.8	8.0	9.8	10.2	11.4	13.4	25.3	26.2
	3.0	3.6	4.2	4.6	5.0	5.6	6.0	6.4	7.2	9.0	10.4	12.4	23.2	26.0
	1.6	2.2	1.6	1.4	4.2	2.8	2.8	4.2	3.6	8.2	9.6	10.6	12.0	15.6
15	2.6	2.8	3.0	4.2	3.8	5.2	6.0	6.8	7.8	8.8	11.2	12.0	18.2	20.0
	3.2	3.2	3.4	4.6	4.4	5.6	6.4	7.0	8.2	9.2	12.4	13.4	25.4	26.6
	1.4	1.6	1.6	2.8	3.0	4.2	3.8	5.8	6.0	8.0	9.2	8.8	14.2	13.8
20	2.2	2.0	3.2	3.8	4.2	4.8	5.6	5.8	6.6	7.6	9.0	11.2	14.4	17.2
	3.0	3.2	3.6	4.4	4.6	5.6	6.6	7.4	7.4	9.0	10.2	12.2	17.4	23.6
	1.2	1.6	1.4	1.4	2.0	3.8	3.2	3.8	4.0	6.2	5.8	8.0	10.6	14.4
25	1.6	1.8	2.2	2.8	3.2	2.8	4.4	6.6	6.6	7.2	7.8	9.6	13.4	16.8
	2.2	2.4	3.0	3.2	3.4	4.6	5.4	7.2	7.6	8.2	8.0	10.4	22.6	23.2
	1.4	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.6	2.0	2.6	3.8	3.4	3.6	3.2	4.4	5.8	12.2

Table 1 in this appendix summarises several thousand simulation experiments with scale-free networks and the obtained results. The rows correspond to the percentage of nodes percolated before the intervention was made (), whereas the columns correspond to the percentage of nodes which were immunized (). The number of timesteps it took, averaged over five simulations each, for the network to be saturated by percolation is presented in the cells of the table. Each row has three sub-rows, corresponding to the measures used for intervention: percolation centrality, betweenness centrality, and hop distance, in that order. All in all, the table presents the results of ××× simulation experiments ( values of and , ways to measure centrality, repeated times).